Again, that is an argument based not in logic, but if you keep stating it often enough, maybe it will come true. As I said previously, you could not be more wrong regarding what the constitution is. Both historical fact, the constitution itself, and common law (aside from some very poorly decided cases by some very partisan, activist judges) recognize the constitution as law. A law, by its definition, is a rule. An example of principles, would be the Declaration of Independance, which has no legal authority, but is persuasive authority as to the meaning of the constitution.
You do not seem to understand what you are arguing. Because of that, it is difficult to have a logical argument with you. If the constitution is merely principles, then no law should ever be overturned as unconstituional, as a law would have precedent over a set of principals.
Again, you make this argument because the actual wording of the constitution does not support liberal philosophies and positions. To get around that little roadblock, you attempt to make the constitution meaningless. Once enough people are persuaded that the constitution has no authority, but is merely "guiding principles", then any law can be passed (i.e., taking away people's property and re-distributing) without worry of being ruled "unconstitutional." That is why liberal consistently make arguments such as "its a living constitution" or its not what it says it is (i.e. law) it's just a set of "principles".
I suggest you re-read your constitution before debating about its meaning.
If you want to tell me that the Framers of the Constitution were lacking in Logic then by all means do so. YOu are free to appear foolish. It is your right.
And the rest of your palaver is just the same, vacuous and aimless arguments I typically see put up as "chaff" when you don't really have an argument.
FACT: The PRINCIPLE of neutrality with respect to religion on the part of the Government is enshrined in the Constitution. The words are simple, but they address a profound philosophy.
The original English colonies even struggled with the concept. Religious tolerance was absent in most of them; Massachussetts was notorious as a hotbed of religiously based laws. Maryland was the "Catholic colony," etc.
Eventually, all that went by the board, and after a couple of hundred years, the concept of religious tolerance finally made it into the national consciousness.
Now, we are struggling to figure out how that works with other, non-Christian faiths.
One way it's NOT going to work, though, is to adopt the intolerance of the Muslim states which so many here seem to favor.
Like President Bush I heartily reject that.