Customer Reviews

Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State (Critical America)

5 star:		(14)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Thomas Jefferson's celebrated "wall of separation" metaphor has exerted a profound influence on American thought and practice regarding relations between church and state. This little book, thoroughly researched and carefully reasoned, examines the subject from several different perspectives. The author begins by analyzing the historical context of Jefferson's statement. Receiving a letter of courtesy from the Danbury Baptist Association, Jefferson consulted two cabinet officers on a draft response and replied within two days (on January 1, 1802) with a view to countering Federalist and clerical attacks on his supposed irreligion during the 1800 presidential election and to "sowing useful truths & principles among the people" (25). In close scrutiny of the letter, Dreisbach shows that Jefferson agreed with the Baptists that religion is a matter of conscience and went on to say "that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions," and that the American people had "declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State" (48, 148).

As Dreisbach contends, Jefferson interpreted the First Amendment as prohibiting Congress from establishing religion; thus it prohibited him as president from designating days of thanksgiving or prayer. But the amendment did not separate religion and civil government. As president, Jefferson attended religious services in the Capitol, and he used rhetoric with religious content in official utterances. Moreover, the First Amendment did not prohibit the states from legislating with respect to religion. As governor of Virginia, Jefferson had issued religious proclamations. In sum, the "wall" of the letter "served primarily to separate state and nation in matters pertaining to religion, rather than to separate ecclesiastical and all governmental authorities" (56).

A chapter considers uses of the "wall of separation" trope by Richard Hooker (1554-1600), Roger Williams (1603?-83), and James Burgh (1714-75), which Jefferson may have known. The author is unfortunately unclear and inconsistent as to whether Jefferson was familiar with Williams's use of the metaphor (78, 82). Another chapter shows that Jefferson and some worthy contemporaries used other metaphors to defend religious liberty-"effectual barriers," "great barriers," "certain fences," and a "line of separation"-and that recent observers have suggested the concept of a zone between two walls in which church and state could interact-all this with a view to evaluating the desirable characteristics of a wall.

Jefferson's metaphor belatedly entered American thought and practice. His reply to the Danbury Baptists first became available to the public in Henry A. Washington's edition of Jefferson's works (1853; reprinted 1868 and 1871), and later in other editions of his writings. The phrase "wall of separation" first made its way into constitutional discourse when Chief justice Morrison R. Waite quoted the text in which it appeared in Reynolds v. United States (1879). Waite drew on Jefferson's letter to distinguish between the government's power to reach actions as opposed to opinions in a case involving the Mormon practice of polygamy. Waite placed no emphasis on the metaphor, but he declared that the Danbury letter "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [first] amendment thus secured" (98). Nearly seven decades later, in Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo L. Black, writing for the Supreme Court, invoked the Danbury letter's "wall of separation" passage. Black propelled the metaphor on its career of influence in legal, political, and religious discourse. In cases following Everson, the Supreme Court often cited the Danbury letter, and it became dogma, widely held. In time, however, justices began to protest that "a rule of law should not be drawn from a figure of speech," and that the Court's task in resolving complicated cases was "not responsibly aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the 'wall of separation,' a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution" (104). In 1985 then Justice William H. Rehnquist declared that "the 'wall of separation between church and State' is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned" (103, 105).

A final chapter addresses the perils and promises of metaphors. In law they are apt to mislead. As Stephen J. Safranek warned, "the Court's abuse of metaphor will ultimately prove disastrous" (116). The legal system depends on the use of language, Safranek added, but when the Supreme Court hides its decisions behind deceptive metaphors, it allows lawyers and jurists to hide behind this confusion and to focus on outcomes rather than reasoning. The "wall," Dreisbach observes, has become "the central icon of a strict separationist dogma that champions a secular polity in which religious influences are systematically stripped from public life" (117). He concludes with an exemplary and evenhanded exposition of the case both for and against a wall.

