So... why would I bring up the clause "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" in my argument? I also left out free speech, press, peaceable assembly and petitioning the gov't because they had nothing to do with my "separation of church and state" argument.
I am sorry I don't understand you, can you clarify?
Your post was in response to Batrachian, who advocated teaching the bible in school, if the locals choose. You pointed to the first amendment, but reading it proves that "separation of church and state" are not in the amendment.
Constitutionalist Conservative proved that your interpretation of the portion you favor is erroneous in his subsequent post:
"You do know, don't you, that some of the states that ratified the Constitution had established churches at the time of ratification, and that disestablishment was not expected of them (although they all eventually did)?"
Batrachian challenged your assertion directly. Since I realize that you will find words in the first amendment that simply aren't there, I accepted your premise and challenged you with the other half of the religious freedom protection in the first amendment.
I now see your point so let me clarify. The Supreme Court ruled 1947 (er.. I think) that the 14th amendment applies the 1st amendment to the state and local governments in addition to Congress. Thus states and local governments also could not enact legislation that establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It in essense it secularized the schools among other things.
As for prohibiting the free exercise of religion, I do not see the connection.
Does this clarify it?