"Constitutions or statutes that prohibited the establishment of religion by law (New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Delaware, North Carolina),..."
I'd appreciate if you clarified what you meant when you refer to statutes that prohibited the establishment of religion by law.
For example, although secularists argue that Jefferson's Bill for Religious Freedom reflects the absolute wall of separation, the truth is that the Bill, particularly sec. 3, was actually an official "shame on you" for any future Virginia legislators who wrote laws to limit religious freedoms. In other words, Jefferson had acknowledged that the Founders had written the 1st and 10th Amendments in part to address religious issues because he was an expert on using this power. Jefferson's Bill essentially respected all establishments of religion.
"Bill for Religios Freedom, Sect. III; AND though we well know that this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right."
As I've said elsewhere, the Bill of Rights was incomplete because the Founder's overlooked checks on the unique, 10th A. protected powers of the states. This oversight was addressed with the post Civil War 14th Amendment. My attitude is that the states can establish all the religions that they want to with their 10th A. powers. I'll simply use my 14th Amendment protections to ignore state established religions and related state religion taxes.
"our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous falacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own"
Finally, the brass tack buried beneath so much mental masturbation.
Again, tyranny by the state is every bit as vile as federal tyranny. We're opposed.