IMHO.....I read that clause as a way to protect the church from the government...not the other way around...I heard this arguement made, went and read and reread that clause...I don't think it was meant to, in any way, limit the ability of the church to have a say in the ethics of our country but to make sure that the government didn't try to dictate to the church, what the church can and can not do....thus "protecting" the church.....FROM the government....
(i.e. congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion). Another way of looking at it....this clause gives us the freedom to practice our religon any way, WE THE PEOPLE want to...without congress interfering...I honestly believe that our government...for their own advantage...has twisted the meaning behind this clause, and taken the true meaning of it, out of context...
Agian, I believe this clause was meant to protect our right to freely express, practice, and worship our God/religion and NOT to limit our beliefs, or the expression of them, but to give the church and us protection, under the law, from our governments interference!

Shall we ALL bow the the prince of Saudi Arabia now? When do we get sharia law? We have a constitution...signed by our fore fathers who shed their blood so you could speak freely as you do...shame on you for forgettitng that....time for you to get a history lesson ...I agree with atomicstorm

thougth I'd try this....hey hey for our fore founding fathers and the blood they spilled for our freedom...that we can still do this....life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.....

WE THE PEOPLE....

They work for US