Judge Jones misused expression "separation of church and state"

The book "Monkey Girl" has the following quote of Dover defendant Bill Buckingham (page 336):

If the judge called me a liar, then he's a liar . . . .I'm still waiting for a judge or anyone to show me in the Constitution where there's a separation of church and state. We didn't lose; we were robbed.

When I saw the above quote, I didn't imagine that Judge Jones actually used that expression "separation of church and state," but in fact he did. In the conclusion section of the Dover opinion, Judge "I am not an activist" Jones said,

To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter. . .

The Supreme Court said in Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 673,
.

The Court has sometimes described the Religion Clauses as erecting a "wall" between church and state, see, e.g., Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 18 (1947). The concept of a "wall" of separation is a useful figure of speech probably deriving from views of Thomas Jefferson. The metaphor has served as a reminder that the Establishment Clause forbids an established church or anything approaching it. But the metaphor itself is not a wholly accurate description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists between church and state.

No significant segment of our society, and no institution within it, can exist in a vacuum or in total or absolute isolation from all the other parts, much less from government. "It has never been thought either possible or desirable to enforce a regime of total separation. . . ." Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 760 (1973). Nor does the Constitution require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any. See, e.g., Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 314, 315 (1952); Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 211 (1948). Anything less would require the "callous indifference" we have said was never intended by the Establishment Clause. Zorach, supra, at 314. Indeed, we have observed, such hostility would bring us into "war with our national tradition as embodied in the First Amendment's guaranty of the free exercise of religion." McCollum, supra, at 211-212.

BTW, Judge Jones above words came almost verbatim out of the Plaintiffs' Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law (page 147 of document, page 151 of pdf file):

351. In order to preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause, and Art. I, Sec. 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, it is necessary and appropriate to enter . . . .

Judge Jones is what is called an "intentionalist" -- he thinks that he follows intentions that the Founders supposedly had but which were somehow not written into the Constitution. Intentionalist judges don't think of themselves as "activists," but in fact they are.

I myself used to use the term "separation of church and state" as just a catchall term covering the establishment and free exercise clauses of the 1st Amendment, but the term has been so misused that I have stopped using it.
.