Religion and Government just aren't two great tastes that taste great together.

I think that quote from McConnell does something I've noticed more and more recently -- it conflates government with the public square: "It is time that the equal rights of religious citizens to speak and participate in public life be clearly recognized and protected in the law." Nobody has been trying to prevent religious worship in public. Just keep the government out of it.

Keeping government and religion separate is not the same as prohibiting religious citizens from participating in public life. However, I would argue very strongly that our Constitution guarantees me a secular government. That government may well be made up of religious individuals whose actions are guided by their sense of morality, and that's excellent. All I'm asking is that you wait until you step outside of city hall before you put up your monuments or say your group prayer.

I can't help but observe that a secular government would be a far lesser menace to religion if the government itself were smaller.

But I think you are doing a disservice to the idea of school vouchers by suggesting that they are a form of government funding for religion. They are a form of government funding for education, and individuals have the right to choose among many different educational alternatives. It only stands to reason that as vouchers become more widespread, other choices in private education will also emerge, not all of which will be religious. (Currently, religious schools are operated largely as charities, but a more extensive voucher system would make for-profit educational ventures possible as well, as one example.)

Jason,
Zelman, now considered a landmark case, specifically addressed the issue of whether vouchers for religious schools violated the Est.Cl. The decision has also been used to justify, as a legal matter, funding for churches that have soup kitchens or prison ministry etc. I do not intend to say that vouchers are a religious issue; simply pointing out that Zelman was/is viewed as a favorable decision by many religious folks, including conservative Christians--particularly evangelicals. Considering that it allowed them to enter into the marketplace on these issues, as religious institutions, I’m not sure how it is a disservice to acknowledge the cases’ favorability.