Limits on religious freedom?

I could see outlawing Aum Shinrikyo as a terrorist group, despite their claims to be a religion.

Who says they can't be both?

Sadly, it's far too late to ban The Nation of Islam, America's biggest and most popularly influential hate group, with an exceptionally crude and stupid official mythology that has nothing to do with Islam and only to do with spreading hatred of white people in general and Jews in particular.

If actual (as opposed to fake) Muslims remain a small minority in the US they will only occasionally spawn terrorism and never be a serious, independent political power block.

Georgia city bars mosque after neighborhood morons protest

Hunter is blissfully oblivious.

As for the real meaning of the First Amendment and how it may bear on this matter, I care about as much as Hunter does.

But, not being an author of mass propaganda, I have, unlike him, neither reason nor even temptation to lie about it.

It reads in toto thus.

I have underlined the relevant portion.

"Congress," of course, is the federal legislature.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As no honest appraiser doubts (and most who appraise in public or officially are far from that, including judges), the Amendment's sole purpose when adopted was, as regards religion, to keep the federal government from meddling with religion at all, either by way of establishment or by way of prohibition; it had no bearing on what states or locales may do, as everyone knew at the time.

Some states still had established religions and universal tolerance was by no means universal.

No one thought the First Amendment conflicted with those facts, that I am aware.

No subsequent Amendment has materially changed the meaning of the First.

[Aside:

The same is true of the entire amendment and, given intentions at the time, of the entire Bill of Rights: they restrict the federal government and have naught to do with the states or locales.

/Aside.]

But nobody has read it like that in at least a century, if not more.

And nobody wants to.