The book's text (128 pages) is followed by an appendix (25 pages) of nine relevant documents from the papers of Jefferson, notes (86 pages), an excellent selected bibliography (24 pages), and a useful index (11 pages). The notes, which often explain at length matters treated in the text, are integral to the argument. Use of a key to frequently cited references and of ibid, where appropriate would avoid needless repetition in the notes. Daniel L. Dreisbach's Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation between Church and State brings a fresh perspective to bear on a complex subject and deserves a wide reading.
Winton U. Solberg
University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana

There is hardly a discusion of American church-state relations that does not invoke Thomas Jefferson's famous "wall of separation." I have long been interested in Jefferson and church-state relations and have read many books on these subjects, but this is the only book I know that explores the origins and uses of the "wall of separation" metaphor. It is a relatively short, but richly documented, book. The author points out that the metaphor was featured in church-state discourse long before Jefferson used it. The book brings to life the bitter presidential politics that provided the context for Jefferson's use of this figurative phrase. This also serves as a reminder that church-state controversies have been a part of American politics, including presidential electoral politics, from the earliest days of the Republic. Church-state disputes, unfortunately, remain an important and divisive part of public life. This is one book that, through exploring the past, helps us better understand the future. I highly recommend this book. Five stars.

This is the definitive biography of Thomas Jefferson's celebrated "wall of separation" metaphor. This thoroughly researched and engaging book examines the origins of the "wall of separation" metaphor and the historical and political context in which Jefferson used it. Professor Dreisbach also explores uses of the figurative phrase long before Jefferson and traces the metaphor's entrance into mainstream political and legal rhetoric. Students interested in how the "wall of separation" has shaped American church-state relations will not want to miss this important new book.

If you have ever wondered about the origins of the "wall of separation" metaphor or why it is so influential in American law and politics, then this is the book for you. It is the definitive work on the history of the celebrated metaphor that has informed the way many Americans, including influential judges and scholars, think about church-state relations. No other book provides more information and perspective on the historical, political, and legal development of this important trope and how it has shaped American church-state law and policy. The book challenges much of the conventional wisdom about the "wall of separation" metaphor, especially the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of the figurative phrase, and questions the propriety of its use as a substitute for the text of the First Amendment. This trenchant book is scholarly, yet witty and engaging. It will appeal to the specialist and nonspecialist reader alike.

Daniel L. Dreisbach, Professor in the Department of Justice, Law, and Society at American University, provides an in-depth historical analysis of Jefferson's letter of 1 January 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association and how a singular phrase in that letter has become the basis of interpretation for the proper relationship between church and state in constitutional law. Dreisbach argues that the architectural metaphor, "wall of separation between church and state," has become the "defining motif for the constitutional role of religion in American public life・it] has become a cherished symbol for a strict separationist policy that champions a secular order in which religious influences are systematically removed from public life." Dreisbach demonstrates that such a formidable barrier between religion and civil government was never intended by early 19th century religious dissenters, the framers of the First Amendment, or even Jefferson himself.
Dreisbach provides a detailed analysis of the historical context of Jefferson's letter. He discusses the conflict between the Federalist clergy and Republicans during the 1800 election over Jefferson's religious views. Dreisbach notes the support of the Republican Baptists of New England for Jefferson and the basis for this support. The New England Baptists suffered as a minority faith under an established church ・Congregationalism. There was mutual support between the Federalists and the Congregationalist clergy during the turn of the century, as evidenced by their alliance during the 1800 election. After Jefferson and the Republicans came to power, the New England Baptists hoped to find an ally of liberty in Jefferson and that he could somehow have an influential effect in favor of their disestablishment agenda. Jefferson's famous letter to the Danburry Baptists of Connecticut was his reply.
Dreisbach notes that the Baptists were not enthusiastic about Jefferson's metaphor, 'wall of separation,' and that it may have done more harm than good for their cause. First, he states that "[t]he New England Baptists had framed their agenda in terms of disestablishment, but they did not want religious influences separated from public life and policy." Second, the Baptists might have feared that Jefferson's metaphor would be used against them by charging that they were advocates of separation (which they were not), a common charge used during this time to discredit religious dissenters.
Dreisbach puts Jefferson's letter in context by interpreting it according to the time it was written and according to the man it was written by. He notes that "the word 'church,' rather than 'religion,' in Jefferson's restatement of the First Amendment emphasized that the constitutional separation was between ecclesiastical institutions and the civil state." Of greater importance, however, is Jefferson's jurisdictional interpretation of the Bill of Rights. Jefferson was first and foremost and advocate of states' rights and the First Amendment to the Constitution was no exception. As Dreisbach points out:
"Although Jefferson・esired each state・o protect the natural rights of citizens, it is unlikely that he thought the First Amendment・as the appropriate device to achieve this goal. The use of a First Amendment wall to protect dissenters' religious rights in the states would have dangerously undermined that other great protector of civil and religious liberty ・federalism."
Dreisbach argues that it is this jurisdictional nature of Jefferson's metaphor that distinguishes it so greatly from its contemporary use today.
Dreisbach then traces the resurgence of Jefferson's metaphor in the judiciary and how its meaning became twisted into something bearing little resemblance to the original usage. He focuses primarily on Justice Black's opinion in Everson v. Board of Education (1947). Dreisbach contrasts the two uses of the metaphor:

