Carolyn,
I do not know whether you forwarded this to me because you sincerely believe the message it conveys or not. If you do agree with it, then we must agree to respectfully disagree because I believe, with Thomas Jefferson, that a wall of absolute separation between church and state is the only way that America can survive as a free nation. By the way, this "list" was prepared by friends and followers of David Barton, an historical revisionist who tries to argue that America was intended to be a "Christian Nation" by the Founders. His proof of this thesis consists mainly of quotes from the Founders taken out of context, alleged statements by the Founding Fathers that are completely unverifiable, "quotes" that are documentable as fabrications and outright lies. If his case is so strong and his moral position so superior to those who oppose him then why does he have to lie to support it?
I am sure you know that the phrase ("wall of separation") Jefferson used in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was not original with him. The first documented use of the phrase in North America was in a letter by Roger Williams, Baptist Minister and founder of Providence Plantation (Rhode Island) following his expulsion from the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1635. Williams wrote:
When they [the Church] have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the Candlestick, etc., and made His Garden a wilderness as it is this day. And that therefore if He will ever please to restore His garden and Paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world, and all that be saved out of the world are to be transplanted out of the wilderness of the World.
Apparently the phrase was actually coined by Faustus Socinus, an Italian cleric during the Renaissance, who died about the year Williams was born. Socinus first advocated separation between the secular and the clerical in books published anonymously in England, and thereafter removed himself to Poland, where he might enjoy a longer life with his beliefs. England had never allowed the Inquisition to operate on its soil, but was not to abandon the belief that heretics must be executed (De haeretico comburendo) until 1678.
For the government to recognize or endorse any religion it must first determine what is the correct religion. This is something it is singularly incompetent to do. Government is controlled by the majority. At this time the majority of Americans are christians, but this does not ensure that what you or I might think of as "christianity" would become the established religion. According to the website adherents.com, the largest christian denomination in the United States is the Roman Catholic Church. The fastest-growing christian denominations are the Assemblies of God, the Churches of Christ and the Pentecostal/Charismatic group. For the period beginning in 1990 and ending in 2001, Baptist groups and the Methodist Church showed ZERO growth. History is rich with examples of what happens when the Roman Catholic Church obtains political power for itself (see, the Inquisition, see also, the Crusades, especially the Crusades within Europe) so I cannot imagine that you would support making

You might say "It Can't Happen Here," but I would respond that that was the title of one of two books written by Nobel laureate Sinclair Lewis that hold special, almost prophetic, relevance to our situation in the US in the first decade of the 21st century.
The first book is "Babbit", written in 1922. This book is a scathing broadside against the Middle American middle class after WWI. Actually, for a while, the word "Babbitt" became slang for well-intentioned, self-deluding, sin-deploring bumpkins. Here's one of the approximately eight zillion whoppers from this book: "The men leaned back on their heels, put their hands in their trouser-pockets, and proclaimed their views with the booming profundity of a prosperous male repeated a thoroughly hackneyed statement about a matter of which he knows nothing whatever."
"It Can't Happen Here", written in 1935, traces the origins of a totalitarian movement in Depression-era America, as it grows from a gathering of Babbitts to a bloody, full-blown national dictatorship. The message is basically how easy it would be to sell spooked Americans on the idea of protecting our liberties by subverting them entirely. Here's a speech from Berzelius Windrip, the self-consciously folksy and plain-spoken (ahem) demagogue at the center:
"I want to stand up on my hind legs and not just admit but frankly holler right out that we've got to change our system a lot, maybe even change the whole Constitution (but change it legally, not by violence) ... The Executive has got to have a freer hand and be able to move quick in an emergency, and not be tied down by dumb shyster-lawyer congressmen taking months to shoot off their mouths in debates ... but these new economic changes are only a means to an End, and that End is and must be, fundamentally, the same principles of Liberty, Equality, and Justice that were advocated by the Founding Fathers of this great land back in 1776!"
Earlier, the town cynic, an editor, berates a room of neighbors who insist a dictatorship can't happen here. "The hell it can't," he says. "There's no country in the world that can get more hysterical!" He then launches into a litany of ways Americans have espoused fascist ideals, one of which is, "Remember when hick legislators in certain states ... set up shop as scientific experts and made the world laugh itself sick by forbidding the teaching of evolution?"
If any of this sounds shockingly familiar, then you should pause and think to yourself, "Is America really heading in the right direction?" As a veteran, one of those who served my nation when it was not "the popular thing" for young men to do, I cannot say that it is. Any time deserters sit in the Oval Office and the California Governor's Mansion while decorated war heroes are denounced as cowards on the floor of the House of Representatives, something is not right. Any time the married enlisted personnel of the richest country on earth have to apply for food stamps to feed their children while Halliburton rakes in large no-bid contracts and record earnings, something is VERY wrong.
As both Upton Sinclair and Huey P. Long said, "If fascism ever comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
I love my country but I fear its government, I fear for its future, and the current fashion for "Gott Mitt Uns" ("God with us" in German. Inscription on the belt buckle issued to German soldiers by the Nazis during WWII) "patriotic" religion is a large part of it. If America is so weak that it needs God on its side then perhaps it's time for a new nation. If Christians' faith is so weak that they need the government to tell them they are right, then maybe they need a new religion.
The truth of the matter is that religious diversity in the United States is higher now than it ever has been in our history and that diversity is growing. If the truth be told, the only schools of religious thought that are growing more slowly than christianity are "agnosticism" and Judaism, both of which are shrinking. Truth be told there are almost as many people who self-identify as "Nonreligious/Secular" (i.e., atheists) as there are Southern Baptists, and the atheists outnumber the Methodists (about 1.5:1), Lutherans (E.L.C.A. and Missouri Synod combined) (1.7:1), Mormons (2:1) and Presbyterians (3:1). The fastest-growing religion in the US, on a percentage basis, is Deism (the non-theistic "religion" of Jefferson, George Washington and Tom Paine), and the fastest growing, in terms of number of adherents is Buddhism (many of whom deny the existence of a diety).
In short, for the government to endorse the Christian God (Jewish scholars deny that Christians worship the same G-d they do while admitting that their G-d and Allah are probably one and the same) would have the effect of creating a large and growing group of "second-class citizens" at a time when the majority religion is hardly growing at all. I cannot say whether this would be good religion but I can assure you it is bad public policy and would virtually guarantee religious warfare in the United States, the prevention of which was the Founders' intent when they added the First Amendment to the constitution.
I apologize for rambling on and on about this, but separation of church and state is one of my real "hot-button" issues. I believe that keeping religion out of government and government out of religion has benefited BOTH government and religion, but that's a different sermon that I won't inflict upon you right now.