{"id":6742,"date":"2025-03-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2025-03-01T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/2025\/03\/01\/the-indispensable-founders\/"},"modified":"2025-03-01T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2025-03-01T00:00:00","slug":"the-indispensable-founders","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/2025\/03\/01\/the-indispensable-founders\/","title":{"rendered":"The Indispensable Founders"},"content":{"rendered":"

Those who disparage the principle of separation of church and state face an inconvenient reality: the religious freedom legacy of <\/strong><\/span>James Madison<\/strong><\/span> and <\/strong><\/span>Thomas Jefferson<\/strong><\/span>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

In 1947, at the cusp of a cold war that would pit \u201cone nation under God\u201d against \u201cgodless Communism,\u201d the U.S. Supreme Court entered the fray over the relationship between church and state. That year, and then in the next, the Court issued rulings in two seminal First Amendment cases. The first case involved the issue of financial assistance for religious-based schooling, while the second concerned religious instruction in the public schools, two issues the Court had not before considered. Despite a slim majority upholding the financial aid in question\u2014reimbursements for transportation costs for children to attend parochial schools\u2014the justices in both decisions unanimously agreed on the overarching principle for adjudicating religion clause disputes: the Constitution mandated the separation of church and state.<\/span><\/p>\n

As support for adopting the principle of church-state separation, the justices relied extensively on the writings and actions of two Founders: Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Jefferson wrote the Virginia Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom in 1777\u2014the most comprehensive declaration of religious freedom at the time\u2014which Madison then guided into law with his incomparable Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments<\/i> (1785). Madison then went on to propose the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and guide it through Congress. Later, as president, Jefferson penned his Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, in which he immortalized the phrase \u201ca wall of separation between church and state.\u201d These documents served as the basis for the legal principle of church-state separation, and for more than six decades the bona fides of these writings remained unquestioned in the law.<\/p>\n

Fast-forward to the present. Readers of Liberty<\/i> magazine are by now aware of the Supreme Court\u2019s dramatic shift in interpreting the meaning and application of the religion clauses. (See Christopher C. Lund, \u201cThe Free Exercise Flip,\u201d Liberty<\/i>, May\u2013June 2024; Frank Ravitch, \u201cUntethered,\u201d Liberty<\/i>, March\u2013April 2024; Steven K. Green, \u201cDisrupted Symmetry,\u201d Liberty<\/i>, November\u2013December 2023.) Even though conservative jurists and scholars have attacked the concept of church-state separationism for years, criticism has intensified over the past decade. In a handful of recent decisions, the Supreme Court has allowed sectarian prayers in legislative chambers, religious displays on public property, financial aid for religious education and grants to houses of worship, and devotional activity by public school employees while engaged in their school duties.<\/p>\n

In the process the Court\u2019s conservatives and their allies have attacked longstanding legal standards that have sought to maintain a balance between protecting religious exercise and preventing policies \u201crespecting\u201d (i.e., akin to) a religious establishment, a balance designed to ensure religious freedom writ large<\/i>. The previous legal \u201ctests\u201d for adjudicating church-state disputes are gone, replaced by an undefined \u201chistorical practices and understandings\u201d test that seeks to divine the original understanding of the religion clauses while dismantling the concept of church-state separation.<\/p>\n

Selective History<\/strong><\/p>\n

There are several problems with this \u201cnew\u201d approach, which Frank Ravitch thoroughly addressed in his article in the March<\/span>\u2013April 2024 issue of <\/span>Liberty<\/span><\/i> entitled \u201cUntethered.\u201d1<\/sup> As a constitutional and religious historian, I find the Court\u2019s history and traditions approach additionally ironic because it ignores the historical legacy of Jefferson and Madison. In touting a historical- practices-and-understandings approach as the be-all and end-all of religion clause adjudication, the justices have failed to acknowledge the two most influential figures in the development of American religious freedom. This is no doubt because the earlier decisions that the current Court majority now repudiates\u2014ones that promoted church-state separation\u2014relied on the writings and actions of Jefferson and Madison.<\/span><\/p>\n