"Whereas Jefferson's 'wall' explicitly separated the institutions of church and state, Black's wall, more expansively, separates religion and all civil government. Moreover, Jefferson's 'wall' separated church and the federal government only・lack's wall separates religion and civil government at all levels ・federal, state, and local・Black turned the First Amendment, as ratified in 1791, on its head."
Dreisbach then goes on to note how this use of the First Amendment actually goes against what it was intended to protect ・religious freedom. He asserts that, "Jefferson's metaphor is a source of much mischief because a wall emphasizes separation to the virtual exclusion of First Amendment values such as freedom of religious exercise and association. Separation becomes the ultimate First Amendment value, crowding out all the other values."
Read this book with Hamburger's, Separation of Church and State.

In 1998 the FBI analyzed Thomas Jefferson's famous letter to the Danbury Baptists in which he uses the expression "a wall of separation between church and state" in describing the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights. The FBI was able to decipher portions of the letter that had been inked out. Based on the advice of his Attorney General, Levi Lincoln, Jefferson had taken out a section of the letter in which he states that he has "refrained from prescribing even occasional performances of devotion".

In the margins of the letter he indicates that he was referring to acts of "thanksgivings etc". Such acts of thanksgiving and fasting had been proclaimed by his predecessors, Washington and Adams. In his new Republican administration, Jefferson wanted to distinguish his views regarding the general government from those of the Federalists, especially when it came to religion.

In his book, Professor Dreisbach points to the original version of the Jefferson letter and contrasts it to Jefferson's acts as governor of Virginia during which he had proclaimed such religious observances. Dreisbach also quotes from the Kentucky resolution, written by Jefferson in opposition to the Alien and Sedition Laws, to argue that Jefferson thought regulation of religion and the press were powers left to the States. Finally, in a letter to Reverend Samuel Miller, Jefferson writes that "no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority." Prof. Dreisbach's position is that Jefferson never intended for there to be a wall of separation between the Church and state government.

In an interview with the Washington Examiner, Prof. Dreisbach presents his view on Jefferson's response to the Danbury Baptists: "A careful reading of Jefferson's 1802 missive suggests that his wall had less to do with the separation between church and state than with the separation between state governments and the national government on matters pertaining to religion." To paraphrase Prof. Dreisbach, he is saying that although you may actually be reading the words "separation between church and state", he wants you to believe that the words should be read "separation between the Federal government and the States". Apparently, one is supposed to read Jefferson's letter this way despite the fact that the Jefferson letter nowhere refers to the States nor does it discuss his views on federalism.

Dreisbach then contrasts Jefferson's views to those of Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black who wrote the majority opinion in Everson v. Board of Education (1947). Black, Dreisbach claims, perverted Jefferson's metaphor to mean that there should be complete separation between religion and all civil government. Dreisbach quotes disapprovingly from that decision: "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State" ... That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." In the text, but more so in the footnotes, Dreisbach attributes Black's views on separation of church and state to anti-Catholic bias. Hugo Black had been a member of the Ku Klux Klan in his native Alabama, although he later renounced his past association with that organization. Yet, it is claimed, Black never gave up his anti-Catholic views (225n. 33). Thus Dreisbach associates the wall of separation with intolerance.

Let's take a look at Dreisbach's arguments. That the Bill of Rights, at the time it was written, did not apply to the States is beyond dispute. And certainly, a case can be made, as Prof. Dreisbach does, that Jefferson did not want the Federal Government to interfere with the internal affairs of the States. But does that mean that there should be no separation between Church and State Government? Are we really talking about the same Thomas Jefferson who authored Virginia's Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom? That Bill, written in 1779 eventually became the Virginia Statute in 1786 when it was approved by the General Assembly, with the help of James Madison. It is worth reading the Statute in its entirety, but it states in part, "That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical" and that it is even a deprivation of liberty to force "him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion". Therefore, the Statute reads, "We, the General Assembly, do enact, that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever ...." The whatsoever in the Statute is the key; it has all the solidity and finality of a brick wall.

