AzJeff

Has anyone read Daniel Dreisbach's book, Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State?

The reason I ask is this:

<a href="http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev111202a.cfm" target="_blank">Heritage Foundation</a>

Just wondering what the general jist of the book is, and whether or not it applauds, criticizes, etc. the current trend of lawsuits (10CC, Newdow, etc.).

Thanks!

(edited spelling)

[ October 31, 2002: Message edited by: AzJeff ]</p>

AzJeff

hmmm, in another thread, I discovered the founder of the Heritage Foundation is <a href="http://www.onepeoplesproject.com/weyrich.htm" target="_blank">Paul Weyrich</a>

I may have answered my own question. . . . .

(edited - grammar this time!)

[ October 31, 2002: Message edited by: AzJeff ]</p>

Toto

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/081471935X/internetinfidelsA" target="_blank">Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State (Critical America)</a>

I can't find many reviews. This book appears to have been overshadowed by Philip Hamburger's similarly themed revisionist book, Separation of Church and State.

AzJeff

Well, it got a "thumbs-up" at Falwell's site:

<a href="http://www.nljonline.com/sept02/wall_of_separation.htm" target="_blank">Natioanl Liberty Journal</a>.

I'm trading emails with a coworker who seems to think that Jefferson is "rolling in his grave" due the way the Wall of SOCAS is being misinterpreted, based on Dreisbach's book.

Buffman

AzJeff

You might wish to consider challenging your friend and yourself to reading Jefferson's actual words at:

<a href="http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeffcont.htm" target="_blank">http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeffcont.htm</a>

Pay particular attention to #'s 39,40,48,51,52 & 53.

I recommend that you bookmark the following references:

<a href="http://members.tripod.com/~candst/toc.htm" target="_blank">http://members.tripod.com/~candst/toc.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/" target="_blank">http://www.religioustolerance.org/</a>

I also recommend that you review the following two URL's before your next contact with your friend.

<a href="http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/jeff1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/jeff1.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/jeff2.htm" target="_blank">http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/jeff2.htm</a>

penumbra

Haven’t read the referenced book, but have read others. In my humble opinion, any objective attempt to determine Jefferson’s “intent” or “meaning” with regard to the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment must, of necessity, begin with a separation of his personal religious beliefs and practices from his publicly stated political agenda. To co-mingle the two is to utterly fail to understand the man.

I think TJ’s political agenda is rather clear from his letter to the Danbury Baptists (1802) and the Virginia Baptists (1808), in which he repeats a common thread:

“Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which 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 and State.”
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Danbury Baptists, 1802. This was used again by Jefferson in his letter to the Virginia Baptsits, and was several times upheld by the Supreme Court as an accurate description of the Establishment Clause: Reynolds (98 U.S. at 164, 1879); Everson (330 U.S. at 59, 1947); McCollum (333 U.S. at 232, 1948).

“Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.”
Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808). This is his second use of the term "wall of separation," here quoting his own use in the Danbury Baptist letter. This wording was several times upheld by the Supreme Court as an accurate description of the Establishment Clause: Reynolds (98 U.S. at 164, 1879); Everson (330 U.S. at 59, 1947); McCollum (333 U.S. at 232, 1948)

Refer also to the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, authored by Jefferson:

“No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”
-- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1779), quoted from Merrill D. Peterson, ed., Thomas Jefferson: Writings (1984), p. 347
All that being said, however, I also think that what TJ or the other Founders may have “intended” is actually less important to us than how the Establishment Clause is applied in our society today. What they may have “really meant” will forever be the subject of debate, speculation, conflicting opinion, and interpretation. What counts is how the clause should be applied NOW in order to further enhance our national aims of freedom, equality, and protection under the law, etc. To vainly struggle in an attempt to apply it only as one might think the authors would done so have over 200 years ago, is to infer that those authors were infallible, which is most surely not the case.

AzJeff

Penumbra, Buffman,

Thanks for the info.
I was able to convince my friend that what Dreisbach was selling was just a bit biased and revisionist and shouldn't be taken at face value.

Thanks again!

penumbra

Based on the review the Heritage Foundation gave it, I wonder if Dreisbach may have just been repeating a lot of David Barton's questionable material.

It is truly unfortunate that stuff like that (Barton's book) gets published to begin with, since it eventually takes on the same status as an urban legend, with too many people repeating it as gospel (so to speak).

fromtheright

So has anyone actually addressed the substance of Hamburger's book besides just throwing "revisionist" at it? Yes I read Baptist Joint Committee's review of it and see next to nothing that questions its scholarship.

No, I don't know that Dreisbach rehashes Barton, whom you guys have convinced me not to trust, but it appears that you also don't know that he doesn't. Maybe one of you guys will actually read Hamburger and Dreisbach without using the names as simply a segue to blast Barton again.