Two dozen of the nation's leading church-state scholars have signed a joint letter to the Library of Congress refuting a paper the Library issued June 1 that was highly critical of Thomas Jefferson's views on religion and government.

In 1802, then-President Jefferson wrote the Danbury, Conn., Baptist Association a letter noting that the American people through the First Amendment had built "a wall of separation between church and state." The letter has been cited by the Supreme Court and other federal courts as an important statement of the Framers' constitutional intentions.

However, the Library of Congress paper, written by James Hutson, chief of the manuscripts division, asserts that Jefferson spoke favorably of church-state separation merely to fend of political attacks, not to make a major statement of public policy.

The Hutson paper was quickly seized by the Christian Coalition and other Religious Right leaders as proof that the founding fathers never intended to erect a barrier between religion and government.

The 24 professors signing the joint letter note that Hutson's view is at odds with accepted scholarship about Jefferson's Danbury letter. The scholars state their disagreement with Hutson's conclusions and call on the Library of Congress to "refrain from presenting those conclusions as settled fact."

Asserts the letter, "The Jefferson phrase 'thus building a wall of separation between church and state' is familiar to millions of Americans and is regularly thought of as a convenient way to describe the scope and effect of the religion clauses of the First Amendment. We believe Jefferson's metaphor to be a significant part of understanding the matrix out of which that Amendment emerged. The historical record makes clear that he used his commitment to religious freedom with utmost deliberation in order to set forth both his philosophy and his view of public policy."

Elsewhere the letter states that Hutson's analysis, which was not subjected to peer review, "yields an unbalanced treatment of this important topic on the basis of questionable analysis" and that "the essay depends upon a flawed premise...."

The Library of Congress issued Hutson's paper in conjunction with the opening of a major exhibit, "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic," which examines the role of religion in the colonial and post-Revolutionary era.

The rebuttal letter was drafted by Prof. Robert M. O'Neil, professor of law at the University of Virginia, and Robert S. Alley, professor of humanities, emeritus, at the University of Richmond and the author of several books dealing with church-state law and history.

The Library of Congress Misinterprets Thomas Jefferson: A Letter of Concern from the Scholars Listed Below

On June 4, 1998, the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress mounted an exhibit entitled "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic." It is an impressive collection beginning with the English colonization in the 17th century and reaching into the New Republic. It was developed under the direction of Dr. James Hutson, Chief of the Manuscript Division in the Library of Congress. Unfortunately, the press, with apparent encouragement from Dr. Hutson, chose to focus on a single document, a letter from President Thomas Jefferson on January 1, 1802, to a Committee of the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptist Association. Concurrent with the press conference, Dr. Hutson released an essay, written on official stationery of the Library of Congress, entitled, "The Wall of Separation Between Church and State: What Jefferson Originally Wrote and What It Means."

Dr. Hutson's essay yields an unbalanced treatment of this important topic on the basis of questionable analysis that has not, as far as is known, been subjected to independent scholarly review. The essay depends upon a flawed premise that since President Jefferson edited the original draft of the letter, it is possible, simply by comparing that original with the final version, for the reader fully to "discern Jefferson's true intentions in writing the celebrated Danbury Baptist letter." From there, the essay devolves into an assault on the phrase "separation of church and state" supported with tenuous inferences from Jefferson's excisions. Dr. Hutson also implies that intent and meaning can be derived from examining

The document in isolation from related materials, including Jefferson's extensive, life-long examination of the subject at hand. There is not even a reference to the text of the letter from the Danbury Baptists to Jefferson. The Library of Congress has chosen to interpret the meaning of "separation" from Jefferson's omissions from a single letter.

There may be several possible explanations for Jefferson's excisions of certain material, but the most obvious to any experienced writer is that he was editing while composing. Although scholars may differ as to the reasons for Jefferson's editorial selections, there is no basis for arguing that these omissions indicate that the reply was not "conceived to be a statement of fundamental principles," but rather, "was meant to be a political manifesto, nothing more."

It is also inaccurate to claim that the reply to the Baptists was "political" and not "a dispassionate theoretical pronouncement." Supporters of a broad understanding of Jefferson's Danbury letter have never denied the relevant and pertinent political considerations; however, that fact does not negate either the significance of this statement or his commitment to the principle. Jefferson's two most prized examples of his authorship - the Declaration of Independence and the Statute for Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia - could not have been more political, even as every line was laced with principles concerning democracy and freedom. Respecting the timing of the deletions, Dr. Hutson ignores the fact that we simply do not know when Jefferson struck the word "eternal" modifying "separation." Dr. Hutson compounds the problem by assuming that he does know! Scholars certainly can argue persuasively that the four deletions indicated by Jefferson in the circled sentence which he did omit occurred before the letter was sent to Attorney General Levi Lincoln for his comments.

