What you would find is that "creating a community" with laws burdened with explicit religious doctrines has obsolescence built into it from the very beginning. That's why I brought up the Christian schism between Roger Williams and the colony of Massachusetts. The intent of the establishment clause is clearly to avoid the pitfalls. If we prefer one religion, we'll have to prefer a specific sect in that religion. If we prefer a specific sect, we'll have to prefer one minority over another. And if we prefer one minority over another within one sect, in one specific religion, we surely will have excluded the spiritual views of a majority of our citizens. These are the implications of true religious freedom. It's not always pretty.
The communities are not, were not created by the laws, though they were allowed under the laws. Courts can not settle differences based on any kind of religious grounds, as it is not their place to do so. We do not prefer, we allow people to self select & work it out, while we maintain civil order.
Watch the schism in the Episcopalian Church, to see how division of property is going to be settled if the church ends up splitting.
And if we prefer one minority over another within one sect, in one specific religion, we surely will have excluded the spiritual views of a majority of our citizens.
That is what we have right now, whether you recognize it or not.