Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
No Establishment of ReligionAmerica’s Original Contribution to Religious Liberty$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

T. Jeremy Gunn and John Witte

Print publication date: 2012

Print ISBN-13: 9780199860371

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2013

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199860371.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2019. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 20 November 2019

Some Reflections on Fundamental Questions about the Original Understanding of the Establishment Clause

Some Reflections on Fundamental Questions about the Original Understanding of the Establishment Clause

Chapter:
(p.341) 12 Some Reflections on Fundamental Questions about the Original Understanding of the Establishment Clause
Source:
No Establishment of Religion
Author(s):

Kent Greenawalt

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199860371.003.0012

This chapter begins with an analysis of Everson v. Board of Education, where it argues that the although the original intent of the Establishment Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment should be given some weight, the original intent should not be determinative. The chapter rejects the argument that the Establishment Clause was exclusively designed to prevent the federal government from interfering with state establishments. While federalism concerns may have been one such purpose, the Establishment Clause also necessarily prevented the federal government from establishing religion in the District of Columbia, on federal territories, and on federal property—including embassies abroad. This reveals that at least one purpose of “nonestablishment” was to protect values that were tied to the underlying arguments against establishments of religion that were made by Madison and Jefferson. The chapter argues that to understand the Establishment Clause it is better to look to the underlying principles of opponents of establishments rather than the specific laws and practices that existed in the 1780s and 1790s. The values underlying the “separation of church and state” do not differ markedly from the values underlying “nonestablishment.” The effort by Philip Hamburger and others to suggest the contrary is mistaken.

Keywords:   Everson v. Board of Education, Establishment Clause, nonestablishment, federalism, original intent, separation of church and state, Philip Hamburger

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .