The Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause make it clear, at least to anyone with some semblance of common sense, that no law can be established that supports any State religion or one preference for one religion over another and that people have the right to practice their religion or lack thereof outside of the context of the State (government). Obviously, the amendment is violated on a regular basis: for example, prayer beginning Congressional sessions or the 10 commandments inside or outside of a court room. People have positioned many unsound arguments to justify these violations in order to preserve their own interests with little to no empathy for the diversity within the United States. The First Amendment included the two clauses to ensure freedom of religion and to avoid theocracy, which has a long and bloody history. The United States is one of, if not the most, religious developed countries, which is an expression of the Free Exercise Clause. However, people often seem to make the fallacious leap to position that the popularity of religion negates the Establishment Clause, which it does not. In the same way the Establishment Clause does not override the Free Exercise Clause, the Free Exercise Clause does not negate the Establishment Clause.
I try to avoid the propaganda machine known as the mass media, which atrophies the human brain, as much as possible. A good simile for the current popular thought processes in America is depicted in a movie titled Idiocracy. The first 5 to 10 minutes of the movie extrapolates from current popular culture into the future. As a forewarning, do not watch the movie beyond the first 10 minutes because the remainder of the movie is one of the worst movies ever made. Critical thought and inference are lost on the majority of Americans; look at the response to 9/11 and the initiation/maintenance of the Iraq War. People become hysterical and get caught up in the madness of crowds and make poor and unthoughtful decisions. Similarly, many current popular culture positions on sexual freedom, such as gay and lesbian marriages, absolutely attempt to further reify religion as part of what was intended to be a secular government. The depth of the arguments related to sexual freedom have an even less thinly veiled religious intent than promotion of Intelligent Design, which is quite the accomplishment.
Despite being raised in religious contexts, the morality within religions has never impressed me, especially religions based on monotheism. In most cases of religion in the United States people learn that they should go to a place of worship and be told what to think by an authority figure. This seems to carryover to some degree to other aspects of the cultural climate. When challenged, people can rarely justify their conclusions with sound argument. They typically simply reference some superficial soundbite that they heard on radio or television. Given the lack of depth of thought, developing empathy toward others, a fairly sopisticated task that takes alot of practice, is unlikely for many people. Without empathy for others, people tend to overly simplify the world. For example, “I do X, therefore everyone should do X.” Some respond to this statement by saying that I am following the same position, but I disagree. I believe my stance could be summed in the following statement “I believe X because of Y, and X serves a socially greater good for Z.” My position is less self-centered. I believe that people should practice their religion or irrlegion, while attempting to understand how their position influences them and others. For example, oppressing one group simply so I feel better is immoral to me. For example, others state “I believe in heterosexual marriage only, and other types of relationship make me uncomfortable.” I would say that “all relationships between consenting adults are of equal value, if we value all people equally.” The first position inherently does not give the same value to all people, which is problematic. What happens if I stated that “I believe in all types of relationships except heterosexual marriage because many people have been abused in this type of relationship and most heterosexual marriages end in divorce.” I have tried this social experiment in discussions with some “traditional family values” people, and their responses are interesting. I have heard anything from, “I just disagree” to “what is next marrying animals” as responses. Notice the later response evinces the devaluing and dehumanizing of other human beings. The First Amendment was set up, in part, to protect people from religious tyranny. The current devaluing of personhood by many “moralists” stands as an atrociously immoral act that is neither supported by the First Amendment, decency, empathy, dignity, nor common sense.