Founders belief in Separation of church and state

Rebuttal to assumptions 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. Secondly while i agree that supreme courts should not be the only thing we base what we believe on I would say that they have a job which is to interpret the constitution. I will also say that it was commonly held that we were a christian nation until the supreme court of the mid 1900's who lived at a time farther away then the cases i used. What you seem to be implying then is that the founders might have intended it a certain way but they were limited by their knowledge because everyone was christian. In a way that almost proves my point of saying they did not want a total separation of church and state. Well unfortunately i disagree with you again. Here's why the founders didnt get rid of the state religions. The first amendment became law in 1791 so the founding fathers allowed a state to be in violation of the first amendment? [1] of course not because its not against the first amendment. Also the state church was never ruled unconstitutional they just got rid of it the supreme court never said they couldn't. Well I would say again you are proving my point that the founders did not support separation. I am also going to disagree with you about all known religions used the bible. There is one major exception and that is Deism. Deism does not believe in the bible. Also Judaism was a religion back then and they only study the old testament so if they were actually trying to be religiously correct and wanting to support all religions equally they would have only published the old testament. I also think you disproved yourself because you still admit that the founders supported religion in government even if it wasn't just Christianity. You re still saying that it is right for the government to print religious books. Again i will say 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. Also it does not strengthen your case because the ruling does not say that you cannot have religion it just says you cannot go against religion. That is not saying you cannot have moral grounds based off of a religion just that you cannot attack a certain religion. Now I agree some of these quotes could be considered personal preference. However John Hancock asking people to pray is not that has to do with someone in government asking people to pray. Because I feel that there are more quotes for my point here are some. "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." John Jay (First Chief Justice) [2] "[W]hile just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support." George Washington [2] I believe these quotes will suffice as john jay himself just said that america is a christian nation. "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this" it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." (John Quincy Adams) [5] Now I would like to take you up on your challenge. I would like to change your challenge a little bit. I will be using the Declaration instead of the constitution because i belief that they both are founding documents. The declaration is the why of america and the constitution is the how. I will do better then cite one place in the founding document i will site 4. Firstly the Declaration says our rights are given to us by "natures god" so that shows the support for at least some religion. Secondly it says we are created and that our rights come from the creator. Thirdly It names God in the form of the "supreme Judge". Finally the Declaration says with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. So we can infer by this that they believed we were protected and most importantly that we should have a reliance on the divine providence. This shows their support for religion. [3] "And then there"s Thomas Jefferson. Not only did Jefferson recommend that the great seal of the US depict a Bible story and include the word God in the national motto, but as President, Jefferson negotiated treaties with the Indians in which he included direct federal funding to pay for Christian missionaries to evangelize the Indians. And these treaties were ratified by the US Senate. Furthermore, Jefferson closed Presidential documents with the appellation, "In the Year of Our Lord Christ," thus invoking Jesus Christ into official government documents." (David Barton Historian) I think what Jefferson did supports my thesis and argument throughout the entire argument and therefore he helps in proving me point that he used directly federal funding, he wanted the seal of the U.S. to have a bible story, and he wanted God in the national motto. If religion and government should be completely separate then why does the supreme court have the ten commandments in and throughout it repeatedly? [4] Also why was it fine to have the ten commandments in schools for such a long time along with the bible? [5] My argument has more than enough facts, and logic supporting it to be held as correct. My opponent was not able to come up with his own evidence against my argument. But rather he tried to take down my points which he was unable to do. When he asked for more in an area i gave him it. When he asked for one citation of religion I gave him 4. When he brought up problems with my quotes I brought in more quotes. I brought in more facts and supported my existing facts. Therefore I believe that the evidence points to the idea that the founders did not believe in a complete and full separation but rather they believed in no federal church, freedom of religion, and finally they believed that churches should be protected from the government not that government needed to be protected from the churches. Thank you for the debate it was my first on this website and I thought we had a good and lively discourse! [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://undergod.procon.org... [3] http://www.ushistory.org... [4] http://morallaw.org... [5] http://www.three-peaks.net...