So imagine for the moment that you are a judge in modern-day Virginia in which there is no 14th Amendment but the Virginia Statute is still intact. A petitioner files suit against the state because it authorizes collection of local taxes for the purpose of reimbursing parents for transportation costs to and from public schools as well as Catholic parochial schools. Based on the Virginia Statute, how do you rule? Since that "whatsoever" in the Statute presents a huge obstacle to using public tax money for anything having to do with religion, chances are that you would rule for the plaintiff, no matter what your personal views on the subject may be.

The hypothetical that I just described is a brief summary of the Everson case, which wound its way through the court system in New Jersey before it was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. Here's what Professor Dreisbach doesn't tell you about the Everson decision: it upheld the state law authorizing payments for transportation to and from parochial schools. With regard to the statement, referred to above, that Dreisbach quotes from the Black decision, "That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach", Dreisbach leaves out the very next sentence of that decision: "New Jersey has not breached it here."

So where does that leave Prof. Dreisbach's assertion that the "wall of separation" was somehow motivated by anti-Catholic bigotry? If this was what motivated Hugo Black and the majority of the Court, how does that square with a decision that actually upheld the right to use tax money to bus kids to Catholic schools? Furthermore, while Dreisbach only discusses Hugo Black in the Everson decision, the Court was actually unanimous in stating that the Establishment clause required separation between Church and State. Voting with Hugo Black in the majority was Justice Frank Murphy, a Catholic.

In a dissent written by Justice Wiley Rutledge and signed by 3 others, the argument is made that the law is unconstitutional because tax money is being used to promote religious training. The opinion starts by quoting from the First Amendment and the Virginia Statute and then the dissenters write, "I cannot believe that the great author of those words, or the men who made them law, could have joined in this decision. Neither so high nor so impregnable today as yesterday is the wall raised between church and state by Virginia's great statute of religious freedom and the First Amendment, now made applicable to all the states by the Fourteenth." While Prof. Dreisbach contends that Hugo Black's majority decision erected a high and impregnable wall where Jefferson believed there was none, the dissenting Justices believed that because of the Everson case, that wall was lowered and made less impregnable from what Jefferson and Madison had envisioned.

While Prof. Dreisbach sees in Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists arguments for federalism that aren't there, the professor ignores a much larger issue. He claims, for example, that "there is little evidence to indicate that Jefferson thought the metaphor [that wall of separation] encapsulated a universal privilege of religious liberty." But that universal privilege is exactly what Jefferson believed and it is discussed in both the letters of the Danbury Baptists and in Jefferson's reply. The issue that Dreisbach ignores is the "universal privilege" known as natural rights. The Danbury Baptists were unhappy with the established Congregationalist church in Connecticut and complained to Jefferson that "what religious privileges we enjoy we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights". To which Jefferson directly replies, "I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." Natural rights do not end when state and local governments pass restrictions on religious liberty, as Dreisbach might have you believe. Jefferson even says so directly at the end of the Virginia Statute, "if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act shall be an infringement of natural right."

Throughout his book, Prof. Dreisbach argues that Jefferson's views on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not the last word on the subject since he was in Paris at the time during their creation and passage. This is certainly true. But significantly, very little is said in the book about James Madison's views on the subject. Madison's views are critical in that he was integral to the fashioning of both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and an ardent defender of both. An example of this neglect is particularly noteworthy. One of the arguments in favor of strict separation is that religion flourishes when removed from entanglements with civil government. To his credit, Prof. Dreisbach acknowledges this in his Conclusions where he summarizes the arguments for and against separation. But he attributes this opinion to the Constitutional scholar, Leonard Levy. If he had reached back a little further in time, Prof. Dreisbach might have quoted James Madison instead. In his letter to Edward Livingston of 1822, Madison writes, "Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together."

In this same chapter, Dreisbach uses a graphic to illustrate the difference between how he perceives Jefferson thought of his wall of separation and how Hugo Black changed that conception. For Jefferson, he depicts on a single line, the Church and State Governments on one side, then literally a brick Wall of Separation and on the other side of the wall, the Federal Government. For Hugo Black he has a Church on one side, a "High and Impregnable" Wall, and on the other side of the wall, State Governments and the Federal Government. Both depictions are inaccurate.

