Whilst this may be true from a technical standpoint it goes against the very spirit of "the enlightenment" - from which the Bill of Rights was developed - theocracies were considered to represent the kind of governance found in the dark ages. It wouldn't be logical for the founding fathers to create a federal government that was usurped by colonies that held to the very set of beliefs that the enlightenment, as represented in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights, sought to eliminate.
Here is a link that explains it better than I can: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment > we're not going to require as they do in England that everybody be an > Anglican. But, if Connecticut wanted to continue what it had at the > time the first amendment was adopted, -- to tax you to support > Puritanism, Congregationalism -- it could! It could and did! For > decades after that! > > "Why? Well, because it always had and that's what Connecticut had been > about and there was nothing in the federal constitution to prevent > that. The federal courts at first recognized this principle. In fact > in 1833 in a case called Barron v. Baltimore, Chief Justice Marshall > for a unanimous court -- and this is the only time Marshall ever handed down > a constitutional decision that was against federal authority, the only time > -- Marshall said: Everybody knows the Bill of Rights is a limitation only on > the federal government. > > "Everybody knew that till 1947. Everybody knew that. So, there is no > principle of separation of church and state in the constitution > although there is the principle of separation of church and state in > constitutional law, that is, these opinions from federal judges. >
