What's ridiculous are the people that think separation of church and state means a blanket ban on anything even remotely representative of religion in all public places. For example, etchings of the ten commandments in a courtroom, or saying "one nation under god" during the pledge of allegiance. When I was in middle school we had to take down the giving tree because some lib said it was offensive to people who don't celebrate Christmas (it wasn't even an evergreen tree).
The fact of the matter is that this country was founded by people seeking religious freedom, founded on religious principles, and that religion was Christianity. Trying to mask this fact is dishonest.
The United States was absolutely founded on religious freedom as a core value. And it absolutely was the intent of the founders to create strong barriers between the state promoting or establishing a state religion.
I do not think any honest reading of the personal beliefs, practices or intent of the founders of the Declaration and Constitution would deserve the designation "founded on religious principles" in any meaningful way. Religion has clearly shaped the history of United States, like every civilization in recorded history. The United States remains much more religious than Europe and other states that have a history of state sponsored religion. The religious diversity and inter-faith relationships in the United States is a strength where for others it continues to be a weakness.
I think the courts and the ACLU have in many cases attempted to maintain a bright line distinction in the establishment clause to prevent the dominance of Christianity here from creating a hostile environment. "The War on Christmas" does have some unfortunate outcomes, but I think that it prevents some of the ugly happenings of other multi-ethnic/sect states with a large majority religion from dominating the minorities.
I think there is certainly room for plenty of debate on this subject, there is probably room to move the discussion toward more tolerance of currently prohibited practices. But the issue in your story about the tree was one that comes from the litigiousness of American society, not necessarily the establishment clause. And your list of pet peeves, does gloss over the incredible dominance of Christianity and the fact that "God" is on our money. I'm not saying that is in any way offensive on its face, but it speaks to the normative dominance of the Christian faith.
Claiming victimization, as a majority no less, instead of crafting an argument about why philosophically and in practice changes in interpretation of the establishment clause would be better, is on par with O'Donnell's "contribution" to this debate.
