Posted on 06/24/2006 2:00:27 PM PDT by wagglebee
"It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.
Jefferson's actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist "a wall of separation between church and state." In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a "national" religion. In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government."
(emphasis added)
Source: Library of Congress
"Religion and the Founding of the American Republic"
It seems to me one of the problems today is that we constantly refer to it as you put it "...the relationship of the church to the state" when in reality it is not a church-state relationship per se but one concerning the relationship between the states and the federal government. When you say "church and state" it becomes the relationship between the church and any state entity including as we see today, state, local, schools, librarys etc, etc ad infinatum. After all, the amendment simply states that Congress shall make no law... and as we have seen it has morphed into "church and state". That is another problem with the language in use today.
Oh golly I am not really that "learned" with respect to what the founders thought. I have read some of Federalist Papers and some of the Anti-Federalist writtings, but as to what they thought? Oh I suppose they thought a lot of things along the way but all I know is what ended up in the Constitution of the United States and in my mind the language is fairly explicit. Do we really have to know what people were thinking at the time? I know that it is fashionable to try and read things into the constitution it seems these days based on what people were "thinking" at the time of the writting of the constitution. But I believe as Scalia does that we have to read the text and apply it, not "interpet" it. I am a literalist I guess you could say. When you get into interpretations of the text you open the veritable pandora's box and it seems that is what has been going on in great measure since the Warren court. Well, to some extent before Warren, but he really took it to another plane.
Anyway, what I was trying to say is that the 1st amendment is clear and needs no interpretation. It says that Congress shall make no law respecting and extablishment of religion NOR prohibit the free exercise thereof. Pretty clear. Especially in light of the fact that many of the Colonies had established religions at the time. So as far as that goes the founders settled on the status quo. That was their thought I suppose. And as Daniel L. Dreisbach points out in his marvelous essay, this notion of a separation of church and state was simply Jefferson's way of trying to reassure the Danbury Baptists the federal government would have no say in what the states did with respect to religion. I bet that if Jefferson had it to write over again and he knew what that phrase would cost the union he would have left out the phrase "wall of separation" and phrased it in another way.
To answer you question directly, I believe that the founders thoughts on the relationship between the federal government and the states is pretty well summed up in the 9th and 10th amendments of the U.S. Constitution. I'll go with that.
Because you asked me to. You asked for my opinion of what the founders intended with respect to the relationship between the states and the federal government? It was done in that context.
Do you always answer a simple question with a request for a complex, time consuming assignment? By the way, this is also a simple question.
If the Library of Congress does not meet your standards for convincing evidence, then what does?
" My policy is to never believe what anyone says (especially if it supports your view) and always read the documents for yourself and decide if they support the author's claim."
And yet you have double standards and you use the Library of Congress to support your view even though the original documents are in Arabic.
If you are basing your premise on a treaty, I'm here to tell you that a treaty is not the Constitution. There are many more acts and letters that back religion in public life.
Frank a treaty that has been added to by a translation does NOT trump the Constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.