At least you're consistent at being wrong.Wrong.Nowhere can this be found in the constitution. Nowhere. It does say, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Period. Nothing more.
What's so hard to understand about that?
The article @ Myth Busted: ‘Separation of Church and State’ clearly relates how anti-religious organizations have conducted a campaign to frighten pastors from speaking on political ideals from their pulpits, often using outright lies as part of their threats.
It's about time pastors speak up.
The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.
"But that's not in the Constitution" is a failed and ignorant "argument."
Nope. If it can be shown that the "case law" is not founded on anything in the Constitution, that that case law is bad and should be overturned.
THUS, it is not a "failed and ignorant argument".
Separation of church and state can be found here in the Constitution:
“[T]he First Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of separation between Church and State.” McCollum v. Board of Education (1948)
Again, the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, Articles III and VI, and in accordance with the original intent and understanding of the Founding Generation.
“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'
You may disagree if you wish, ignore it to your heart's content, but that won't change the settled and accepted fact that the Supreme Court determines the meaning of the Constitution, a fundamental fact of law beyond dispute.
What if it was "IMproperly interpreted"?
YOu cite a ruling, but without the justification or reasoning for that ruling.
That is the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.