A lot of "religious" people in this country had better understand that putting protection of the written constitution ahead of all else including personal religious priorities is essential.
You must understand that we Christians don't worship the "creature" but the "Creator." The Constitution when properly construed does not require Christians to have to make such a decision. We are not compelled to defend erroneous Supreme Court decisions, however popular they might be.
What "personal religious priorities" should we downplay? (1) [innocent] life? (2) liberty? (3) property? and all the gifts that God has bestowed upon us to properly steward and protect these?
Democrat or RHINO or Compassionate Conservative, each can do tremendous damage to the Constitution.
Lastly, we do what we can and leave the rest to God. We are not compelled to choose the lesser of two evils. We will have satisfied what is right by choosing Godly people for public office. If your choices, however, are elected, it is YOU who will have to answer to God for their policies.
The constitution when ratified did require the states to put their state constitutions in line with the Federal constitution. That is beside the point and you said it: The "religious test" prohibition, when properly understood, did not impose a certain denomination affiliation requirement for potential office holders.
This is the point my previous threads addressed; there can be no religious litmus test for public office so a candidate's religious beliefs or affilliation are irrelevant.
Nothing in the constitution compells anyone to defend bad supreme court decisions and in fact as a citizen you should be compelled to set those decision right if you can sway the majority of Americans in that direction. Again, if you do not put protection of the document that protects our freedoms including religion first then you risk losing those freedoms from those who would bend, change or ignore the constitution to meet their political goals.