[Zarekylin75]

Harm doesn't really enter the equation. For example, if a cop comes into my house without a warrant and conducts a search but finds nothing, am I harmed? Apart from the inconvenience and a little anger at being subject to a warrantless search, no (at least not physically). Does that mean my rights against warrantless searches was violated? You betcha! Same goes for being forced to listen to prayer at a public event: Apart from being inconvenienced and a little annoyed, I am not harmed. Nonetheless, I have the right to NOT have a state actor force me to stand silent and listed to prayers. (Note: I am leaving aside the issue of possible "psychic harm," but I think there is good point to be made about that.)

As for respect: What about respect for those who don't believe in gods and religions? Respect is a two-way street. If respect means tolerance for religious viewpoints, it must also mean tolerance for those who do not hold those beliefs. And that means not subjecting non-believers to religion in a public forum. And it means I shouldn't go into a church and force people to listen to my arguments against irrationality.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the separation between church and state is something the early Supreme Court made up out of whole cloth, and that there is nothing at all in the Constitution to support that separation: Does it then follow that establishing a state religion is a good thing? You can see where such a government can cause all sorts of problems (e.g., Iran). Why would we want to muck-up the country with an enforced state religion. In other words, whether the church/state separation is "in the Constitution" or not does not mean it would be a good thing to have a state-sanctioned religion.