Much as I understand the concept behind Separation of Church and State

I'm beginning to sympathize with the likes of Angela Hildenbrand.  Originally, it was just this type of public religious expressions that I imagined the Court wanted to discourage, because the First Amendment does make it pretty clear that government shouldn't be sponsoring this religion over that one.  Of course the First Amendment applies to federal government, but we all know how that has evolved over the centuries.  So it's enough to say that someone compelled to be in a government setting shouldn't be forced to endure the evangelizing desires of a religious advocate.  Fine.

Unfortunately, you would have to be either blind, stupid, both, or part of the agenda to miss that many are taking the SCOTUS spin on the First Amendment and using it to further their own belief systems at the expense of the right to promote others.  Whether it's some suggesting that public officials with traditional Christian beliefs shouldn't run for public office, or the likes of Barry Lynn proudly stating that a religion's relationship with public funding is directly related to its beliefs and doctrines, or simply the radical secularists attempting to exploit this constitutional interpretation in order to censor and prohibit the free exercise of religion in America, it's clear that the SCOTUS spin is now being exploited in order to violate the very essence of what the Founding Fathers wanted in the first place.

So on one hand, I can see that this case, especially with the support of the Liberty Institute, would seem to violate the heart of the First Amendment by any fair reading of it.  Yet I can also see that others who continue to exploit 'Seperation of Church and State' for their own interests are no less in violation of the heart of the First Amendment, and in some cases are in even more flagrant violation of the Founding Fathers' intentions than any evangelist could hope to be.