What is so great about "separation of church and state"?

I was once a strong supporter of the so-called separation of church and state, as codified in the establishment clause of the Constitution. No more -- the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision has turned me against this clause. If it was just a matter of a single crackpot activist judge, I could overlook this decision, but I am disturbed by the widespread praise the decision and its author, Judge John E. Jones III, have received. Judge Jones has received all kinds of honors and awards (including honorary degrees), just as a result of this single decision.

In a Dickinson College commencement speech, Judge Jones said that his Kitzmiller decision was based on his cockamamie notion that the Founders based the establishment clause upon a belief that organized religions are not "true" religions -- he said,
.

. . . . . this much is very clear. The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry. At bottom then, this core set of beliefs led the Founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things, to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state.

There is no way that the above statement can be derived from the establishment clause, which says simply, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

He also arbitrarily ruled in Kitzmiller v. Dover, "ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." This is like Adolf Hitler saying that people with Jewish ancestors cannot uncouple themselves from their Jewish ancestry. Judge Jones is the poster boy of crackpot activist judges.

I am also greatly disturbed by the widespread praise that his supporters -- e.g., Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education -- have received (Scott has already received eight honorary degrees).

The establishment clause is one of the main reasons why Darwinists -- even if they know better -- insist that all criticisms of evolution are based on religion.

If the price of the establishment clause is the suppression of scientific (or pseudoscientific) criticisms of evolution in the public schools, I feel that price is too high, regardless of what benefits the establishment clause might have, which are not many. And proponents of the clause often use biased, one-sided examples to illustrate the supposed benefits of the clause, e.g., they cite the Taliban and the religious police of Saudi Arabia, but ignore the fact that Great Britain, for example, has a state religion. Yet are the British less free than we are? Indeed, with respect to the freedom to criticize evolution in the public schools, they are more free than we are. The proponents of the clause must often go back to the Middle Ages to find examples -- e.g., the Crusades and the Inquisition -- of the disadvantages of the establishment of a state religion The atheists and agnostics have claimed Thomas Jefferson as one of their own, but the inscriptions of Jefferson quotes on the Jefferson Memorial are full of religious statements.

And the establishment clause does nothing to fight some of the greatest religious scourges of our time, Islamofascism, Islamoterrorism, and Zionist imperialism.

Of course, the chances of the establishment clause ever being repealed are virtually nil -- constitutional amendments, even trivial ones, are very rare, and the Bill of Rights, of which the establishment clause is a part, has never been amended. So, in the hope of helping to prevent future Dover decisions, the only thing I can do is to oppose all establishment clause lawsuits, regardless of their individual merits. So far as my support of the establishment clause is concerned, the supporters of the Dover deicision have killed the goose that laid the golden eggs.