There is, in fact, a widely-held assumption (with which I do not agree) that the entire Bill of Rights was only intended to restrict the federal government, and not lower levels, and that it is only by incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment that it now applies to states and lower levels.
The Bill of Rights, at the time, was not intended to restrict the states but only the federal government. The state power to impose a state religion was in no way stopped or even blocked or hindered.
Other than the First and Tenth Amendments, I disagree.
The First, as I stated before, begins with
“Congress shall make no law…”, indicating that it is the federal government that is so constrained.
The Tenth makes mention of powers belonging to the federal government, to the states, and to the people; and its point is to state that the federal government has only those powers which the Constitution explicitly delegates thereto; all other powers being reserved to the state or to the people.
The Second, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments explicitly refer to rights belonging to
the people; which would mean that even states or lower governments are forbidden from violating these rights.
The Fifth Amendment begins with
“No person shall…”, and then goes on to enumerate various things that shall not be done to any person. It's a clear prohibition against all of these treatments, with nothing to suggest that any lower level of government is permitted to engage in them.
The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh,and Eighth Amendments all refer to the judicial process. Given that under the Tenth Amendment, this process would nearly always be conducted at the state level or lower, it makes little sense for these Amendments to apply only to the federal government, which would have no part in it anyway.