These galloots want to confuse the separation of the church and state with religion and state.
The Constitution spoke to the separation of the church and state. This was a reaction to the state church of England of which the king was head of, and all had to pay a tax towards it.
Wolf
The constitution spoke about the establishment of religion, and textualists interpret that as proscribing the establishment of a formal state religion. The term "separation" came about in a SCOTUS opinion handed down during my lifetime I think, quoting Jefferson or something (I think Hugo Black did it, but that is a guess). Neither separation or the textualist establishment view is current SCOTUS law. Current SCOTUS law emphasizes the word "neutrality." Government must not take sides either in fostering or thwarting religion.
That I think is about right, although as we all know, the devil is in the details. If government does not foster moral values fostered by religion, and is not careful in not suffocating the hen that lays the golden eggs as it were, we are carrying a chain and ball when it comes to attempting to move to fashion prudent public policy for the public good, and for the moral health of the fruited plain, and all who reside upon it, including inter alia, this secular humanist near atheist.
And there you have it.