Tuesday, March 29, 2005

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

Someone recently recommended I read Separation of Church and State by Philip Hamburger. Mr. Hamburger is a law professor at the prestigious University of Chicago Law School. According to the Harvard University Press:
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.
I plan to read this book during the summer. I will give you updates as I make my way through it.

1 Comments:

At 4/03/2005 12:58 PM, Anonymous said...

This is in response to one of your more recent posts, that seems unvavailable for comment. Maybe if your bigoted and discriminatory society allowed homosexuals to join, it would not violate the school's policies. SIU Policy (and I'm quoting from your post) "It is the policy of [SIUC] to provided equal employment and educational opportunities without regard to ...sexual orientation." As an RSO, and an arm of the state, your CLS invidiously discriminates against homosexuals, raising equal protection concerns. CLS's action is unconstitutional, not SIU's. I would think that you of all people would know this, from all the legal knowledge you attempt to spout.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home