Thanks for the comment, and for reading.

Perhaps I overstated to some extent (or at least was not super precise with my language). I'm still inclined to think that the basic idea stands though, which is that the framers didn't fully grasp or foresee the extent to which the scope and range of people's religious practice might ultimately differ, to include things that really shouldn't be protected in such an unqualified freedom of religious practice as the First Amendment implies.

Happy to hear your thoughts, if you agree or disagree with that.