So from an original intent point of view it would seem that Rehnquist non preferential support of religion in general would be eminently constitutional.
Of course times have changed and since Lemon truly is a dead letter with Alito joining the court we are left with O'Connors neutrality doctrine. So the obvious question to proponents of a neutrality doctrine is this. How is neutrality achieved by ncluding the secular and rejecting anything religious? And how is neutrality achieved by making the religious dependent on the secualr?
Establishment clause jurisprudence is a mess. It needs spring cleaning.
#####And how is neutrality achieved by making the religious dependent on the secular?#####
That's true. People of faith, particularly Christians, are told that they can't legislate their opinions into law unless there's near-unanimous support for such laws. We can seek laws against theft ("Thou shalt not steal") only because nearly everyone, including atheists, agree that stealing is wrong. But we can't seek laws against abortion or sodomy without being accused of imposing our morality on others, since support for such laws is not universal.
However there is no such restriction placed on secularists or atheists. They don't have to submit their ideas for approval to Christians before they can try to legislate them (or impose them by judicial fiat, which is their frequent method). The ACLU and the New York Times would never suggest that NARAL or Planned Parenthood are imposing their morality by seeking, and often getting, legal mandates forcing taxpayers to fund abortions. No one suggests that they can't seek such laws without first getting the approval of Christians, or without having near unanimous public support.
So we have a double standard where neutrality means Christians can only seek passage of laws when secularists agree with them, but not vice-versa.
Christ said render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto the Lord that which is the Lord's. The problem today is that secularists define anything that doesn't specifically happen in a church pulpit to be Caesar's, and even the pulpit may be up for grabs as we see in Canada, Sweden, and other lands that are further down the secularist path.
Oh, and I should have added this one: Can you imagine homosexual activists consenting to rules under which they can't change the multi-millennia definition of marriage without A) getting the unanimous approval of people of faith and B) having public opinion overwhelmingly on their side?
Of course they wouldn't submit to it. They're determined to force their position on the country despite public and religious opposition, and they may be able to do it thanks to "secularist" judges practicing their mythical "neutrality".