Replies

-- New states were required to create republican forms of government, not theocracies. If the original states wished to continue with their various state-sponsored and state-funded religions, that was permitted by the clever wording of the 1st. The compromise worked. State religions died out, and new territories like Utah were not allowed to favor or establish state religions.
Article VI made clear that our Constitution & its Amendments were the Law of the Land, -- the "Laws of any State to the Contrary, notwithstanding".

Do you understand what a "republic" is? The establishment of a state church does not per se make a system non-republican.

That remark tells me that you do not understand our American Republic.

Following the ratification of the Constitution (and the First amendment) most states had established churches. Yet no one claimed that they were unconstitutional.

Sigh. You've made, and I've refuted that point before. Read the ratification debates on the matter. The 1st was a political compromise, and it worked. 'State religions' died out.

The reason that the Mormon Church was forced to be disestablished was not on grounds that it violated the Constitution but because its moral tenants were repugnant to the population of the rest of the country. BTW, can you cite one case where the Court struck down public religion on the "Republican form of government" argument?

My 'cite' that Utah was not admitted to the union until it separated church & state proves that point.

Please note that I am not advocating the establishment of churches at the state level, just trying to educate you on a basic political definition and historical fact.

You lack the basic Constitutional knowledge to educate me, or anyone else, on this subject. Sue your law school for nonperformance.