Then those laws are illegal. Now who's the pseudo lawyer. Interesting that no actual successful legal arguments exist supporting your stance.
If those laws are based on "established religion", they are illegal. That's not how the actual legal structure in the US are actually applied. Another reference that I "never" provide:
[url=[url]
https://supreme.justia.com/cases-by-topic/religion/][url]https://supreme.just...[/url]
[/url]
There are three basic applications:
1: Imposing religious tests or requirements for public office (violating Article VI of the Constitution).
2: Denying equal treatment or single out specific religious groups for penalties or discrimination without a compelling governmental justification.
3: Establishing an official state church or coerce religious observance.
Laws exist that protect religious practice. I assume we are expected to ignore completely that laws protecting religious practice are not religious based laws. Even though they are specifically about religion.
Needles is clearly in my opinion claiming to be a lawyer now.