Replies

Yes.

An Establishment of Religion has long been obscured by those wanting to move the nation away from Christianity in particular.

At it’s heart to respect an establishment of religion means that, yes, some expression of divine truth is acknowledged ... BUT also that the State is empowered to do something ABOUT anyone who does not conform.

It’s about the assumption of police powers to do with how those who do not conform that is the “establishment”.

If, for example, you set up a 10 Commandments display out in front of a court house but that display has no bearing on who may enter the building to have business with the court then that is just a display.

But if you stand someone outside do demand of any seeking to enter the building what they think of the display and give that persons authority to bar any who give the wrong answer from entering ... THAT is respecting an establishment of religion.

It’s all about the assumption of police powers. How it makes you FEEL isn’t them having police powers, them having police powers is them having police powers.

Historically, in times and places known to the Founding Fathers, it had happened on at least two occasions that forces in Scotland had tried to respect and establishment of religion over the Westminster Confession of Faith and require any person seeking to serve in an official capacity (or serve of a jury) to make that confession or else be unable to serve.

The move WAS expressly anticatholic because, though the WCoF was of sufficient antiquity that it might be considered a “Roman Catholic” confession it was nevertheless not the one the RCC used. Less obvious was that among Presbyterians who were completely orthodox there were many who didn’t require confessing the WCoF to take communion ... which was pretty darn important.

Among Scottish Presbyterians they tore into each other over this and supposedly these fights spread even to the Colonies though none of those congregations had any dogs in the hunt.

Those were attempts to respect an establishment of religion.

Granted they fell far short of the “or take your last breath” sort of respecting an establishment of religion that had last been seen in England many years before ... but they were the ones most immediately known of.

BTW ... I think the years that they did this were in 1737 and 1767. I seem to remember clearly that they were 30 years apart but the actual years ... well, it’s been years since I read about them. I do know I later tried to investigate them only to discover an interesting fact ... that to secular historians I interacted with they were religious affairs and, conversely, to religious they were secular doings ... so oddly no one seemed much interested in them!

People are strange that way.