Replies

You're not using constitutional language in 1) above, but something that has come about by the "wall of separation" crowd. A more accurate summary of this in the light of the history of the Constitution would be: 1) Congress shall not through legislation favor a particular church or sect over others (because nothing higher than one of the signing states could have an official state church), 2) Nor can Congress through legislation prohibit the free exercise of a particular church or religious sect.

The wall of separation as Jefferson envisioned it meant that the government and its leaders were not Constitutionally bound to answer to any religious authority, clergy, church, etc.

They also included the clause in Article VI about there being absolutely no religious test to hold office.

The Bill of Rights is an enumeration of personal liberties. It doesn't refer to a particular church or sect, but to the individual. The government cannot force anyone to follow any particular religion, or prohibit free religious exercise.

Gee, nice try, but since the language itself doesn't allow that interpretation, you're out of luck; "an establishment of religion" is not referring to the activity of an individual. Here are the Amendments that are not directed specifically to an individual:

First Amendment: "an establishment of religion" (not an individual but an organization; "of the press" (again, not an individual, but a profession or an activity pursued by associations of individuals or the aggregate group of individuals who engage in activity collectively known as "the press"), "the right of the people to peaceably assemble (again, a group).

Second Amendment: talks about the people's right to bear arms, it's referring to more than just "individuals".

Ninth Amendment: refers to the people at large.

Tenth Amendment: the power of the states and people. Again, not a specific "individual right."

The wall of separation as Jefferson envisioned it meant that the government and its leaders were not Constitutionally bound to answer to any religious authority, clergy, church, etc.

You got that backwards. He saw that the government and its leaders were constitutionally bound not to give particular favor to a religious organization. Besides, this idea of a "wall of separation" is not itself Constitutional and never was.