Replies

Representative Benjamin Huntington then expressed the view that the Committee's language might "be taken in such latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion. He understood the amendment to mean what had been expressed by the gentleman from Virginia; but others might find it convenient to put another construction upon it." Huntington, from Connecticut, was concerned that in the New England States, where state-established religions were the rule rather than the exception, the federal courts might not be able to entertain claims based upon an obligation under the bylaws of a religious organization to contribute to the support of a minister or the building of a place of worship. He hoped that "the amendment would be made in such a way as to secure the rights of conscience, and a free exercise of the rights of religion, but not to patronise those who professed no religion at all." - (emphasis added) - JUSTICE REHNQUIST, dissenting.

but not to patronise those who professed no religion at all

So what? That's still not exclusively Christian. You would have to accept Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Satanists, etc.

And that's from a DISSENT! That side LOST the argument. How can you use that as evidence for how the Constitution is interpreted?