Why? The first amendment's wording specifically protects religious freedom from government infringement, not the other way around. The other way around doesn't even make any sense in the context of the constitution.
So little sense that I'm at a loss to understand how Pawlenty's comment could even be controversial. What am I missing?
You don't think I'm protected from him legally imposing his beliefs on me?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...