The following is a post I put on justicefornone.com in response to a statement that the forefathers were not religious men, and specifically a statement that George Washington referred to God as "it":

"Of all of the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens...Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
George Washington, except from Farewell Address

"I am sure there never was a people, who had more reason to acknowledge a divine interposition in their affairs, than those of the United States; and I should be pained to believe, that they have forgotten that agency, which was so often manifested during our revolution, or that they failed to consider the omnipotence of God, who alone is able to protect them."
George Washington (1792) The Writings of George Washington, by John C. Fitzpatrick

"We may, with a kind of pious and grateful exultation, trace the fingers of Providence through those dark and mysterious events which first induced the states to appoint a general convention......That same Providence may still continue to protect us, and prevent us from dashing the cup of national felicity just as it has been lifted to our lips, is {my} earnest prayer."
George Washington - 1788

"If, to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterwards defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair. The event is in the hands of God."
George Washington, stated to delegates in the Constitutional Covention

On April 28, 1789, George Washington added the phrase "So help me God" to the verbiage for the presidential oath of office.

"The sum of all is, if we would most truly enjoy the gifts of Heaven, let us become a virtuous people; then shall we both deserve and enjoy it. While on the other hand, if we are universally vicious and debauched in our manners, though the form of our Constitution carries the face of the most exalted freedom, we shall in reality by the most abject slaves."
Samuel Adams, Life of Samuel Adams 1:22-23, Wells

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between the church and State...I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of men, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem".(Emphasis added)

Thomas Jefferson, Jan. 1, 1802 excerpt from the Letter to the Danbury Baptists assuring them that the new government would in no way have any authority to meddle or restrict their affairs (perhaps the IRS should read this one over several times.) By the way, this is the only time this phrase (wall of separation..) was ever used until the 20th century when the (9) men in black resurrected it to use it for their own ends to restrict the 1st Amendment right of all Americans to freely practice their religion without restriction. This phrase is found no where in the Constitution.

"Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian. I rejoice that in this blessed country of free inquiry and belief, which has surrendered its creed and conscience to neither kings nor priests, and genuine doctrine of one only God is reviving, and I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die an Unitarian."..
Thomas Jefferson, to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, Monticello, June 26, 1822

"I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever a man worshiped a false god, he did. The being described in his 5.points is not the God whom you and I acknolege and adore, the Creator and benevolent governor of the world"... (Emphasis added)
Thomas Jefferson, to John Adams concerning Calvin and Cosmology, April 11, 1823

Need I go on?? I could go for another (20) pages if you’d like. Our founding fathers believed in God, and were for the most part Christians (although not necessarily Catholic - there are many different versions of Christianity).

Thomas Jefferson’s reservations were not about his belief in God, but in the historical practice of men misusing and misrepresenting God’s word for their own benefit and control. There is a huge difference between a belief in God and Jesus and "organized" religion. Thomas Jefferson had a firm belief in God (as his writings prove) and the right of people to practice their religion as they saw fit, whether or not he agreed with it. His concerns rested not in people freely practicing their religion, but in Governments using it to oppress its subjects (newsflash: having to look at a cross or the 10 Commandments in a place you might not want to see it would in no way fall under the title of "oppression" as far as our founding fathers were concerned). There is a huge difference between a town deciding to erect a display of a nativity scene in the public square and the government mandating that one has to be there and everyone has to come and kneel at it. As long as the Congress does not pass a law mandating any particular religious practice or tradition, there is NO VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. The violation comes in when Congress starts passing laws saying that people can not freely practice their religion because someone might be "offended". Please point out for me where in the Constitution it states that a person has a right to not be offended. As a matter of fact, in a truly free society, you can rest assured that on occasion, you will be.

Thomas Jefferson would have considered the banning of God from the public square a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment, as would James Madison, George Washington and John Adams - like it or not, try to twist their beliefs any way you want to, it remains the steadfast truth!!!

"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless of the government. Experience; however, soon showed us in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, became law by precedent, sapping little and little, the foundation of the Constitution, before anyone perceived that invisible worm had been busily employed in consuming substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account."
Thomas Jefferson, 1823

It certainly appears that as in just about everything else he said, Thomas Jefferson, was right on target with this statement. He was speaking about justices appointed for life, primarily Supreme Court Justices, when he made this statement. What a different country this would be if we had only listened to the guidance of our Founding Fathers. They created the greatest, freest, most prosperous country to ever exist in the world and in a matter of 75 years their posterity has managed to tear it down, piece by piece, bit by bit. How? By their sheer ignorance concerning the Constitution, their inalienable rights, what they are and why we have them, what it cost to obtain them and most importantly how to keep them - complete apathy in general about anything that doesn’t immediately and directly affect them.
If I remember correctly, approximately (80) years ago it was necessary for Congress to pass a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw alcohol in the states. It was the only way it could be done because the authority to do this clearly was not delegated to them in the Constitution. Apparently the Congress in those days had a much clearer understanding of the limits on their authority that the Constitution placed on them. (They understood that the "General Welfare Clause" was meant to be an introductory statement only and never was a delegation of any authority other than those that were clearly spelled out after it.)
How is it today that, even though there have been no written changes concerning their delegated authority, they now do not need a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw marijuana in the states? All they need now, is five Oligarchs to give the go ahead. They no longer need to get the consent of the states (you the governed) to expand their powers beyond those clearly enumerated in the Constitution. They just need the consent of the nine men in black. Us United States citizens are left completely out of the loop with absolutely no recourse (except of course for the Second Amendment). - And barely a whimper from the crowd.