SPEAKOUT: To Washington, there is no 'wall'
By Troy A. Eid
Published February 15, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Gene Nichol struck a nerve.
Nichol, a former dean of the University of Colorado School of Law, left Boulder for the East Coast a decade ago after an unsuccessful bid for U.S. Senate. He later became president of a centuries-old state university, Virginia's College of William and Mary.
Nichol sparked a furor in October 2006 by removing a crucifix from the nation's oldest college chapel, explaining he wanted to make non-Christians feel more welcome.
The controversy finally caught up with him. Nichol resigned this week after the college's board refused to renew his contract. The cross was returned to the chapel and placed in a case near the altar.
William and Mary must now find a new president. But the spirited debate over the proper role of religion in our public institutions lives on.
The Framers of the U.S. Constitution must have valued this debate: They enshrined it in the text of the document itself. The so-called "religion clauses" of the First Amendment, written in 1789, declare: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
But how did the Framers think this balancing act would actually work in practice?
These days, many courts of law, along with the court of public opinion, often recite Thomas Jefferson's view that a "wall of separation" should divide church and state. This enormously popular phrase by Jefferson, celebrated author of the Declaration of Independence, reflects the Founding Fathers' consensus that religion should be kept out of public life.
Or does it?
A bold new book, co-authored by a prominent Colorado attorney, takes direct aim at this conventional wisdom. In Under God: George Washington and the Question of Church and State, Denver's own Joe Smith and Tara Ross, a Texas-based lawyer and writer, counter Jefferson's wall-of-separation approach with that of the best-known Founder of them all, George Washington.
Washington, they argue, offers a compelling alternative vision to Jefferson's "wall" - a perspective that is virtually unknown to most Americans today.
According to Washington, there is no wall. Instead, government should broadly encourage religious expression in order to strengthen public virtue - what might be called "values" today. The First Amendment, read in the way its drafters intended, means that the state must not discriminate for or against any particular sect or set of religious beliefs.
Smith and Ross carefully document their claim that Washington, not Jefferson, was in a far better position to interpret constitutional history based on real-life experience.
Ironically, Jefferson was minister to France from 1785 to 1789 and did not participate in the Constitutional Convention, or in the congressional debates that produced the Bill of Rights. Washington, in contrast, presided over that convention and was intimately involved in the process from beginning to end.
The authors note that as the nation's first president, Washington was keenly aware of his defining role in implementing the Constitution and Bill of Rights for future generations. Even before that, he had been laboring in the field for years, going back to his military days, to strike the proper practical balance on matters of church and state.
Washington was a deeply spiritual person. He attributed his own personal survival - and that of the new nation - to a higher authority. Humility before and respect to "the supreme ruler of the Universe," he believed, was indispensible to the continued health and well-being of the United States.
In this national election year, Under God brings a fresh perspective to a timeless question. Smith and Ross marvel at how surprised many early Americans would be to learn that the views of Washington, "easily the most admired man of his age," would take a back seat to Jefferson's.
By giving us Washington in his own words, they honor his legacy - and the broader debate over church and state that, for freedom's sake, the Founders hoped would never die.
Troy A. Eid is the U.S. Attorney for the District of Colorado. The views expressed are his own and do not represent the U.S. Department of Justice.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Legislature Blog
Read live updates from the opening of the 2009 legislative session.
-
Rocky multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Who's next?
Complete coverage of the Broncos' search for a new coach.
-
Rocky year in photos
View an audio slide show of staff selections from 2008.
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Two-man advantage with Avs
-
Shanahan's career
See photos from Mike Shanahan's career as Broncos coach.
-
12 days of Drew
Look back at the year that has been with Drew Litton.
-
A dream fulfilled
A Rocky Mountain News and MediaStorm production
February 15, 2008
9:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
jgd writes:
T-bone,
Why would a chapel be used by non-Christian groups in a non-religious setting? What is your definition a chapel? It may be a non-denominational but it is still a place of worship. From the original post "Nichol sparked a furor in October 2006 by removing a crucifix from the nation's oldest college chapel, explaining he wanted to make non-Christians feel more welcome." For close to 350 years William and Mary has had a chapel with a crucifix, and now they should have to remove it because Nichols wanted to make non-Christians feel more welcome.
Wow he sounds like the right man for CU, the faculty there are just about as nutty as Nichols. Not only would the inmates be in charge, their leader would one of them.
February 15, 2008
10:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
jackwoehr writes:
I have three (3) thoughts inspired by Att'y. Eid's Speakout piece:
1. The reason church and state must remain separate in the USA was shown by Mr. Bush's faith-based initiative programs: the gov't was put in the position of having to decide which is a "real" religion and which is not. That dog don't hunt.
