The United States, at it's founding, was a Christian-led state

You started to offer a rebuttal to one small aspect of one of my contentions, at least I think it was a rebuttal? Opponent’s Contentions/rebuttal? ) 1)To quote my opponent: “I would like to point out that the founding of the independent colonies under Christian rule is irrelevant to the unity of those colonies under the constitution. ” - Perhaps my opponent does not understand the resolution? My Contention is completely relevant… The Christian Colonies, which I cited for your reference, all had the same form of Government that we took on within the constitution in 1787. Christians clearly led the government during its formation and at’s its founding. - Is my opponent suggesting that with so many Christians rampant in the countryside that this was pure random chance the very government form that was adopted happened to be a Christian and even pulpit taught form of Government for nearly 200 years prior? 2) To quote my opponent: “The Establishment Clause of the first Amendment, makes it clear that the United States does not declare a state religion nor meddle with the affairs of religion. As James Madison the author of the First Amendment put it "There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion" - I applaud this statement and I even completely agree with it! However, the fact that the GOVERNMENT is restricted in the affairs of ESTABLISHING a STATE Religion, does not mean that Christians did not indeed propose this exact concept. It does not logically follow. - Most Christians were with James Madison in agreeing, as pointed out in (“Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments”), they all wanted to ensure there was no “state” religion as in England and the Catholic Nations. They wanted everyone to freely choose of their own inclination and within their own relationship with God which denomination was accurate and not be “forced” to be Catholic based on geography. This “seperation” or “disallowance” of a “State sponsored” Religion would allow for freedom for all denominations, creeds and religions. - This is great news! However, not wanting to establish government sponsored religion does not make everyone secular, again non-sequitor. 3)My opponent cites “Everson V. Board of Education” - Did my opponent even know what happened during this court case? - To quote the constitution "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” This challenge was made against the states establishing special privaleges for certain denominations. The supreme court said they could not do that. - Ignoring the fact that the Supreme court has no authority to challenge a “states” sovereignty to establish a state religion… there was no statement in this court case that supports my opponents side of the resolution, a statement like “America was secular at its founding” It is quite irrelavent to the resolution… - To be pointed, if indeed the majority of the citizens in the state of Mass wanted the “Sunday Laws” re-established to their puritan fullness, Mass has the soverign right to do so according to its own sovereign constitution. - The federal constitution bars the federal government alone from making these “establishment” laws. This court case is cited as an extreme abuse of the supreme courts power. - In fact many of the “Sunday laws” are still very much on the books in the states and they are not deemed unconstitutional. Sunday Blue laws are an example where no alcohol can be served on Sundays etc. - Additionally, a previous and earlier court case in the Federal Supreme Court came to the opposite conclusion than the 1947 justices on the exact same document by Jefferson. Here is the citation of the early court decision on the Jefferson statement - Earlier courts long understood Jefferson's intent of "seperation of church and state". In fact, when Jefferson's letter was invoked by the Supreme Court (only twice prior to the 1947 Everson case – the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today's Courts which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier Court published Jefferson's entire letter and then concluded: Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson's letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson's intent for "separation of church and state": [T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is] . . . is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State. With this even the Baptists had agreed; for while wanting to see the government prohibited from interfering with or limiting religious activities, they also had declared it a legitimate function of government "to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. " That Court, therefore, and others (for example, Commonwealth v. Nesbit and Lindenmuller v. The People), identified actions into which – if perpetrated in the name of religion – the government did have legitimate reason to intrude. Those activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, parricide, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc. Such acts, even if perpetrated in the name of religion, would be stopped by the government since, as the Court had explained, they were "subversive of good order" and were "overt acts against peace. " However, the government was never to interfere with traditional religious practices outlined in "the Books of the Law and the Gospel" – whether public prayer, the use of the Scriptures, public acknowledgements of God, etc. Summary: I ask my opponent with the last round he has available to cite a source positive to his case for the resolution and not off topic. Just citing a court case that states "seperation of church and state" which was faulty and stupid on the court part, We have seen in my case, 1) A clear track record of the same form of government already in existence for nearly 200 years within a multitude of Christian Colonies 2) We have seen the Vast majority (and I would argue all) of the signers and participants in the formation of the government called “founding fathers” were indeed Christian 3) You can see that the founders even argued that stopping the creation of a state supported religion was against Christian moral values and Christian liberty. 4) I have cited historians that indeed credit the very revolution to the pulpits themselves! 5) I have shown the states constitutions also ratified by the vast majority of Christians. I have even linked them for my opponent to review. 6) I have shown that this form of government was even taught by the pulpit from the early 1600’s and was also contained within the bible itself. 7) I have also now shown that a supreme court closer to the events drew a different conclusion than the 1947 justices and indeed the 1947 case conclusions were flawed, though this in no way support my opponents position even if the justices were indeed correct. We have not seen a positive case made by my opponent.