Under Jefferson the State became Church!

[Prezken]

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.

Religion and the Federal Government: PART 2 (Religion and the Founding of the American Republic, Library of Congress Exhibition)

Seriously, how can anyone with half a brain come to the conclusion we have now in our country regarding the meaning of the constitution and first amendment?

 

[Edify_Always_In_All_Ways]

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.

Religion and the Federal Government: PART 2 (Religion and the Founding of the American Republic, Library of Congress Exhibition)

Seriously, how can anyone with half a brain come to the conclusion we have now in our country regarding the meaning of the constitution and first amendment?

That was then, this is now.

Church services in a public building? That's your way of calling Jefferson pro-non-separation? In those days, basically all ational politicians were serious Christians, and there was no one who cared.

Today, 12% of the population is atheist/agnostic, and prayers aren't in schools anymore. Times change.

Your post is the equivalent of claiming that the country wasn't founded on freedom because Jefferson owned slaves.

 

[Prezken]

That was then, this is now.

Church services in a public building? That's your way of calling Jefferson pro-non-separation? In those days, basically all ational politicians were serious Christians, and there was no one who cared.

Today, 12% of the population is atheist/agnostic, and prayers aren't in schools anymore. Times change.

Your post is the equivalent of claiming that the country wasn't founded on freedom because Jefferson owned slaves.

So your answer is basically we can reinterpret the constitution regardless of it's intentions and rewrite the founders beliefs to fit whatever political agenda we deem necessary? And to think we wonder why this country is struggling for an identity.

 

[tryreading]

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.

Religion and the Federal Government: PART 2 (Religion and the Founding of the American Republic, Library of Congress Exhibition)

Seriously, how can anyone with half a brain come to the conclusion we have now in our country regarding the meaning of the constitution and first amendment?

Jefferson had refused to proclaim thanksgivings and fasts during his presidency, and wasn't much of a churchgoer, and the Federalists latched onto these facts to attack him on the false basis that he was an atheist and therefore no good for the country.

Jefferson chose to begin the very dramatic processions to church that you describe to placate the religious citizens who might believe his enemies. This was a political move, not a reverent one.

From the LOC, this is a very interesting article on the Danbury Baptist letter containing the 'wall of separation' quote you mention, and a few paragraphs on Jefferson's religious motives in general :

'A Wall of Separation' (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

 

[Mach]

Probably because it's either:
Church is part of State
or
Church is not part of State.

Apparently he wrote, they were not part of one another. How are you getting this confused? Are you reading theocractic propganda?

Separation of church and state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." [7]

I'm going out on a limb here, but I believe if he wanted them part of one another, he would not describe it as "building a wall", or as "separation".
Separation means not part of one another.
A wall is something that is between two parts.

Are you sure you read all this and still came to precisely the opposite conclusion?

And his buddy Madison:

Another early user of the term was James Madison, the principal drafter of the United States Bill of Rights, who often wrote of "total separation of the church from the state." [8] "Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States," Madison wrote, and he declared, "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States." [9] This attitude is further reflected in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, originally authored by Thomas Jefferson, but championed by Madison, and guaranteeing that no one may be compelled to finance any religion or denomination.

Same as above. No ambiguity that I see.

-Mach

 

[the makeout hobo]

Nothing is wrong with a public building being loaned as a place or worship when it's not being used. Plenty of public buildings are used for religious meetings, as well as many other public gatherings. If he refused to let citizens use the capitol for a religious meeting, but let any other public group use it, he'd be discriminated against religion. If you want to convince us, give us something more revealing, like Jefferson legislating religious rules into law.

 

[Edify_Always_In_All_Ways]

So your answer is basically we can reinterpret the constitution regardless of it's intentions and rewrite the founders beliefs to fit whatever political agenda we deem necessary? And to think we wonder why this country is struggling for an identity.

So your answer is that the country should become a theocracy? If only you'd have been a Founding Father, we could have elected Pat Robertson president and never had another hurricane.

 

[The Baron]

"So your answer is that the country should become a theocracy?" - Edify Always in All Ways

Why is simply recognizing the Christian heritage of this country always met with cries of "You-wanna-turn-this-country-into-a-theocracy! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!"?

There is nothing wrong with recognizing our heritage. And it doens't mean we have to become a theocracy.

 

[Edify_Always_In_All_Ways]

"So your answer is that the country should become a theocracy?" - Edify Always in All Ways

Why is simply recognizing the Christian heritage of this country always met with cries of "You-wanna-turn-this-country-into-a-theocracy! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!"?

