That is not my concept at all. What is my concept is that the government can not squash religion. Government consumes some 40% of the GDP. Between government property, government employees, government contracts there is government everywhere. What this extreme separation of church and state does is oppress religious expression in most public forums. People who work for the government lose their religious freedom, people who contract with the government lose their religious freedom, people who are on government property lose their religious freedom. Under the the extreme separation of church and state doctrine rules, people's expression of religion can be only done at home and at church, and even the church is under the government's thumb. What happened to the part where the government is not suppose to make laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion? That is what I want to protect and the part you seem to have little concern about.
OK Slick – Show me a well documented case of extreme separation where the government oppresses religious expression in a public forum; but if it turns out that the religious expression is actually that of the government (not if an individual) or if the religious expression is actually a case of religious advice being issued with government authority, then forget about it. Just take it over to the Synagogue of Satan and show it to the Devil because that is where those types of ideas come from.
You believe in “no law prohibiting the fee exercise of the authority of the government to issue religious advice.”