Arguing lack of religious content and intention in American founding documents and their authors is only slightly easier than arguing lack of religious content and intention on the Focus on the Family website. You are to be commended for taking on such an immense challenge.
I wouldn't describe my position in that way.
The founding fathers had two simple goals for this government as reflected in the bill of rights: that it respect inborn rights that they acknowledged were from the Creator, and that legal discourse be rational and logical rather than superstitious or dogmatic.
The founding fathers were more afraid of theocracy than they were of secularism. Today, they would be afraid of both. They knew that the minute religion supplanted rational debate, tyranny would come next.
Unlike the TV evangelists who focus their attention on "acknowledging God," (their representation of their God Jehovah, whom they personally believe they can describe for the rest of the nation), the founding fathers intended those beliefs to be personal. Government would be based on reason, not sectarianism or dogma.
Of course they had no intention of excluding our cultural foundations in Judeo-Christianity from public discourse, class room topics, court proceedings, pageantry, memorials, ceremonies, or the military. However, I think the goal stated or unstated by the Moores, Falwells, and the Robertsons of today is to bypass dialog and debate and enforce their dogmatic beliefs based directly on their own personal interpretations of Biblical text.
This would have the founding fathers rolling in their graves to think of the arguments we're having today. They would scoff at both the secularists and the theocrats. And they would explain to us in great detail why they had left out religion from our government intentionally.
In the case of Roy Moore's 10 commandments, he hadn't violated the first amendment until he spoke up with his official capacity of a judge and said that American constitutional law was directly founded (not just inspired) by the 10 commandments and the Bible. At that point he went much further than the prayers in the Senate, the generic likeness of the 10 commandments on the supreme court building, and the crosses we have in our military cemeteries: he declared that one religion was our founding religion and that its effect was in full force in America. Did he mean to say that? Does everyone agree that he meant to say that? I think he meant to say that. And I disagree with him. That's where I draw the line.
One need only visit Belfast to see why they were worried about sectarian violence; one need only learn the history of the Reformation to come to understand why religious authority in government is a threat to freedom.
I argue that the secular humanists are going about the destruction of our nation by using the very laws we enacted to protect religious freedom. We should find a way to attack them that doesn't undermine the freedoms our founding fathers established. I think there's a way. It is to destroy cultural relativism and political correctness one element at a time -- in the minds of the American people, with advocacy and debate like this.
PC is really the threat we face. The first amendment is anything but PC. The first amendment was intended to rein in Puritans and atheists alike. And oh does it ever.