Advocates of the Religious Liberty Restoration Amendments want the Free Exercise (of religion) Clause to be ranked higher than the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause does not permit government to pass any law establishing a religion.
Religious liberty advocates deny the clash. They say the government would step in and balance the church/state separation with religious liberty whenever necessary.
Even if they sincerely believe this, it is quite naive. It is very difficult for either the government or individuals to get into court to address a grievance.
Courts have not grown in size with our population or standard of living. They expend considerable effort to keep people out of court simply because they do not have the capacity to hear but a fraction of the cases requested of them.
In addition, the Liberty Amendment concept places religious concerns above non religious concerns. Someone refused a prescription by a religious pharmacist might be inconvenienced or burdened financially by being required to go elsewhere to get services. The nonreligious customer would be trumped by the religious pharmacist. Their rights would not be balanced.
I wonder if atheists could go to court and successfully argue, “Our faith is viloated with ‘under God’ in the pledge. We demand the pledge be recited twice, once with it and once without it?”
A group that includes liberal members of several religions said, “We support the separation of church and state and believe public policy should not impose or privilege any religious viewpoint.” Amen.