Prof. Dreisbach's illustration of Jefferson's metaphor makes no sense because he has literally forced a one-dimensionality to the metaphor which does not belong there. If we at least open up a second dimension to Prof. Dreisbach's graphic, we might better represent Jefferson's metaphor as a triangle whose apices are Church, State Government and Federal Government and whose 3 legs are each inscribed with the words "Wall of Separation". There are 3 separate walls with regard to religion: one each between the state and federal government, between the church and the state and between the church and the federal government. With the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868, which extends the rights and protections afforded an individual in the Bill of Rights to the actions of the States, it may be fair to collapse the triangle back to a single dimension, as Dreisbach does, with the Federal and State Government on one side of a Wall of Separation and the Church on the other side. However, at least Justices Rutledge, Frankfurter, Jackson and Burton thought that Hugo Black's Wall was "neither so high nor so impregnable" as Jefferson's wall.

The positive aspects of this book are that it is relatively academic and unpolemical, has extensive notes and an excellent Appendix (where you can read Jefferson's Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, even though Dreisbach glosses over it in the main text). I have awarded the book two stars however for redefining Jefferson's reply to the Danbury Baptists as a missive on the separation of federal and state government rather than that of church and state, for not including Jefferson's views on natural rights in the discussion, for not speaking specifically about the Virginia Statute, and for failing to adequately describe the Everson case.

I believe Daniel Dreisbach, assistant professor in the Department of Justice, Law and Society at American University, is perhaps the single most underrated American historian today. Though this book, THOMAS JEFFERSON AND THE WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE is far from Dreisbach's best work, it still deserves "must read" status for every American. Of course, in this book, we can expect strict separationists to ridicule Dreisbach's conclusions because, Dreisbach, as always, presents the facts and the facts just don't seem to mesh up or matter much to strict separationists.
For Dreisbach's best work, check out "Real Threat and Mere Shadow" though it is somewhat difficult to find as Amazon has misspelled Dreisbach's name. Search Amazon under the name Daniel DrIEsbach for that one.

Whatever name he is listed under, Dreisbach never fails to put forth superb work. This book is no exception. Dreisbach has written several pieces on Jefferson's "Wall" metaphor, and this book appears as the apex of that work. As with his other work, the findings are based solely on the facts as you will not find editorialism in any of his works. He simply presents the facts and allows them to speak for themselves.

Here, Jefferson's wall of separation metaphor is examined thoroughly, first with the rendering of the Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptists, as well as what exactly Jefferson was intending to address in his letter. The DB letter writers primary concern revolved around the Congregationalists Church, which was the "established" church of Massachusetts. Having an established church not only limited the power of the Baptists, but hobbled it. They were not even allowed to officiate their own children's weddings!

In the midst of his findings, Dreisbach also makes a strong presentation of the founder's original intent of state's rights. Of course, the Fourteenth Amendment totally obliterated any semblance of state's rights, but that's another topic for another day. My point here is, Jefferson, and virtually everyone else agreed, it was perfectly legal for state's to "establish" a church. That being the case, it must surely be legal for a local school board to allow for school prayer, wouldn't one think? Again, I digress, another topic for another day.

After clearly defining that the First Amendment applies to CONGRESS ONLY, Dreisbach then moves on to present prior derivate uses of the wall metaphor and the context in which they were used. James Burgh is identified as the likely source of Jefferson's use of the metaphor. As the author points out, "Burgh brought to his writings a dissenter's zeal for religious tolerance and a distrust of ESTABLISHED churches." Further bolstering of the fact that the First Amendment forbids ESTABLISHMENT OF, not separation from.

The book concludes with how the metaphor has been contorted to have agenda driven meaning. I must also add this astute question posed on page 106, "Is it appropriate, as a matter of constitutional interpretation and law, for a metaphor from a presidential message to supplement or supplant constitutional text?" Of course, separationists will argue, yes, but to display that absurdity, ask them this - Jefferson also wrote that homosexual deviants should be castrated - should that become a matter of constitutional interpretation and law as well? Watch the separationist's back peddle!

This is another extraordinary work from Dreisbach, critical to all Americans for the true delineation of a widely misused metaphor; it's agenda driven evolution, and it's misuse in our law and erosion of a basic right as defined in the Bill of Rights.

Monty Rainey
[...]

