Your summation covers the subject very well marron, save I would take some small exception to the Court's use of "separation." There are those who will take (with malice, we must think) that word as an invitation to drive religion generally, but the Judeo-Christian Tradition particularly, entirely from the public common, when the obvious intent was to place entirely the onus on the State to make no law "respecting an establishment of religion," followed immediately by a "Free Exercise Clause," as a reinforcement of the point. Even without the First Amendment the Constitution offered no authority to regulate religious thinking, nor the regulation of thought on any subject, for that matter.
Thanks for the comeback.
BEEP!