I strongly believe that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment is an overriding principle in American law and politics. This country was settled, in large measure, by religious dissidents from the Church of England, facing a frontier to have religious freedom. On a personal level, I have little respect for fundies. My objection is more to the ignorant preaching machines, shades of the Witnesses, than to their actual belief. What bothers me far more is that our citizenry is ignorant of basic civics and current events. It shocks me that such people have the franchise.
Even Republican Justices, such as Scalia, will defend the Free Exercise Clause. I specialized in the Establishment Clause and faith-based social welfare aagencies receiving federal and state funds. There is no clear cut jurisprudence. The present court has veered from separatist views to accomodationist views. George Bush was reviled for setting up a White House agency to encourage church groups to apply for funding. His born-again views were cited. Obama would certainly reverse Bush and kick the office out of the White House. Obama with hiss progressive Christianity is a stronger proponent of funding faith based groups. He increased funding and made the special Office more prominent.
There is a no religious test in the Const'n. The answer is in the political process, not determining which religion is worthy. How do I know my religion will be found worthy? It is abundantly clear that if educational standards were higher in America, the Witnesses would have far fewer adherents. What concerns me about the Witnesss is their overreaching more than their doctrines.