The Establishment of Religion Clause -- my narrow interpretation.

[politicallefty]

I could not disagree more. The Founders placed the Establishment Clause as the first part of the First Amendment. When interpreting the Constitution, we must first always give meaning to the text itself. "[...] [N]o law respecting an establishment of religion [...]" does not imply that actions by the government short of official establishment are constitutional. With that logic, the government could establish an official religion in all but name. I believe that would violate both the text and the intent of the Establishment Clause. It does not simply disempower the government from establishing an official religion, but also from enacting laws that have the effect of respecting any establishment of religion.

I think there are legitimate points to be made with respect to the full reach of the Establishment Clause with respect to the Free Exercise Clause. I think it is the role of the judiciary to harmonize those two principles.