And your view of the Establishment Clause not only is inconsistent with every court interpretation of it - ever - but it is also out of step with the view of the very persons who wrote it. There is not a single mention, anywhere, of the level of "organization" that is required for a government endorsement of religion to rise to the level of a violation of the Establishment Clause. Perhaps your view is like Judge Moore's - that we all get to interpret the Constitution in the way that best serves our own ends.
There is not a single mention, anywhere, of the level of "organization" that is required for a government endorsement of religion to rise to the level of a violation of the Establishment Clause.The "church" in "separation of church and state" doesn't imply organization?
You're simply inventing a straw man when you talk about "the level of organization" that's necessary. You can't establish a church that isn't organized, otherwise there's no establishment.
Speaking of being out of step with the persons who wrote the amendment, your continued insistence on equating religion with religious belief does exactly that. Madison defined religion as "the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it." In other words, mode of worship. And by logical extension, the apparatus surrounding it.