Christians did not want to be forced by the federal goverment to attend or not attend the church of their choice.
The Bible was quoted at the founding convention far more than any other source and was considered of infinite value for forming this nation.
Yes, we almost agree on this. Enough reasonable people at the time recognized the propensity of religious fruitcakes of various types wanting to force their beliefs on unwilling people of other congregations, that to the majority, such protection of the rights of each person to worship as they saw fit needed to be protected. Today is another such time.
Christians did not want to be forced by the federal goverment to attend or not attend the church of their choice.
Again, we are almost in agreement. The majority of reasonable people, regardless of their religious convictions, did not want religious fruitcakes of various types trying to force their beliefs on unwilling people of other congregations.
The Bible was quoted at the founding convention far more than any other source and was considered of infinite value for forming this nation.
On that, we will have to disagree, unless you can provide a specific reference to the contrary. It was common practice back then, as it was until recent years, to open public meetings with a prayer, and possibly the reading of a verse or two. But the overwhelming majority of materials discussed in the structuring of our government through the development of the Constitution came from writings about the governments of Greece, Rome, France, England, and other previous governments of Europe.
The founders and framers were not trying to create an asylum for religious fruitcakes. They were trying to design a government pretty much like is summarized in the Preamble, and detailed in the Constitution. Nothing in Biblical history provided any sort of example for such a government.
The difference between reasonable religious people and religious fruitcakes, is that the fruitcakes seem compelled to just make stuff up.