The hell it doesn't. The term "seperation of church and state" emanated from a letter sent by a sitting President to a Danbury Baptist minister. The penumbral effect of that emanation is well documented. But thanks for the advice, the advice bin was a little low.
But if you're claiming that the status of any strenuous application of the establishment clause is similar to that of the never explicitly stated but supposedly implied "right to privacy" (let alone the "emanations of penumbras" thereof such as the right to abortion) then would you claim the same for the free exercise clause?
Remember it's in the very same sentence, and even shares the noun object.
Maybe, for instance, you think it's a dismissible "emanation of a penumbra" to say the government can't merely burden, but not prohibit, the free exercise of religion? It should be Constitutionally acceptable to require that anyone praying in public first apply for license to do so. Right? I mean, so long as the government regularly grants the license they aren't actually "prohibiting" the free exercise of religion! Of course this would be fine, because if we go a step beyond the specific language of "prohibiting" that would put us into the realm of penumbras!
Of course courts the have stuck down FAR less onerous burdens than licensing prayer. Surely you must think they're horribly out of control in this?