Separation of Church and State


Book Description

In a powerful challenge to conventional wisdom, Philip Hamburger argues that the separation of church and state has no historical foundation in the First Amendment. The detailed evidence assembled here shows that eighteenth-century Americans almost never invoked this principle. Although Thomas Jefferson and others retrospectively claimed that the First Amendment separated church and state, separation became part of American constitutional law only much later. Hamburger shows that separation became a constitutional freedom largely through fear and prejudice. Jefferson supported separation out of hostility to the Federalist clergy of New England. Nativist Protestants (ranging from nineteenth-century Know Nothings to twentieth-century members of the K.K.K.) adopted the principle of separation to restrict the role of Catholics in public life. Gradually, these Protestants were joined by theologically liberal, anti-Christian secularists, who hoped that separation would limit Christianity and all other distinct religions. Eventually, a wide range of men and women called for separation. Almost all of these Americans feared ecclesiastical authority, particularly that of the Catholic Church, and, in response to their fears, they increasingly perceived religious liberty to require a separation of church from state. American religious liberty was thus redefined and even transformed. In the process, the First Amendment was often used as an instrument of intolerance and discrimination.




The Religion Clauses


Book Description

"The relationship between the government and religion is deeply divisive. With the recent changes in the composition of the Supreme Court, the First Amendment law concerning religion is likely to change dramatically in the years ahead. The Court can be expected to reject the idea of a wall separating church and state and permit much more religious involvement in government and government support for religion. The Court is also likely to expand the rights of religious people to ignore legal obligations that others have to follow, such laws that require the provision of health care benefits to employees and prohibit businesses from discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation. This book argues for the opposite and the need for separating church and state. After carefully explaining all the major approaches to the meaning of the Constitution's religion clauses, the book argues that the best approaches are for the government to be strictly secular and for there to be no special exemptions for religious people from neutral and general laws that others must obey. The book argues that this separationist approach is most consistent with the concerns of the founders who drafted the Constitution and with the needs of a religiously pluralistic society in the 21st century"--







The Church-State Debate


Book Description

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment governs the relationship between the institutions of the church and those of the state; the Supreme Court, as arbiter of the Constitution, has, since 1947, sought to determine where the line between the two should be drawn. This book shows how and why the Court drew the line in particular cases and how and why the lines that were drawn by the Court had an impact on the relationship between institutions of government and the Church, shaping US politics and society. Using the Supreme Court's cases as a framework, the book shows how the constitutional underpinnings of church-state debates shaped the political, economic, and social debate on the issue, and explores broader debates about religion and American society. This book maintains that the Court cases cannot be understood separately from the context from which they arose and that legal factors are only part of a broader picture for a historical understanding of the Court and Establishment Clause cases.




The Establishment Clause


Book Description

Leonard Levy's classic work examines the circumstances that led to the writing of the establishment clause of the First Amendment: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . .' He argues that, contrary to popular belief, the framers of the Constitution intended to prohibit government aid to religion even on an impartial basis. He thus refutes the view of 'nonpreferentialists, ' who interpret the clause as allowing such aid provided that the assistance is not restricted to a preferred church.For this new edition, Levy has added to his original arguments and incorporated much new material, including an analysis of Jefferson's ideas on the relationship between church and state and a discussion of the establishment clause cases brought before the Supreme Court since the book was originally published in 1986.




Christianity and the State


Book Description

By virtue of being King of kings and Lord of lords, Christ's reign over man and government is universal and total. "He removeth kings, and setteth up kings" (Dan. 2:21) and "increaseth the nations, and destroyeth them" (Job 12:23) because the government is on His shoulders: He is the governor among the nations (Isa. 9:7, Ps. 22:28). The need today is for the church to press the crown-rights of Christ the King, confident that His government over all will increase without end: "the zeal of the Lord of Hosts will perform this." This powerful volume sets forth a Biblical theology of the state, tracing in detail the history and consequences of both statist domination and Christian dereliction of duty. By firmly establishing the Biblical alternative to modern Christianity's polytheism, the author alerts us to the pitfalls of the past, and provides Godly counsel for both the present and future. The crystallization of decades of research, Christianity and the State is a landmark volume of 20th century Christendom.




Beyond Belief, Beyond Conscience


Book Description

"Some time back in the early '00s, when-thanks to Dean John Sexton, my good friends Larry Kramer and John Ferejohn, and other colleagues-I used to hang out at New York University Law School, I had lunch one day with Dedi Felman, who was then a legal editor at Oxford University Press. We discussed her idea of doing a series of short provocative books on problems of rights in American constitutional history. When Geoffrey Stone of the University of Chicago (my literal birthplace) took over editing The Unalienable Rights series that Dedi organized, I quickly staked a claim to the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. This interest reflected a longstanding concern with James Madison, dating to my dissertation work in the early 1970s, and other projects I had pursued since, including the problem of how one discusses the original meaning of the Constitution. The idea of religious freedom was a seminal element in the development of Madison's constitutional ideas. Equally important, the two components of the Religion Clause illustrated two landmark aspects of American constitutional practice. The free exercise of religion is a right different from all other rights because of the degree of moral autonomy it invests in each and every one of us. And the disestablishment of religion, by depriving the state of the power of regulating religion, offers the best example of the basic idea that the legislative authority government exercises depends on the will of a sovereign people. These are points we do not readily grasp. In part because contemporary Religion Clause jurisprudence is such a messy and vexed subject, and in part because justices and judges often prefer resolving claims of conscience on general grounds of freedom of speech, this original significance of "the religion question" often escapes attention. The subtitle of this book rests on my conviction that a historically grounded approach to this subject would be of some value to legal scholars. Among other things, that approach involves asking how we should compare the gradual development of European modes of religious tolerance with the emerging American conviction that the free exercise of religion was no longer a matter of mere toleration."--




When Free Exercise and Nonestablishment Conflict


Book Description

“Congress shall make no law reflecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The First Amendment aims to separate church and state, but Kent Greenawalt examines many situations in which its two clauses—the Nonestablishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause—point in opposite directions. How should courts decide?







Church, State and Establishment


Book Description

This is a wide-ranging text, which attempts to cover major issues facing the Church of England in both theological and practical ways. It is particularly concerned with the establishment of the Church of England and its relationship with mission. The questions it covers include: what is the spirituality of people who seldom come to Church?; what sort of bishops, clergy and lay ministers do we need for the mission of the Church?; what does it mean to be a national Church?; and is the established status of the Church of England a help or a hindrance to its mission in the world?