Now, as far as the substance of your reply, you ask:
How can we make ourselves "like onto gods" and still remain neutral on religion? How can the state "give zero support to all" and still raise mankind to godhood as you propose?
Aside from the fact that "like unto gods" is obvious poetic license, I don't recall ever saying that "the state" should do anything in regards to our ascention beyond the limitations of the human form, other than to get the heck out of the way. It's probably best discussed in some other thread, but it is the drive to ban transhuman technologies (spearheaded by such people as Leon Kass and Francis Fukuyama, both prominent bioLuddites on the President's Counsil on Bioethics) to which I chiefly object.
There is nothing in that position which is inconsistent with my position on state involvement in religion; give zero support to all. You then write of the Establishment Clause:
You cannot stretch this clause far enough to justify prohibiting school prayer, prohibiting cities from displaying nativity scenes, forbidding towns from proclaiming God on their seals, or stopping school buses from driving past churches on their way to and from school.
Indeed, it is the very Establishment Clause you quoted (you tacked on the Free Exercise Clause as well, but again that's just a quibble), "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," that prohibits those very things you mention. "Establishment of religion", in this case, means religion in general. The Founding Fathers were nothing if not literate. They well knew the difference between saying "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion" and what they did indeed write.
Congress (and by extension the States and local governments) doesn't need to establish a specific religion to violate the Establishment Clause. Displaying a Nativity scene does indeed establish religion (the Christian religion). School prayer is a canard; voluntary private (and even group) prayer is already allowed; it's just prayer conducted under the authority of the school (which is an instrument of the government) that is prohibited. Referring to God on a town seal or motto does indeed establish religion (perhaps not a specific religion, but the Establishment clause doesn't say that's the hurdle; it just says "religion", not "a religion"). And so forth.
So, to your first point, there's nothing inconsistent in my position. The state should give precisely the same amount to any and all religions; none.
As you said, the authors were quite literate. They were referring specifically and exclusively to the Congress of the United States, not to the States, not to the counties, and not to the cities. And the very framers who wrote the document insisted on starting the Constitutional Congress with prayer. They blamed the near-failure of the meetings on their negligence in prayer.
And Congress did not violate the Establishment Clause when they placed "under God" in the POA, or when they authorized the phrase "In God we trust" on currency.
Any study of the early days of this nation will show a profound recognition of God, and repeated appeals to Him for guidance and protection. They well understood what the Establishment Clause means. It prohibits the Congress from creating an official religion of the United States. They had suffered persecution under the British Crown because they chose a different religion than the Crown recognized.
As for the term "emortal", I apologize. I checked Webster's before posting, and Webster's did not list the word. In addition, my spell-checker objected to the term, but it does that for a lot of words.
"like unto gods" is obvious poetic license
I didn't pick up that this was poetic license. I assumed it to be a reference to phrase from the book of Genesis.