Wrong About Rights

Amendment I

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.

Of our 1st amendment rights, the two which seem to be most egregiously misunderstood (at least popularly) in our day are religion and speech. It is so obnoxious to hear someone (usually a famous entertainer) talk about how his "freedom of speech" has been violated because he has been ridiculed on talk radio, or uninvited from an engagement, or had his album burned, etc. It has to be said repeatedly that the Bill of Rights delineates restrictions upon government. The regulation is of the relationship of government to man, not of man to man. So, freedom of speech does not equal freedom from criticism. If it's not government action in response to speech then it's not a violation of the first amendment! That is the short reply to such whiners and it is annoying when the conversation wanders beyond this reply without acknowledging it.
Religion is trickier. First, there is the extra-constitutional 'wall of separation' nonsense. This has led to the near total neglect of the second clause, which expressly guarantees the free exercise of religion. Again, this is government to man. Government may not prohibit, but private organizations may. Second, religious freedom has been applied in such a way that the religious sensitivities of the minority (even a minority of one) trump the religious freedoms of everyone else. But freedom of religion is not a guarantee of freedom from religion.
Granted these clarifications I am happy to talk about freedom of speech and religion. Try me.