There is nothing wrong with recognizing our heritage. And it doens't mean we have to become a theocracy.

How would you like to represent our Christian Heritage, then?

 

[The silenced majority]

That was then, this is now.

Church services in a public building? That's your way of calling Jefferson pro-non-separation? In those days, basically all ational politicians were serious Christians, and there was no one who cared.

Today, 12% of the population is atheist/agnostic, and prayers aren't in schools anymore. Times change.

Your post is the equivalent of claiming that the country wasn't founded on freedom because Jefferson owned slaves.

So for the anti-religion, anti-US history crowd it's OK to use the *!* interpreted intent of the founders in regards to the separation of Church and State to justify doing things like seeking the removal of a monument to the 10 commandments from State Courthouses nowadays.

But when shown historical facts that point to, at one time, Church services being conducted in the US house of Representatives; you claim these same *intentions you've interpreted in such a slanted way today to be at that time irrelevant.

Irrelevant, even as the ink on amendment I of the US Constitution was still drying (1791)...

I suppose they needed us to interpret 200 years later, what they thought out and wrote up at that time?

 

[SFLRN]

So for the anti-religion, anti-US history crowd it's OK to use the *!* interpreted intent of the founders in regards to the separation of Church and State to justify doing things like seeking the removal of a monument to the 10 commandments from State Courthouses nowadays.

But when shown historical facts that point to, at one time, Church services being conducted in the US house of Representatives; you claim these same *intentions you've interpreted in such a slanted way today to be at that time irrelevant.

Irrelevant, even as the ink on amendment I of the US Constitution was still drying (1791)...

I suppose they needed us to interpret 200 years later, what they thought out and wrote up at that time?

The intent of the Founders is not significant. They were (as we all know) fallible individuals (who did own slaves). We make progress by expanding upon their ideas not their intentions. We expanded upon the idea of individual liberty to abolish slavery. We didn't ask what Jefferson thought on the matter. An idea itself isn't more or less true because of the intentions of the idea's creator. Moreover, a serious evaluation of history shows a number of instances where religion and the state are tied together, which led to needless conflicts or empires being expanded to a breaking point. When the state forms a strong relationship with religion it makes justifying certain actions easier (it is in accordance with a belief) and helps remove the kind of public scrutiny needed to check our government. The use divine right is a perfect example of religion and state mixing for the abuse of power (not to mention Iran). Why one would want something as controversial (and in some cases "dirty") as politics to be associated with religion is baffling.

 

[The silenced majority]

The intent of the Founders is not significant.

:shock:

They were (as we all know) fallible individuals (who did own slaves). We make progress by expanding upon their ideas not their intentions. We expanded upon the idea of individual liberty to abolish slavery. We didn't ask what Jefferson thought on the matter. An idea itself isn't more or less true because of the intentions of the idea's creator. Moreover, a serious evaluation of history shows a number of instances where religion and the state are tied together, which led to needless conflicts or empires being expanded to a breaking point. When the state forms a strong relationship with religion it makes justifying certain actions easier (it is in accordance with a belief) and helps remove the kind of public scrutiny needed to check our government. The use divine right is a perfect example of religion and state mixing for the abuse of power (not to mention Iran). Why one would want something as controversial (and in some cases "dirty") as politics to be associated with religion is baffling.

So let me see if I understand your logic...

Our founders wrote the portions off the 1st amendment so that we would interpret church services in the US House of Reps. in one way in the 18th century and quite a different way in the 20th and maybe even a different way in the 21st?

I'm not asking why a fusion of Church and State is a bad thing. I'm asking what justification do ACLU types have in driving religious monuments to our cultural heritage out of the public square, if the words of our founders in this matter aren't clear and subject to interpretation generation to generation...

Should we apply the same logic to interpreting other portions of the Constitution as well?

 

[SFLRN]

So let me see if I understand your logic...
Our founders wrote the portions off the 1st amendment so that we would interpret church services in the US House of Reps. in one way in the 18th century and quite a different way in the 20th and maybe even a different way in the 21st?

The principle they espoused and their application of that principle are two different things. The most important aspect of the Bill of Rights to analyze is the principle and not the application of that principle (when looking at the past). The Founders did not carry the principle through. That does not negate the principle, it only shows that they contradicted a principle of the Bill of Rights.

I'm not asking why a fusion of Church and State is a bad thing. I'm asking what justification do ACLU types have in driving religious monuments to our cultural heritage out of the public square, if the words of our founders in this matter aren't clear and subject to interpretation generation to generation...

