or you know there is always the possibility that YOU are wrong and the law does NOT say that a law making body can mandate an official prayer as part of its official procedure. or that you simply are not listening to what I have been saying and are therefore arguing against a position I am not taking.
I already covered this. In general practice, laws in common law countries function by prohibiting certain things, not by conveying positive traits for what one is permitted to do. There are exceptions of course. However, the wording of the First Amendment and the subsequent Supreme Court interpretations of it [Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) applies here] support a prohibitive stance on the establishment clause.
In short, it prohibits Congress from enacting laws based upon religion. That's it. As official (or traditional) procedure is not established in law, and there is nothing to indicate there is a law on the books that mandates participation is such practices, the establishment clause does not apply. There is a much stronger argument that the freedom of expression clause is applicable, however, as those who wish to do so can participate in the tradition freely and those who do not are not required to do so.
I am reading what you are saying quite closely. What you are saying is displaying a significant lack of understanding of how common law works.
