Yesterday, before the thread vanished, I had replied to the legal issues. I'm not at all interested in resurrecting the debate on the Tilted Kilt issue, but did want to re-address the historical perspective and legal precedent for the sake of closure, in reply to the following from Deirachel:

Point of order:

Article VI, Paragraph 2


This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Explained: If it's in the Constitution, it binds the States.

This is part of the ORIGINAL Constitution, and can't be stated to not be the intent of the Framers. Amendment I creates the Separation principle. It bound the states to the same principle as soon as it was ratified in 1791. States Rights only covers anything not covered by the Constitution, the US Code, and Ratified Treaties the US is party to per this Article.
That is indeed part of the original Constitution, but you are applying an interpretation to it that did not exist until the 1940s. In fact, one of the early Supreme Court rulings that addressed this was Barron v. Baltimore (1833). The ruling specifically stated that States are not held to the limitations of the Bill of Rights unless the wording of the BoR was specific to the States. If you look closely, the 1st Amendment specifically refers to "Congress" not having the power to establish religion. It says nothing of the States. And the Barron v. Baltimore ruling established the legal precedent that, in fact, the States would have had the power to do exactly that. Unless the BoR was worded to limit States, its restrictions only applied to the federal government. It was not until Everson v. Board of Education (1947) that the so-called "separation clause" of the 1st Amendment (or any other limitation in the Bill of Rights) was applied to the States.

In other words, it wasn't until almost 160 years after the ratification of the Constitution that the States were limited in the same manner as the federal government.

If we delve further into the intent of the Founding Fathers, it is clear in the debates during the writing of the 1st Amendment that they only intended it to apply the federal government, and wanted the States to be free to choose for themselves. Jefferson, in his second inaugural address, acknowledged this. There is a pretty good synopsis of the entire issue here, describing the history and legal points of the 1st Amendment in early America.

In summary, I stand by my previous comment that the concept of States' Rights was originally intended to allow local authorities to determine policy based on religion. It is only through a couple of centuries worth of re- and mis-interpretation that this has changed.

*Note: this post is intended to be in keeping with Rule #5, as it has been kept strictly to the historical/factual/legal side, as per the following: "Posts which quote historical facts or historical events are acceptable. Discussions of the rightness or wrongness of, espousing one over another, perceptions of, or personal belief in, a religion or political system are not acceptable."