That long list of Supreme Court cases doesn't start until about 1960 - before then, the Supreme Court has decisions which actually came to nearly opposite conclusions of what you espouse.
In 1890, the Supreme Court stated in a ruling:
Quote:
Probably never before in the history of this country has it been seriously contended that the whole punitive power of the government for acts, recognized by the general consent of the Christian world in modern times as proper matters for prohibitory legislation, must be suspended in order that the tenets of a religious sect encouraging crime may be carried out without hindrance.
And on this point there can be no serious discussion or difference of opinion. Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States, and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho. They tend to destroy the purity of the marriage relation, to disturb the peace of families, to degrade woman, and to debase man. Few crimes are more pernicious to the best interests of society, and receive more general or more deserved punishment. To extend exemption from punishment for such crimes would be to shock the moral judgment of the community. To call their advocacy a tenet of religion is to offend the common sense of mankind.
Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 341-43 (1890)
|
1892, the famous (infamous?)
Holy Trinity v. US:
Quote:
|
"this is a Christian nation"
|
1902, again regarding polygamy:
Quote:
|
In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control. This being so, the only question which remains is, whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice? (emphasis added - by the way, 4th, there is your answer regarding the veiled driver's license photo.)
|
It wasn't until the late 20th century that the "wall" seperating church and state extended beyond being one way, protecting the state from the church, as well as the church from the state.
As for not putting it into the constitution, do you mean to suggest that Fisher Ames wrote the first amendment with the intention of keeping religion from having any influence on government and then would defy his very work by suggesting as a congressman that the Bible be taught in schools? Unless he was bipolar I fail to see how that's likely.