When Delaware’s U.S. Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell said in a debate last week that the separation of church and state is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, the audience guffawed. But Daniel Dreisbach, a professor of justice, law and society at American University knew that technically, she was correct. Dreisbach, 51, has written numerous books and articles on the topic, including “Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation between Church and State.” He shared with The Washington Examiner by e-mail thoughts on his own faith, and why he believes it deserves a place in the public arena.
Do you consider yourself to be of a specific faith?
I subscribe to the doctrines of Christianity as expressed in the Apostles’ Creed. I am a member of a Presbyterian congregation. My faith enriches my appreciation for a loving God, shapes my understanding of grace, and defines my moral code.
The phrase “separation of church and state” isn’t actually in the Constitution, but comes from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a group of Baptist supporters in 1802. How do you think he’d react to the metaphor’s use in American law and society today?
Jefferson’s “wall of separation” is used today in ways that, I suspect, its architect would not recognize. A careful reading of Jefferson’s 1802 missive suggests that his wall had less to do with the separation between church and state than with the separation between state governments and the national government on matters pertaining to religion. Moreover, throughout his public career, Jefferson took actions that strict separationists today would argue breach his “wall of separation.” For example, as a public official he issued religious proclamations and proposed a national seal containing biblical imagery. Most important, Jefferson championed free speech. I think he would be troubled by the use of a separation principle to restrict religious expression in the public square.
What sort of separation between church and state do you believe the Constitution actually requires, if any?
Article VI of the Constitution bans religious tests for federal officeholders, and the First Amendment prohibits Congress from making laws “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Americans have long debated whether “separation of church and state” accurately or adequately encapsulates these constitutional provisions. The First Amendment was written to prevent the creation of a national church like the established church in England. The amendment was not meant to silence religion or deny its influence in society. In fact, it protects the citizen’s right to worship God, or not, according to the dictates of conscience, free from coercion, interference, discrimination, or punishment by the national government.
Although the language of “separation” may felicitously express some First Amendment principles, it misrepresents others. The amendment explicitly imposes restrictions on “Congress” only. Replacing this text with “separation of church and state,” which imposes equivalent restrictions on both church and state, transforms the First Amendment from being a restriction on government only to being a grant of power to the state (often acting through the judiciary) to determine that which is permissible or impermissible.
Many strict separationists worry that an erosion of the wall between church and state would lead to a society where a locality’s dominant faith would impose its will on everyone else, thus stripping people of their religious freedoms. Is that a valid concern?
True enough, a union of church and state can be an engine of religious intolerance. I contend that religion should be granted access to the public square equal to that of other nongovernmental entities. A high “wall of separation,” I fear, unnecessarily restricts religious expression in public life. This concern is as worrisome as that raised by the strict separationists.
At your core, what is one of your defining beliefs?
I believe church and state should operate in distinct and separate institutional spheres and that this arrangement is consistent with my faith tradition (Jesus said, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”), and the Constitution. I believe state churches lead to complacency, corruption and intolerance in matters of faith, and disestablishment facilitates a vibrant religious culture in which the most efficacious religion emerges in the marketplace of ideas. Throughout American history, however, the notion of separation has been used to silence religious voices. In a democratic, pluralistic society, I believe citizens must be permitted to express their religious perspectives in the public square on the same terms as any other nongovernmental expression.
– Leah Fabel
– Leah Fabel
