No. Timothy Dwight and Zedidiah Morse helped plan the Second Great Awakening.

Again, I point to Adams’ letters to Jefferson in which he wrote extensively against a national religion. He continued the state religion in Massachusetts because he didn’t have much choice, but his written letters indicate he was against it. He considered religion to have a moralistic value, but should not be part of the state.
You could say he evolved over the issue if you want to, but to say Adams supported religion as a function of state would be incorrect.

“The substance and essence of Christianity, as I understand it, is eternal and unchangeable, and will bear examination forever, but it has been mixed with extraneous ingredients, which I think will not bear examination, and they ought to be separated.”
These are the words of wise men.

I haven’t thought too much about Barber’s article and whether he argues the FA protects “Christianity” only.
Story’s sentiments speak of an “object” or a “purpose” of the FA. That’s well and good; but what’s more important is the actual original meaning of the text of the First Amendment. It uses the term “religion” not “Christianity.” And the two were not synonymous to the Founders.

Please note the above post and quotes contained wherein are directed at Ken. The quotes are easily found in Lester J. Cappon’s The Adams-Jefferson Letters are not made up and butchered messes like so many of the made up quotes of the Founders are, if such quotes were actually the words of the Founders themselves.

Another irony, of course, is that William of Orange became KING William III, although he had no kids, so we will never know if he would have ‘struck to his allegedly-calvinist principles’ and not allowed one of his offspring to succeed him.

Claiming Calvin’s Republican Geneva a theocracy is so baseless it deserves no rebuke.

Then isn’t it ironic that Calvin’s Geneva was essentially a theocracy?!
Hamilton was keen to avoid too much ‘pulling in different directions’ by the states in the young union; my understanding of the references to Greece and ‘Italy’ is that they serve to warn of possible consequences of a weak union. He then goes on to set out ideas on how a strong, but democratic, union might be ‘run’.

WT: “Story also described the point of the no religious test clause as forbidding test based on any religion.”
—-
Which is fine, but the key word there is “also.”
It suggests Story viewed both as true, and did not think there was a dilemma between them.
Story’s position seems to be twofold, as follows:
(1) “The real object of the amendment was…to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects.”
(2) “Story also described the point of the no religious test clause as forbidding test based on any religion.”
Is there a necessary contradiction between (1) and (2)?
And if not for Story, then why would there be for Barber?
In other words, there seems to be a connecting thought or idea that makes (1) and (2) reconcilable for Story and for Barber, and its just a matter of locating it.

It was only 2008 when blasphemy laws were formally abolished in England and Wales. I think that there is still something ‘on the books’ in Scotland and N. Ireland.
Like you, Tom, I suspect that much (most?/all?) of their past (and in some places, present) use was (is) about the pursuit of (worldly) political objectives. In any case, God can cope with those are rude about him! And he is probably very pleased when people speak truthfully!!!
(The UN has just started a big campaign against homophobia; maybe another against blasphemy laws would be a good idea?! If it were done well, it could sow useful seeds for the future, even in those places that seem very much wedded to such things,)