[Leaning Right]

Kindly see my posts #123 and 124. I’m more concerned about the Equal Protection clause.

But yes, I suppose the 1A might apply here also. Congress cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. But that does not mean there can be no restrictions whatsoever on religion.

And we’re not talking about a private home here. We are talking about a public school. Reasonable restrictions apply. I guess the sticking point here is what constitutes a reasonable restriction.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Sorry but equal protection before the law does not mean that you can tell someone they may not practice their religion.

We are talking about a public school. Reasonable restrictions apply.

You have to read a little more history on the First Amendment. In Europe there was much the same attitude that you have, that they could restrict people practicing their religion in public. They would say that they were not actually restricting it totally just imposing "reasonable restrictions."

So if you were Catholic you might not be able to wear a rosary, or if you were Baptist you might not be able to read your Bible or if you were Jewish you might not be able to wear your yamaka but it was all "reasonable" because these people were not part of the state religion.

You could still practice in private. Just not in public.

This was why the First Amendment was written. To prevent the government from imposing "reasonable restrictions" that were actually persecution.

And this is exactly what is happening in this case.

[2nd amendment mama]

Congress cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. But that does not mean there can be no restrictions whatsoever on religion.

I don't know where you received your education on the Constitution but you should ask for a refund. Free exercise means just that! NO RESTRICTIONS.