What establishment expresses

Abstract

Abstract Religious establishment is said to be wrong partly because of what it expresses. But the typical arguments about what establishment expresses are obscure and ambiguous. This article aims to provide a framework, illustrated by two hypothetical states, to better isolate and understand expressive reasons why establishment might be wrong. The article argues for the disambiguation of expressive claims about establishment, distinguishes between four types of expression, and suggests tests for expression of each type. It illustrates how expressive claims might be contextually assessed using the suggested tests. The article aims to allow lawyers, judges, policymakers, scholars, and members of the public to better understand, assess, and appreciate the moral significance of expressive claims about establishment and, potentially, expressive claims about law and government action more generally.