Also, what happens if someone decides that too much of something currently legal should be stopped? Another post today mentions police going into bars, pulling customers outside, and giving them breath tests. No crime has been committed, people aren't necessarily impared - just being in the bar is reason to test them. This happens NOW. Just think what could happen if the govt. knows where everyone is all the time.
Those two things are unlikely to happen by themselves anytime soon. Speaking in highly abstract terms, because those who would advocate the outlaw of religion are generally in favor of alcohol consumption, and those that advocate the outlaw of alcohol consumption are generally in favor of religion. What one should be concerned about is when the goals of these disparate groups intersect, and they suddenly find they are in the majority and have the numbers to make the law match their desires. When this happens, they will put aside their differences in order to see their similar goals realized.
This is a hypothetical post. I don't foresee enemies of legal alcohol suddenly aligning themselves with the enemies of public religion in order to see their own agendas passed. The point I am trying to make is that if we lose the guarantee of a republican form of government we find outselfs subject to the whims of the majority, whatever unlikely group finds itself in the majorty at that time. The constitution cannot, however, protect us from outselves. If we allow ourselves to lose the guarantee of a democratic republic in favor of a general democracy, then words on the vellum in the Smithsonian won't be worth the sheepskin they're written on.