The history of the 14th is that immediately after the civil war, some southern states were claiming that rights given in the Constitution did not apply in the states, specifically about blacks. That was a stupid argument, in as much as if those rights didn't apply in the states, then where would they have applied? In the Federal City and territories? Nevertheless the 14th was passed to tell those southern states that when the Constitution gave us a right, it meant it.
The problem is that the First, as you claim, was specifically directed at limiting what the Congress could do. As such, it can be construed not as granting rights (and thus covered under the 14th), but at limiting Congress. Indeed, several states that ratified the First had official religions up till around 1820, thus the wording "Congress shall make no law", because several states already had such laws and intended to keep them.
Perhaps the First should be amended to remove the "Congress shall make no law" clause. Certainly the presstitutes would like such a thing since the First also covers freedom of the press.
But your problem is if the First were interpreted as originally intended, there will be religion taught in schools. And certainly every parent with a student will insist that their religion be taught with the same validity as Christianity. The Muslims in particular, since their demographics are growing, will demand such a thing. I'm sure the Indians in Northern Arizona will insist on teaching their religious stories as hard fact too.
I can think of nothing more damaging to the faith of young people than teaching several diametrically opposed faiths as fact, side by side. I rejected my Christian faith in large part because I realized that there were many different human faiths, and that none of them had any more reason to claim validity than any other.
Perhaps now is a good time for a Coyoteman creation myth.
Be careful of what you wish for. You may get it.
We can put a stop to that with some sensible immigration reform.
A lot of people treat current demographic trends as if they are facts of nature, when in reality they are a result of conscious social policy. In this case, really bad immigration policy.