Library Of Congress Questions Jefferson's `Wall' Letter.A new critique of Thomas Jefferson's 1802 "wall of separation" letter has been launched from an unexpected source: the Library of Congress. Last month the Library of Congress opened a new exhibit titled "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic." At a press conference announcing the event, James Hutson, chief of the Library's manuscript division, distributed a nine-page paper he authored downplaying the significance of Jefferson's letter as a statement of constitutional policy. Jefferson wrote the missive on Jan. 1, 1802, in response to a letter he had received from the Danbury, Conn., Baptist Association. Members of the Association, who were angry that they still had to pay taxes to support the Congregational Church in Connecticut, wrote to congratulate Jefferson on his election as president and express hope that the First Amendment's religion provisions would one day apply to the states. In his reply, Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people An American people may be:
Hutson asserts that Jefferson wrote the letter as a political exercise to strike back at Federalists who had accused him of being an atheist during the campaign of 1800. It was written, Hutson charges, "as a partisan counterpunch, aimed by Jefferson below the belt at enemies who were tormenting him more than a decade after the First Amendment was composed." In his paper, Hutson makes much of the fact that Jefferson crossed out several words and phrases Words and Phrases® A multivolume set of law books published by West Group containing thousands of judicial definitions of words and phrases, arranged alphabetically, from 1658 to the present. from the draft of his reply. The Library of Congress asked the Federal Bureau of Investigation Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), division of the U.S. Dept. of Justice charged with investigating all violations of federal laws except those assigned to some other federal agency. to use new technology to determine what Jefferson crossed out. Critics say Hutson is making too much of the deleted material, which does not change the thrust of the letter, and assert he has merely recycled old, discredited arguments against the Danbury missive. They note that Jefferson obviously did intend the letter to be a policy statement, since he ran it by his attorney general, Levi Lincoln Levi Lincoln may refer to:
In the context of general equities, this describing a buy interest in which a dealer is asked to offer stock, often involving a capital commitment. Antithesis of in touch with. an opportunity to explain his views on church-state relations. Nevertheless, Religious Right groups were quick to seize upon Hutson's paper. On June 2, the Christian Coalition Christian Coalition, organization founded to advance the agenda of political and social conservatives, mostly comprised of evangelical Protestant Republicans, and to preserve what it deems traditional American values. issued a press release headlined, "Library of Congress Skewers `Wall of Separation' Myth." Christian Coalition Executive Director Randy Tate said Hutson's paper proves why the country should adopt the so-called "Religious Freedom Amendment" (RFA RFA right frontoanterior (position of the fetus). Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) A procedure in which radiofrequency waves are used to destroy blood vessels and tissues. Mentioned in: Prenatal Surgery ) that was then pending in the House of Representatives. In California, LaTanya Wright, a Religious Right-backed member of the Academic Standards Commission, cited Hutson's paper in an ultimately unsuccessful effort to remove references to church-state separation from proposed statewide history guidelines for public schools. In a June 17 letter to James Billington, librarian of Congress The Librarian of Congress is the head of the Library of Congress, appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate. Librarians of Congress
2. It is the duty of the principal to fulfill the contracts which have been entered into by his authorized agent; and when an agent any political intent in releasing the paper just days before the vote on the RFA. "It is simply not appropriate for the Library of Congress to take sides on political issues like this," Lynn wrote. "While Dr. Hutson certainly has the right to conduct research into any areas he chooses, it is inappropriate for the Library to present the results of his research to the news media and the general public as the final word on the subject when in fact his findings are highly controversial and are disputed by many other scholars." |
|
||||||||||||||

Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion