<P> Some scholars and organizations disagree with the notion of "separation of church and state", or the way the Supreme Court has interpreted the constitutional limitation on religious establishment . Such critics generally argue that the phrase misrepresents the textual requirements of the Constitution, while noting that many aspects of church and state were intermingled at the time the Constitution was ratified . These critics argue that the prevalent degree of separation of church and state could not have been intended by the constitutional framers . Some of the intermingling between church and state include religious references in official contexts, and such other founding documents as the United States Declaration of Independence, which references the idea of a "Creator" and "Nature's God", though these references did not ultimately appear in the Constitution nor do they mention any particular religious view of a "Creator" or "Nature's God ." </P> <P> These critics of the modern separation of church and state also note the official establishment of religion in several of the states at the time of ratification, to suggest that the modern incorporation of the Establishment Clause as to state governments goes against the original constitutional intent . The issue is complex, however, as the incorporation ultimately bases on the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868, at which point the first amendment's application to the state government was recognized . Many of these constitutional debates relate to the competing interpretive theories of originalism versus modern, progressivist theories such as the doctrine of the Living Constitution . Other debates center on the principle of the law of the land in America being defined not just by the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, but also by legal precedence, making an accurate reading of the Constitution subject to the mores and values of a given era, and rendering the concept of historical revisionism irrelevant when discussing the Constitution . </P> <P> The "religious test" clause has been interpreted to cover both elected officials and appointed ones, career civil servants as well as political appointees . Religious beliefs or the lack of them have therefore not been permissible tests or qualifications with regard to federal employees since the ratification of the Constitution . Seven states, however, have language included in their Bill of Rights, Declaration of Rights, or in the body of their constitutions that require state office - holders to have particular religious beliefs, though some of these have been successfully challenged in court . These states are Texas, Massachusetts, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Tennessee . </P> <P> The required beliefs of these clauses include belief in a Supreme Being and belief in a future state of rewards and punishments . (Tennessee Constitution Article IX, Section 2 is one such example .) Some of these same states specify that the oath of office include the words "so help me God ." In some cases these beliefs (or oaths) were historically required of jurors and witnesses in court . At one time, such restrictions were allowed under the doctrine of states' rights; today they are deemed to be in violation of the federal First Amendment, as applied to the states via the 14th amendment, and hence unconstitutional and unenforceable . </P>

How did most puritans view the seperation of church and state