You posted them, I did not.  I have not commented on them yet.

if you're interested and willing to take the time to evaluate for yourself the 'draft' versions of the first amendment as well as correspondence between the primary contributors as they worked on what eventually became the ratified consitution (as opposed to merely accepting a summary research paper from one advocacy or another--and there are plenty supporting both positions; some are very well done...others like the one you posted earlier contain glaring errors of fact), i think youll find the supreme court has historically done an impressive job overall of rendering decisions about this element of the first amendment in conformity with the founders' intentions. (it will take a lil work, but i believe i can find most of the source material online for you).

your statement (as quoted) indicates your belief the court has changed its approach to the separation of church and state when , in fact, thats not the case.   it may appear that way due to the fact that until relatively recently noone challenged religious images on display in government buildings or the inclusion of things like 'under god' in the pledge of allegience.   

please consider that last example a second.  the pledge does not date back to the founding of the country.  it was written by a baptist minister who was also a socialist (for which he would later be fired by his congregation) who used it as the centerpiece of the massachusetts school sysems' 1892 celebration of the 450th anniversary of columbus' discovery of the new world.  in the mid 1920s, the national flag conferece at the behest of both the dar and the american legion adapted his pledge--revising it slightly--for use at flag ceremonies.   it only became an 'official' patriotic oath in 1954--with the 'under god'--wording added to accomodate the knights of columbus.

 as originally written, the pledge was intended to indicate the speaker's affirmation not of god but the principles proclaimed by french revolutionaries..equality, liberty and fraternity. as approved by congress in 1954--remember this was also the mccarthy era--it became a public prayer as intended by the knights of columbus. 

i hope you can see a court decision to remove that phrase would NOT be activist revision of our founder's principles because the pledge itself was revised by a religious activist group and presented to the congress at a time when no lawmaker could have opposed it and been reelected.  it amazes me that so-called conservatives can so effectively and blindly misconstrue the facts and then claim to be defending the constitution while rallying around a recent (50 year old) public oath that actually erodes the first amendment

the reason no one is complaining is there has been no loss of the right to practice faith.  practicing it at taxpayer expense or insisting on a 'right' to display public symbols of faith in government buildings so as to imply state support or approval of a particular faith has never been a right guaranteed by the constitution. 

you surely agree that my right to extend my fist ends at the point where your right to not be punched in the face begins?    how does that differ from your right to practice your religion ends at the point where my right to have a non-religious government building or activity begins?