The Political And Religious Objections To The Union Of Church And State As Urged By M Miller Examined And Refuted Etc

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.

This book examines the political and religious context in which the Constitution and The Bill of Rights were adopted. Swomley reasons that those who wrote and adopted the Constitution and First Amendment intended a strict separation of church and state, a government that would neither aid nor impede religion. Religious Liberty and the Secular State refutes Chief Justice Rehnquist's position that the framers of the Constitution did not intend to ban all religious aid, only preferential aid. Swomley also refutes Rehnquist's claim that the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment was intended to prevent the establishment of a single national church. Swomley concludes that the Constitution was intended to prevent the federal government from establishing one or more churches and to prevent the tax support of churches on any basis. This book exposes the Supreme Court's erosion of the Establishment Clause while emphasizing the Free Exercise Clause. Swomley also explores civil religion, secular humanism, and the current counter-revolution against separation of church and state led by some religious and political conservatives who would profit from government aid. He also lists the benefits churches would realize under a secular government.