arlos wrote:And even as a religious man, he realized that there had to be a complete separation of Church and State, and wrote it into the Bill of Rights. His intent with that is completely clear, as he wrote about it at length in letters to other people.
-Arlos
The words he used were "wall of separation between Church and State", not a "complete separation". Yes there needed to be a boundary there that was not crossed, and that boundary is stated in the first amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
I do not buy that Jefferson or any of the founding fathers wanted a complete purge of religion regarding anything to do with government, which seems to be the liberal interpretation of these ideas most of the time. The wall is a boundary you do not cross, in an effort to maintain a balance between both parts of the clause in the first amendmant.
In a letter to Dr. Thomas Monticello he wrote the following:
In our university you know there is no Professorship of Divinity. A handle has been made of this, to disseminate an idea that this is an institution, not merely of no religion, but against all religion. Occasion was taken at the last meeting of the Visitors, to bring forward an idea that might silence this calumny, which weighed on the minds of some honest friends to the institution. In our annual report to the legislature, after stating the constitutional reasons against a public establishment of any religious instruction, we suggest the expediency of encouraging the different religious sects to establish, each for itself, a professorship of their own tenets, on the confines of the university, so near as that their students may attend the lectures there, and have the free use of our library, and every other accommodation we can give them; preserving, however, their independence of us and of each other. This fills the chasm objected to ours, as a defect in an institution professing to give instruction in all useful sciences. I think the invitation will be accepted, by some sects from candid intentions, and by others from jealousy and rivalship. And by bringing the sects together, and mixing them with the mass of other students, we shall soften their asperities, liberalize and neutralize their prejudices, and make the general religion a religion of peace, reason, and morality.
Notice the similarities between this and The Federal Equal Access Act of 84, the most notable difference being that the Equal Access Act prohibits completely the participation of school employees, and prohibits the participation on a regular basis from community members. This part of the law is in stark contrast to what Jefferson supported in the above passage, and quite frankly I see it as a violation of Article 1 in the bill of rights, as it does prohibit the free excersie of religion by anyone but students. Considering the quote from the letter above, I think Jefferson would have had a problem with the act also.
Don't get me wrong Arlos, I don't want to see religion cramed down anyones throat, but I think it's a matter of balance, and I think our founding fathers including Jefferson saw the subject in this light. I also do not belive we have that balance now, in an effort to prevent state sponsored religion, I believe we have went to far and tipped this balance against the free exercise of religion.
All else aside though what I find most interesting about the excerpt above is that even though Jefferson seemed to have a lot of distaste for most of the orgaized religious orginizations, he still wanted to bring them together, to put aside thier differences and predjudice, to become accepting and peacful with one another. If the supposed base of modern Christian religions is "peace, love and the acceptance of all of gods children" I'd say Jefferson was pretty close to the modern ideals if not the practices.
