one answer: In 1892 in the case of Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, the Supreme Court examined thousands of documents concerning the founding of the nation, including every state constitution as well as compacts leading up to the American Revolution.After ten tears of research, the court issued a unanimous decision that included the recognition that this nation is not only historically and culturally religious, but that the very system of government and our laws are based on a Christian worldview.(not my words but I tend to agree with them)

Regarding this documentary evidence, the Court further stated:

"there is no dissonance in these declarations, There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of Private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people."

"This is a religious people...This is a Christian nation."
(Trinity Decision,1892)

Phillips, you should be happy there aren't a bunch of Hindus roaming around your country converting every Christian they find (sort of like what the Romans did a while back).
I am also quite positive the Hindu priest would be pretty upset that someone disrupted his freedom of speech. You might want to hide from comets one day when a Hindu is running for office on the Republican side.

why would I hide, when what said was true. I never said that a Hindu could not practice his religion, I said there was no place for it in our senate.

Many of us practice Yoga along with millions of Americans for health. This is a gift of Hindus. Our numerals and decimal system was developed by Hindus, thousands of years ago. Just multiply 50 with 50 in Roman and you will understand the beauty of decimal system. This digital world became possible only with 0 and 1 for which part of the credit goes to Hindus.

and I would love to to tell you about yoga and what its all about but I have come to see that the those of you I am most trying to help will just hate me for it so I wont.

And this is what these bigots do to them in return!

Phillips, you should be happy there aren't a bunch of Hindus roaming around your country converting every Christian they find (sort of like what the Romans did a while back).
I am also quite positive the Hindu priest would be pretty upset that someone disrupted his freedom of speech. You might want to hide from comets one day when a Hindu is running for office on the Republican side.

That's what the world needs, more bigots who can't think for themselves, but only regurgitate religious doctrine. Just like the jihadists.

Oh and I do not need to take part in any denial of my God thought experiment so I can make others feel or fall better, I have the freedom of speech,which is a right, still, and unlike the separation of church a state which is a lie , but is it not irony that that which is false has almost destroyed that which is true.

I am not in the least hostile to religion. I am extremely hostile to those who purport that their religion--whatever it may be--is the way this nation was designed to be run. I am hostile toward those who will try to make me follow their religious beliefs, in practice if not in faith, no matter what my conscience tells me.

You demonstrate a very narrow understanding of the history of this country as well.

'Christian missions' were the only tools available 'to bring light to the benighted', not for the benefit of any particular religion, but for the benefit of those not yet endowed with the blessings of Western civilization, Enlightenment and all. They were missions of civilization, not any particular sect. Because of the proselytizing nature of the religion(s) followed by the majority of Americans (or British, for that matter), the missions were of course Christian.

The 18th C., unlike today, was bereft of NGOs. Charitable groups were always and exclusively to be found wearing the cloak of one religious group or another. You need to wait until after the Industrial Revolution before you find individuals wealthy enough to fund civilizing missions on their own, Christian, Jewish, secular.

While you find a frontier general or two shoving his religious pieties down the throats of his political charges on the frontiers, you did not see the US Army or the US Navy carrying crosses and building Christian churches to support their mission to convert other than to bring the light of civilization to the 'pagans'. You do not find a Department of Christianity & Propagation of the Faith in any Cabinet, in any organizational chart of the US Government.

We have had wise men in our history. Don't you think it likely that there would be some success in promulgating 'the National Faith' if such had ever been perceived as needed? What attempts there were, were defeated in debate.

The 'national faith' of the US is "You follow your beliefs; I'll follow mine. Neither of us will seek to impose his belief on the other, for if we do we will only repeat the bloody history we've chosen to avoid.'

Try a thought experiment:

Let's suppose that there is a 'National Faith', but it's not yours. To make it more clear, assume that it's a religion most antipathetic to yours.

I accept that you firmly believe what you believe. But what you believe is not, in this experiment, what the majority of your fellow citizens believe (as firmly as you believe). The majority is as convinced of their righteousness as you are of yours. But you have to put aside your beliefs because the majority thinks you wrong. Would you accept that?

I think not. You seem to think other people's approach to their religions is somehow less than yours, that they're immature or haven't get gotten the message. Maybe they're just stupid or pig-headed. Maybe they just enjoy vice too much. But they do believe that God speaks to them with the same clarity, the same urgency that he speaks to you.

