The transfer of sovereignty accomplished by the 14th amendment doesn't change it any material way. If state judges want to use the first 10, they can.
However, the Moore case isn't about any of the first 10, and not the 1st of them. It has to do with an out of context quote made by a famous participant of the constitution to another individual in a letter. This misquoted and misrepresented partial statement has been used to lower the bar of the customary guidance of religious philosophy until it has been, in all sense, eliminated.
At no time before this letter notion was floated and customized, was it thought that the religious foundation of this country was to be kept from government in every detail. People living during that time would have laughed at the idea.
Obviously, there was a change made, and that change started precisely when that partial out of context quote surfaced in legal consideration. It is interesting that that statement has been considered before, but in its entirety and in context.
How do you have any doubt that we have a largely renegade court system, especially after Ruthie's remarks and actions?
Do you really think that washing machine sized list of the 10 commandments is a government establishment of a state religion, such that any participant in the administration of government would have to swear feality to it in order to serve?
Bear in mind that an "establishment of religion" is an instant thing like the codification of a law. If you can't look at that chunk of stone and know that the executive power to compel people to that religion sprang into being when it was put there, then there is no way it falls under the 1st federal or its analog in the state constitutions.
Therefore, there can be no constitutional foundation, shadow, numbra or prenumbra that forms a basis for the courts order. It's time somebody is willing to go to the wall to get that settled.
Regardless of any state interest, this is the fed judiciary's action, and according to the purpose of the BOR by those who established that BOR, that court, being a part of the national government, is bared from taking a postion of the 1st prohibiting religious philosophy around government buildings.
All they have, where the rubber meets the road, is an extraconstitutional segment of a letter written by an individual. If they use that to change the clear meaning of a provision in the very document that creates their power anyway, this court is renegade, just like that state court in, what was it, Utah, that has nullified a part of it's document.
Moore is right and you are right. But the area in which you are right links back to an act of constitutional rebellion, where Moore's rightness is pure. 