Thank you for the time you took on this.
I think what I had hoped would be the rest of something revealing of what you feel is actually "deficient" (again presuming that you are an advocate for universal freedom of religion) in the current language of the 1st Ammendment.
What you did post is a good description of how you currently interpret the 1st but most of the other Ammendments are dense, concise fundamental principles of our freedoms.
Let me give it a shot and see what you think.
Here is the original for reference.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Congress shall make no law favoring any religion over another or restricting the free exercise of any religion with the sole exception to practices that are in volation of other rights in this Constitution.
I don't like making a blanket exception for hard to define things such as "peace/wellbeing" as noble as those things are. All that would do would make a loophole where congress could pass laws that make ringing a church bell, knocking on nighbors doors to witness, etc illegal and have it be upheld as Constitutional under that caveat. I was trying to appeal to your language though so I tweaked it to try to get at what I think your goal is which is to be able to constitutionally restrict crazy things such as voluntary human sacrafice, etc.
As for your 2nd longer version, I would wager that if we asked every single one of your detractors in this thread or elsewhere if they would support such a thing you would find exactly ZERO. I realize that some of it is probably intentional hyperbole, but in all seriousness, nobody really wants that world.
Lets find out. Anyone else in this thread, do you support in any way the 2nd version of Faith's proposed ammendment?
™ Version 4.2