Yes, B. Rabbit. This was a major concern of the Framers, who had the European experience of the horrific religious violence and warfare of the 16th century vividly in mind: Monarchs kept "establishing" the religious sect of their preference as the "national church," and all the folks not in the "official" church were often persecuted, exterminated, church property seized, etc. The Framers sought to make sure that could never happen in America.
On the bright side, the ensuing religiously-motivated emigration (e.g., the English Puritans, et al.) to the shores of the New World made for the birth of the American nation.
So it is not at all surprising that the first phrase of the First Amendment's religion clause forbids Congress to establish a state church. Yet the second phrase, it seems to me, does not banish God from the public square. Indeed, in the early Republic, there were many national days of public thanksgiving declared -- the thanks being given expressly understood to be thanks to God.
This is absolutely correct. I have a question for the "separation of church and state" people for which no one has yet been able to give an adequate answer: Why is it that prayer in school was not in dispute for the first ~200 years of our republic (till 1962)? PRECEDENT supports prayer in school, but gives no constitutional justification for the ruling in 1962. So much for precedent! The liberal elites now make our laws! They are re-inventing the Constitution (living breathing document!?) according to their anti-theistic and anti-Christian worldviews. John Adams had it right when he said our Constitution was written "for a moral and religious people and is inadequate for the government of any other." The Constitution is only as good as the moral character of the people who guard it. If it can be reinterpreted and reinvented according to the times and culture, then none of its truths can be considered truths that transcend time, and if none of its truths can transcend time if the culture doesn't like them, then it is relativistic. If it is relativistic, then it is absolutely worthless because it becomes subject to the whims of the cultural elite. So much for truth!
I wonder why did the U.S. Congress publish the first American bible if total separation of church and state was their intent? (It was the Aitken bible in 1780s.)