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

"First of all, I'd like to point out that it is really entirely irrelevant as to what Jefferson thought the First Amendment meant, at least in the appeal to authority that you're trying to give, because James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights (http://www.jmu.edu......). Your unsourced story about Jefferson has no relevancy in this debate." It isn't irrelevant whatsoever since it was his inspiration, and indeed, his own words that made the First Amendment what it is. The exact verbiage in his letter is verbatim to the very amendment in question, making it entirely relevant to the debate. How would the source of the inspiration for the topic be irrelevant when the entire premise of the debate is to preserve the actual intent of the amendment, and to dispel misnomers concerning it? As to the source, let us read: "The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing. Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem." Source - Library of Congress: http://www.loc.gov... "just because the words "seperation", "state", or "church" are not explicity stated in the First Amendment, it doesn't mean that the seperation of church and state doesn't exist. You're trying to say that seperation of church and state means something more" Nonsense... I stated the exact opposite and you even quoted me doing so, which the readers will clearly see. I am saying that many other people have manipulated the 1st Amendment for the furtherance of what ever agenda they espouse. This amendment is clear cut, and I am glad that you concede that position, since that is really the only thing I asked the opposition to do. "Then you go on to talk about how secularists use it to keep the church out of government. Yeah. The government can't have a religion in it. That's what the Establishment Clause means." I said nothing of the sort. I naturally defy you to substantiate the claim that I said, or even made allusions to your assertion. "Yo also complain about these secularists not caring when the government oversteps its bounds over religion. Well, why does it matter whether they care or not? People care about what they care about, and it doesn't chagne what the Bill of Rights actually means." People generally have an aversion towards hypocrisy, right? Why then would it be so absurd to call someone out for that hypocrisy when it seems evident that a younger generation is being lied to? Let me just give you an illustration. The ACLU is suing over a case that posits that a San Diego county monument honoring fallen soldiers is "unconstitutional." Why? Because on the monument is prominently displayed a large crucifix. The fallen people honored there are almost all Christian with the exception of one or two Jewish soldiers. Somehow a cross and manger scenes are a travesty of epic proportions to the ACLU. But they forget the fact that this is not on government land, and the fact that its so ridiculously asinine. It would be just as silly for a Christian in the IDF and die in Israel with his comrades, then someone protesting that a large Star of David was used instead of a cross. Well, its a predominantly Jewish nation. America is predominantly a Christian nation. This relatively small and insignificant. On the flip side, its not so insignificant. The institution of marriage is religious in connotation and always has been until a relatively short time ago. The government decided to come in and regulate marriage, basically telling pastors, priests, rabbis, imams, and the like what they can and can't do. That is a huge affront to the 1st Amendment, as it was never intended for the government to have anything to do with marriage. This, I can only suspect, is why the Framers of the Constitution were completely silent on the issue -- because it was not their right, being, themselves government officials. ... Yet no one utters a word in protest. The Separation of Church and State has become so one-sided over the last 100 years or so, that one wonders how that even happened. "The issue here today is whether or not the First Amendment gives us the seperation of church and state. My opponent seems to think that the seperation of church and state means more than what it actually does, yet he has not actually said what it does mean. I have illustrated what it means for you" I apologize for the incredulity, but I'm astonished that you might actually believe what you are saying is even remotely accurate. Please read what I've written again and respond accordingly. I can only guess as to what is causing this confusion. I speculate that it derives from my comment that society generally sides with the State. No one seems to care when religion is being trampled, they only seem to care when religion is trampling the state. Based off of the clear lucidity of the 1st Amendment, shouldn't both the State and the Church be protected equally from one another?