Us tax bloods are big on intent. The men who signed the Establishment Clause were fleeing state-church persecution when they founded the new government, and opened the first session of the Supreme Court with three hours of prayer in Jesus' name. Several of them funded or even personally led evangelistic outreaches with state monies while holding office. Jurisprudence continued along these lines (if dotted with exceptions, rogue rulings if you will) for generations. The concept of spirituality as an undefined "higher power" subject to individual primacy- and, by extension, protected from outside influence- is more recent than most ploungers' parents. It is indeed the modern will of the people, but I think it's dishonest to call it a constitutional matter.

Really, I wouldn't mind if they just struck the Constitution. Practically speaking it is a novelty of limited application and weight that causes more problems than it solves. An eerily convenient tide of publicity has recently portrayed historic leadership sometimes sidestepping the Constitution where it may have been somewhat warranted (albeit to nowhere near the degree the current President has, and of course never with a genuine commitment to their legacy. Were the United States to survive many decades longer, it ought to look back with shame and disgrace on a major-release movie showing Lincoln finding inspiration for justice in Euclid rather than the Bible. If you've never read his Second Inaugural Address, it would be a stellar use of five minutes.)

I think I posted a link here before about the problems of a nigh-antedeluvian Constitution in a modern state (especially a powerful and progressive one.) I like the one we have, but hanging onto it merely in gesture isn't really doing anyone any good in the present state of practice. (Alabama has a particularly crappy constitution, with many un-enforceable segregationist clauses still in force and even some numbering errors. Total cringe.) It's not unusual for the liberal scourge to do this - have the technically appropriate power to start something new, but insist on seizing the old.

Update: The article I linked before isn't showing on the chat, so it was probably removed by moderation without notice (a typical response to content of substance and quality.)