Separation of Church and State

Rating:
Summary: More than I need to know.
Review: I only skimmed this exhaustive study of the separation of Church and State. Allow me to express my thoughts on the issue.

Yes, the Constitution does not explicitly specify a separation of Church and State. I think what Jefferson was stating is that the First Amendment effectively does separate Church and State.

The opposite would be a union of Church and State. How would the Church and State unite, by making a law respecting the establishment of religion. Therefore, the First Amendment makes such a union impossible. You cannot have even a partial union.

Simply said, the church and state are "separate" entities.

Rating:
Summary: Most Outstanding Book on the Topic - MUST READ!!!
Review: Philip Hamburger, John P. Wilson Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, has written a meticulously researched account of how the American concept of religious freedom was transformed into the concept of separation of church and state. His central thesis is that this development had very little to do with the constitution itself or even with the late 18th century concept of religious liberty, but was very much a result of fear of ecclesiastical authority and anti-Catholic, or at times anti-Christian prejudice. Hamburger claims, "the federal and state constitutional provisions designed to protect religious liberty have, ironically, come to be understood in terms of an idea that substantially reduces this freedom."
Hamburger begins by tracing the origins of religious freedom in America to the European Continental Anabaptists of the 16th century and the English Baptists of the 17th century who "made arguments about the freedom of conscience." He also discusses the importance of 17th century religious dissenters and Enlightenment philosophers - such as Locke and Milton - and how they "generalized these ideas into conceptions of religious freedom eventually employed by most American dissenters." Hamburger presents the reader with a firm basis in what exactly was meant by religious freedom in colonial and revolutionary America, its relation to the various amendments to state constitutions, and the ideological context for the introduction of the First Amendment to our federal Constitution. He is quite explicit that separation of church and state was not a part of any of these developments and that, on the contrary, separation was rather more of a stigma applied to antiestablishment advocates in order to discredit them. These critics of religious establishment were quick to refute the allegation that they were proponents of separation.
Hamburger makes the argument that the separation of church and state first became an idea during the election of 1800's when the Federalist clergy were using their influence to oppose the election of Jefferson and the Republicans. But separation was used in this context only to oppose the perceived, or real union between ecclesiastical and political authority to undermine the Republicans. A fair amount of detail is given to Jefferson's now famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. Hamburger is quite explicit in his claim that the Baptists wanted no part of Jefferson's view concerning a "wall of separation between church and state."
Hamburger then deals with the rise of 'nativist' sentiments among Protestant Americans and the development of a new concept of religious freedom that would eventually become the modern concept of separation of church and state. He claims that the nativist Protestants, fearful of the Catholicism of ever increasing immigrants from Southern Europe, adopted separation as an 'American' ideal. These Protestants believed that the exclusive nature of Catholicism, along with its clear endorsement of the union between church and state, posed a clear danger to American liberty. Hamburger asserts that the nativists united into powerful political organizations in order to further the cause of separation and to undermine the political power of Catholics. Later, during the late 19th century and up until the present, secularists likewise created organizations in order to further a purely secular interpretation of separation, one that was anti-Christian in focus. Hamburger demonstrates that each of these movements was ultimately driven by forces opposed to the free exercise of religion by minority (or majority in the case of the secularists) religious groups. Both the Protestants and the secularists, realizing that separation was not guaranteed by the Constitution, lobbied for an amendment guaranteeing separation. After failing to secure passage of such an amendment they endeavored successfully to have their aims realized by judicial interpretation. He carries through with this theme for the remainder of the book, culminating in the famous Everson case where the Supreme Court fully incorporated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as interpreted by the concept of separation between church and state.

Rating:
Summary: Historical rather than subjective
Review: Some would argue that because this book focuses on a topic that can evoke the most deep seated opinions in American jurisprudence that it's not a factual or historical book. I disagree. I think the author handled the topic with great care and objectivity.

I think it's a very critical debate. This book has laid out a historical time line beautifully to draw attention to evolving environments during the U.S. infancy.