2. The reason we read Jefferson more than Washington is because a) Jefferson was a man of the 19th Century and Washington of the 18th b) Washington was a heroic general, sterling patriot and competent administrator, but Jefferson is universally acknowledged to have been one of the world's most brilliant scientists, thinkers and writers of the past 200 years.
3. More troubling than Mr. Eid's desire to break down the wall of separation between church and state is his expressed desire to break down the wall between library and state, as when he called for the US Atty's office to be allowed to go on warrantless fishing expeditions in Denver Public Library records. See the tendentious Denver Post story "Library secure for child porn" http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_7...
February 15, 2008
11:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
irisman writes:
The Founding Fathers believed in a Supreme Being, but they didn't promote a specific religious doctrine. The fact that they believed in a Creator or Divine Providence should not be used by some Evangelicals to turn our country into a fundamentalist theocracy. In turn, other groups have become very sensitive about religious symbols displayed in public institutions. JGD is dead wrong. William and Mary is a state university, supported in part by public funds, so its chapel can't be exclusively Christian. Furthermore, many churches lend their facilities to all sorts of secular groups for meetings and other projects. If a college is run by a religious denomination it doesn't have to cater to all religions.
February 15, 2008
11:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Queen_Gorgo writes:
"These days, many courts of law, along with the court of public opinion, often recite Thomas Jefferson's view that a "wall of separation" should divide church and state. This enormously popular phrase by Jefferson, celebrated author of the Declaration of Independence, reflects the Founding Fathers' consensus that religion should be kept out of public life."
Nice Strawman in that last sentence.
Is Mr. Eid too dense to know the difference between public life and government activity?
February 15, 2008
12:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
jgd writes:
Tbone,
***its more of an historic building then an actual place of worship,***
Oh! I see it is an historical building, even more reason for you to want to change it. I still find it hard to believe for over two hundreds years all of the previous generations choose to violate the constitution by allowing these terrible violations to go unchecked. Even the actual signers of the constitution, didn't see all of those violations. You modern day limp-wristed, panty waste liberals are so smart.
February 15, 2008
12:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
freethinker07 writes:
If Nichols was so worried about the rights of religious people who aren't Christian, why didn't he remove books referring to atheism from the library? Why didn't he stop the showing of vulgar movies? Why didn't he enforce a dress code requiring modest dress?
It sounds to me like Nichols wasn't worried about non-Christians, it sounds like he wanted to censor expressions of Christianity.
February 15, 2008
12:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
irisman writes:
Pull yourself together,jgd. You're getting nasty and abusive. Just calm down and read the first amendment of the Constitution, and remember that William and Mary is a state university.
February 15, 2008
3:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
I don't trust Troy Eid, period.
There's a certain kind of Christian that wants all the government goodies they can get, but they'll be damned (more, accurately, they'll do the damning) if some other religion gets any. I wonder if Troy Eid would have gotten so upset if there had been a multi-religious display at the chapel or historical building and Gene Nichol had removed a representation of the "star snd crescent" on the grounds that it pormoted terrorism? Eid would probably have offered Nichol a job.
The First Amendment is about stopping religiouys favoritism. One way to do that is to keep government out of religion, period. In other words, yes, a wall.
February 15, 2008
9:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Fogyreef writes:
JGD :" You modern day limp-wristed, panty waste liberals are so smart."
JGD failed to remain calm and mature in record time, while managing to completely miss the point. He did get one thing right, however.
February 16, 2008
9:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
Fogyreef, I bet JGD can`t figure out what he/she/it got right!
February 16, 2008
12:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
LetsThink writes:
Thank GOD that there are people like Troy Eld. He tries to bring some Truth to this discussion.
The radical (atheistic) liberals want to try to drive God out of America. And the incessantly incorrectly quote Thomas Jefferson in their effort.
But most of us have now researched Jefferson's quote, and know that it does not call for a 'separation of church and state'.
And the Constitution certainly doesn't try to remove God from the public square.
Thanks again for Troy Eld confronting the liberal agenda.
February 16, 2008
10:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwal...
Thomas Jefferson wrote that to a Baptist Church in the early 1800s. American Baptists (as opposed to Southern Baptists) still fight for separation of Church and State. I'm Jewish, but I admire Thomas Jefferson's stand. He was pilloried at the time for helping adopt Virginia's Statute of Religious Tolerance. It is one of the few items listed on his epitaph. Whenever a European nation adopted one religion as "the" state religion, barring all others, Jews suffered.
I am sick and tired of people who try to state that the wall of separation is a fiction created by liberal activist judges in the 1940s, or that it's a one-way wall, that religion can interfere with government. See above. The phrase was used by Thomas Jefferson in the early 1800s. I'll take Thomas Jefferson over Troy Eid any day.
It bears saying over and over again: We have the flourishing religious environment we do in this country because government can't interfere in religion, and religious institutions can't interfere in government.