{"id":14602,"date":"2024-07-01T23:53:38","date_gmt":"2024-07-01T13:53:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/?p=14602"},"modified":"2024-07-01T23:53:38","modified_gmt":"2024-07-01T13:53:38","slug":"how-jefferson-and-madisons-partnership-shaped-americas-separation-of-church-and-state","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/2024\/07\/01\/how-jefferson-and-madisons-partnership-shaped-americas-separation-of-church-and-state\/","title":{"rendered":"How Jefferson and Madison\u2019s partnership shaped America\u2019s separation of church and state"},"content":{"rendered":"

Few constitutional principles are more familiar to the average American than the separation of church and state. According to the Pew Research Center, 73 per cent of adults agree that religion should be kept separate from government policies<\/a>.<\/p>\n

To be sure, support varies by political or religious affiliation \u2013 with Democrats supporting the principle<\/a> in much higher numbers \u2013 and depending on the specific issue, such as prayer in public schools or displays of the Ten Commandments monuments. Yet only 19 per cent of Americans say the United States should abandon the principle of church-state separation<\/a>.<\/p>\n

That said, criticism appears to be on the rise, particularly among\u00a0political and religious conservatives<\/a>. And such criticism comes from the top.<\/p>\n

Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson\u00a0remarked in 2023<\/a> that:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe separation of church and state is a misnomer \u2026 it comes from a phrase that was in a letter that [Thomas] Jefferson wrote. It\u2019s not in the Constitution. And what he was explaining is they did not want the government to encroach upon the church \u2014 not that they didn\u2019t want principles of faith to have influence on our public life.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As\u00a0a scholar of American legal and religious history<\/a>, I\u00a0have written extensively<\/a> about the development of religious freedom in the US, and the origins of the separation of church and state.<\/p>\n

Two of the Founding Fathers shaped American views on these topics more than any other: Jefferson and James Madison. Yet their views have also become lightning rods for controversy as the \u201cwall\u201d between church and state comes under scrutiny.<\/p>\n

My forthcoming book<\/a>, The Grand Collaboration<\/em>, seeks to answer several questions: What was Jefferson\u2019s and Madison\u2019s understanding of religious freedom? And why were they so deeply committed to that principle?<\/p>\n

Jefferson wrote\u00a0the Virginia Bill for Religious Freedom<\/a>\u00a0in 1777, the most comprehensive declaration of religious freedom at the time. The bill guaranteed freedom of conscience, protected religious assemblies from government oversight, prohibited government funding of religious institutions and boldly declared that religious opinions were outside the authority of civil officials.<\/p>\n

Several years later, Madison guided these ideals into law. His Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments<\/a>, a protest against a proposal to support Christian teachers with tax money, affirmed the values of church-state separation and religious equality. He helped defeat the proposal \u2013 and set the stage for Virginia to adopt Jefferson\u2019s bill.<\/p>\n

As president, Jefferson went on to pen\u00a0a letter to a Baptist association in Connecticut<\/a>\u00a0where he immortalized the phrase \u201ca wall of separation between church and state.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Bill of Rights contains two clauses about religion, both in\u00a0the First Amendment<\/a>: that \u201cCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.\u201d What qualifies as \u201cestablishment of religion,\u201d however, is open to debate.<\/p>\n

In 1947, the US Supreme Court embraced church-state separation<\/a>\u00a0as the guiding principle for interpreting the religion clauses,\u00a0relying extensively<\/a> on the two Virginians\u2019 writings and actions. As Justice Hugo Black wrote:<\/p>\n

\u201cIn the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect \u2018a wall of separation between Church and State.\u2019\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The duo\u2019s documents served as the authority for the legal principle of church-state separation, and for more than five decades their bona fides remained unquestioned in the law.<\/p>\n

Criticism of church-state separation intensified in the 1980s. As the religious right grew into a political force,\u00a0commentators argued<\/a>\u00a0that the concept was anti-religious and did not represent the prevailing views about church and state during the founders\u2019 time.<\/p>\n

