Government must be "Hands Off" Religion. That includes the courts.

The first part of the First Amendment to the Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
The establishment clause in the First Amendment to the Constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." has generally been interpreted to prohibit
1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, [Also Known As the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, and for the purposes of this article shall be known as the Free Exercise Clause] or
2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another [Also Known As the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation, and for the purposes of this article shall be known as the Prohibition Clause]. But it has not been interpreted to prohibit the preference by the U.S. government of all other religions over any one.
Essentially, both clauses do the same thing. The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from selecting, aiding, or promoting one religion over another, while the accommodation clause prohibits the government from preferring or making the existence of one more favorable than another.
However, under this interpretation, the Prohibition Clause prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but it does not prohibit the government's entry into the religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause. In other words, Congress can not prefer any one religion over any other, but under the guise of making an accommodation for any one religion government may, overtly or covertly, suppress another religion because in order to accommodate the Free Exercise Clause, the government may interfere in the establishment of one religion to accommodate the establishment of another.
There can only be one answer. The "Prohibition Clause" interpretation is flawed. There are 2 clauses at work here. The Establishment Clause, and the Prohibition Clause. The interpretations above only address the Establishment Clause. When the Prohibition Clause is included the second interpretation falls apart for the following reason:
When following a policy where Clause A and Clause B are equal, which they are, there can be no situation where there can be an situation where either clause can be allowed to interfere with the other. One can not say "I must obey Clause A and Clause B of a law, rule, or policy, when the interpretation of Clause B interferes with Clause A."
When one or more religions are established, under the second clause of not "Prohibiting the free exercise thereof (any religion)," the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause is prohibited because it would create a preference by commission, or omission, whether or not it is directly intended. The government's position must be hands off.