[puroresu]

Sadly, you are all too correct on this. The Constitution today is simply whatever the Supreme Court says it is.

[jwalsh07]

I think any honest reading of history reveals that the founders not only had no problem with preferential treatment for religion but that they chose to give preference to one religion. Rehnquist dissent in Wallace , Scalias in McCreary and even Steven's dissent in Van Orden makes that pretty clear.

So from an original intent point of view it would seem that Rehnquist non preferential support of religion in general would be eminently constitutional.

Of course times have changed and since Lemon truly is a dead letter with Alito joining the court we are left with O'Connors neutrality doctrine. So the obvious question to proponents of a neutrality doctrine is this. How is neutrality achieved by ncluding the secular and rejecting anything religious? And how is neutrality achieved by making the religious dependent on the secualr?

Establishment clause jurisprudence is a mess. It needs spring cleaning.