Founders belief in Separation of church and state

First of all, I apologize for mixing up PRO and CON in the prior round, this is my first debate in which CON hosted the debate. I hope it is clear from the argument and context to which sides I was referring.Counter-arguments:1) CON stated that "Unfortunately pro has taken the wrong interpretation of first amendment. If the founders would have wanted a separation then why did they not put that into the first amendment? All it is saying is that the federal government will not establish a religion that's it."CON needs to do some basic research: "The Establishment Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . . The Establishment clause is immediately followed by the free exercise clause, which states, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". These two clauses make up what are called the "religion clauses" of the First Amendment.[1] The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation." [1] Thus, I will repeat that "In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers unequivocally separate church and state. The Founding Fathers made no stipulations or exceptions for Christianity. "2) To CON's assertion that Supreme Court Justices "have a job which is to interpret the constitution," CON STILL does not understand that the debate is about what the Founding Fathers believed, not what Supreme Court Justices in 1900 thought the Founding Fathers believed.3) CON states "I also think you disproved yourself because you still admit that the founders supported religion in government even if it wasn't just Christianity." He incredulously states this with zero proof. I have no idea to what he is referring. This is a strawman argument and I move that CON get deducted conduct points for it.What I stated was "The Founding Fathers had their personal religious beliefs, but they did not allow their personal religious beliefs to become encoded into the Constitution."4) CON states that "the ideas which you are fighting for came from a court decision 50 years after the one i used so I do not think it is absurd to use the court case in my argument." This is ANOTHER STRAWMAN case. I am citing "HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. U.S (1892)". CON is citing "HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. U.S." CON either is unable to properly cite which court case he is using, or is deliberately deceiving voters.5) Again, none of the Founding Father quotes that CON states are in the US Constitution or other pertinent legal documents, and are therefore meaningless to the debate. "The Founding Fathers had their personal religious beliefs, but they did not allow their personal religious beliefs to become encoded into the Constitution."6) CON states that "I will be using the Declaration instead of the constitution because i belief that they both are founding documents." Until he is properly able to cite and quote the Declaration of Independence, I will completely ignore his arguments as invalid. I have no idea what he is quoting, except single words and scattered instances. He is not citing any coherent thoughts from whatever document he is using.7) CON states that "Jefferson recommend that the great seal of the US depict a Bible story and include the word God in the national motto." Did Jefferson succeed? Or did the First Amendment prevent him from doing so?8) CON states "My opponent was not able to come up with his own evidence against my argument. " Clearly CON does not know how to read, or has simply not read what I have argued.9) CON states that " When he asked for one citation of religion I gave him 4." Absolutely incorrect. I challenged CON "to cite anywhere in the UNAMENDED Constitution (exception to the Bill of Rights) where the Founding Fathers codified their religious beliefs into law." Instead he just quotes the Founding Fathers from their own personal correspondences. YET ANOTHER STRAWMAN.10) For some reason, CON states that "government needed to be protected from the churches." Governments own a monopoly on violence through the military and its police force. The government does not need to be protected from churches. Ask David Koresh. [2]11) Finally, to address CON's point that PRO is "saying that it is right for the government to print religious books," I refer again to the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment:"The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation." [1]"Printing a religious book when all of the religions in the country use the same book, including Jews, does not show preference or accommodation, nor does it establish a national religion. 12) CON states that in the time of the Founding Fathers, Christianity was not the only religion worshipped, that "there is one major exception and that is Deism. Deism does not believe in the bible." He neither cites what Deism is, where it was practiced, nor when it was practiced. All he cites is one single line, and expects to be proven right with his bald, naked, and undefended assertion. Regarding Deism: "Constructive elements of deist thought included: God exists, created and governs the universe. God gave humans the ability to reason." [3] Also, "Deists were stigmatized – often as atheists – by their Christian opponents. Yet some Deists claimed to be Christian, and as Leslie Stephen argued in retrospect, the Deists shared so many fundamental rational suppositions with their orthodox opponents... that it is practically impossible to distinguish between them. [3] I will combine these aspects of Deism with the logic from Pascal's Wager, that "there's more to be gained from wagering on the existence of God than from atheism, and that a rational person should live as though God exists, even though the truth of the matter cannot actually be known. Pascal formulated the wager within a Christian framework" [4] From these sources, it is clear that Deism shared so much in common with Christianity that it is very easy to determine that Deists benefited from access to the Bible.Apologies to voters if I have not addressed all of CON's points. I did so to the best of my ability, but too many of them were either one sentence strawman arguments or completely baseless, unsubstantiated, and uncited bald assertions. Personally, I found CON's behavior to be atrocious, although I will give him the benefit of the doubt that perhaps it was unintentional. I thank Brabus for hosting this debate, and I thank the voters in advance for voting PRO.STRAWMAN is "a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position."FYI to CON the best way to avoid STRAWMAN arguments is to directly quote your opponent.http://en.wikipedia.org...[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Wager