In October of 2024, University of Virgina Press published my new book, <\/span>The Grand Collaboration: Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the Invention of American Religious Freedom<\/span><\/i>. As the subtitle suggests, the book is a deep dive into the collaborative efforts of Jefferson and Madison to dismantle the centuries-old tradition of religious establishments (and religious intolerance) and to install a regime of true religious freedom, one where liberty of conscience and free inquiry would flourish. Even though scholars and jurists have long recognized the contributions of both men in this area, naysayers have increasingly disputed their influence on the founding principles of religious freedom. As Chief Justice William Rehnquist once wrote in an attempt to marginalize Jefferson\u2019s influence in the drafting of the First Amendment, \u201cJefferson was of course in France at the time,\u201d serving as the minister to that nation, so his impact was negligible.<\/span><\/p>\n

Critics of Jefferson\u2019s and Madison\u2019s influence commonly make two arguments. The first is that the two men were largely outliers when it came to contemporary attitudes about church-state relations\u2014that they were unrepresentative of members of the founding generation. The second argument, somewhat at tension with the first, is that neither man was as separationist as he has traditionally been depicted. The first claim is true only on a superficial level\u2014Jefferson and Madison arguably thought more about church-state relations than any of their contemporaries and were thus at the forefront with their perspectives. But the founding period was a highly dynamic time in the reordering of church-state arrangements, and Jefferson and Madison had many supporters in their efforts. The second claim, which relies on cherry-picking their works for potential inconsistencies rather than considering their records as a whole, is simply wrong.<\/span><\/p>\n

What the Record Shows<\/strong><\/p>\n

In writing <\/span>The Grand Collaboration<\/span><\/i>, I sought to avoid engaging in this current legal debate. Rather, the book seeks to answer several questions: What experiences influenced Jefferson and Madison to embrace religious freedom as a central goal, particularly when they faced so many other issues related to creating a new government? Additionally, why would two religiously heterodox and nominally observant men, immune from any threat of religious persecution because of their social standing and putative affiliation with the dominant Anglican Church, possess such a deep commitment to religious freedom and work so assiduously throughout their lives to advance that principle? Finally, what were their understandings of the concept of religious freedom and what other values did that concept reinforce? Their understandings and motivations are important because, regardless of whether Jefferson and Madison were representative of contemporary attitudes, no two people had a greater impact on notions of religious freedom. Jefferson and Madison matter.<\/span><\/p>\n

To find answers to these questions, I examined many of the 2,300 letters between the two men that are found in various collections and are now compiled on the National Archives website, Founders Online. I also looked at correspondence between each man and other acquaintances (such as John Adams and James Monroe), during which they discussed their religious views and how religion should interact with government policy. Their correspondence indicates that religious matters were never far from their minds. It also reveals the extent to which each man complemented and reinforced the other\u2019s attitudes toward church and state, with them agreeing on essential points: government should avoid supporting religion, financially or symbolically, even on a nonpreferential basis; government should not involve itself in the organization and operation of religious institutions, and vice versa; and rights of conscience should be broadly construed, though religiously based claims should not necessarily exempt people from complying with salutary health-welfare regulations. Although their views were on the vanguard, they were not alone in advocating a comprehensive understanding of religious freedom.<\/p>\n

As for the question \u201cwhy?\u201d\u2014why were Jefferson and Madison so committed to advancing religious freedom\u2014the answer is complex. Both men were highly educated and schooled in classical and Enlightenment philosophy and history. They understood the long legacy of religious warfare and persecution, and of the state\u2019s corruption of the church and the church\u2019s abuse of temporal authority. They knew of the established churches\u2019 efforts to stifle free inquiry and impose religious conformity. They also witnessed firsthand the persecution of religious dissenters by colonial officials. As a young man Madison wrote a former classmate about the jailing of Baptist ministers who refused to secure licenses to preach: \u201cThere are at this [time?] in the adjacent County not less than 5 or 6 well meaning men in close [Gaol] for publishing their religious Sentiments which in the main are very orthodox. . . . So I must [beg] you to pity me, and pray for Liberty of Conscience.\u201d<\/p>\n

