1st amendment regarding Religion..
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
There is an inherent contradiction in one common interpretation of the 1st amendment, since to determine whether or not the Free Exercise of Religion has been prohibited, it can be construed that the State must at some point Establish the validity of an act as Religious. Jefferson recognized this possibility early, and made himself very clear; the clause was meant to act as a "Wall of Separation" between Religion and government. Jefferson intended that the State not concern itself with religious matters at all; in essence it should act in total Ignorance of Religion. He did not enunciate what he meant by 'Religion', but an extension of his logic leaves little doubt. Religion for Jefferson always referred to Faith; belief in phenomena without scientific evidence and reason. Nudism, the belief that man's natural state is to be without clothing, is therefore a religious belief in the sense that its dogma is not based on science or reasoning; it is a 'Faith.' Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, for true believers, is also a religion, as valid as Sikhism, Islam or Christianity or any other.
Logically if a Sikh should be permitted to wear his turban in court on account of his religion, a Nudist should be permitted to address the judge as his religion demands, in the nude. But then, what if a Yankees fan demands the right to wear his baseball cap in court on the account that his superstition or 'Faith' requires it? Must a judge 'establish' in each separate instance the validity of a particular practice as based on 'Faith.' More disturbingly, must a judge ascertain the extent of a person's religious fervor to grant his request? For example, take the case of a Muslim girl who has never worn a Burqa in her life, yet who demands this right in court. Would we have a theoretically secular judge pore through Shariah law to determine whether or not she is a 'true' Muslim and therefore entitled to this right? Clearly a view that "free exercise" of religion trumps the state's obligation to never Establish Religion is not tenable.