The reason the ACLU wants to remove religious monuments from the public square is a belief that State and Church should not mix. I was simply elaborating on the reasons behind this belief. Moreover, the ideas are far more important than the individuals who espoused them.
It is quite clear that the promotion of religion on state property is in violation of the principle that Church and State should be separated. The ACLU is only ensuring that the principle is applied. As a side-note, using the Founding Father's intentions is usually done selectively. One cannot actually know what they thought on the matter, and there are a number of applications (and limits of that application) of the Bill of Rights that would not fit many of the policy preferences of both Liberals and Conservatives. If we went with the intent of the Founding Fathers, many current functions of our government would be considered illegitimate.

Should we apply the same logic to interpreting other portions of the Constitution as well?

We should focus on interpreting the principle and not what individuals may or may not have intended.

 

[dixon76710]

The intent of the Founders is not significant. They were (as we all know) fallible individuals (who did own slaves). We make progress by expanding upon their ideas not their intentions. We expanded upon the idea of individual liberty to abolish slavery.

By passing a Constitutional amendment, not by ignoring the framers intent.

 

[SFLRN]

By passing a Constitutional amendment, not by ignoring the framers intent.

Can you honestly say the Framers intended for the Bill of Rights to be enforced upon every state? The Framers intent played no part in abolition. It was the idea that was important. Using the "Founders Intent" is avoiding a serious debate about ideas. Simply because the Founders saw our nation one way doesn't mean that that is the right way. The important thing is the principles in our Constitution, not who wrote them (when evaluating the application of these principles). Benjamin Franklin railed against the wave of German immigrants, yet we all know that his bigotry did not strengthen or weaken his arguments about the role of government. Evaluating the people who make ideas rather than focusing mainly on the ideas distorts truth. Simply because the Founders intended something does not make it good. Not to mention, determining intentions is not a simple task.

 

[Alex]

It seems to me that the Founding Fathers intended the First Amendment to be restricted to the national government. They wanted to rule out an official national religion. They also knew that their own intelligence was limited and that times change, so they created a Constitution that could be amended because of it. Those amendments were to be made when necessary, and the 14th Amendment was necessary. The Bill of Rights is applied to all the states because of it; therefore the Establishment Clause is applied to them as well.

The parts about the Founding Fathers are, of course, all theory. I think that it is arrogant for any of us to really know what someone believe in who lived ~200 years ago. This is in regard to both sides of the argument.

 

[The silenced majority]

The principle they espoused and their application of that principle are two different things. The most important aspect of the Bill of Rights to analyze is the principle and not the application of that principle (when looking at the past). The Founders did not carry the principle through. That does not negate the principle, it only shows that they contradicted a principle of the Bill of Rights.

I have to disagree with that..

I'm not trying to put forth an assumption that the framers, as people, were infallible. But, I would be led to believe that in certain instances their actions would coincide with the principles that they had penned.

The fact that the early US reps. would hold Church services in the House chambers (many of whom helped pen amendment I), leads me to think that the approach we take in regards to this over-zealous witch hunt to purge anything religious from public grounds is not what the framers' had intended when they considered freedom of religion & the "wall of separation".

The reason the ACLU wants to remove religious monuments from the public square is a belief that State and Church should not mix.

Well, I'd say it's to erase any semblance of our nation's cultural history in regards to religion (esp. Christianity) from public grounds.

To each his own.

I was simply elaborating on the reasons behind this belief. Moreover, the ideas are far more important than the individuals who espoused them.
It is quite clear that the promotion of religion on state property is in violation of the principle that Church and State should be separated.

Then our founders were hypocrites and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are nothing more than ambiguous guideposts left up for one generation to the next to glean out what the documents truly mean???

The ACLU is only ensuring that the principle is applied. As a side-note, using the Founding Father's intentions is usually done selectively. One cannot actually know what they thought on the matter, and there are a number of applications (and limits of that application) of the Bill of Rights that would not fit many of the policy preferences of both Liberals and Conservatives.

Actions speak louder than words?

I don't believe the framer's principle of inherent rights vs. the actual rights they gave slaves, is really the same type of "difference in times and customs" issue as the framers using the House chambers for Church service. Here's why... If amendment I is to mean a clear separation of Church and State, why would the framers jeopardize their fledgling republic by putting forth a law for all to live by & and break it defiantly & hypocritically in the face of the people???

Could it be that what we think was intended and what actually was intended are 2 very different things?

If we went with the intent of the Founding Fathers, many current functions of our government would be considered illegitimate.

...and your point is???

