How you could gather that is beyond me. I pointed to what Madison and Jefferson said about the intent of the First Amendment. With respect to the early actions of the government inconsistent with their view (including even some of their own actions), I pointed to Madison’s own explanation. Just as the government today struggles and sometimes fails to adhere to the Constitution, the government did then as well. I agree with Madison’s approach that we should not enshrine our mistakes as precedent, but rather minimize their damage by reversing them if possible or, failing that, at least discounting them as trifles or faults.

Secularism is not atheism.

I suppose if you truly believe that it is impossible to have a secular government that remains neutral in matters of religion, then you may regard efforts to keep church and state separate as nonsense. Unconstrained by any aim for neutrality, you may see this as one big free for all competition in which every religion vies for the prize–a government to do its bidding and promote its views.

I agree that determining the intent of the drafters may be aided by looking beyond the words of the Constitution and reviewing things pertinent to what they had in mind. If the text itself does not entirely reveal its meaning, courts may look to external aids to interpretation, primarily the legislative history as revealed in the records of the proceedings on the drafting and adopting of the Constitution; if that does not suffice to resolve the matter, they may look further afield, such as to statements by individual founders that speak of the intended meaning of this or that provision of the Constitution. When interpreting the First Amendment, the Supreme Court did just that in reviewing Jefferson’s and Madison’s statements on point. A court could, I suppose, look even further afield and take note of more generalized expressions of religiosity by individual founders. But since entirely religious founders may well have intended in the Constitution to keep government separate from religion and with good reason, what then could the court make of general expressions of piety by this or that founder? Answer: not much.

In discussing this, it is important to distinguish government from society. As you note, at the time of the founding, Christianity was a dominant religious influence in society. It remains so today, though perhaps not to the same degree. Perhaps too some of the founders even expressed preferences for American society to remain that way.

Whatever their personal religious views and whatever their preferences for society’s future, in the Constitution, the founders plainly established a secular government on the power of the people (not a diety) and said nothing substantive of god(s) or religion except in the First Amendment where the point is to confirm that each person enjoys religious liberty and that the government is not to establish religion and another provision precluding any religious test for public office. Indeed, it may well be that they chose this form of government convinced that it would afford their religion(s) the best opportunity to flourish.

The legislative history of the First Amendment belies the narrow scope you would give it. The first Congress debated and rejected just such a narrow provision (actually several) and ultimately chose the more broadly phrased prohibition now found in the Amendment. As reflected in his Detached Memoranda, Madison certainly did not read the Amendment as you suggest. In keeping with the Amendment’s terms, the courts have wisely interpreted it to restrict the government from taking steps that could establish religion de facto as well as de jure. Were the Amendment interpreted merely to preclude Congress from enacting a statute formally establishing a national church, the intent of the Amendment could easily be circumvented by Congress and/or the Executive doing all sorts of things to promote this or that religion–stopping just short of formally establishing a church.

The government’s addition of the words “under God” to the pledge of allegiance in 1954 and adoption of the phrase “In God we trust” as a national motto in 1956 were mistakes, which should be corrected. Under the First Amendment, our government has no business promoting or otherwise taking steps to establish religion. The government certainly shouldn’t be proclaiming in a motto on the money it prints for us that it–or we–trust in god. That’s just not the government’s role. The unnecessary insertion of an affirmation of a god in the very pledge that our government calls on its citizens to recite in affirmation of their allegiance to our republic puts atheists and other nonbelievers in a Catch 22: Either recite the pledge with rank hypocrisy or accept exclusion from one of the basic rituals of citizenship enjoyed by all other citizens. The government has no business forcing citizens to this choice on religious grounds.

The First Amendment’s “establishment” clause constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. When an individual acts in an official capacity on a government matter (e.g., a public school teacher instructing students in the classroom), he or she should conform to the First Amendment constraints on government. When an individual participates in an official event as an individual rather than as a government agent, he or she presumably has the freedom to express religious views. While figuring out whether someone is acting in an official or private capacity in any given circumstance can be complex, recognizing the distinction is critical.

James Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (1817). Mindful that old habits die hard and that tendencies of citizens and politicians could and sometimes did entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he questioned whether these were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom.” His response: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.” What then, Madison further inquired, should be made of these various actions already taken in the nation’s then “short history” inconsistent with the Constitution? Ever practical, he answered not with a demand these actions be undone, but rather with an explanation to circumscribe their ill effect: “Rather than let this step beyond the landmarks of power have the effect of a legitimate precedent, it will be better to apply to it the legal aphorism de minimis non curat lex [i.e., the law does not concern itself with trifles]: or to class it cum maculis quas aut incuria fudit, aut humana parum cavit natura [i.e., faults proceeding either from negligence or from the imperfection of our nature].”

The First Amendment embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise and express his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote his or her views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion.

Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how the principles embodied in the First Amendment should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to transform our secular government into some form of government-religion partnership should be resisted by every patriot.