Jeez, no comment.
As several FReepers have pointed out, the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause applies only to the federal government, and a proper understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states would incorporate only the individual rights in tje first eight amendments to the Constitution, not a federalism clause such as the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause reads “Comgress shall make no law *respecting an establishment of religion*”; the phrasing was intended to prohibit Congress not only from establishing a particular denomination as a national established church, but also from *unestablishing* particular denominations as the state church of particular states (several, if not most, states had established churches at the time of the adoption of the Constitution). Alas, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled decades ago that the Establishment Clause’s prohibitions against a federal established church were incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment and thus prohibited state establishments, which is as ridiculous as saying that the 10th Amendment is incorporated against the states. I hope that SCOTUS oberturns that silly precedent someday, not because I personally would like states to establish a church, but because I cannot countenance irrational interpratations of the Constitution.
BTW, the fact that the Constitution should be understood to permit states to establish a church does not mean that states can deny their citizens the Free Exercise of Religion (which has, quite properly, been incorporated against the states). The UK has an established church (the Church of England—the Anglicans), yet allows the free exercise of religion. All a church establishment does is permit tax dollars to aid that particular denomination; as I said, I don’t personally favor that, but don’t consider it anathema as I would a law that denied me or anyone the right to practice my religion.