Interesting is the discussion of vital US documents from the Declaration of Independence which clearly defers to God in the very first dictation to the Pledge of Alegiance which received a later reference to God out of anxiety.

The most imnportant point made is to debunk the myth that the founding fathers wanted separation of God and state. This concept could not be farther from the truth. The idea of religious freedom did not entail the exclusion of God - just inclusion from whatever religion you worshipped. The idea was to never accord any one religion so much power that the state became a voice of religious extremism.

The debate goes on but this book is so eloquent in its historical interpretation and sets some very important ideas straight. Bravo for some historical truth regardless of which side of the aisle you support.

Rating:
Summary: Historical rather than subjective
Review: Some would argue that because this book focuses on a topic that can evoke the most deep seated opinions in American jurisprudence that it's not a factual or historical book. I disagree. I think the author handled the topic with great care and objectivity.

I think it's a very critical debate. This book has laid out a historical time line beautifully to draw attention to evolving environments during the U.S. infancy.

Interesting is the discussion of vital US documents from the Declaration of Independence which clearly defers to God in the very first dictation to the Pledge of Alegiance which received a later reference to God out of anxiety.

The most imnportant point made is to debunk the myth that the founding fathers wanted separation of God and state. This concept could not be farther from the truth. The idea of religious freedom did not entail the exclusion of God - just inclusion from whatever religion you worshipped. The idea was to never accord any one religion so much power that the state became a voice of religious extremism.

The debate goes on but this book is so eloquent in its historical interpretation and sets some very important ideas straight. Bravo for some historical truth regardless of which side of the aisle you support.

Rating:
Summary: An unnecessary regressive book.
Review: The first step of any nation moving towards fascism/imperialism is comingling of church and state. This book is an unnecessary and irresponsible junk.

Rating:
Summary: Thought-Provoking but Somewhat Disappointing
Review: The idea of "separation of church and state" today is in much debate as those on the religious right accuse the secularization of America for countless social ills, and recent decisions such as the controversial ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance and subsequent mass public outcry demonstrate exactly why the issues Mr. Hamburger discusses are so important in today's society.

The historical analyses are indeed interesting but do seem somewhat revisionistic in nature, such as the idea that the founding fathers "didn't really intend for strict separation"--what they meant is certainly up for debate, but the changing interpretations of the First Amendment are the very nature of our government, not a "myth" invented later in history.

Overall, the book to me seems somewhat slanted to the idea that the state and church (namely, the Christian church) need not be so cleanly divided as has been recent policy, but it is nonetheless an interesting read.

Rating:
Summary: Thought-Provoking but Somewhat Disappointing
Review: The idea of "separation of church and state" today is in much debate as those on the religious right accuse the secularization of America for countless social ills, and recent decisions such as the controversial ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance and subsequent mass public outcry demonstrate exactly why the issues Mr. Hamburger discusses are so important in today's society.

The historical analyses are indeed interesting but do seem somewhat revisionistic in nature, such as the idea that the founding fathers "didn't really intend for strict separation"--what they meant is certainly up for debate, but the changing interpretations of the First Amendment are the very nature of our government, not a "myth" invented later in history.

Overall, the book to me seems somewhat slanted to the idea that the state and church (namely, the Christian church) need not be so cleanly divided as has been recent policy, but it is nonetheless an interesting read.

Rating:
Summary: The debate is over!
Review: What a tremendous contribution to the debate! Hamburger's book is a survey of the development of this phrase beginning in the Reformation, and carrying down through nativist and 20th century Ku Klux Klan campaigns. With this and Daniel Dreisbach's book on Jefferson's "wall" metaphor, the strict separationist view is now on the historical defensive.

Rating:
Summary: The debate is over!
Review: What a tremendous contribution to the debate! Hamburger's book is a survey of the development of this phrase beginning in the Reformation, and carrying down through nativist and 20th century Ku Klux Klan campaigns. With this and Daniel Dreisbach's book on Jefferson's "wall" metaphor, the strict separationist view is now on the historical defensive.