The First Amendment

First Amendment:

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.

1. When the first amendment was written. It stated that Congress should make no law respecting an establishment of religion. This statement has, in my opinion, been abused in order to extend the first amendment on this issue, beyond that which the authors had intended. It was meant to avoid having a government that endorsed certain specific religions over others. However, some people have used this one statement as a means to violate the other part of the amendment that clearly states that the government shall not pass a law prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Why should congress be given the authority to recognize only certain parts of our rights and ignore others?
2. In most instances where people's rights, to "freely exercise their rights to practice their religion" have been infringed upon, the most common reason given has been because it offends someone else who does not share their religious beliefs. However, the fact that someone may be offended by witnessing someone peacefully, and privately practicing their religion amongst themselves, does not diminish or remove that fact that that person is exercising a clearly described right. The simple fact that someone is offended by it does not remove that right. Secondly, there is no amendment anywhere within the constitution that states that anyone has the right to NOT be offended. By the very nature of the first amendment, we are guaranteed that everyone and anyone will at some point be offended by something.
3. For some reason religion, and the right to practice ones religion freely, has repeatedly been made an exception when it comes to protecting the rights that apply to them. Congress and the judicial system choose to selectively uphold certain amendments and parts thereof, and not others. Likewise, They seem to selectively choose individuals and organizations, such as religion, for which they feel, should or should not be protected by the constitution. This very practice of selectively recognizing peoples rights is, in my view, discrimination and in itself "unconstitutional".
4. I do not believe that when the authors of our constitution elaborated the rights of the people with the amendments, that they ever intended for the first amendment to be abused to the extent, which it has. I am confident that first and foremost their primary concerns were to protect the individuals right to practice their religion, and not to foster such hostile attitudes towards those who practice their religion. I'm sure if the original authors were to witness the way the first amendment has been perverted and used in the way that it has in order to strip people of some of their fundamental rights, they would be appalled.