Religion is of no doubt a primary point of debate in a postmodern society, especially when considering the complexities of laws that govern the church or religious institutions as government gets larger and ever more important in the lives of ordinary Americans. Nonetheless the so called "separation of church and state" seems ever more important. Many questions have been raised on this issue. Should the government be rid of religion? Is religion necessary for the preservation of a morally altruistic state? Donald Drakeman, author of "Church, State, and Original Intent" presents his thoughts on what the intent was behind the present-day interpretation on the establishment clause in the first amendment. Drakeman provides many different perspectives on the relationship between church and state. He provides the audience with primary and secondary sources from an array of historical documents. These documents include the Constitution and court opinions from different eras in American history. Drakeman's stance on the issue of church and state ultimately dismantles any monolithic and ill thought out argument that bases itself solely on soundbites, talking points, strict political ideology, or pundit credibility. The reality is much more complex.
To offer a detailed analytic of the establishment clause, Drakeman presents many different texts and opinions that seem quite rigid. In the first chapter of the book Drakeman presents three schools of thought on the topic which include the courts (primarily the Supreme Court, but lower Courts as well), intentions of the Framers, and the Bill of Rights at both the State and Federal level. Drakeman notes in the first chapter that the decision to incorporate the establishment clause into the first amendment was not a huge debate in Congress, nor were there extensive court opinions on the First Amendment. It is relatively clear that most people did not want an established church, or for the government to fund a distinct church denomination (Drakeman, 5). In contrast, the second chapter highlights the first major case in regard to the modern interpretation of the establishment clause. The case Reynolds vs. The United States sets the precedent for the interpretation of the establishment clause for the next two centuries. Drakeman states that because of the Reynolds case sets the precedent of citing the Framers in all arguments for or against the implementation of a distinct religion or religious structure in government because of a law in Virginia requiring colonists to pay for the establishment of a distinct religious denomination. (Drakeman, 37).
This is backed up in the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Waite, when he cites Thomas Jefferson's need for his Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty. This leads to the clue that the key to understanding the First Amendment is in Virginia's attempt to establish a state church (Drakeman, 38). Ultimately the court ruled that it is a citizen's right to hold any religious belief, but not in the right to commit a crime in the name of religion. Drakeman eloquently points out that, contrary to the beliefs of some proponents of religious liberty, that the government doesn't need religion to implement a law, and in a sense serves as a check on religion.
Drakeman's third and fourth chapter is much like the second because he spends time analyzing the case Everson vs. The Board of Education of Ewing Township, and how along with former cases influences the current opinions of the court today. By incorporating these cases into the discussion on church and state, Drakeman undermines any argument that is not based solely on the law and the courts opinions, which carry the weight of law. In a review of the book written by Johnathan Zecher he states that the battle for the First Amendment is a battle for the "historical high ground" in regard to its interpretation between people who believe in a distinct separation between church and state and people and people who believe in the non-preferential funding by Congress for religious institutions. This distinction by Drakeman, that is pointed out by Zecher, shows that neither side has the full weight of the courts on their side, which is an effective counter-narrative to points highlighted by mainstream conservative and liberal media.
The fifth and sixth chapters carry a much more historical tone. While the first chapters examine cases that lead to various precedents that are established by the court, these chapters take a much closer look at the historical documents the cases reference. These writings include classic eighteenth-century literature from Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and their take on religious liberty and state involvement in religion. Drakeman's ultimate pander to a conservative view on the degree of state involvement of the church is no clearer when he highlights that Congress protects states with already established churches. However, it is unclear as to whether the establishment clause is even mentioned in these instances as the clause itself fell under no serious scrutiny or major debate. Additionally, according to the review of the book by Zecher, Drakeman shows that the meaning of the term "establishment" underwent many different changes as readers "broadened its meaning" (Drakeman, 216-228) (Zecher, 38).
The broad reading of the amendment itself, as well as some historical documents conveying moderate support for the establishment of religion within states state somewhat conflicting claims. One argument poses a divorce between the church and state under the grounds of ambiguity while another poses the establishment of religion at the state level for the means of ensuring states' rights. Drakeman states that both of these ideas are flawed. He states, very clearly, that the establishment clause "cannot be derived from the legislative materials" or "from a study of how Americans of that era thought about church-state relationships" (Drakeman 262). He clearly and effectively argues that, while there is some amount of validity to the historical perspective, using it solely to justify a political opinion is minimalistic and unjust to the issue.
On the whole, Church, State, and Original Intent is an appealing book because of the basis in which relationship between church and state ought to be framed in. In another review of the book by Zachary Calo he states that the analytic is an "ambitious book that addresses a number of issues within legal history and philosophy, constitutional law, and law and religion more generally" (Calo, 830). Calo is correct in that Drakeman's work is attractive because of his modest views on the topic. Generally, he doesn't pander to any particular argument by the left or the right, but simply attempts to give clarity and synthesis to an important issue that seems to divide people of faith and strict-separationists.
In conclusion, there are distinct points to be made as to why Drakeman's book is noteworthy. First, the book isn't political and doesn't follow a distinct ideology. Instead it effectively bridges the ideological divide between the left and right, as well as people of faith and strict-separationists. Second, the book highlights the complications with a monolithic or mundane understanding of religious liberty. It uses historical precedents from the court, various historical documents, and debates about the establishment clause to provide context for a complex view on the issue. The book makes an enormous contribution to the world of political science. By using facts and precedents to highlight the flaws in a monolithic argument, Drakeman presents his points in a modest tone. This is hard to come by in todays polarized political climate. Drakeman's book serves as a model for a fair look at an issue, as oppose to a one-sided, unfair, and toxic partisan view on an issue.