you cannot simply look at the words that were ratified by congress...if we did that some of us would still be 2/3 a human and property.
plain text arguments of the Constitution are lame, because many of the freedoms we enjoy are not written in the constitution, they are taken from court rulings were judges look at things like the intent of the writers of the constitution and how they pertain to modern events.
That's kind of an interesting point of view that our Forefathers didn't really mean what they wrote. There are times when interpretation is necessary. For example, how do the right to free speach and freedom of the press apply to the Internet. Obviously our Founding Fathers couldn't even imagine the existance of the Internet let alone take it into consideration. Are assault rifles protected under the second amendment? When the Constitution was written, arms consisted of single shot muskets.
However, religion is something that did exist and they were well aware of exactly what they were addressing. In their wisdom, they decided that the government should stay out of religion. That is not the same as separation of Church and State. I seriously doubt that they intended their words to be used to support removal of crosses from monuments, blasting the 10 Commandments off of walls of governemnt buildings, blasting statues of Moses off of goverment buildings, rewriting the National Anthem and Pledge alegence to remove God, and the Sperationalists list goes on and on. Eventually, Separationalists will want the Declaration of Independence, The US Constitution, and all 50 State Constitutions be rewritten to remove all references to God.
Thomas Jefferson only used the words "wall of separation between church and State" in one writing which was a response to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut who was requesting President Jefferson push for Federal laws to protect their religios freedoms because they felt Connecticut wasn't doing enough to ensure their religious freedom. When taken in context, the wall Jefferson spoke of was only referring to Government not making any laws respecting an establishment of religion.
Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court said:
The metaphor of a wall of separation is bad history and worse law. It has made a positive chaos out of court rulings. It should be explicitly abandoned.
Even James Madison, who was probably the most outspoken proponent of Separation of Church and State, was appearently only referring to the Government establishment of religion. When Congress retained a paid Christian chaplain to open sessions with a prayer and provide spritial guidance, Madison objected strongly to tax dollars going to the payment of the chaplains. He did not object to the chaplains if it was done at the personal expense of the Congressmen. That part of the quote is usually left out by the Separationalist.
James Madison said:
The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?
If it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents should discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expense.
We've let the liberal media tell us the Constitution requires Separation of Church and State so often that it's being believed as fact. We ned to get back what our Founding Fathers intended. If the ideas in the Constitution are deemed incomplete or obsolite, the Congress can amend the Constitution when necessary, such as abolishing slavery so all men are not only Created equal, but accounted for equally in the cencus as well.
