“That’s six, not five, and I’m right.”
Not really. It’s a stretch to count the non-establishment clause as “freedom from the establishment of a religion.” That’s like counting article IV, section IV as the freedom to have a Republican government section, or article III, section I as the freedom to have a supreme court section.
I disagree.
An establishment of religion is distinct from a suppression of the practice of religion. A government could constitute some formal state religion while imposing no restrictions on the practice of other religions. Conversely, a government could impose restrictions on the actual practice of any or all religions while constituting no particular state religion.
Present day United Kingdom is an example of the former. The Church of England is the state religion, but other religions may be practiced freely. Present day Peoples Republic of Korea is an example of the latter. All religions are suppressed. Present day Saudi Arabia is an example of both establishment of religion and prohibition of free exercise of religion.
I see protecting expression by the spoken word and expression by the printed word as being far more related concepts.
A person who insists upon folding the two aspect of religious freedom into one has no rational basis for not folding the two aspects of expressive freedom into one.
I may be disagreeing with the content of some 8th grade civics textbook. This would not be the first time I have done so.
Note that in one of my posts on this thread, I suggested that a pedantic reading of 1A shows a protection of 3 "freedoms" and two "rights" (the authors use those words), along with imposing one restriction on government action.
I posted the text of 1A earlier in this thread. Please read it carefully, paying close attention to the placement of commas.