The First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees freedom from religion.

The 14th amendment has been part of our established law for more than a hundred years. The Supreme court has ruled, and properly so, that the First Amendment protections of freedom of religion and freedom from religion extend to all branches of the government. Further, I do not need the 14th amendment to succeed in showing that a freedom from religion, a freedom protecting the people from having a religion imposed upon them by the government, does exist and is conveyed by the first amendment of the Constitution. Even if the state government could threaten to lock you in jail for not converting to Islam. The federal government could not come in and force you to adopt or endorse religious statements that you do not endorse. You are unsuccessfully arguing a moot position as you would have the rights at the federal level. It was the purpose of the first amendment to establish, as Jefferson wrote, a "wall of separation between church and state" that is not to suggest that the federal government would keep people from their religion. People are allowed to do whatever they want and the first amendment forbids the government from either infringing your freedom of religion or to be free from religion being push on you by the state. This doesn't stop the Hare Krishnas from bothering you at the airport but does prevent the government paying the Hare Krishnas to convert your children as well as prevent the government from stopping the Hare Krishnas from practicing their religion. The bill of rights "prevents the government" from doing things. Even if you contend that my local mayor could abuse his rights and force the local schools to convert the kids to being Satanists or something, the federal government would still be so prevented. Your rights would extend at the federal level (although that's a silly argument as your rights clearly extend all levels of government by the 14th amendment as you freely admit). You say that nothing in the constitution bans the co-mingling of religion and government, however that absolutely wrong. The Bill of Rights restrict the power of the government. The government cannot take away your guns, your free speech, your religion, your life or liberty without due process, force religions on you, compel speech, quarter troops in your house. The first clause of the first amendment says that congress has no place in the creation of laws which co-mingle religion and government. Further in the Supreme Court Decision of Lemon v. Kurtzman rather expressly established the Lemon Test to see if government action violated the religion clauses: 1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose; 2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; 3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. See number three there? The excessive entanglement of government with religion. That's what I'd like to call a smoking gun as, not only does the first amendment prevent the co-mingling, they pretty well word for word say you are wrong. The Supreme court (which by the way is constitutionally established to decide such things) says you are wrong about the constitution. Your argument seems to suggest that people don't have rights, the powers of government are unchecked and if your state wants to take your guns they can, that the constitutionally established Supreme Court have no right to decide whether or not these non-existent rights are being violated. These kinds of arguments have always seemed rather odd to me. Would you contend that the State of Virgina (just a random selection) could constitutionally pass a law requiring people be shot in the head if they said the word Vajayjay? You contend that the bill of rights do not restrict state government, so no freedom of speech there. Further, if this law was not acceptable and the "Dictators from the Bench" are not allowed to judge what the Constitution says... who strikes down the law? Does it sit there? Can you just ignore what is in the constitution as nobody has any say when it is violated? Why is it that people who seem to claim to want to restrict the power of government are constantly arguing that the government has unlimited power? You have freedom of religion. The state cannot keep you from your religion. You have freedom from religion. The state cannot force you to adopt a different religion.