The First Amendment Thoughts

To tackle my post effectively, I'm going to reiterate most of what I commented about on Trinity's blog. Even though an overwhelming majority of blog posts I've seen are focused on Commonwealth vs. Twitchell (which I had to fill myself in about since I was absent that day) and religion, I'm going the same direction. I think, to some extent, freedom of religion shouldn't mean, well, a free-for-all. If someone happens to spontaneously make a religion and it actually gains some popularity, who's to say it means anything at all? The founder, the one teaching the beliefs and passing them on to perhaps future generations may not even believe the words he's breathing. What's the point of learning about something entirely made up, in which there's no fabric or reality to anything? (There must even be some guilt for someone starting something like that, indirectly deceiving people.) But I strongly feel that, unless one's been thinking, pondering, wondering about this religion they're about to start, it's worthless to start it. Another issue, as some pointed out, religions can happen to be cults or groups with bad intentions. Obviously there are good and bad parts of this section of the Amendment. It's a great thing if you want to start your own set of beliefs ad make real traditions out of it and you really believe it, but it's just not a valid thing to do if you don't. It's a waste of time, frankly. YOU have the freedom to begin a religion you think will be fairly successful, and YOU have the right to worship anything you want. But the freedom of RELIGION should be purely for half-logical religions, not evil cults of terrorists. I feel there should be some sort of validation before establishing such an operation, no? Anyone agree with anything I just said?