Ironically, the Congress building was called a House of Prayer, and it was totally Christian in nature and essence.

The Congregational Church was established in Massachusetts until 1834. I assume it was established in Maine until at least 1820 or 1821 when Maine, that was a part of Massachusetts, was sliced off and made into a state. I wouldn't be suprised if Connecticut had an established church after the ratification of the Constitution. I do not advocate established churches, but those who suppose that the wall of separation beteen church and state always existed are misinformed. This doctrine is a late-bloomer and really came to fruition in the latter Twentieth Century. The First Amendment did not apply to the states. Only when the United States Supreme Court, by implication, amended the Constitution by incorporating the 1st Amendment into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, do we hear of the doctrine of the wall of separation.

Yeah, like if you aren't a Mormon in Utah you fit in and flourish. HA!

I don't know anybody that said you had to be a Christian to be an American, the point is there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits state sponsered religions. Notice I did not say anything about Christian religions, just religion. There is also nothing in the Constitution that says all images or references to any kind of religion or ideology should be wiped from public view. It's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

Totally incorrect! The constitution, because it only applied to the federal government, allowed for state religions to be established- and many already had. This was perfectly exceptable and supported by most of the Framers who believed moral values inherent in Christian teachings were essential to republican government- not a threat to it but a necessary support of it. Jefferson- the guy all you liberals love to quote in defense of religious bigotry- was an avid supporter of public participation of religion. I suggest some of you should read his work before you regurgitate his obscure quotation of separation (that was lifted from Roger Williams for a contrary position) orthodoxy in the letter to the Danbury Baptist Association while dismissing his copious references to God Creator Laws of God Divine Providence from whom we are granted unalienable rights in his numerous other works. He also dismissed the Marbury ruling as an egregious exercise of judicial power. In this context it's simply foolish naivity to believe he would support the court ordered bigotry toward religion by jurists who usurp the authority of the people by striking down free exercises of religion. Even if he did believe that religion played no part in the public square- which he obviously did not- he fully believed the courts had no authority to void statutes that supported public expressions of religion.