Spring 2010 - Interpretation

3 2 6
I n t e r p r e t a t i o n
forms of religiosity, whereas Jefferson would only recognize faiths whose
catechisms could pass his rational-basis test. It is worth asking, however,
whether Jefferson would really be as willing to apply this element of Jeffersonianism
to the nation, where the religious demographics were unfavorable
for his desired outcome, as to “Mr. Jefferson’s University,” where his influence
was much greater. As president, Jefferson typically acted and sounded more
Madisonian than even Madison did. And so, while identifying this particular
strand of Jeffersonianism is a useful tool for Muñoz’s analysis, it is difficult
to align it as closely with the third president’s overall church-state philosophy
as the other two approaches can reasonably be linked to Madison and
Washington (as Muñoz recognizes in a clever index entry titled, “Jefferson,
contradictions in”).
In an important contribution to the current religious freedom
debate, Muñoz describes how religious accommodation was not a
particular concern of any of these framers. After a review of the three Virginians
on the subject of indirect burdens—such as compulsory schooling
requirements—and exemptions—whether there should be, for example,
conscientious exemptions for military service—Muñoz concludes that none
of them would support such constitutional rights, and only Washingtonianism
would even allow legislatures to create statutory exemptions. Here the
Supreme Court’s decisions to free the Amish from compulsory schooling
or Jehovah’s Witnesses from saluting the flag are considerably more accommodating
than the Virginia framers. In sum, it is difficult to find support
from any of these three founders for insulating the devout from generally
applicable laws.
In the end, Muñoz concludes that there was no single comprehensive
church-state viewpoint shared by the founding generation, but,
nevertheless, the framers “can serve as a rich source of ideas and understandings
about religion and the proper separation of church and state” (221). The
same can be said of Muñoz’s own contribution to our study of religion and
the republic, which is strikingly clear and well written for someone schooled
deeply in political philosophy, yet thoughtfully nuanced for one so willing to
plunge into constitutional controversies. Muñoz has provided us with one of
the few genuinely original contributions to a field that has felt overcrowded
and redundant for several decades. That every reader will find something
interesting with which to wrestle is a tribute to his ability to shed new light on
old subjects in a way that provokes a much needed reawakening of the field.