Remedies:
1. Interpret the free exercise clause as the dominant clause among the two religion clauses-- not the other way around as is presently done. This is also where Scalia messed up in Smith.
2. Acknowledge that if the 14th amendment application means anything it is that the establishment clause now applies to local establishments of religion.-- which is to say it cannot interfere with local religious organizations.
It is critical to acknowledge that present Supreme Court jurisprudence interprets our religious clauses backwards. The Court tries to avoid "establishments" to the total cost of free exercise. Americans have not meaningful civil rights as they relate to the free exercise of religion. That aspect of the clauses has been reduced to a freedom from religion. That would be the French revolution-- not the American revolution.
No amendments are needed-- just announce that Hugo Black was the anti-catholics fool he was and return to free exercise criteria.
Justice Black, a bad apple Protestant, seems to have pushed his treasonous interpretation of the establishment clause in order to pull the carpet from under papal influence in the state governments. But his 10th Amendment ignoring approach to pulling off his ploy backfired. This is evidenced by the way that religious expression hating secularists were able to later harness the power of politically correct interpretations Black's bogus interpretation of the establishment clause. They did this by likewise unconstitutionally pulling the carpet from under religious expression in general in institutions under state government control.
Justice Reed, evidently frustrated with Justice Black's treasonous interpretation of the establishment clause, noted the checks and balances of the 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments. Justice Reed explained that it is the job of Justices who take their oaths to defend the Constitution seriously to balance the 10th A. protected powers of the states with 14th A. protected personal freedoms:
"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of civil liberties would be a mockery." --Justice Reed, Jones v. City of Opelika, 1942. http://tinyurl.com/8dzqg
So based on Jefferson's notes about the 1st and 10th Amendments, the states have the constitutional power (10th) to authorize public schools to lead non-mandatory (14th) classroom discussions on the pros and cons of evolution, creationism and irreducible complexity, for example, regardless that atheists, separatists, secular judges and the liberal media are misleading the people to think that doing such things in public schools is unconstitutional.
Again, due to widespread constitutional ignorance, secular judges are now getting away with using Black's bogus establishment clause interpretation as a license to unconstitutionally force the religious aspects of the 1st Amendment's prohibitions on the powers of the federal government onto the state governments.
As I've repeatedly stated, the people need to get a grip on what the honest interpretations of the 1st, 10th and 14th Amendment's actually say about their religious freedoms. Then, when the people wise up to the fact that they are essentially prisoners of conscious to the bogus interpretation of the establishment clause by a renegade, anti-religious expression Supreme Court majority, they will hopefully heed Lincoln's advice for dealing with crooked judges:
"We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." --Abraham Lincoln, Political debates between Lincoln and Douglas, 1858.