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

"You can't point to Jefferson as the origniator of the establishment clause here. " I most certainly can! Let me know if you tire of being wrong. It was THOMAS JEFFERSON who drafted and co-authored a bill for religious freedom which he began in 1777, and was completed in 1779 by both Madison and Jefferson, 10 years before the ratification. (Note the timeline) . http://en.wikipedia.org... This later became the basis for the Bill of Rights, written by Madison, Jefferson, and three others. . http://en.wikipedia.org... The fact that you think Madison was the only one working on the Bill of Rights says it all. All of this distraction comes after YOU claimed that you didn't even want to discuss it. The point I am making now, and was making from the beginning was that the basis for the First Amendment (the topic of this discussion) came from the mind of Thomas Jefferson, which is well-attested for and which can be corroborated unequivocally by history, is the source. And who better than the source to uncover the intent. It is on topic 100% "If you insist:" The key word you should be looking at in the sentence you outline is "manipulation. " I have no qualms now, nor have I ever, with the 1st Amendment. You are, in fact, guilty of the very manipulation I speak of by attempting to mangle the meaning that I very clearly portrayed from the beginning. Once again, you even quoted me saying: "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. " You allege that I have alleged that there is some hidden meaning. I have said NOTHING of the sort. You either misspoke or you are being disingenuous. Either way, you are incorrect, a trend which you've remained steadfast to throughout the last two rounds. "Whether or not that is right or wrong is a compeltely different debate. They still ahve the right interpretation. " It is not a "completely different debate" since this is the ENTIRE PREMISE OF MY DEBATE! I have established from the beginning, as the instigator, what I wanted done. You accepted it under those very pretenses, which means that you are going to be held liable for understanding what we are talking about. You are wasting everyone's time with this meaningless distraction, most of all, your own. As to the ACLU controversy, you stated "It's on public land. Quite contrary to what you're trying to make us believe. " I've said nothing about it not being on public land, whatsoever. Again, I defy you to substantiate that I did. Let me break this down for you. A cross has been on that site since 1913, long before World War II, and much longer than when a monument in their honor was placed there. It would be like removing the thousands upon thousands of crosses at Arlington National cemetery. Are you going to desecrate the crosses at Arlington because its on federal land? Voters overwhelmingly signed petitions to keep the Mt. Soledad monument intact because it is an inimitable landmark in San Diego. I've been there a few times myself, as a matter of fact, when I used to live in San Diego. It is a beautiful monument, and it would be a real shame to tear it down because of some uppity anti-religious people. The point is that this is the tyranny subjugated by the likes of the ACLU, a group so irreverent that it boggles the mind how any one could actually believe they aren't a special interest group. "I'm pretty sure a priest can refuse to wed anyone. " No, you misunderstand me. An ordained figure has to follow procedures set forth by the government. If marriage itself started out as a religious ceremony, how is that not a gross infringement of the 1st Amendment for the State to instruct the Church? "You must prove that religious rights are being trampled on before your case even begins to hold any weight! " What have we been talking about for the last two rounds? !? !? The State's intrusion into the institution of marriage! You couldn't possibly believe that is somehow insignificant, especially when juxtaposed by something as innocuous as a war memorial with a cross that has existed there since 1913! There is no comparison. "You're claiming that these relgious rights are not being equally protected. " What I am actually claiming, as evidenced by the dialogue and the topic, is that in the minds of the average citizens there is a deep misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment. Secularism is viewed as being a neutral position, and therefore must somehow be non-threatening, where as religion cannot be seen or heard in the public sphere. This is so far from false. Religions can legally be in the public sphere. The 1st Amendment only applies to government where actual neutrality on religious matters are preeminent on the basis of not siding with any particular dogma. For instance, prayer in school. A kid is legally allowed to pray in public school. That is their inherent right afforded to them under the Constitution. Where the Establishment Clause would come in to play is if school officials were leading students in to prayer -- students that may be irreligious or may conform to a faith not espoused by the teacher. I agree that school officials should not be indoctrinating children of any religion, as this is a clear example of the 1st Amendment in action. The very fact that in the Declaration of Independence, it reads, "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," is evidence that religious belief was ever to have been suppressed. But note the careful wording chosen. The words "God," "Jesus," "Buddha," "Allah," or whatever else are missing so as to retain the respect for the people to believe in what ever seemed satisfactory to them. Let me give you another example: Military chaplains Military chaplains have been around since before, and after, the Bill of Rights formulated. All of the Founding Fathers knowingly supported such endeavors, and no where was it ever considered unconstitutional until now, by the likes of rabid anti-religious zealots. Military Chaplains have their own faiths and often lead worship to a specific service. I've met Muslim, Jewish, Mormon, Protestant, and Catholic chaplains, who, for the sake of posterity, separated themselves from their own faith in order to better serve someone's undeclared spirituality. Its not like they are out there indoctrinating people. The people come to them. Yet, there is this lobby going on trying to undermine them, and many people not understanding the 1st Amendment are buying in to this nonsense. Like I said, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of this Amendment if secularism is viewed as the ultimate neutrality and religious freedoms are being suppressed under that guise of neutrality. It is indoctrination in reverse and unabashed hypocrisy, all of which I have convincingly outlined in my arguments. Despite the best efforts of the opposition to detract from the argument with inaccuracies, I have given a plethora examples in the interest of preserving the actual historical intent and significance of the 1st Amendment. Because as it stands now, a clear bias exists. This should not be.