A typical mistake made by many on the right is the incorrect perception that to prohibit the conjoining of church and State is somehow a violation of religious expression, as protected by the Free Exercise Clause.
One is allowed to express his faith any way he wishes, in any venue he wishes, public or private. That has always been the case.
There are also circumstances where church and State may co-exist, provided the religious expression has a secular purpose, such as chaplains in the military, a homily before a session of Congress, or ‘in god we trust’ on currency. The religious expression must also not act to promote religion and there may not be an ‘excessive entanglement’ between representatives of the state and the religious expression. And with regard to the Free Exercise Clause, government may not preempt religious expression without a compelling reason supported by evidence, such as those claiming sex with children as part of religious doctrine. See:
Lemon v. Kurtzman
The state may not require, by policy or statute, religious expression designed to promote religion, such as prayer in public schools, where there is clearly no secular purpose and it manifests excessive entanglement of school employees, where teachers are leading prayer.
For more than 5 decades the courts have established a framework of Constitutional case law that can accommodate virtually every circumstance of potential church/State conflict, allowing law and policy makers more than adequate guidance to avoid potential violations.
Clearly Santorum and those of his ilk wish to destroy this framework of Constitutional case law in favor greater religious authority exercised by the State. This violates the rule of law, as Constitutional rights are not determined by majority rule.
What people are twisting the phrase 'seperation of church and state' to mean is 180 degrees opposite to what the First Amendment actually affirms; complete religious freedom for law abiding citizens. It barred the establishment of an official church like England had at that time and many American states had also.
In your opinion, but not as a fact of law.
The seconf amendment was specifically about gun rights, whatever name you choose to refer to it by.
As with the First Amendment, the Second Amendment is interpreted by the Supreme Court, its rulings become part of Constitutional case law, where the Constitution exists only in the context of that case law.