Please clarify your points if I misinterperetted... the quote/responses weren't entirely clear

Seems like I wasn't clear about the unconstitutionality (in reference to your article 6 comment). I was agreeing that religious tests are unconstitutional, which is also mentioned in article 6. Other religious laws, for example several in the OPs link, are forbidden bc of the seperation of church and state... unclear what you meant

You can have silly religious shit in state constitutions... but it is actually unconstitutional and will be shut down immediately if someone has standing to challenge it.

"No godless men can represent us"..... that is unconstitutional... you cant require someone believe in God which is why oath or affirmation can be an affirmation of the constitution.. you can not prevent an elected official from taking office because they dont believe in God... I refuse to look it up bc you are too lazy to look into it yourself.

Not sure what your mean by "because no State has violated article 6".... they have, and will again, and courts will continue to strike down those laws.

"Or because it's not illegal. But alsona waste of time. If the federal government wanted to intervene in how States govern themselves and their people - they would (ask medicinal cannabis dispensaries in California)."

I was referring to the concept of legal standing. It is a rule that requires you have a vested interest in the case, otherwise a judge is not allowed to hear the case. Has nothing to do with the federal government, it is a legal principle... Im not even sure this is what you were referencing but it is my best guess based on your nonsensical criticism