Article I (and the entire Bill of Rights) refers to federal power. So that's out. States can do what they want.
Maybe in your world and with your interpretations, but since the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868 and subsequent Supreme Court decisions in the 1920's, the Bill of Rights applies to states.
Article VI? Really? No.
Article VI prevents the government from requiring religious tests before a person can take office. If the Constitution's only prohibition against religious involvement by the government was to ban the creation of a U.S. church, then why does this article exist? If the government can, in fact, do whatever it wants in relation to religion other than creating a U.S. church, then how do you explain away the existence of Article VI's last sentence?
And I could give a shoot about a Tripoli. Don't live there. Don't want to.
The treaty was ratified, unanimously, by many of the same people who drafted the Constitution. It was also chronologically a lot closer in time to the creation of the Constitution, and thus much more likely to have an accurate reflection of what was intended when the Constitution was created.
As for the "read the Constitution" vs. "what they meant" I stick with read it. Other people have tried to claim "well it means this based on some letter that's not a part of it. I think that's stupid. But if you're going to use outside influences to frame your argument, at least have enough historical background to actually understand the genesis, and enough historical knowledge to see past the sliver of manure you were shoveled. Too often the SC lacks this ability. Many here clearly do.
Then surely you've acknowledged that the Constitution does not specifically prohibit the U.S. from only creating a government church? Rather, the plain wording of the first amendment prohibits the government from creating any law ("no law") in reference or regard to ("respecting") an establishment of religion.
Hugo Black. Left us in 1971. So 43 years plus a little.
Math. I has it. Knowledge of history, you don't.
Your Jefferson "quote" means nothing. Absolutely nothing.
If you're going to use outside influences to frame your argument, at least have enough historical background to actually understand the genesis. I didn't reference the Hugo Black opinion; I referenced Reynolds v. U.S., an 1878 Supreme Court case. This opinion stated that Jefferson's comments concerning the separation of church and state "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [first] amendment." You act as if judges have only been cramming separation of church and state down our throats for the past "40 years" when, in fact, a Supreme Court that was much closer chronologically to the creation of the Constitution stated the same.