The US Constitution says that CONGRESS cannot establish a state religion. It is silent on the individual states’ choice in that regard. Well, other than the “all other rights are reserved to the states or the people”...
Using your reasoning, there would be nothing to stop the establishment of Islamic domination in several states.
Do you really like that idea?
Common error. It says all other 'powers', not rights (ie, there is no such thing a State's Rights, but instead, State's Powers). Rights are considered inalienable. This has long been an internal conflict both on the right and left in terms of how they view rights and powers. Are rights something that can be infringed upon by any level of government or are they inalienable to the individual. Traditionally Conservatives have been on the side of the latter with only extreme 'States Rights(sic)' type folks (those who think States have the rights to do anything, period). States having the power to trump individual rights is the side the left has often fallen on. A good example is the Heller decision where they argued that States (or in this case DC) had the right to infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights.
Generally as a rule though, Conservatives always should come down on the side of rights as being inalienable to the individual and not to be trampled upon by any governmental authority, be it Federal, State, or Local.
“The US Constitution says that CONGRESS cannot establish a state religion. It is silent on the individual states’ choice in that regard. Well, other than the “all other rights are reserved to the states or the people”...”
Yes....but is this a right that you’d want your state exercising?