Whoever New Mark is is right. The 1A covers religion with two clauses, free exercise and establishment. You are interpreting them to mean the same thing. This is a gross violation of basic constitutional interpretation, which requires us to assume no words are redundant. The establishment clause cannot be and is not merely a restatement of the free exercise clause. At it's minimum, it means the state cannot favor one religion over another, regardless of how free everyone is to practice their beliefs.