The first in a series of articles on the issue of ‘separation of church and state'.

Recently, I was listening to historian David Barton recount a conversation he had with a U. S. Congressman.  They were discussing religion and its role and influence on American Government.  The Congressman said, "I would love to talk to you about the impact of religious principles on our government, but I can't."  When asked why not, the Congressman replied, "The Constitution forbids it."  Mr. Barton asked him where in the Constitution it was forbidden.  "You know," the Congressman replied, "the First Amendment - the ‘separation of church and state."  Mr. Barton handed him a copy of the U. S. Constitution and asked him to find the phrase ‘separation of church and state' in the First Amendment.  To his embarrassment, the Congressman could not.  Of course, he couldn't find the phrase anywhere in the Constitution.  The Congressman said, "That's funny - they always told us it was in there!"  Mr. Barton probed, "You mean you have never read the Constitution for yourself?"  The Congressman replied, "No.  They never required us to in law school."

Though the above scenario may seem like an isolated incident, sadly, it reflects the all-too-familiar ignorance of, not only the general public, but also of those who are in power in this country.  Many would look at the above scenario and say that while the words, "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution; the principle is there and is reflective of the "original intent" of the founders in penning the First Amendment.  And this brings us to the reason for this and subsequent articles in this series entitled, "Original Intent".  In this series, we will take a look at the issue of ‘separation of church and state' and what the intentions were of the founders in establishing the ‘religion clause' of the First Amendment.  What, really, were their intentions in penning the following words:

"...Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

History does not change.  The facts are what they are and cannot be reversed no matter how much some would like to do so. However, over the last forty years or so there has been a tremendous push by many to redefine for us what the Founding Fathers intended when they wrote the First Amendment to the Constitution establishing freedom of religion.  This poor amendment has been misunderstood, misread, misquoted, and misused as evidence to support the prevailing notion that the founders of this great country wanted a ‘great wall of separation between church and state' as it is commonly understood by the masses.  The truth is:  such a phrase cannot be found anywhere in the Constitution and, in fact, in no founding document.  And even if you can get people to slow down and read the amendment for themselves, they still will try to sell the notion that if the words aren't there, at least that was the ‘original intent' of the founders.  Where did the phrase come from?  Why was it written?  How did it become so powerful in its impact on the schools and government of our day?   Did the founders intend there to be the schism that many now swear must exist between government and the church?  How can we know for sure what they intended?  This is where the tenacity of history comes in. 
Our founding fathers were voluminous writers.  And though some would like us to believe that the majority of them were atheists and deists; that they would bristle at the mere thought of the Ten Commandments being displayed on government property; that they could not even fathom prayer in schools let alone the Bible being welcomed in one; and that God, far from being an "ever-present help in time of need", was indifferent at best and, at worst, non-existent.  Is this, in fact, a true representation of their heart for this country?   You will have a chance to decide. 
Luckily, the speeches, letters, and other historical writings from the founders of our country are still there, waiting to be perused by all who want a fair-minded answer to the question, "What would the founding fathers have thought about the great debate going on in courtrooms and in the press today over ‘separation of church and state.'  Would they have an opinion?  Can we know it?  

To answer these questions I intend to bring forth...history.  Real history.  Not history as only certain folks want you to remember it; not sifted history; but history as it was...through the mouths of the founders themselves.  I mentioned before that history does not change and indeed it doesn't.  No matter how much the courts or those influencing our childrens' education try to suppress the truth, if we will but turn an ear to listen, the founders will yet speak.   As they do, I would like you to keep one question firmly in the back of your mind:  "Is what these men are saying consistent with the view commonly espoused through the courts of today and through the media - that God has no place in American society other than in the church?"  Some may not like the answer to that question.  But what, in fact, is the truth? 

Fisher Ames (1758-1808), was a Congressman from Massachusetts in the First Session of the United States when the Bill of Rights were formulated.  It was Fisher Ames who, on August 20,1789, suggested the wording of the First Amendment quoted above.  So, being the one who suggested the wording of the First Amendment, wouldn't he know better than anyone what their intentions were?  Wouldn't he know what role the founders intended for the Bible to have in society and in our schools?  On September 20, 1789, in an article published in Palladium magazine, Fisher Ames stated:

 "We have a dangerous trend beginning to take place in our education.  We're starting to put more and more textbooks into our schools...We've become accustomed of late of putting little books into the hands of children containing fables and moral lessons...We are spending less time in the classroom on the Bible, which should be the principle text in our schools...The Bible states these great moral lessons better than any other manmade book." [Emphasis mine]

Sounds like the courts of today have missed something of what the founders' idea of ‘separation of church and state' was.  This is but a taste.  Needless to say, we need to take a second look at the issue and figure out where we went wrong and where the courts continue to go wrong today.  So, keep an open mind; an open heart; and let's let men long dead, yet, for a time, live again.  And let us hear what truly was their ‘original intent'