Protection or separation of ‘church’ and ‘state’?

In an Oct. 24 column, Leonard Pitts Jr. wrote about candidate Christine O'Donnell as being the “public face of ignorance” in regards to the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Pitts said her comments were disingenuous because though the words “separation of church and state” were not in the wording of the Amendment, the intent clearly was. I believe Mr. Pitts actually showed his own ignorance.

The Congressional Records during the drafting of the First Amendment clearly show the intent of the framers was to prohibit establishing a national denomination. There was no intent to separate religion from the government. Many states had state denominations and these continued.

He may have even discovered that the U.S. Capitol Building was used for church services from 1800 until well after the Civil War. Presidents Jefferson and Madison were among the presidents to attend those services.

The letter to the Danbury Baptist Association written by Jefferson was in response to their concern that the federal government could somehow restrict freedom of religion. Jefferson's reference to a “wall of separation” was to be protective toward religion and not to keep religion out of government.

The interpretation of this was affirmed by the Supreme Court numerous times for the next century and a half. It was not until Everson v. Board of Education in 1947 that the interpretation changed to what we have today.

Mike Wilson

Cedar Rapids