The Legitimacy of Separation of Church and State

Your Fourteenth Amendment argument is indeed a good one, and I grimaced a few times. I have my own opinions on the Fourteenth Amendment, and I plan on debating it in the future. Yes, it is true the states may not make laws that would infringe on the rights of it's people. What would a state established religion do to prohibit the rights of the people? The only point in my argument was that states are, and should be, able to establish their own religion. I don't think that if State A wants to make it's religion, say, Christianity, that it would infringe on the rights of, say, an atheist. Just because a majority of a state may be Christian, this doesn't mean that the rights of an atheist or any other kind of religion that has views that are generally anti-Christian can't enjoy all the rights as a Christian would have in said state. It only allows this said religion the right in the states' federal facilities, like schools, post offices, etc., etc., if the offices wish to engage in the practice. In an argument of employment or participation, I think private businesses have all the rights they want to have within reason. Religious or anti-religious, private businesses have the rights to deny service to anyone on any basis, once again, within reason. Examples; recently, a lesbian couple were kicked out of a bar here in town for kissing on stage while they were dancing. This bar was a privately owned facility, was not a part of a franchise, and reserved the right to refuse service to anyone. I am digressing. I only intend to use these examples to express that even if a state may have a religion, the businesses within the state can still do what they want. I am reaffirming my states' rights argument based on the Tenth Amendment. And I will agree on you the point with the Fourteenth Amendment, so long as it may be connected side-by-side with the Tenth Amendment. On your argument of religious equality. Once again, I am reaffirming my argument with the Tenth Amendment. So long as Congress does not endorse a uniform religion, it should be alright. Think of it this way. State A is a Christian state. State B is Atheistic. State C is Mormon. State D is Satanic. State F is Shinto, and so forth. If government funded all of these states, equally, then it wouldn't be a problem, since the the government is accepting all religions. I can make a personal argument of religious discrimination, as well. I don't mean to keep bringing up Christianity vs. Atheism, I just need to use it for a point. Just recently, a family--who was Christian--was forced to take down a memorial for their dead relative. This memorial was in a shape of a huge cross. It was placed in front of a federal building (with permission). Somebody--who was Atheist--called and complained that this cross violates the Establishment clause, and forced this family to take it down. The Atheist took away this family's right to place a memorial (with permission) where they wanted to take it, because he felt uncomfortable. I do understand, however, that you cannot place religious mementos in front of federal facilities, due to this Establishment clause, but this family got the permission of the facility. Just as Atheists, or other religions can say Christians, or other religions take away or impose their religion on them, Christians, or other religions can say Atheists, or other religions, take away or impose their religion. The reason I brought this up is that religious discrimination happens anyways, and it would only be peaceful if this "Separation of Church and State" was invalid, because, as I stated in my example, if different states set up all different kinds of religions, whether it'd be Atheism, Shintoism, Buddhism, Christianity, Satanism, Islam, Hinduism, and so foth, and the government funded all of these states, it shouldn't be a problem. It would show that the government is accepting of all religions. It may seem as though I am digressing, but this solution, or example, is a legitimate reason to say that the "Separation of Church and State" is illegitimate and unfair. If they enforced the Establishment clause back during the times of the writing of the Constitution or the Declaration(which should be read coupled with the Constitution), then the early amendments of the Constitution and the Declaration itself are invalid, as the Supreme Court enforced in the case of Wallace v. Jaffree (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...): " A bill becomes unconstitutional, even though the wording may be constitutionally acceptable, if the legislator had a religious activity in his mind when he authored it." It is another argument in itself, but the Founding Fathers were indeed religious ( I don't mind debating this issue.) Before I go on and on any further from the subject, I must stop now. I thank you for such a great debate, and I hope we debate sometime again in the future.