[rustbucket]

All I know is that the "establishment of religion" clause has been perverted over the past 40 years. It prevented Congress from creating the "Church of the United States" back in the early days, but it didn't prohibit public support of the Church of Massachusetts.

From the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution:

And the people of this Commonwealth have also a right to, and do, invest their legislature with authority to enjoin upon all the subjects an attendance upon the instructions of the public teachers [ministers of religion] aforesaid, at stated times and seasons, if there be any on whose instructions they can conscientiously and conveniently attend.

I'm just as glad that we don't have compulsory church attendance or the taxing of Baptists and Quakers to support Congregational churches, as happened in Massachusetts.

[My2Cents]

I'm glad too, but the point is that the "no establishment" clause doesn't mean what the contemporary courts say it means.