The Separation of Church and State: A fundamental misunderstanding exists.

To clarify the entailment's of the argument, I am stating that there exists a fundamental and profound misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment. I am assigning myself the PRO role in agreeing that such a misunderstanding exists, and wish to reveal its intended meaning. The phrase, "Separation of Church and State," has become a mantra for countless peoples of the United States. It is a common misinterpretation of Establishment Clause to the 1st Amendment, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The words, ‘separation, church, or state,' are not found anywhere on ANY Founding document, yet it has been repeated many times over. If then these words do not appear on any official documentation, why do we hear so much of this oft-repeated phrase? In the 17th and 18th centuries many Europeans immigrated to the United States in order to flee from religious tyranny and religious persecution. With, perhaps, the exception of Roger Williams and William Penn, most groups did not believe religious tolerance was the explicit or implicit goal of setting up a theocratic state, compatible with their beliefs. They recognized the problems associated with theocracy, the most obvious reason: everyone wanted to be ‘Theo.' Ironically, the infamous phrase in question came from Roger Williams, not Thomas Jefferson, another common misnomer. Thomas Jefferson, however, popularized the term when he sent a personal letter to a group known as the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut. The Danbury Baptists had heard a rumor that the government was seeking to adopt an official state religion. Jefferson wrote this letter on behalf of the Baptists, easing their mind that the government had no intention of instituting a national religion. Remember, early settlers had fled England to move away from religious tyranny and persecution. The last thing they wanted was to go back to a place where they were forced to side with a particular dogma that ran counter to their personal, religious beliefs. What Jefferson actually stated was that a wall between the church and state has been erected, meaning: they were allowed to freely worship the Lord in whatever manner that seemed fitting. Jefferson's intent was to assure them that their rights to free assembly under their faith would not be interfered with by external influences, such as the government. So what is the purpose behind the 1st Amendment? The 1st Amendment seeks to ensure that anyone may practice his or her religion without hindrance from the government; such as the hindrance we have seen in Stalin's Russia. Likewise, it was established that the government would not mandate their own religion, such as we have historically seen in Constantine's, Rome. That's it! That's all that the 1st Amendment means. If you have bought into a lie or read more into it than that, I am not shy to inform you that you're wrong. Clearly, this has been taken so far out of context that it's being used as ammunition against certain religious institutions. The trend of today's zeitgeist is that the 1st Amendment has been manipulated to extend to anti-religious sentiments. The most common citing of the 1st Amendments have always been the assertion that the Church has infringed upon the State. This certainly has happened in some ways, such as the case where creation science was trying to find a way in to public schools. However, there is ample evidence of the State trampling the Church, yet we seldom hear a word in protest. Because in fact the 1st Amendment was not written for secular persons in mind, though they benefit just as much as everyone else, but rather it had in mind religious persons. Revisionist history professors try to distort this image because of their own atheistic predilections. Contemporary society is now conditioned to believe that secular interests are neutral and that religious sentiments are inherently biased. The reality is that bias exists no matter what to some degree. But why erroneously smuggle in the 1st Amendment when it is evident that it is manipulation to do so? In closing, my opponent must refute that the interpretation of the 1st Amendment is flawed, and must give compelling reasons detailing the alleged flaws. Thanks to whomever accepts the challenge. Good luck and best wishes.