[TravisBickle]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."

If you read exactly what it says, it looks to me like it means that Congress can't MAKE you follow a religion, nor can it STOP you from practicing your religion.

Clearly, there may be times when religious practice may violate some laws, like peyote use, but then it should be up to the STATE to make that determination.

I don't know what this interpretation makes me, I guess a strict constructionist, but it hardly seems murky or difficult to me.

[RAY]

I agree with your take -- seems simple enought to me. To many judges have their own agenda. This seems to call for "recall"!

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

don't know what this interpretation makes me

It makes you LITERATE, unlike the illiterate Marxist federal judges

• AMENDMENT ONE - FREEPER rwfromkansas

• AMENDMENT ONE Legal Scholar Says Founding Fathers Back Justice Moore on Ten Commandments

[johnb838]

up to the STATE

They probably claimed it was covered under "interstate commerce."

[aruanan]

If you read exactly what it says, it looks to me like it means that Congress can't MAKE you follow a religion, nor can it STOP you from practicing your religion.

Well, no. If you read exactly what it says, it means that Congress can't give preferential treatment to an establishment of religion nor can it prohibit the free exercise of religion--ie., participation in a religious establishment.