... while conveniently ignoring the other equally important part about "restricting the free excersize thereof"...
I don't think that I am ignoring anything.
There is a key difference between the 1st and the 2nd.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
It's the word
or. Congress is not allowed to make any law that respects an establishment of religion. Congress is also not allowed to make any kaw taht restricts the free exercise of religion. The clauses are clearly independent, and prohibit two different actions by Congress.
The issue that was decided by Heller was the relationship between the two phrases in the 2nd Amendment - hence the emphasis by Scalia on the "operative" clause. The two phrases in the 2nd are not in conjunction.
... We are in no danger at all of "congress passing any law respecting an establishment of religion", ...
I respectfully disagree with your 2nd assertion - I think the the "faith based initiatives" are clearly nothing
but an attempt to "respect an establishment of religion". What could be more clearly prohibited than giving tax money to religious establishments?. The founders didn't, "unless the religious establishment claims they are not promulgating religion; wink, wink."
BTW, I don't fault one party over another in this - Obama has come out in favor of this method for state support of acceptable churches. I think W likes to give tax money to white evangelicals, where Obama probably has more historical black churches in mind. I feel pretty confident that neither W or Obama have in mind funneling money to mosques or Wiccan sects.
The 1st is one that the Founding Fathers got exactly right, and dominant religious groups have been trying to weasel around it for 200 years. It was originally drafted, I believe to protect Baptists in Virginia (and maybe to a lesser extent Quakers in Pennsylvania.
... yet we see the courts strke down religious, particularly Christian, expression on an almost daily basis.
I have yet to here of
single court decision that struck down any religious expression that did not involve government venues, government employees, or government resources of some kind. The "prayer in the school" issue is completely bogus - there has never been a decision that even touched whether or not I can pray in any school at any time The only question is whether government employees (teachers, etc.) can directly compel students to pray, whether government venues (like schools, football stadiums, airports, etc) can be used to compel students to pray. Can you demonstrate one that does not involve government venues, government employees, or government resources of any kind?
At any rate, I didn't specify the second (independent) restriction on Congress with regard to religion - the "free exercise", because I don't know of that being under much attack. The first restriction is under constant attack.
The 1st Amendment includes two separate restrictions on Congress with regard to establishments of religion - the first is that you can't promulgate the second is that you can't prohibit any religion. The founding fathers knew that both were necessary. They knew the lash of both.
The 2nd Amendment is about one restriction - the right to keep an bear arms shall not be infringed.
Mike