Perhaps no phrase in American letters has had a more profound influence on church-state law, policy and discourse than Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state," few metaphors have provoked more passionate debates than his one. In most books that tackle this issue the author is trying to prove a point, rather than discuss historical background behind the letter penned to the Danbury Baptist. Mr. Dreisbach has done what very few other authors have done and this is left his prejudices on the table, you actually have no idea what his felling are after reading this book since he neither offers his opinion or tries to sway the reader in anyway.

This book is historical in nature. You are given full source documents including the writings of other contemporaries about the issue. In this case the author simply gives you the documents and some background information. It is then possible for the reader to absorb the information and draw their own conclusion.

In the end the reader will come away with a panoply of historical knowledge. They will understand, as best we can, what Jefferson meant and the intent that he saw this phrase meaning. I am no going to spoil the book, but it might surprise both of the sides in this issue.

If you are interested then please buy this book. I have read many on the subject and this is simply the best

Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State written by Daniel L. Dreisbach is a in-depth study into what Jefferson ment by his statement "wall of separation between church and state."

Introduced in an 1802 letter to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptist Association, Jefferson's "wall" has been accepted by many Americans as a concise description of the U.S. Constitution's church-state arrangement and conceived as a virtual rule of constitutional law. This book delves into what Jefferson really had in mind about the separation of church and state, and gives the reader a scholarly understaning of this famous phrase.

The book is not very long, but the impact that you get from reading it feels like a book much larger. At 128 pages long we are provided an opportunity to disseminate Jefferson's views on the constitutional relationship between church and state and, in particular, to explain his reasons for refusing to issue presidential proclamtions of days for public fasting and thanksgiving.

The "wall of separation" metaphorically represents the constitutional provision, the admendment, however, differs in significant respects from Jefferson's felicitous phrase. The former prohibits the creation of laws "respecting an establishment of religion" (excepting, perhaps, laws to protect religious excerise), thereby limiting civil government; the latter, more broadly, separates "church" and "state," thereby restricting the actions of, and interactions between, both the church and the civil state.

Reading this book splits the fine hairs and you get an appreciation of what is happening and the suggnificance of why it is written as such. Dreisbach has provided appendices in which documents from the Papers of Thomas Jefferson gives the reader an insight as to Jefferson's thinkings and are invaluable. There are notes and a selected bibliography that is also very helpful.

Jefferson's architectural metaphor, in the course of time, has achieved virtual canonical status and becomes more familiar to the American people that the actual text of the First Amendment... moreover, jurists have found the metaphor irresistible, adopting it not only as an organizing theme of church/state jurisprudence but also as a virtual rule of constitutional law.

I found this book to be very interesting and the prose to be fluid and well-documented making for and interesting read.

Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation between Church and State

By Daniel Dreisbach

Reviewed by Alan E. Sears
President, Alliance Defense Fund

If only Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black could have read Daniel Dreisbach's book, "Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation between Church and State." The nation and the courts could have avoided vast wastelands of bogus commentary and bizarre legal interpretation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

An analogy for the so-called "wall of separation between church and state" is found in J.R.R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" Trilogy. Frodo wished Gollum had never found the ring, and we wish that Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black and the ACLU had never found Thomas Jefferson's figure of speech. The "wall" is a misleading metaphor. However, because of obnoxious repetition, the metaphor wields too much power in the popular mind.

Thomas Jefferson is not responsible for today's historically bizarre "wall of separation between church and state," even though he is usually blamed. The Supreme Court joined in constructing today's wall in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township. Yes, Jefferson did use the "wall" metaphor in a letter to a group of his supporters in Connecticut 145 years earlier, but the Supreme Court's prison wall is not Jefferson's protective wall. And Jefferson's wall is not in the First Amendment.

The fact is the First Amendment does not erect a so-called wall of separation regarding any institutions. Dreisbach makes the case that the amendment merely prohibits Congress from establishing a national state church. Such concerns seem distant to us, but they were real to the Founders. As documented in the book, many states had different denominational "state" churches. A national church established by Congress would have brought chaos to the new Republic.

The wrong interpretation of the First Amendment has taken deep root in our society. Although Dreisbach's book was published 54 years after Everson, it's a shame someone didn't do this fine historical research soon enough to influence the courts and academia before the roots grew to such destructive size. Dreisbach serves his generation well by making the arguments now.

For those unfamiliar with the real Justice Hugo Black, who was once a member of the KKK, a New Deal activist, a Freemason and an outspoken anti-Catholic (see footnotes to chapter 7), this book provides a look into history that has been too long ignored.