Christianity saves lives, socialism has murdered many tens of millions.
False dichotomy - at best, this is a sloppy use of the term "socialism." Saying that the government has no business promoting - or hindering - any religion (with, of course the obvious exceptions that human sacrifice, for instance, is illegal regardless of your religious beliefs) is not automatically "socialism," which has a discrete meaning (specifically, an economic system where the government plans and controls the economy, but does not command it).
Stop knee-jerking, and read a Constitutional law textbook written for law students. You can buy a used one off Amazon for $50.00. You might have your assumptions blown out of the water.
No, you stop jerking. The law does not belong to your druid blackrobes. Read Levin's "Mean in Black", and get back to me.
Constitutional law textbook? No thanks. I prefer for instance Page Smith's, The Constitution, a Documentary and Narrative History, 1980. I think what the founders and their times had to say more pertinent than subsequent lawyers. But then again, I am not a snot nosed law student whose life purpose is to promote social justice.
Sloppy might be an adequate description. In any case, though, socialism is best known by examples of socialism. They fit on a continuum from more to less command control.
National socialism (nazi) might be on one end of that continuum and democratic socialism might be on the other. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were a type of socialism known as communism. It, too, has its different examples, but one could have a lively discussion regarding its placement relative to National Socialism. Would it be more or less directive?