I will start a new thread called, The Declaration of Independence, is it Law?, so my final answer here is...

47 of 50 State Constitutions explicitly mention God. Do they violate the 1st Amendment?

No, not unless the First Amendment violates the Declaration of Independence, which is not possible under original intent. A court that would interpret the Constitution such that it violates the Declaration is a court getting dangerously close to despotism. If an unwise court were to rule against the State Constitutions and the Declaration, the Declaration's first remedy for despotic government is a long period of patient waiting (several generations) while peaceful options are sought-- under the Constitution, we always have the amendment process if all else fails, so in theory, we should never have legitimate reason for revolt-- but the mechanisms that keep this great system in place require that the Declaration remain in force, not only for historical reasons, but to give teeth to the People's restriction that government not violate their unalienable rights. With respect to State Constitutions, this includes "the Right of the People... to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Again, this is completely absurd. The original intent of the Declaration of Independence was to do just that... declare independence from Britain. In order for a court to interpret the Constitution in such a way that it violates the Declaration of Independence, it would have to interpret it in such a way that it meant the British were still ruling us. So what does this have to do with the mention of God in State Constitutions?

And this is my final rebuttal to entspeak relating the State Constitutions to the Declaration.

Thankfully, the Declaration can "walk and chew gum at the same time." In the process of declaring independence, the Declaration also declares that "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle... the People... to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness," which is not much different from the language in State Constitutions, and which would obviously be violated by any interpretation of a Court that the State Constitutions cannot use such language-- a violation which would bring us one boxcar closer to a "long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably... a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism," at which point, to enforce their rights, it would be "their duty, to throw off such Government," a chain of events most reasonable courts would prefer to avoid, motivating them to rule in favor of the language common to State Constitutions and the Declaration, even though it would be improper for the courts to base their decision on their interpretation of the Declaration, which the People have not given them the authority to interpret.

Calling the truth absurd will not make it untrue.