Of course the debate about the Danbury letter is of current significance because of the connection the Supreme Court has made between it and the First Amendment. Unfortunately, in addressing that issue, Dr. Hutson ignores the past sixty years of Supreme Court opinions that analyzed Jefferson's phrase. He chooses to cite only one case, McCollum v. Board of Education (1948), and argues, with no citation of evidence, that the Court used "Jefferson's 'wall' metaphor as a sword to sever religion from public life, a result that was and still is intolerable to many Americans."

Absolutely nothing in the McCollum decision hints at severing religion from public life. It was focused on "public school buildings used for the dissemination of religious doctrines" during the school day. Indeed, Justice Hugo Black, writing for the majority, observed that the decision "does not, as counsel urge, manifest a governmental hostility to religion or religious teachings." Finally, Dr. Hutson makes no mention of the Zorach v. Clauson decision in which the Court, four years later, allowed released time for religious instruction.

Another problem with Dr. Hutson's reasoning is his failure even to mention the letter from the Danbury Baptist Committee. What was Jefferson answering? Analysis of that letter is absolutely essential to any understanding of the Jefferson response. The three authors of the letter "rejoice" in Jefferson's election. Their "Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty." They speak of "civil government" extending "no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors." So why would Dr. Hutson suggest that Jefferson's phrase "merely temporal" to describe his duties has "a clenched-teeth, defiant ring?" Indeed, the letter from the Danbury Baptist Association Committee endorsed a distinction between "civil government" and the existing governmental practices in Connecticut.

The Baptists criticized the political leaders in Connecticut who had reproached the President by calling him "an enemy of religion, Law & good order because he will not, dare not assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ." It is difficult to understand why Dr. Hutson thinks the Baptists would have been offended by the term "temporal." The religious establishment of Connecticut might have objected, but they were never Jefferson supporters anyway. On the other hand, Baptists were quite familiar with the distinction that Roger Williams made between the temporal and the eternal. "All civil states," Williams wrote, "are proved essentially civil, and therefore not judges, governours or defendours of the spirituall or Christian state and worship."

The Jefferson phrase "thus building a wall of separation between church and state" is familiar to millions of Americans and is regularly thought of as a convenient way to describe the scope and effect of the religion clauses of the First Amendment. We believe Jefferson's metaphor to be a significant part of understanding the matrix out of which that Amendment emerged. The historical record makes clear that he used his commitment to religious freedom with utmost deliberation in order to set forth both his philosophy and his view of public policy. We have no hesitation in asserting that it was an extraordinary affirmation befitting the best spirit in our republican democracy. Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Leonard Levy, one of Jefferson's harshest critics, phrased it best. "Jefferson had powerful convictions on the subject of religious liberty which he always approached most solemnly."

We strongly disagree with the conclusions reached by the Library of Congress and urge Library staff to refrain from presenting those conclusions as settled fact.

Signed:

Robert S. Alley
Professor of Humanities, Emeritus, University of Richmond

Derek H. Davis, J.D., Ph.D.
Director of the J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies, Baylor
University, and Editor of Journal of Church and State

G. Scott Davis
Lewis T. Booker Professor of Ethics and Religion, University of Richmond

Norman Dorsen
Stokes Professor of Law, New York University School of Law

Robert F. Drinan, S.J.
Georgetown University Law Center

Ronald B. Flowers
Chairman of Religion Department, Texas Christian University

Edwin S. Gaustad
Professor of History, Emeritus, University of California at Riverside

Phillip E. Hammond
D. Mackenzie Brown Professor, Department of Religious Studies, University of California at Santa Barbara

Peter Irons
Professor of Political Science, University of California at San Diego

Gregg Ivers
Professor of Government, American University

Isaac Kramnick
Professor of Government, Cornell University

Bill J. Leonard
Dean, Divinity School, Wake Forest University

Henry S. Levinson
Professor of Religious Studies, University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Robert S. Michaelsen
J.F. Rowney Professor of Religion and Society, Emeritus, University of
California at Santa Barbara

James Robert Miller
Chair, Department of Philosophy and Religion, Eastern Kentucky University

R. Laurence Moore
Howard A. Newman Professor of American Studies, Cornell University

Robert M. O'Neil
Professor of Law, University of Virginia

Richard V. Pierard
Professor of History, Indiana State University

Robert A. Rutland
Professor of American History, Emeritus, University of Virginia; Senior
Editor of the Papers of James Madison, 1973-1985

Robert E. Shepherd
Professor of Law, University of Richmond Law School

George Shriver
Professor of History, Georgia State University

Paul D. Simmons
Clinical Professor, University of Louisville

Ruti Teitel
Professor of Law, New York Law School

William Van Alstyne
William R. and Thomas C. Perkins
Professor of Law,
Duke University School of Law