The “wall of separation” which you invoke, almost like an incantation, is one of dispute to this day. Some, strict separationists, use it to exclude any notion of “expression of religion” in the public square, public places and some governmental sites. This is inconsistent with the early years of our nation, and very problematic in its supposition when reviewing Jefferson’s political behavior as a state governor and then U.S. President. The meaning of the phrase “separation of church and state” is still in flux in both educational and political realms. This is a well written expose by Daniel L. Dreisbach, of the Heritage Foundation is noteworthy. Heritage is more conservative (but non-partisan), and there are other notable “think tanks” such as Brookings (center left) or Cato (more independent) that have similar contributions.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/06/the-mythical-wall-of-separation-how-a-misused-metaphor-changed-church-state-law-policy-and-discourse

The U.S. Supreme court is not infallible, and has been completely wrong on occasions (http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/dred-scott-decision). It is good that the general population later on (through the prescribed Constitutional amendment process and not judicial caveat), and the Court itself as well, reversed this calamitous decision. Many believe that Justice Hugo Black and his colleagues were also wrong on their interpretation of the “wall of separation”. I am of that opinion myself.

Any cursory review, of both writings of public officials (which are voluminous), public official behaviors, the establishment of such national universities such as Yale, Harvard, Princeton and public buildings and architecture for the first 150 years of our national existence cast a doubt upon the current, more contemporary, interpretation of the “separation clause”.

So, to your statement, “the Separation of Church and State bro” is one of those statements used, and disputed by many laymen, scholars, and jurists today, as an overarching censorship of any religious speech and displays as “gospel” (no pun intended) and beyond dispute. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is like using George Washington’s statement that - “Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries, as a statement that there was no Judeao-Christian influence on our laws and the founding of our Nation. That belief is a belief built upon a farce. What George Washington meant, in the framework of history is that there was no established national “Christian religion” (as in the Church of England and the Monarchical dictates which predicated part of the American Revolution), and that the Federal Government of the United States was not based on one specter of religion. He did NOT mean that there was no Judea-Christian influence in the founding of our nation (again voluminous writings from that time), nor did he mean that people of faith should be shut out of the public square, nor their voices silenced in the public sector. His own behaviors as a person and President belie that supposition.

As to the comment “keep it away from kids” is so lamentable, biased, dogmatic and bombastic, I won’t even go there in response on this post. Needless to say that comment flies in the face of the history of humanity and common respect.