In recent decades, such arguments have attracted politicians and jurists, including members of the Supreme Court. Justice Clarence Thomas\u00a0has written<\/a> that the court\u2019s earlier separationist interpretations of the Constitution “sometimes bordered on religious hostility”. Legal scholar Philip Hamburger<\/a> has declared that “the constitutional authority for separation is without historical foundation”<\/a> and “should at best be viewed with suspicion”.<\/p>\n

Several recent Supreme Court decisions have rejected a separationist approach to church-state matters. For example, the conservative majority has allowed\u00a0taxpayer dollars to be used at religious schools<\/a>, the\u00a0display of religious symbols<\/a>\u00a0on government property, and\u00a0religious expression by public school employees<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In a 2022 dissent<\/a>, Justice Sonia Sotomayor bemoaned that the court has turned the separation of church and state from a “constitutional commitment” to a “constitutional violation”.<\/p>\n

The justices\u2019 earlier reliance on Jefferson and Madison has borne the brunt of criticism that\u00a0their views on church-state matters<\/a>\u00a0did not represent their peers, or that neither man was in favor of separation as he has been portrayed.<\/p>\n

To better understand Jefferson\u2019s and Madison\u2019s beliefs, I examined many of the 2,300 letters between the two on Founders Online<\/a>, a National Archives website. I also looked at correspondence with other acquaintances.<\/p>\n

Both founders\u00a0had deistic leanings<\/a>, meaning they believed in a supreme being, but thought science and reason were the best paths to understanding religion. They were only nominally observant Christians, but more protected from\u00a0religious intolerance<\/a>\u00a0than other \u201cdissenters\u201d due to their high social standing and affiliation with the Anglican Church.<\/p>\n

All the more striking, then, that they worked throughout their lives to advance religious freedom.<\/p>\n

Religious matters were never far from their minds. For instance, in Madison and Jefferson\u2019s exchanges discussing the need for a bill of rights, freedom of conscience was invariably at the top of the list. Both were convinced that government should avoid supporting religion, even if no particular religion was given preference. They also insisted that people should have broad religious freedoms.<\/p>\n

These views were clearly on the vanguard, but other religious rationalists and religious dissenters also advocated\u00a0a comprehensive understanding of religious freedom<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Both men were committed to advancing religious freedom because they saw it as deeply entwined with freedom of inquiry and conscience. \u201cReason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error,\u201d Jefferson\u00a0wrote in 1784<\/a>. Allowing people to investigate ideas freely \u201cwill support the true religion,\u201d because \u201cTruth can stand by itself”.<\/p>\n

Similarly,\u00a0Madison declared<\/a> \u201cthe freedom of conscience to be a natural and absolute right”.<\/p>\n

In their view, free inquiry was the fount of other rights. Religious freedom, for example, was a subset of freedom of conscience. And a healthy separation of church and state was key to ensuring those freedoms.<\/p>\n

The letters reveal the extent to which Jefferson and Madison complemented and reinforced each other\u2019s attitudes toward church and state. They also reveal the close intellectual and emotional affection that each man held for the other, and how much each man valued the other\u2019s support.<\/p>\n

In\u00a0their final exchanges<\/a> before Jefferson\u2019s death on 4 July 1826, he implored Madison:<\/p>\n

\u201cTo myself, you have been a pillar of support thro\u2019 life. Take care of me when dead, and be assured that I shall leave with you my last affections.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Madison\u00a0responded with similar affection<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\u201cYou cannot look back to the long period of our private friendship & political harmony, with more affecting recollections than I do.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Jefferson\u2019s and Madison\u2019s half-century of collaboration on behalf of religious freedom and equality is an important chapter in the nation\u2019s founding history. I believe its legacy should be remembered and celebrated, not discarded.<\/p>\n

This article was originally published in <\/strong><\/em>The Conversation<\/strong><\/a>.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Images: Library of Congress<\/a> \/ Library of Congress <\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Few constitutional principles are more familiar to the average American than the separation of church and state. According to the<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":748,"featured_media":14606,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[77,18],"tags":[329,332],"coauthors":[698],"class_list":["post-14602","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-history","category-law-politics","tag-secularism","tag-united-states"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14602","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/748"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14602"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14602\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14604,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14602\/revisions\/14604"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/14606"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14602"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14602"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14602"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=14602"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}