“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
This phrase has become one of the most controversial in U.S. political history. From a literal perspective this limitation should only apply to congress and says nothing about state or local government let alone the state or local entities such as public schools.
However judicial activism has lead this clause to mean something more along the lines of “if any entity receives any benefit from federal state or local tax money all reference to religion of any type must be extremely limited and completely neutral.” Now one could ask “How exactly is mentioning that some people believe that we didn’t evolve over millions of year tantamount to congress passing a new law stating we must all now bow down to the cadburry bunny?” Good question very good question.
By all means, if a public school teacher is now legally considered a member of congress we should also have them paid the same amount and allow them the same perks as our “public servants”. But, of course interpreting the constitution to actually mean what it says would be over simplification and would quite possibly give to much credit to the founding fathers that they actually had even a relatively good understanding of what would work well for our country. Perhaps the president should have to swear to uphold the current judicial opinion of what the creators of the constitution were really trying to say rather then upholding the constitution itself because that is clearly not what is happening.