I will do you the favor of correcting your errors of thought.<quoted text>
I don't know or care what the original intent was. Today, we don't make any public policy respecting any establishment of religion. That's how we use what was written.
The authors could certainly have been more precise, but that would have meant an amendment would have been necessary to separate all matters of public policy from religion.
Originally, the states would have necessarily have been much more independent, but today, especially in matters regarding education, to stay competitive, there must be some national standards, and consistent policies.(I'm saying this to demonstrate how things change over time)
The year is now 2012. Did you know?
There is no such thing as "any establishment of religion". It is simply a concept called "establishment of religion". It is a single concept. You are thinking of "establishment of religion" as something akin to a business establishment, where there are many.
An establishment of religion is an official government church. In the case in question, the U.S. Constitution, it is a NATIONAL or federal official church, and it has to be one denomination. They did not speak of "religion" generically, but were referring to individual denominations. That was the point of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists - assurance that Unitarians would not receive favor.
Madison actually suggested, during debate of the establishment clause, insertion of "national", as in "Congress shall make no law respecting a NATIONAL establishment of religion..."
The convention decided, since they were only writing a NATIONAL constitution, that the inclusion was unnecessary. The did not figure on idiots like you or the Supreme Court distorting it and divorcing it from original intent.
Therefore, for a local school district, or a state, to violate the injunction of the establishment clause, they would have to be affecting a national church.
This is, of course, impossible.