Because we must grant that each of our faiths (or none) is as honestly, as deeply held as you hold yours, we must have a government that is guided by no one religion. Government must be sympathetic, in equal measure and in equal sincerity, to all religions. It must not be hostile to any religion.

By having sessions of Congress opened with prayers from those of different faiths, the government demonstrates its non-hostility to all religions. That is what separation of church and state means.

Not what I said at all but something you refuse not to believe

So, when you said:

The freedom of Religion the Founding Fathers believed in and set to law was as to what denomination of Christian you are, not any thing else.

...and when you said:

And no there is no place for Hindu rituals in the U.S. Senate.

...and when you said:

All I said was what freedom of religion was meant to mean when our Founding Fathers set it down and that Hinduism was not a part of it

...and when you said:

I said formed on christian principals to be run by Christians.

...you didn't really say it? Bearing false witness isn't limited to overt statements; omissions can just as surely convey a falsehood.

Not what I said at all but something you refuse not to believe.

This offends me as a Christian, and it's the kind of rhetoric that leads to accusations of sectariansim and religious zealotry. Neither is it remotely relevant to whether the principles of our government demand tolerance for other religions. After all, Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s, and the laws of the Constitution are not those of God.

be offended, also nothing to do with what I said.

Arguments like this are exactly why church and state need to be as far apart as logically possible. You assert one thing; I assert another. Neither of us can provide adequate proof to convince the other (or others, perhaps), but one of us---and it ain't me---seeks to make laws based on his understanding of the quotation.

I am sick of explaining to you folks what you think they meant by this made up analogy of keeping the church and state as far apart as possible poop, adequate prof, history dude, after the things you sight happening and up till when what were the main school texts for this nation? this is one example. Another is Jefferson seeking for congress to fund christian missionary, but I'm sure none of this will matter much to you guys.

and as I have said believe what you will it is you choice, It seems no matter what any one says you have both won your arguments for your selves, as you say that I
have no hope to, whats next, are we done yet.

Arguments like this are exactly why church and state need to be as far apart as logically possible. You assert one thing; I assert another. Neither of us can provide adequate proof to convince the other (or others, perhaps), but one of us---and it ain't me---seeks to make laws based on his understanding of the quotation.

Put another way, why should I pay attention to a heretic? In leaving the one and only Church, you obviously value your own ability to divine God's will over that of the Holy Fathers, a chain of authority created by the Christ personally and directly.

[The above paragraph is intended to demonstrate that getting on high religious horses is no way to conduct policy. Nor does that paragraph demonstrate the slightest hint of that Christian virtue, humility. You might meditate on that virtue before going all takfiri on us.]

I said formed on christian principals...

This is undoubtedly true - many of the men I quoted were indeed devout Christians who took inspiration for the fundamental rights from their interpretation of Christ's teachings.

...to be run by Christians.

This, on the other hand, is a categorically deliberate revisionist misstatement of verifiable fact. While no doubt there were some who argued for religious tests for public office, ultimately (as the earlier Jefferson quote that I cited alludes to) the great majority rejected any attempt to establish this nation as a "Christian" one. No doubt the majority of early colonists from England were themselves Christian, but it is enshrined in the foundation of our law that there would be no religious tests for citizenship or participation in our government, and this is beyond debtate.

oh yes I have a great problem with Catholicism, why you would say you study the teachings of Christ as you say that you have and come away with that's a relationship that you are to keep to your self I will never know

This offends me as a Christian, and it's the kind of rhetoric that leads to accusations of sectariansim and religious zealotry. Neither is it remotely relevant to whether the principles of our government demand tolerance for other religions. After all, Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s, and the laws of the Constitution are not those of God.

Just a note but you are using this verse way out of context to support your argument-the verse doesn't say what you think it says.

You are definitely entitled to your opinion and some of it I don't agree with, but pulling a verse out of context is a bad move and doesn't help your argument.

Excellent religious bigotry - you know this because..let me guess.. all fundies are intolerant fanatics who want to establish a Christian theocracy? Excellent projection of your own bigotry - good job.

Jesus said,

By their fruits you shall know them.