You made some interesting observations that contradicted some of my earlier comments, but you fell far short of "proving" anything at all regarding this particular assertion of yours.
I recall pointing out to you that Virginia was the model for religious freedom, as it was where Thomas Jefferson lived, and it was where he could influence the proceedings most effectively. Virginia uses the same language that Madison offered in a quote about the state having no power to enforce religious beliefs. In the following quote of the original Virginia state constitution, we should interpret the word Christian in the cultural sense; it by no means suggests that residents of the state have to be Christian:
SEC. 16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.Let's look at that paragraph carefully. The word most reviled by the Christian right is reason. If man must rely on reason, so it is said by men among the Christian right, why then we'd become like the communists and begin murdering millions. I've heard that said right here, many times, on this very forum. Yet Virginia demands that reason be the approach to dealing with issues of religious freedom.
Conviction is another word that leaves no doubt that citizens are on their own, may choose their own free will with respect to religious practices, and are not obligated to observe or practice any particular religious dogmas, doctrines, ceremonies, or other observances that fall outside the description of Christian love and forbearance. That phrase even suggests that Christians themselves use restraint and patience when dealing with nonbelievers!
One could never honestly construe the arguments that the Christian right makes about religion and government from that paragraph. It's too far fetched to suggest that, for example, a judge could pontificate that his translation of the all 10 commandments were "the foundation" of state law, or that the government had to take a particular diplomatic action in a foreign land because Christian "prophecy warned us."
Jefferson continued to badger his fellow citizens regarding religious freedom, however. He was not satisfied with the existing amendment. He knew that unscrupulous Christian zealots would try to overwhelm the state with their civic entanglements. So he proposed and James Madison won passage of Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom in 1786, which said among other things: that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible... and that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind... and ...that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public... and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy.
Jefferson is not just saying that no religious tests can be conducted for political appointments; he's not just saying that the state should not finance churches. He's also saying that the state has no power to assert religious dogma in defense of legislation. Why? Because men are falible, and their interpretations of doctrines are often false. Reason and logic are the only tools the state has for dealing with legislative issues.
The problems can all agree on regarding morals and values permeates our society. However, it's a big lie that the most learned and intelligent of our founding fathers believed that government had any role to play in sustaining or supporting religion.
Why would contemporary political leaders try to trick us into believing that? For power, and for convenience. It's difficult to fight the leftist scourge without an iron implement of religious morality, one held by the government itself. But that difficulty is one we must undertake, because to do anything more with religion in government would be to invite tyranny.