No, tpaine, we do not agree on the meaning of the establishment clause. It isn't about what "religious establishments," such as churches and so forth, may or may not do.
'An establishment of religion' as the word was used in the 1st, meant any precept, dogma, teaching, etc, of religions in general. The USSC has so found, for good reason. Separtion of church & state is that reason.
What the plain language means (or meant to the Framers) was that the government is prohibited from establishing an official state church: The government is barred from "picking a religious sect" and making it the national religion, nor may it favor one creed, confession, or sect over any other. But even if we were to agree on the meaning you have in mind, that establishment indeed directly and unequivocally refers to churches, religious sects, religious schools, etc., the language says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
So on that basis, we would have to take this to mean -- using your interpretation of "establishment" -- that Congress is forbidden to make any law with respect to churches and religious sects, etc.
Yep, & all levels of government must also abide by the clear intent to keep church & state separate.
Parse the language for yourself, tpaine. It is so clear I don't know how it got so muddied up in the public understanding as it has in recent times. I guess we have the ACLU to thank for that. -- And religious fundamentalists, -- who refuse to accept that government cannot be used to force publishers to alter public schoolbooks to reflect their views?
tpaine, I'll take the meaning of the First Amendment from the Framers rather than the USSC any day, any time. The Court got this one wrong: Their interpretation is wildly anhistorical and demonstrates an abject insensitivity to langauge usage that prevailed at the time of the drafting of the Bill of Rights. In short, the meaning the Court gave us is a "Marxian" or "progessivist" reinterpretation of the text. Gramsci would have been proud. IMHO FWIW
I disagree with that modern interpretation of the first amemdment, afterall, the second clause is there for a purpose. There are many USSC decisions made since the '40's that a conservative would be loath to hang their hat on.