On church/state separation, here (http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004/11/communism-of-21st-century-cardinal.html) , I have not seen any commentary on the wisdom of the Establishment Clause (EC): that Congress shall not establish a religion nor prevent the free exercise thereof.From my point of view as a Catholic, the EC is a great compromise, if one takes the word "establish" at face value. Viz:

1) Manger scenes on the city hall lawn are not establishment, because nobody makes you come out and worship them, nor even pay for them. If they are popular and not "too sectarian", they should stay. (E.g., although I am a Catholic, I don't think a statue of the pope should be on the city hall lawn in a town with a lot of Protestants.)

2) "Christianity" is too diverse a religion to really be "established" by law. One Christian denomination could be established, but only at the expense of others and only at risk of endangering "free exercise". My interpretation is that this is what the EC prohibits.

3) It is not "establishment" to say in the U.S. Constitution that the rights of a U.S. citizen begin with his (or her) conception. This is not a religious statement--in fact I first came to this position early in my atheist years!

4) City hall is not congress. While city hall does not get to "establish religion" either, it should have the right to reflect local religious sentiment to the extent that it can be done without inflaming the passions of other _local_ religions, and to the extent that it does not advocate anything illegal (e.g., a call to establish the Caliphate in Phoenix.)

All that stuff about separation being in the Gospels or part or not part of the Puritan worldview is irrelevant. We have the beautiful, all-purpose Establishment Clause. We just need to know how to read it!