There’s a world-view? Singular? One “world-view”? Is this “world-view” accurate? Factual? Largely indisputable? Commonly accepted? Forgive me, but I don’t think so.
“I’m just asking you to understand it.”
Understand what? Your “world view” of the Inquisition? No? Then, whose “world view” of what?
“. . . we don’t have a single dominant church here like they did in medieval times, and Calvin’s Geneva, and Tudor England, and the Old Testament.”
You’re speaking of Religious Establishment, I take it, and the one establishment that our society has seen fit to prohibit. The prohibition against the establishment of religion is an onus that falls entirely on the state. The Regime may not establish a religion or prohibit its free exercise. The prohibition cannot act on individuals or private institutions; it may act only on the Regime. The Constitution limits and defines only the powers of government. It is the one thing that changes a regime into a government.
I’m very much aware of the multiplicity of Judeo-Christian doctrines that have sprouted in Liberty’s soil, allowing a variety of doctrines to flourish, but I know of no Judeo-Christian adherent who does not, as an article of faith, believe that God created Mankind and the Universe. Do you know of such a person? We all seem to agree on the essentials (depending, of course, on how “essentials” are defined). Why limit your observation to the Judeo-Christian religion? Does it not apply equally to all religions? Well . . . almost equally.
What of other doctrines, perhaps less obviously religious? What have we learned about the dangers of religious establishment, that we can apply to other doctrines? Such as, for example, of the Political “Correctness” Establishment?
I’m talking about the view of the world that the medievals had—and really most Christian civilization.
Slight correction—the Constitution limits the power of the *federal* government in this regard. Many states had established churches into the 1800s.
I don’t see anything wrong with religious establishment.