Often in TT games, experts don't even need to roll to know - DM just says you pass. This would be modelled in BG3 by a character with [Cleric] and [Deity] tags getting a free pass, paid for by level 1 hard choices.

Back to skills, I have to mention again that polytheism is the norm in D&D. The religion skill is for the character that knows a lot about one religion and/or much about many religions, that's why it's optional not mandatory for clerics. You can play the dogmatic cleric that doesn't even have deep understanding of their own god. Function over form.

Paladins are martial warriors with oaths to a god (or cause, but let's set that aside). They wouldn't even get [Cleric] tags because being a pro warrior requires total time commitment and their oath more aligns with a valued aspect of a deity (justice, honor, valor etc) than the deity itself.

pachanj, I don't quite understand speaking terms, I think you mean have a personal relationship with a god? Well a non-divine class character wouldn't. I'd expect [Religion] skill characters to recognise and understand religious matters, but it'd take divine characters to perform actual rites or be an authority. Those are actual druids performing the Rite of Thorns, not [Nature] skilled acolytes.

Larian's done a pretty good job implementing paladins as trusted arbiters, e.g. Kagha or Rolan. That's a natural story decision for an oath-bound warrior well known for not lying.