Do you really believe that a majority of American do not think we should have a 1st Amendment and don't want to live in a country with such a law (for example), but that some wise framers gave it to us desipe most people being fundamentally opposed to the ideas contained therein? Do you think that most people believe murder should be allowed, but some wise authority determined it was better to have laws restricting when we can kill another human?

The question isn't whether every single American strenuously objects to your belief that god never had a son - but whether the majority of American's think you should be allowed, under the law, to have that belief. My position is that the vast majority of Americans think (i.e. most people think) that you should be allowed, under the law, to believe that god never had a son.

Put another way, if most people did not generally believe that our laws were just, proper and appropriate for governing our society, they would either be changed, or not followed, or we would be in some type of authoritarian system of oppression.

The establishment clause gives you no right to human sacrifice, yes. It doesn't prohibit human sacrifice. We, as a society, (meaning the majority of people in this society) have agreed that human sacrifice is something we will prohibit. But many many societies throughout history had laws / rules / codes that allowed human sacrifice under certain conditions.

Getting back to the beginning of this thread - you said all of my "analogies fall down imo because [I'm] comparing rights of living, breathing humans with those of a fetus. That falls down no matter where you are in the development of the fetus, beyond the point where the fetus could survive outside the womb." You believe, as do the vast majority of people, that "living breathing humans" have some type of "rights." You also seem to say that a fetus does not have rights "beyond the point where the fetus could survive outside the womb." So, you believe that the rights of a "living, breathing human" attach when a fetus could survive outside the womb. I might disagree and say that those rights don't attach until they have been born and the umbilical cord is cut, or until they become self aware. Our laws don't give that "living, breathing human" full "rights" of adult living, breathing humans until they are 21 years old But at some point (or incrementally at many points) along the process of development from an unfertilized egg and sperm to a 40 year old adult, that mass of living cells becomes a "living, breathing human" with "rights."

We essentially all agree (and thus our laws reflect) that a woman's rights in her own bodily autonomy is of a higher value and any "right" an unfertilized egg might have to be fertilized and perhaps grow into a human. We essentially all also agree (and thus our laws reflect) that a woman's rights in her own bodily autonomy is not of such a higher value that she can simply abandon a 3 month old baby in the woods because she is tired of caring for that baby. Our laws will be set about how the competing rights of mother and a fetus / unborn child / newborn child are protected based on what most people believe those rights are at what point along the development process and how much the rights of one mass of cells should be allowed to infringe on the rights of another mass of cells.