You are incorrect. In fact, religious freedom was originally rooted in protecting religious minorities from State mandated religions. If you look at early Amer

You are incorrect. In fact, religious freedom was originally rooted in protecting religious minorities from State mandated religions. If you look at early American history, many made the original immigration to escape religious prosecution by their former state's religion. The Anglican Church being an example. Religious freedom/separation of church and State were both intended to synergize. You are free to pursue whatever object of worship you please, and the State may not pick and choose anyone's particular target of worship over anyone else's, or force any aspects thereof upon anyone else. Correspondingly, it also keeps political heavyweights (say the Pope) out of the picture as far as lawmaking goes without going through the proper channels (i.e. getting the populace on board enough for legislators to champion the cause). Your understanding of separation of church and State actually has a degenerate aspect to it, in that it basically makes secularism the State religion. Which infringes on religious freedom if the State is free to ignore your religious tenets. The Constitution is a byproduct of getting a large number of the most brilliant minds that could be mustered at the time all in the same room, writing up something to act as a foundation for an entire nascent nation; an undertaking that all present would be willing to be bound by it, and all understanding they'd have to head home and get buy I. From everyone else to ratify it. I'd caution against underestimating the rigor of the shaking out this language was put through in the drafting. Such a work of drafting is... astounding, to be honest, given the difficulty we all seem to have doing the same thing with just laws nowadays.