Pardon my intruding, but I fail to see how refusing to constitutionally establish one religion as being best for a nation is the same as erecting a wall of separation between (all) religions and the state. It seems to me the latter is a far more intensive action than the former. Indeed, in the former case, the state could provide funds and other support for religions at will. In the latter it cannot. It seems that Mr. Jefferson’s advocacy has replaced the plain text upon which he might have been commenting
No intrusion, this discussion is open to all FReepers.
I was looking for some guidance on this in the Federalist Papers, but being as the First Amendment was adopted after the Constitution was drawn up, I was unable to find anything regarding the intent of the Founding Fathers as to what they thought the First Amendment was supposed to mean exactly. Perhaps another person reading this could shed some light on the subject.
Regardless of the meaning of "respecting an establishment of religion" was two hundred years ago, it has come to be a mixed bag of things. We do not fund explicitly religious activites with tax dollars, but we do not tax churches as businesses, or even tax the property directly connected with their religious activities. That compromise seems to be acceptable to most Americans.
I'll admit some atheists don't necessarily feel that way, and they have the right to lobby their representatives for their position. I don't share it.