Nice try but its wrong.
Its not the first ammendment because its important: its first because 2 others were not approved.[ http://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm ]
Also: there has never been any problem until very recently with religious expression in this country. Now anything with the whiff of religion becomes a cause celebre’ for people bent on denying it. Your reading of the clause, while in line with the wrong-headed court rulings is simply twisting the pretzel into contortions it should not have.
If the prior proposed amendments were not approved by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, they did not, in fact, become amendments.
This is clearly an Establishment Clause issue. Do some research on the cases. I’ll admit it’s at times a murky area - but it is the one area of constitutional conflict, so far, where the SCOTUS has consistently granted standing to the general taxpayer to challenge federal government spending. So it’s recognized as an important fundamental right (the right not to have the federal government establishing, or favoring, or subsidizing a particular religion.) Most of the commentary appearing before my post was premised on this as a suppression of religious expression - which is an incorrect framing of this issue.