“Precisely what part of ‘separation of church and state’ do you not understand, Dan?”

Its not clear from the article what Dan doesn’t understand, but it is very clear from the comment what David doesn’t understand. The courts have long held that the doctrine of separation applies to state originating religion. That is, the state cannot compel you to belong to a religion (which, by the way, was the case in England at the time the Constitution was written- the King was the head of the state church). However, the courts have not taken the position that membership in a church, or even a leadership position in a church, eliminates your First Amendment right to petition the government or to free speech or assembly.

What part of this do you not understand, David?