Books.org participates in affiliate programs including Bookshop.org and the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. We may earn a commission from qualifying purchases made through links on this page, at no additional cost to you.
Overview
Pulitzer Prize-winner Levy examines the circumstances that led to the writing of the establishment clause of the First Amendement--"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"--and argues that, contrary to popular belief, the framers of the Constitution intended to prohibit government aid to religion even on an impartial basis. He thus refutes the view of "non-preferentialists", who interpret the clause as allowing such aid provided that the assistance is not restricted to a preferred church.Synopsis
Leonard Levy's classic work examines the circumstances that led to the writing of the establishment clause of the First Amendment: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . .' He argues that, contrary to popular belief, the framers of the Constitution intended to prohibit government aid to religion even on an impartial basis. He thus refutes the view of 'nonpreferentialists,' who interpret the clause as allowing such aid provided that the assistance is not restricted to a preferred church.
For this new edition, Levy has added to his original arguments and incorporated much new material, including an analysis of Jefferson's ideas on the relationship between church and state and a discussion of the establishment clause cases brought before the Supreme Court since the book was originally published in 1986.
Editorials
From the Publisher
A model of policy history, demonstrating the relevance of disinterested historical scholarship to the formation of public policy.Stanley N. Katz, American Council of Learned Societies
Levy [is] one of the best of our constitutional historians. . . . This is a strong, admirable book—at times, even passionate.
New York Times Book Review
A profoundly intelligent contribution to an issue that regularly gets confused in the hands of superficial commentators. . . . A powerful argument.
Philadelphia Inquirer
A lively, informative work and often fascinating reading.
Appellate Practice Journal