Congress doesn't even have to bother, YHAOS; for the simple reason that there effectively already is a federal "establishment" of religion: Secular Humanism. And it has a most jealous God, one that will not brook any "false idol" in preference to itself. Which is why the Christian faith is "persecuted" these days, inexorably and progressively delegitimated by the federal courts.
And surely you've noticed that Christian-bashing is the last "socially-acceptable form of bigotry" in America....
YHAOS, you asked: If a particular religion were to be “established” by this union of states, what actions would one reasonably expect The Congress to take to accomplish that end?
IMHO, all Congress has to do is to enact law to codify the atheistic decisions of the Supreme Court for the last quarter century (theistic symbols, actions and speech being abolished from publicly funded institutions).
I suspect Congress has already codified these decisions at least in the Federal workplace and use of funds for public schools - but I don't have time to search the Titles and Regs because my niece is coming to visit very soon now. But I will when I get a chance.
Further, I suspect a keen legal mind (like soon to be Chief Justice Roberts) - will pick up on atheism as a religion (various caselaw in above post 68) when it visits the Newdow "under God" decision assuming it is appealed.
That "win" could (IMHO) bring the whole house of cards down around the secular humanists....
Absolutely correct, bb, but your observation takes us away from the rather different point I am trying to establish. Can we gain a little perspective here, and note that the usual hysterical protestations against an ‘establishment of religion’ which we are constantly hearing from a trivial but noisy Left, quickly take on a rather silly appearance when compared to the actual events which would have to occur in a genuinely concerted attempt at an establishment of religion. And that’s assuming the mere seven conditions I listed constitutes an exhaustive list, which I imagine they do not. So anything substantive added to what I’ve already enumerated simply presents us with bleaker prospects.
Furthermore, I think it true, as you say, that a federal religion has, in effect (“effectively already is ”), been established, and not even by Congress, but by a simple majority of nine black robes. I would note what is really an observation commonly made, and state that Congress could not have mustered the votes necessary to pass most of what has managed to get in through the courts. We can then add that what this means is that in certain ways, by several means, we have gone from a representative republican form of government to an oligarchal form of government, composed of nine members, of whom five is a sufficient number to effectively rule.
I would further note that this effectively established federal religion was established, and is being maintained, by the use of the seven features I had outlined previusly.
I had intended to raise this issue as the next topic, but you’ve stolen my thunder [grin], so we may consider the topic covered, and move on.