That phrasing is not, agreed. But it's pretty well known among serious historical scholars that it was a principle held in esteem by the Framers. But let's go

That phrasing is not, agreed. But it's pretty well known among serious historical scholars that it was a principle held in esteem by the Framers. But let's go directly to the Constitution itself. To wit, the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Any reasonable person just can't believe this Amendment is truly and effectively the law of the land, as practiced, if you see all the references to the Judeo-Christian God in government documents, ceremonies, speeches and buildings. Also there are any number of religions, both actual and possible, whose free expression is prohibited by one or more other laws enforced by the government. The counter-argument is to say, well, the government honors this amendment by not explicitly forcing anyone to be Christian, and by not explicitly respecting Judaism/Christianity over others, and not explicitly and directly forbidding any given religion in particular, etc. But in effect, it clearly does these things, in effect, if not at a superficial level. A better argument you could make is to say that the principle of the separation of Church and State, taken literally, is honored by the government. And taken very literally, it is. Because the government is not a religion and does not operate any churches. But the counter-argument there of course is that the US national government is a religion (there are hymns, myths, icons, rituals, blind obediance to external authority lest you be punished, patronization, you're forced to tithe, etc.) and that the government does operate churches (buildings you visit regularly, or feel obligated too out of moral/civic duty, with anachronistic architectural styling, icon imagery, rituals, tithing, authority submission, explainers of exotic and sometimes seemingly anachronistic and overly detailed codes of morality and punishment and how they apply to your life, etc.) Just because something isn't called a church, doesn't mean it isn't, goes this kind of argument. And I think it's a pretty enlightening one. Any non-profit, that otherwise follows the rules, and is approved, can be tax-exempt. But you can't just create any arbitrary religion and have it recognized by the legal system and approved. The State has to approve your religion, else you don't get the tax exemption. And I'm not speaking as someone who personally wants to do that. The point of fact is important for understanding the relationship of the US government to religion, in actual reality. Not in theory, not in some ideal world of words. But in reality.