The Unites States is not a Christain Nation

Danbury LetterI know your letter was meant to prove intent. That still does not change the fact that you expect me to provide legal evidence while you think that it is fine for you to use nonlegal evidence. You also claim that the letter influenced the FA, but the letter was written in 1802 and the FA was ratified in 1791[1,2]. I again urge voters to dismiss this point based on Pro’s expectations.Touro SynagogueThis point, again, only helps my case. Pro states. “Considering that Jews were barely tolerated…” Other religions were not tolerated. Note that I am not anti-Jewish. I am simply trying to prove a point.Jefferson’s Constitutional ExpertiseThis is a non-sequitur. The Continental Congress did not discuss the FA. The Confederation Congress did, but only after he left. Your own source says that he was a member until 1784 [3]. But the FA was not proposed until 1789[4]. Your last statement pertaining to this is a bare assertion.General Assessment BillThe quote you provide from Madison only helps my case. Madison is basically asking, “Who’s to say that we won’t start supporting specific sects [of Christianity]?” He is clearly in opposition of the bill because he does not want a specific Christian sect to be supported more than another. On Jefferson’s quote, how would he know why the opposition rejected it? He was not one that objected to it. Had I been Pro, I would have cited another quote from someone in opposition of the bill, not someone in support of it. Your 2nd and 6th source are the exact same, just to let you know. Your 9th source does not even support this argument.Everson vs Board of EducationI don’t know where you got that quote from, but it did not come from your 7th source. I don’t know where you got your information, but it did not come from your 8th source. This can be dismissed as this is an argument filled with miscitations.Inaugural AddressPro’s misunderstands the quote. It is clearly stating that there is a “benign religion” (undoubtedly within the US) that is practiced in “various forms.” The list I provided in R2, which I have copied below for the convenience of the reader, will help demonstrate a few things. Virginia: Anglican/Church of EnglandNew York: Anglican/Church of EnglandMassachusetts: Congregational ChurchMaryland: Anglican/Church of EnglandDelaware: Non-Denominational ChristianityConnecticut: Congregational ChurchNew Hampshire: Congregational ChurchRhode Island: Non-Denominational ChristianityGeorgia: Non-Denominational ChristianityNorth Carolina: Anglican/Church of EnglandSouth Carolina: Anglican/Church of EnglandPennsylvania: Non-Denominational ChristianityNew Jersey: Non-Denominational ChristianityIt most certainly looks like this religion is 1) practiced within this country, and 2) practiced variously [5,6]. Once again, I assert that the evidence points to Jefferson talking about the freedom to practice Christianity.Christian TerminologyThis is a bare assertion on Pro’s part. He provides no sources to back up his claims (whereas I did).13 ColoniesAnother bare assertion on Pro’s part.John AdamsFirst of all, “link 7” is not even a link. I can’t provide a link to a printed copy of a book that I own. Anyway, let’s take a look at what your 8th source actually says:“Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, “‘This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!’ But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell.”I don’t feel the need to explain this.Ben FranklinHow kind of you to offer me the full BOP. But alas, I cannot accept such a wonderful gift. I will give you a counter offer: Let’s keep the BOP the way that it has been.The “living a virtuous life without religion” quote has nothing to do with the establishment of America as a Christian nation. It, however, has everything to do with being virtuous without religion. In another words, a non-sequitur.SourcesI too have provided substantial authoritative academic sources. I never said that you did not. However, you did provide some insufficient sources. Such as your 12th, 14th, and 15th sources for this round. They themselves do not provide any sources on top of them being liberally biased. The point is that you should not try to call someone out on something that he could just as easily call you out on. Straw-ManNot only have I never argued that God was mentioned, but have I also never argued that the Constitution infers Him. So it is still a straw man.Treaty of Tripoli“Treaty assured that tenants of Christianity would not influence the treaty's enforcement or interpretation.” So as to: “allay the fears of the Muslim state [7].” This does not refute my case.People v. RugglesPro supports his contention with an extremely biased source (#12). Furthermore, this source barely asserts everything that it says. It provided no citations. So Pro’s source commits a bare assertion, by extension, Pro commits a bare assertion. His refutation does not hold.Runkel v. WinemillerBefore Pro can argue that transfer of interpretative power to the federal level in Everson v. Board of Education negates this case, Pro must first reconcile that Everson v. Board of Education was unprecedented, as stated by the courts in Walz v. Tax Commission, 1970 which Pro fails to do [8].Updegraph v. The CommonwealthOnce again, Pro uses an extremely biased source that does not cite it’s information i.e. another bare assertion, by extension, a bare assertion on Pro’s part.Holy Trinity v. USFor a third time this round, Pro uses an extremely biased source that does not cite it’s information i.e. another bare assertion, by extension, a bare assertion on Pro’s part.But suppose that what this source states is true.Let’s take a look at the portion that Pro used for support:“In the case of Holy Trinity the essential comments made by the Court concern the scope of an immigration law. The rule was that the Act did not prohibit foreign "toilers" of the brain from accepting employment in this country. The foreign-born professional worker, doctor, lawyer, businessman, or clergyman, would be able to use the rule in Holy Trinity and the rationale regarding the purpose of the Act to support his claim for employment in America. Consider the "absurd" result if a doctor from Russia at the turn of the century were to state that he could be hired by an American hospital because Holy Trinity stood for the proposition that "this is a Christian nation." It would not make sense for such a person to cite the dictum concerning America's religiosity as a reason for allowing him access to the American job market.”The bolded part attempts to establish that if the phrase “this is a Christian nation [9]” holds legal value, then it can only be used as justification for letting a foreigner to the US hold a job. But this is a non-sequitur. So It can be dismissed.PrecedencePro never dealt with Walz v. Tax Commission. This argument has been dropped._______________________________________________________[1] https://www.loc.gov...[2] http://www.history.com...[3] https://history.state.gov...[4] https://www.archives.gov...[5] http://undergod.procon.org...[6] Myth of Separation, by David Barton (i.e. not Tim Greenwood)[7] http://tinyurl.com...[8] https://supreme.justia.com...[9] https://supreme.justia.com...