No. Really, and going back to basics, if you're just stumping on the words of it, and that his comment isn't specifically in there, then you've got something. Trying to say that there isn't anything in the first amendment that establishes a similar purpose is completely different. O'Donnell sneered at Coons when he pointed out the first few words of the real amendment, and was not clear that she was talking simply about the phrase. That's when everyone laughed, and I agree completely that it makes her look silly.

If "separation of church and state" doesn't really exist, how does it go well beyond the establishment clause? You've confused me there. Of course, given that I'm talking about years of legislation and all, I may need a link to something stating that if one is one active in a religious institution, one cannot also be active in the government. It seems to me that if the constitution trumps all, that would mean that congress cannot make a law forbidding a religious person to hold office. We have had priests in congress. But I would like to read from your angle, if you have something.