We should focus on interpreting the principle and not what individuals may or may not have intended.

How would you interpret the ambiguous wording of amendment I, and what the true principle of it is??? Would you not look to the actual actions in government of those who penned the amendment??? Seems logical to me...

I'd say the framers were quite well versed in their views of the church-state and the many dangers therein anyhow.

As fearful of the church-state as the framers were, they obviously weren't so afraid of the implications involved with church services being held in the US House. The framers in this case, didn't seem to concerned with that kind of departure from their "principle".

 

[Alex]

By passing a Constitutional amendment, not by ignoring the framers intent.

A constitutional amendment for the First Amendment was passed. It is the 14th Amendment. It binds all the states to the Bill of Rights.

 

[SFLRN]

I have to disagree with that..
I'm not trying to put forth an assumption that the framers, as people, were infallible. But, I would be led to believe that in certain instances their actions would coincide with the principles that they had penned.

Why should the intentions matter more than the principle of the law? What should intent be even considered a major source for guidance over the ideas?

Then our founders were hypocrites and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are nothing more than ambiguous guideposts left up for one generation to the next to glean out what the documents truly mean???

If one focuses on even the simplest theories of freedom then it would not be exceptionally hard to grasp how to apply these rights. For instance, assume one accepts that one’s rights end where another’s begins. Therefore, the government’s only primary purpose (under Locke’s Social Contract) is to ensure that violations of your freedoms do not occur, and that you do not violate the freedom of others. One can then easily infer the state has a responsibility to protect individuals from coercion. In speech, this generally means that one can be prosecuted for speech that is strongly casually connected to coercion against others (inciting a riot, telling someone to kill someone else). The right to bear arms comes from one’s right to life (their right to protect themselves). We draw limits on this when there is a high probability that the arms one “bares” will harm others (nuclear technology, many explosives), or in a more restrictive definition, when that technology is clearly meant for offensive, and not defensive purposes (like a tank, or a Bazooka, or a M60 machine gun). The 3rd Amendments restrictions on quartering clearly springs from one’s right to property, and to choose who enters their dwellings. Collecting warrants for search and seizure is another extension of property rights. One can then go on and attach a right (life, liberty, or property) and see which principles the amendments are trying to keep from being broken.

I don't believe the framer's principle of inherent rights vs. the actual rights they gave slaves, is really the same type of "difference in times and customs" issue as the framers using the House chambers for Church service. Here's why... If amendment I is to mean a clear separation of Church and State, why would the framers jeopardize their fledgling republic by putting forth a law for all to live by & and break it defiantly & hypocritically in the face of the people???

Could it be that what we think was intended and what actually was intended are 2 very different things?

At the time, the majority of Americans would not have cared. The times allowed for them to get away with violating their own principles. They were living in a country in which white Christian males had almost all of the power, and it would be unlikely that the society would tolerate the objections of religious minorities.

...and your point is???

Would the Framers support the Patriot Act? Would George Washington support interventionist foreign policy? What about withholding habeas corpus? If you are against these policies then perhaps then you would be likely to have policy preferences similar the Founders. However, if you do support those policies you might be able to see the limits using their “intentions” has on modern day policy. (I specifically support none of the above policies, but do not do so because of the Founder’s thoughts on the matter.)

As fearful of the church-state as the framers were, they obviously weren't so afraid of the implications involved with church services being held in the US House. The framers in this case, didn't seem to concerned with that kind of departure from their "principle".

Yes, they were hypocrites. That only suggests that using their “intentions” is not a wise way to apply the Bill of Rights. One would be better served by evaluating theories of freedom and the how each principle can ensure that such freedoms are preserved.

 

[dixon76710]

Can you honestly say the Framers intended for the Bill of Rights to be enforced upon every state?

???? No. The 14th amendment was'nt till 80 years later. The founders were all dead. What those who drafted the 14th amendment "intended" when they wrote "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" would be relevant.

The Framers intent played no part in abolition. It was the idea that was important.

???uhhh the 13th amendment 3 years before the 14th was required. The framers intended that

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

Using the "Founders Intent" is avoiding a serious debate about ideas. Simply because the Founders saw our nation one way doesn't mean that that is the right way.

Kind of renders the words of the Constitution meaningless dont ya think? And it merely divides serious debate of ideas into those that require legislation and those that require Constitutional amendments.

 

[The silenced majority]

Why should the intentions matter more than the principle of the law?

What is the principle for a law if there isn't reason for it to be legislated?

What should intent be even considered a major source for guidance over the ideas?

