Then we're talking about two very different things: what the law does say, vs. what it should say. My concern was with what the law does say. In order to argue that, I'd submit that our terms should be reasonably precise.
You've taken a throwaway comment and turned it into the crux of my argument, when all along I've been specifically concentrating on and commenting on the establishment clause in a dozen other posts.
Maybe I didn't make my position clear enough, but what I was saying is that the establsihment clause, if it can be applied at all, can only be applied through some language in the 14th amendment. In other words, simply quoting the establishment clause by itself isn't going to get you anywhere, since on its face it only applies to Congress. As I said at #363, in order to show that the ruling against Moore is correct, you'd have to show that he's either abridging somebody's privileges and immunities, or depriving someone of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denying the equal protection of the law. You seemed to go with the last, so that's why I based my responses around that.
Apparently it was just a misunderstanding, but now that (hopefully) you understand my position a little better, maybe we can have a more productive discussion.