[risk]

I would argue against a Mormon state religion in Utah based on the first amendment, as well. (And I'd win.) I'll try one more time with the second amendment analogy: anti-gunners twist the simple English of the amendment around to interpret it their way, yet they're wrong. The first amendment protects me from religious zealots who would impose laws on me without the benefit of rational discourse and logic. The first commandment is an irrational law to an unbeliever, and therefore belongs in a Judeo-Christian theocracy, not a democratic republic like ours.

In any case, why would you want to impose religious laws on your fellow citizens? What aims do you seek to accomplish by requiring that they follow rules that are comprised of purely metaphysical requirements, the likes of which may not even have application in the minds of said citizen? The first commandment exhorts men to have no other gods before Jehova. Do you wish to impose that law on someone who doesn't believe Jehova exists? What possible purpose could that have?

[ninenot]

I would argue against a Mormon state religion in Utah based on the first amendment, as well. (And I'd win.)

NOT, surely, on the plain meaning of the 1st, 9th, and 10th Amendments (and the last two were NOT 'incorporated' by the 14th, initially.)