Uncle Dave, I humbly disagree.

"Take quote number 1.   The Constitution doesn't and can't control what the majority does, tyrannical or otherwise. Congress may pass laws that bear on that under the police power, but that's not the Constitution."

The intent of the Constitution historically is that the "tyranny of the minority" was an important issue in its construction. Remember that the drafters of the Constitution were in fact worried about the populace behaving in such a way to over run the effects of
the Constitutional principles.

"Quote number 2. Contrary to popular usage, the Constitution doesn't provide freedom of religion as a general societal matter. The Constitution controls what Congress may or may not do with its legislative powers, on the subject of religious practice."

Yes, but this does impinge on the rights of freedom of religion. And you see that today that this Constitutional injunction is being violated which then vitiates your argument.
For example, the enforced "National Day of Prayer".

"Quote number 3. The first quoted paragraph of Number 3 is correct, in the words used, at least. That's exactly what I'm saying: A lot of folks don't understand what the Constitution is all about. I can't speak for Bobert, though, and say that he meant the same thing that I'm expounding here."

There is no clear-cut interpretation of the document called the Constitution that can be agreed upon. A lot of what it states is open to interpretation and that is why we have legal means to attempt to enforce an interpretation.