The First Amendment to our Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…" to which in 1962, Justice Black delivered his opinion in the Engel v. Vitale case for the majority that: "….For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State." The thing is, the Constitution itself does not once use the word "wall" or "separation" in its entire document, nor does it ever use the above metaphor or imply such separation within its words. This Supreme Court decision wrongly takes away our religious rights to such an extent, that the expression of religion within governmental buildings, schools, and other public areas subject to federal jurisdiction has been eliminated, eradicated, or on the defensive.
The most important thing to take away from all this, is that the very people that met to put together, argue about, write, debate, and finally to approve our Constitution with its amendments as representatives of each of the thirteen States would have as a matter of course if they truly wanted a wall of separation between Church and State, expressed that very viewpoint in black and white in the Constitution to begin with. The fact that they did not do so, indeed, did nothing of the sort, proves that the present day interpretation of such is wrong and a prime example of judicial activism in which if the justices can interpret and make our Constitution to mean whatever that the prevailing winds wish it to be read or interpreted as, then we effectively have no Constitution.
In point of fact, when the thirteen States met at what became the Constitutional convention, America was a confederation of States with a weak central government, in which that central government had no real power over the sovereign States of the union, yet, the representatives of the respective States, recognized that in order to provide domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and provide for the common defense, this would necessitate a National government. Not too surprisingly, having fought for their freedom from the iron hand of the oppressive tyranny of Great Britain, the arguments against such an alliance were vociferous and highly charged, yet at the end of the day, the advantages of having one Federal government that would unite the States into one body politic outweighed the disadvantages.
At the time of this convention, different States had different established religions as part of their respective State Constitutions, to which none of them desired to sacrifice their established religion to the National government, to wit, the primary purpose of the First Amendment was to preclude the National government from establishing a national religion that all would have to pay tribute to. Further to that point, the First Amendment, made it clear that the National government would not interfere with the free exercise of one's religious belief. The very point and purpose of the First Amendment was not to tread upon the free exercise of religious conscience, nor to eradicate religion from the Nation; which if this was truly the case would be senseless, since our unalienable rights come via our Creator and not by our government.
Our National government should as a matter of course encourage religious faith, devotion, moral and ethical behavior, with the only caveat being that this government cannot establish one particular exclusive faith that all must pay homage to. To not do so and instead to continue on our present course of removing God from the public square will inevitably mean the destruction and denial of all our liberties.