Even though neither Jefferson nor Madison agreed with the theological outlook of evangelicals, they understood that freedom of conscience was a capacious concept, one that was shared by all people, whether they were theologically orthodox or heterodox. \u201cWhile we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin,\u201d Madison wrote, \u201cwe cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God.\u201d Jefferson and Madison also understood that state religious establishments used religion as \u201can engine of Civil policy.\u201d This, Madison contended, was not only \u201can abuse of temporal authority,\u201d but also \u201can unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.\u201d Religious establishments, Jefferson concurred, tended \u201cto corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage.\u201d Thus, Jefferson and Madison understood intuitively that nonestablishment and free exercise were equally essential for maintaining a regime of religious freedom.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, Jefferson\u2019s and Madison\u2019s support for religious freedom was tied to its connection to freedom of inquiry and conscience. \u201cFree enquiry must be indulged,\u201d Jefferson wrote in his Notes on the State of Virginia<\/i>. \u201cReason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error\u201d; allow them to thrive, and \u201cthey will [then] support the true religion, by bringing every false one to their tribunal, to the test of their investigation.\u201d Similarly, Madison declared \u201cthe freedom of conscience to be a natural and absolute<\/i> right,\u201d not one granted by governments. For both men, therefore, free inquiry and freedom of conscience were precedent; religious freedom was a subset of freedom of conscience, but clearly the latter\u2019s most visible manifestation. And a healthy separation of church and state was key to ensuring freedom of inquiry and conscience.<\/p>\n

Another takeaway from my study is the notable consistency in their thought\u2014among themselves and throughout their lives. To be sure, some differences and points of emphasis existed. Jefferson was more anti-clerical than Madison\u2014particularly against Calvinist clergy who attacked his heterodoxy during the 1800 presidential election by accusing him of being a \u201craging atheist\u201d and an \u201cinfidel.\u201d (As best can be determined, Jefferson held Unitarian beliefs, denying the divinity of Jesus and the authenticity of miracles. Though it is more of a mystery, Madison likely held similar views.) But any differences in their opinions on church-state matters were minimal, and each man continually reinforced the other. Their writings also reveal a consistency of thought over time\u2014for Jefferson, extending from drafting his bill for religious freedom in 1777 to his establishing the University of Virgina as the nation\u2019s first secular public university in 1825 (along with Madison\u2019s help), and for Madison from his drafting of the <\/span>Memorial and Remonstrance<\/span><\/i> in 1785 to his \u201cDetached Memoranda\u201d (ca. 1820s), where he effused: \u201cStrongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt. in the Constitution.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

History Matters<\/strong><\/p>\n

As the current Supreme Court continues with its agenda of rewriting church-state law by claiming to rely on historical practices and understandings, possibly it should take time to examine the historical record<\/i>. It should not ignore the legacy of the two Founders who did more to secure America\u2019s much-envied regime of religious freedom than any other figures. As Justice Sandra Day O\u2019Connor observed in her final opinion concerning the religion clauses: \u201cThose who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly? Our guiding principle has been James Madison\u2019s\u2014that \u2018the Religion . . . of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man.\u2019\u2005\u201d<\/p>\n

Jefferson\u2019s and Madison\u2019s legacy should be remembered and celebrated, not discarded.<\/p>\n

1 See Frank Ravitch, \u201cUntethered,\u201d Liberty<\/i>, March-April 2024, at https:\/\/www.libertymagazine.org\/article\/untethered.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Those who disparage the principle of separation of church and state face an inconvenient reality: the religious freedom legacy of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. In 1947, at the cusp of a cold war that would pit \u201cone nation under God\u201d against \u201cgodless Communism,\u201d the U.S. Supreme Court entered the fray over the relationship between<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[364],"tags":[196],"class_list":["post-6742","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-march-april-2025","tag-march-april-2025"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6742","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6742"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6742\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6742"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6742"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6742"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}