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.

Americans take pride in their constitutional rights. These guarantees of freedom in our founding documents are not absolute. They are subject to a variety of interpretations. The official interpretation by the Supreme Court, of course, is the most interesting, since that is what is legally binding on those who are subject to the laws of the United States of America, including governing officials.

I understand some limits to free speech and freedom of the press. For example, false reporting, perjury, obscene and indecent material, inciting riots, slander, libel, and any other form of spoken or written communication that is clearly harmful has been considered by the Supreme Court to not be protected by the first amendment of the U. S. Constitution. God Himself prohibited giving false testimony in the Ten Commandments. Jesus' law of love pretty much covers the rest of that list. People tend to differ in their opinions on where to draw the line between harmful communications and those which should be protected, but most people accept the idea that some kinds of speech or writing should be illegal, especially if they are the ones harmed.

Note that in the actual text of the First Amendment, there is no mention of “separation of church and state” nor is there anything about “freedom from religion.”

There is one notable case where the U. S. Congress has violated the spirit of the First Amendment, if not the letter. They offered a tax exemption to churches and other similar religious nonprofit organizations, but only on the condition that they would refrain from engaging in certain forms of political speech or political press. The IRS publication describing the rules implementing Congress' prohibition on free speech within certain religious organizations says:

“If any of the activities (whether or not substantial) of your organization consist of participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office, your organization will not qualify for tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(3). Such participation or intervention includes the publishing or distributing of statements.”

The Supreme Court has not struck down this limitation of free speech in churches, because technically, it is still perfectly legal for churches to engage in political statements and campaigns in support of or against any candidate for public office. They just don't qualify for a substantial tax break if they do. In practice, the amount of money involved is enough to persuade almost all churches and religious nonprofit organizations to accept this limitation. Once they have done so, and applied for tax-exempt status, then it is indeed a violation of law to comment for or against any candidate for public office. The U. S. Congress has passed a law that has the indirect effect of limiting free exercise of religion, limiting free speech, and limiting freedom of the press through taxing those who engage in these activities more than those who do not. Is this OK? If you don't think so, you should write to your congressional representatives and senators about it.

Why should pastors in pulpits have fewer constitutional freedoms than random protesters in a public park? I don't think they should. Do you?