The whole idea of the wall of separation has nothing to do with our Constitution but comes from a private letter to the Danbury Baptists. They had written to Jefferson to get assurance that the government would not establish a state religion such as the Church of England, which dominated all the people of England.

http://ikester.blogtownhall.com/2008/04/05/separation_of_church_and_state_is_not_in_our_constitution.thtml

For starters it wasn’t exactly “private” as the letter was published in a Massachusetts newspaper a month after Jefferson had written it.  As for the main aspect, while technically, it is correct in that the phrase, ‘wall of separation between Church & State’ does not appear in the U.S. Constitution, it was Jefferson’s interpretation of the First Amendment. 

Such various writings of the Founding Fathers, besides the U.S. Constitution, are important because they provide an insight into how they thought about the issues.  So these writings are important in how we go about interpreting particular points of the Constitution.  If they thought this way in public (or even private) writings, this is how they were likely to think when they went about framing the Constitution.  So the Danbury Baptist Letter is useful in that regard. 

One problem with the provided link is the claim, “So, does a private letter constitute enough clout to set a standard in our Supreme Court, when there is NOTHING else to back it up?” That is simply wrong.  There are many other pieces of writing to back it up.  Some other writings by some of the Founding Fathers on this subject prove this:

“I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in...[the] superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology.”
--Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and 3rd President of the United States

“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
--Thomas Jefferson

“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”
--Thomas Jefferson

“...an amendment [to the Virginia Bill Establishing Religious Freedom] was proposed...inserting the words, ‘Jesus Christ...the holy author of our religion,’ which was rejected By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.’”
--Thomas Jefferson in his autobiography

“This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!”
--John Adams, 2nd President of the United States

“...the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.”
--Treaty of Peace and Friendship, ratified by the Senate during Adams’ presidency

“Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute threepence only of his property for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?”
--James Madison, Father of the Constitution

“Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform.”
--James Madison in his 1789 Annals of Congress

“...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
--Article VI U.S. Constitution

While I’m not a strict constructionist by any means, and I don’t think it is necessary to tie our application of constitutional principles to a literalist approach to what the language originally meant when written, I do understand that this is an important part of interpreting it and central to many understandings of constitutional law. With that said, Rocinante is absolutely correct that the concept of separation of church and state, as distinct from the phrase, is clearly present in the philosophy of the founders and can very reasonably be understood in the language of the Constitution.

While I believe most of the founding fathers meant to found a secularist government, that is really besides the point. We have to really stop discussing what the original founders intention was in every respect, stop pretending they were infallible.  What their intentions were is somewhat irrelevant, because the were fallible. They were men who lived in a certain society and overcame many obstacles, they were courageuos, wise, and crafted a brilliant document. But they were wrong on many counts, hence the need for multiple amendments. The rights of the constitution were only originally meant for white, land owning males. They had a great distrust of the common people, they were elitists, and given the state of education of the common people, they were justified to be so. But we are spending much time and energy in arguing about their original intent, it doesn’t matter, they were wrong on a number of issues. The original constitution was a great start, but that’s all. Now we need to apply todays knowledge, progress, sense of justice, etc to what is contitutional.

bonest - 10 April 2008 04:02 PM

While I believe most of the founding fathers meant to found a secularist government, that is really besides the point. We have to really stop discussing what the original founders intention was in every respect, stop pretending they were infallible.

Of course they were fallible.  They were human beings. 

bonest - 10 April 2008 04:02 PM

What their intentions were is somewhat irrelevant, because the were fallible.

So, by your own logic, since you are a human being, thus fallible, all your past, present and future intentions are also irrelevant.

bonest - 10 April 2008 04:02 PM

They were men who lived in a certain society and overcame many obstacles...Now we need to apply todays knowledge, progress, sense of justice, etc to what is contitutional.

Once again, by your own logic, we should now ignore all of Shakespeare’s works since they were not written recently.  All of Tchaikovsky and Mozart are irrelevant compared to today’s music.  Leonardo da Vinci?  Screw him and his works!  This is 2008!  We know better than every person of the past! 

Human nature is human nature, be it here in the 21st Century or in Thomas Jefferson’s time.  All humans have made mistakes.  But to toss aside some of history’s greatest works (including the U.S. Constitution) just because they weren’t created recently and/or made by human beings is beyond silly.  The principles laid out in the Constitution work today just as well as when they were first written.  Just because they weren’t fully followed then, does not mean we should abandon them now.

There’s clearly a middle ground between strict constructionism and “tossing aside” the Constitution. I for one think the idea is nonsensical that we should structure our institutions in perpetuity as the founders original did.

As a practical matter, any interpretation of the meaning is an interpretation, so to some extent we are always imposing our contemporary values on the founders words. After all, if the meaning were as obvious as everyone claims, we wouldn’t have to argue about what they meant. The 5th amendment reads quite clearly, to me, as a statement regarding the arming of a citizen militia, but others read it as ensuring an absolute private right to bear arms. So literalism in following the document is frequently a practical impossibility, and each side simply claims the “real” meaning for themselves. Sounding like theology yet?

More generally, the idea that the institutions were so perfectly designed as to need no alteration with time is patently ridiculous. One can argue against the strawman of ditching them alltogether, but that is virtually never the real argument being made, and clearly not what bonest was saying. A more realistic argument can be had over how to interpret and apply specific parts of the document. Should interpretation consider changes in technology and values, or must the document be formally amended every time one wants to decide whether a newly developed industry can or cannot be regulated by the federal government under the commerce clause? Arguing that the only way to do anything that would not have been done in the 18th century is to amend the document is just a political tactic to prevent the action, not a serious argument for how to run a society. Major changes in the institutions should certainly require formal changes in the documents establishing them, and precedent should carry weight, but things do change and that has to be accomodated in a practical, realistic way.

Thank you mckenzie, I appreciate your moderation, you did capture what I intended to say.
Rocinante, I apologize for not being clear in my post. I admire our old philosophers, artists, scientists, writers, and our constitution, and in no way believe they should be discarded or discounted. My point was much more narrow than you took it.  My point was precisiely that the “ Founding Fathers” were human, as we all are. I find we ( Americans) tend to treat the founding fathers as demi-gods, always trying to discern what they intended. My argument is this approach is counterproductive, causes us to get wrapped up in false arguments that lead us from the real subject at hand, typically allows conservatives to butress their aguments, and how to move forward. I am frustrated by the fact in most cases the conservatives are able to frame the discussions in the general public, and we follow along. But we absolutely must know and learn from history, there is nothing new under the sun, just different players.