Because I feel that they are inseparable; they work together.

We are in no way 100% bound by the customs and government of our framers. IMO if we are to take the ambiguous wording of the 1st amendment as it pertains to religion on it's face, some consideration should be given to how those who first penned the law dealt with matters relevant to religion and government themselves. I'm not saying that we need to follow their lead 100%. I'm just saying that the framers' actions, so closely removed from dealing with a real Church-state, would indicate that the secular zeal to remove all things relevant to religion from the public square we have today might be a tad bit much.

If one focuses on even the simplest theories of freedom then it would not be exceptionally hard to grasp how to apply these rights. For instance, assume one accepts that one’s rights end where another’s begins. Therefore, the government’s only primary purpose (under Locke’s Social Contract) is to ensure that violations of your freedoms do not occur, and that you do not violate the freedom of others. One can then easily infer the state has a responsibility to protect individuals from coercion. In speech, this generally means that one can be prosecuted for speech that is strongly casually connected to coercion against others (inciting a riot, telling someone to kill someone else). The right to bear arms comes from one’s right to life (their right to protect themselves). We draw limits on this when there is a high probability that the arms one “bares” will harm others (nuclear technology, many explosives), or in a more restrictive definition, when that technology is clearly meant for offensive, and not defensive purposes (like a tank, or a Bazooka, or a M60 machine gun). The 3rd Amendments restrictions on quartering clearly springs from one’s right to property, and to choose who enters their dwellings. Collecting warrants for search and seizure is another extension of property rights. One can then go on and attach a right (life, liberty, or property) and see which principles the amendments are trying to keep from being broken.

I would say that the principle that many hold in regards to the 1st amendment pertaining to religion is flawed then.

At the time, the majority of Americans would not have cared. The times allowed for them to get away with violating their own principles. They were living in a country in which white Christian males had almost all of the power, and it would be unlikely that the society would tolerate the objections of religious minorities.

What makes you think that the majority of Americans would care about the US House holding church services now? We're still an overwhelmingly Christian nation; the white dominance has been gradually replaced by minorities who are probably more so Christian anyhow....

The times allowed for them to get away with violating their own principles.

Is it possible that what you've (collectively) assigned as being their principle isn't actually their principle?

Would the Framers support the Patriot Act? Would George Washington support interventionist foreign policy? What about withholding habeas corpus? If you are against these policies then perhaps then you would be likely to have policy preferences similar the Founders. However, if you do support those policies you might be able to see the limits using their “intentions” has on modern day policy. (I specifically support none of the above policies, but do not do so because of the Founder’s thoughts on the matter.)

When I asked what your point was, I meant that our government has grown completely out of control & is something our framers would be appalled by. I kinda think you agree.

Yes, they were hypocrites. That only suggests that using their “intentions” is not a wise way to apply the Bill of Rights. One would be better served by evaluating theories of freedom and the how each principle can ensure that such freedoms are preserved.

I'm not saying that the framers "intentions" are paramount and we must follow their every move; step for step. I'm just saying that when seeking to interpret the principle behind the 1st amendment as it pertains to religion, it's a good idea to to take some consideration in how the framers themselves
dealt with religion in politics; especially when they have been presented historically as being vehemently opposed to the infusion of government and religion.

 

[dixon76710]

A constitutional amendment for the First Amendment was passed. It is the 14th Amendment. It binds all the states to the Bill of Rights.

????? uuuh? it would be the 13th amendment that was passed to "abolish slavery".

 

[Alex]

????? uuuh? it would be the 13th amendment that was passed to "abolish slavery".

We must be on different pages here. See post #16 please.

 

[dixon76710]

We must be on different pages here. See post #16 please.

# 16 is your post. SFLRN said

We make progress by expanding upon their ideas not their intentions. We expanded upon the idea of individual liberty to abolish slavery.

to which I responded in #14

By passing a Constitutional amendment, not by ignoring the framers intent.

to which you responded-

A constitutional amendment for the First Amendment was passed. It is the 14th Amendment. It binds all the states to the Bill of Rights.

You should respond to your post when you intend to comment on your post.

 

[Alex]

# 16 is your post. SFLRN said



to which I responded in #14



to which you responded-



You should respond to your post when you intend to comment on your post.

Right, my post was in response to the subject of this thread. You said: "By passing a Constitutional amendment, not by ignoring the framers intent."

The intent of the framers in relation to this thread was possibly to prevent a national religion via the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The 14th Amendment changed that and bound the states to the Bill of Rights. So I did respond to a post in relation to the thread, as is expected.