The government will make no law abridging the right of any 
individual to practice the religion of his or her choice.  

The first problem is to define "Religion".  If I wish to 
practice a religion that requires me to perform some illegal 
act as a sign of my faith, must the law look the other way 
because it is being done in the name of religion?  Of course 
not.  But how far does that go?  The Christian Scientist 
believes in healing through faith and prayer.  They do not 
believe in medical intervention.  If an adult wishes to let 
a sore fester and become a cause of unnecessary death, that 
is pretty much his or her right.  But when that person 
attempts to force that level of belief on a child, it becomes 
a criminal act.  

Since the constitution protects religion, can that protection 
be abused by those who would hide behind a cloak of religious 
freedom while making a personal profit?  The proliferation of 
the television evangelist would, in all likelihood, baffle our 
founding fathers beyond belief.  Who could have imagined 
staying home on Sunday morning and watching a "Religious" service 
as opposed to attending services at a church.  And instead of 
passing the plate for donations they ask you to "dial in" pledges.  

The "snake oil" salesman of the 80's and 90's is the television 
evangelist.  I am astounded by the power of the broadcast religion.  
Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggert, Oral Roberts, Rex Humbard, and the 
list goes on.  The masses of humanity are constantly searching 
for spiritual salvation.        

How many of us have made a conscious, intelligent choice to
believe in the concept of a particular religion?  Most adults
have simply adopted the religion of their parents if, in fact,
their parents had a religious belief of their own.  Remember, in
order to be able to chose a religion, a person would have to take
the time to study the concepts of the different religions and
then compare the similarities and differences.  Most of us have
not done that and probably have very little desire to go into
that degree of study.  What this means is that we (as a large
group) have little or no understanding and/or tolerance for any
religious thought or philosophy other than our own.  This seems
pretty narrow from my perspective.  

The fact of the matter is, that which we refer to as "Religion" 
today was really a political unit at one time.  Religious 
leaders were chosen by the members of the community and
they held a position that was the equivalent of judge and/or
mayor.  The important decisions that affected the entire
community were made by these leaders.  The concept of "spreading
the faith", that is, seeking converts, was a simple matter of
gaining strength in numbers.  The larger the community that the
organization supported, the larger the community from which
monetary support and communal strength could be extracted.  This
does sound very much like our own political organizations today.  

Once we recognize the similarities between religion and
politics, it is much easier to see why the framers of the
constitution were so emphatic about the separation of church and
state.  The church already had a following.  The church already
had a community.  If you allowed the church to register as a
political party, they would have immediate standing of great
importance in governmental affairs.  Israel has just this problem 
today.  So the government stands behind the constitution and
creates it's own power circles without the control of religious
leaders.  Any alignment, real or perceived, is only the result of
the need for support from the religious institutions.

There is an ongoing heated discussion around the possibility of 
an amendment to the constitution creating the potential for 
individual schools, both public and private, to mandate a daily 
prayer or moment of silent meditation.  There are many arguments 
that this cannot possibly cause any harm and to say that it is 
unconstitutional is an extremist viewpoint.  The problem is not 
the intent of the constitutional change, but rather the way in 
which individual school administrators and teachers will implement 
this "moment". 

When I was in the seventh grade I received an "F" in music
because I refused to sing Christmas songs.  I attended an
Orthodox Jewish Synagogue and I was taught that Jewish people did
not sing Christmas songs (I was very disappointed by all of the
Jewish entertainers that made Christmas albums).  My seventh
grade teacher said that if she told me to sing Christmas songs
than that was what I was supposed to do and if I did not I would
be graded accordingly.  

Religion is a matter of very personal choice.  Just because
there is not the opportunity for prayer at school does not mean
that anyone cannot pray at home before or after school.  I have
found myself praying in school, privately.  This usually takes
place immediately before a final examination.  The bottom line
here is that religious freedom has to work both ways.  Our
individual right to practice the religion of our choice also
means that we have the right to not practice a religion or to
have our public lives infringed on by someone else's religion. 

In the same regard, criminals should not be allowed to hide
behind a religion.  The James Jones and David Koreshs of the
world are using their interpretation of religion as a front to
create and perpetuate a cult that supports them in the style that
they would like to maintain.  Not only is this offensive to the
population in general, it can become a menace to an orderly
society.  Even today we must beware of the false prophet.
=========================================================================