If you want to get extremely technical about it then he's right.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;".

It doesn't actually SAY Separation of Church and State, though it's clearly understood to be interpreted as such. I've actually heard fundies use that argument so thought I'd throw it in here. 

Which is why the "there's no separation of church and state in the Constitution" line pisses me off. It's dishonest.

I try to avoid using "separation of church and state." I just say "the establishment clause."

If anyone gives me grief about it I ask them two questions:

1. Where does the term "separation of church and state" come from?
2. I ask them if they've ever heard of the "Lemon test"

I usually get blank stares, especially with #2. Goes to show that most of these no "separation of church and state" people don't know shit.

actually..it sucks. 

That has been interpreted over and over and over by the courts and also by our founding fathers to establish a government that is free from the influence of the church.

From Wikipedia:

The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and adding his own thoughts, writes: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."^[2]

Another early user of the term was James Madison, the principal drafter of the United States Bill of Rights, who often wrote of "total separation of the church from the state" (1819 letter to Robert Walsh). "Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States," Madison wrote, and he declared, "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States" (1811 letter to Baptist Churches). This attitude is further reflected in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which was originally authored by Thomas Jefferson, but championed by Madison. The Declaration guarantees that no one may be compelled to finance any religion or denomination.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"  Together with the Free Exercise Clause, ("or prohibiting the free exercise thereof&quot, these two clauses make up what are commonly known as the religion clauses.

This has been interpreted as the prohibition of 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress and 2) the preference of one religion over another or of religion over non-religious philosophies in general. The first approach is called the "separationist" or "no aid" interpretation. In separationist interpretation, the clause, as historically understood, prohibits Congress from aiding religion in any way even if such aid is made without regard to denomination. The second approach is called the "non-preferentialist" or "accommodationist" interpretation. The accommodationist interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

Also, let's not forget the Treaty of Tripoli, which gives you insight into our founding father's implications of the First Ammendment:  (again from Wikipedia)

Article 11, reads:

"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 tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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."

I'll add this: This country was not founded on christian principles, at least not as a constitutional democracy.  The reason is simple and historically accurate.  This country was essentially founded to escape religious persecution.  The founding fathers, being deists, knew that all too well...that is why they decided that a free constitutional democracy has got to leave religion out of government in order to ensure that all religions and non religionists alike are treated equally.  It is logically impossible to have a constitutional FREE democracy when you are knee deep in a theocratic dictatorship, which is exactly why people left europe in the first place. And the thing that I don't understand is that these people don't even realize how fucking detrimental it is to religion to have it intertwined with government.  The other irony I find here is this, the xtian right is so quick to want to be aided by government, to get money to make theocratic laws..but are so quick to agree that they should not pay taxes. Why is that?  You want to be part of this government start by paying taxes.

NO WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION is God mentioned.  The fact that the words "separation of church and state" are not specifically mentioned within the constitution is a straw man argument.   It is the implied that matters here, not the words themselves.

Sorry for the long post.... this subjects irks me a bit.  

Was this the safari park near Natural Bridge/Lynchburg?  That place is a hoot.

THat's the one.  

This is a thread that religious freaks should read. They could use the education. They'd deny it, of course, but it would be in their face!

There's a woman who's on a message board I frequent, and she's an Xian fundie. When I pointed out quotes showing that our Founding Fathers even said this wasn't a Christian nation, she said that historical information is just that--history. When history serves their needs, Xians call it factual; when it doesn't, it's fiction.

Yeah, I have a few bumper stickers on my car. One says "Freedom means separation of church and state" that's what he was referring to. I forgot to mention that part.

Too bad you didn't have a chance to say something like, "Regardless of whether you agree, don't you defend my right to say it?"