I agree with those who say that nothing in the First Amendment religious establishment and free exercise clauses would prohibit the States from having established churches anyway. However, the absence of such a "religious freedom" amendment at the federal level would, I think, have many long lasting effects.
1. In the absence of a federal-level policy, there would be no pressure on states with established churches to abandon the practice. Americans in those states would trend (like Europeans in the past century) to take this for granted and become less motivated to exercise any religious preference. America today is so religious precisely because there is no established church and for all religious people the choice is a personal committment.
2. Without the "free exercise" clause, unpopular or minority religions like Mormons, Jehovahs Witnesses, would be more aggressively persecuted by states and the federal government. Even if unpopular religions were not out right banned, their right to prostlytize and publically worship might be banned and the States could ban specific practices since there would be no specific protection for religious values.
3. Major impact on the sources and eventual location of immigration. I suspect that many people who immigrated to the US in part to avoid religious persecution in the 19th century (particularly Jews, eastern European moslems, and Roman Catholics) might go elsewhere.
4. My own guess is that the US as a whole would become more "Christian" and "Protestant" overall but some states (particularly those in the former Mexican SW USA and Louisiana) would retain their distinctive Catholic flavor. Perhaps, some sort of vaguely Ecumenical civic religion might evolve and be formally established that attempted to draw all Christian sects(and perhaps even Jews) into a broad American Church that combined "americanism" with broad Judeo-Christian precepts. To some extent, that is unofficial practice today anyway.
1. In the absence of a federal-level policy, there would be no pressure on states with established churches to abandon the practice. Americans in those states would trend (like Europeans in the past century) to take this for granted and become less motivated to exercise any religious preference. America today is so religious precisely because there is no established church and for all religious people the choice is a personal committment.
2. Without the "free exercise" clause, unpopular or minority religions like Mormons, Jehovahs Witnesses, would be more aggressively persecuted by states and the federal government. Even if unpopular religions were not out right banned, their right to prostlytize and publically worship might be banned and the States could ban specific practices since there would be no specific protection for religious values.
3. Major impact on the sources and eventual location of immigration. I suspect that many people who immigrated to the US in part to avoid religious persecution in the 19th century (particularly Jews, eastern European moslems, and Roman Catholics) might go elsewhere.
4. My own guess is that the US as a whole would become more "Christian" and "Protestant" overall but some states (particularly those in the former Mexican SW USA and Louisiana) would retain their distinctive Catholic flavor. Perhaps, some sort of vaguely Ecumenical civic religion might evolve and be formally established that attempted to draw all Christian sects(and perhaps even Jews) into a broad American Church that combined "americanism" with broad Judeo-Christian precepts. To some extent, that is unofficial practice today anyway.