Philip Hamburger wrote something of a bombshell book about 20 years ago. Hamburger is a graduate of Princeton University (1979) and Yale Law School (1982), and he is presently the Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School and the Chief Executive Officer of the New Civil Liberties Alliance.
I don性视界传媒檛 normally provide such a lengthy pedigree when citing an author, but it seems important to establish Hamburger性视界传媒檚 credibility even among non-religious academics. The reason is because Hamburger runs right against the conventional wisdom regarding the concept of separation between church and state. Hamburger not only diverges from the typical interpretation of church-state separation, but he also provides a great deal of evidence that the concept itself has transformed quite significantly over time and that the present application of it is nearly the opposite of its original intention.
On one of the opening pages, Hamburger cites three statements that form the pathway of perspectival development on this thoroughly American idea.
The first is from the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution 性视界传媒 性视界传媒淐ongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof性视界传媒π允咏绱綕
The second is from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association 性视界传媒 性视界传媒淚 contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 性视界传媒榤ake no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,性视界传媒 thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.性视界传媒
And the third is from the Supreme Court judgment, written by Justice Hugo Black, in the case of Everson v. Board of Education 性视界传媒 性视界传媒淚n the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 性视界传媒榓 wall of separation between church and state.性视界传媒櫺允咏绱綕
Thus, says Hamburger, Justice Hugo Black established a judicial precedent (as well as social and political one) by interpreting the First Amendment through the prism of Thomas Jefferson性视界传媒檚 pen, which was arguably a tool for atypical political and religious ideas in the early nineteenth century. Jefferson was definitely innovative for eighteenth-century political thought, and he seems to have been consciously aiming to advance a new church-state relationship that did not exist before.
Whatever one thinks of Thomas Jefferson or the First Amendment, it is indisputable that the statesmen and churchmen who argued against established religion and for the free exercise of religion in eighteenth-century America were far more interested in excluding the state from the church than they were from excluding religion from American politics and culture. As a matter of fact, they were quite strong in their advocacy of Protestant Christianity as a political and cultural necessity.
Christians in America would do well to leave their political party affiliations outside the church walls, but also to bring their Christian worldview, doctrines, and ethics with them into the public square and into the voting booth.
