Founders belief in Separation of church and state

In the future, I ask that you annotate your citations with a footnote for ease of research and validity, like what they do on wikipedia [1] (example of format). PRO has stated what on the surface will look like a compelling case. However, upon analysis, his case rests on assumptions that are simply not valid and actually strengthen CON's argument. AssumptionsA) First and foremost, the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. .. " -- The First Amendment [4]The First Amendment was written and signed into law by the Founding Fathers as part of our Bill of Rights. In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers unequivocally separate church and state. The Founding Fathers made no stipulations or exceptions for Christianity. B) Second, the Constitution is a living document. It can be amended and interpreted. We are not debating subsequent amendments to the Constitution, nor are we debating about the interpretation of the Constitution by subsequent Supreme Courts. We are debating ONLY about the FOUNDER'S BELIEF in the separation of church and state. Supreme Court decisions are only relevant in the cases where justices on the court were themselves Founding Fathers. C) Christianity has a rich tradition in the West. Pivotal figures like Constantine and Martin Luther demonstrate how long the debate has lasted in the West regarding Christian traditions. While Europeans in the 1700s may have known of Buddhism or Hinduism, to think there was any significant debate about these religions in Europe or America is foolhardy. Therefore, Europeans and their colonial citizens in the 1700 would not have known anything BUT Christianity. Most, if not all, of the Founding Father were deeply religious. Many came from different denominations of Christianity, but they did not know of anything else BUT Christianity. Many if not most of them died with their beliefs intact. Because the Founding Fathers only knew of Christianity, it follows that their beliefs in religious freedom were limited by their knowledge. This does NOT mean that their preferences for Christianity negated their beliefs in religious freedom - they preferred Christianity because it is all they knew. PRO's case:1) States had religion codified into their way of life (state church in Massachusetts).2) Aitken Bible supports that "the founders did not want to have full separation [between Church and State]. "3) HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. U. S (1892) proclaimed that "American people are a religious people," and that ". .. the nation, the courts, in construing statutes should not impute to any legislature a purpose of action against religion. "4) Founding Father's thoughts via quotations demonstrate a preference for Christianity. Counter-arguments1) I do not contest that many states were founded by religious figures that sought to practice their religion without persecution. However, this is irrelevant. None of these religious figures were Founding Fathers. William Penn was a charismatic figure that founded Pennsylvania on Quaker beliefs, who died in 1718. [3] Massachussetts is the home of Plymouth Rock, [2] the site where the Mayflower Puritans landed in America in 1620. These Puritans also sought to practice their religion without persecution. Many of these states had established constitutions BEFORE the federal government even existed, as is the case for both Pennsylvania and Massachussetts. That PRO himself stated that Massachussetts, the home of the original Puritans, no longer had a state church as early as 1833, even though the Pilgrims landed in 1620, demonstrates several things:a) Demanding the abolition of traditions held for hundreds of years in the colonies by the new federal government would have easily been seen as the replacement of one tyrannical monarchy by an equally tyrannical republic. The Founding Fathers were not stupid enough to demand such radical change in 1787. b) It took time for the Constitution to have effect on the states. The federal mandate was still hotly contested even after the Constitution was signed. c) The federal mandate won out. The First Amendment, as written by the Founding Fathers, triumphed here. 2) I recognize the Aitken's Bible as PRO's strongest argument, however even here it is not difficult to demonstrate that the Founding Fathers believed in religious freedom. Although printing a book is not a significant expense for a government, it does show support for whatever purpose the book intended. Remember that because the Founding Fathers knew only of Christianity, they saw religious freedom only in the limited scope of various denominations of Christianity. Therefore, by printing the Aitken's Bible, they perversely reaffirmed their beliefs in religious freedom by printing a book that any and all religious denominations in America could use in their beliefs. Had Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. , been part of the belief system of any of the colonies, then the Bible would not be seen as the ONLY religious text. However, in the colonies, all denominations ascribed to the Bible. Therefore, by printing the Bible, the federal government reaffirmed its belief in religious freedom because during the time of the Founding Fathers, ALL KNOWN RELIGIONS IN AMERICA USED THE BIBLE AS THEIR SOURCE OF BELIEF. We cannot fault the Founding Fathers for displaying apathy towards what they did not know. How could the Founding Fathers print the texts of every world religion, when they did not know of any but one?3) Again, What we are debating is the FOUNDER'S BELIEF in the separation of church and state, not what subsequent Supreme Court justices thought of the issue. In this sense, I move to wholly invalidate PRO's HOLY TRINITY VS U. S. argument, as it is preposterous to think that justices living nearly 100 years after the Founding Fathers knew what they were thinking. This would be struck down as speculation in any court of law. We are not debating about what is the law of the land, what we are debating is the FOUNDER'S BELIEF in the separation of church and state. Furthermore, this entire case dealt with government action against a church, NOT A STATE CHURCH. The Founding Fathers respected religious freedom, and going about on a witch hunt for whatever church displeased them would not fit into their modus operandi. This is clear in the text quoted by PRO. Even if we recognized the arguments of this court case, it would actually STRENGTHEN the First Amendment in establishing a separation between Church and State, and wholly invalidate PRO's case.4) Each of the quotations can be rendered inadequate in proving PRO's case by using one line of reasoning. The Founding Fathers had their personal religious beliefs, but they did not allow their personal religious beliefs to become encoded into the Constitution. By doing thus, they upheld to the highest degree the purpose and sanctity of the First Amendment. I challenge PRO to cite anywhere in the UNAMENDED Constitution (exception to the Bill of Rights) where the Founding Fathers codified their religious beliefs into law. I can safely predict that PRO will fail this challenge. Instead, the Founding Fathers codified the First Amendment, and this is the defining document in establishing Separation of Church and State. Through his various citations and arguments, PRO has actually STRENGTHENED the case that the Founding Fathers believed in the full Separation of Church and State. Unless PRO has more arguments to make, I move to end this debate with the resolution negated. Vote CON. (out of room)[1] . http://www.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] . http://www.adl.org...