“Well he wasnt one of the original draftees so that is his opinion.”
Not necessarily. He could easily have gotten it directly from one or more of the framers.
Even if it were only his opinion, the opinion of a renowned supreme court justice of that era carries a lot more weight than that of anyone living today.
Even in my own lifetime, though, it was accepted as too obvious to need stating that freedom of religion applied only to legitimate religions, and not whacko cults like mohammedism and wicca.
It is only the recent, evil machinations of the left that have brought widespread currency to the lunatic notion that, if we do not discriminate against Christians, we must also refrain from discriminating against every nutbar that comes down the pike and pukes the word “religion” in our faces.
“Besides, amongst those “not countenancing” he would have included Catholicism, atheism, and probably Anglicanism.”
Atheism, certainly, as is right and proper. But what in the world would make you think he would discriminate against Catholicism and Anglicanism? That makes no sense whatsoever.
“Even if it were only his opinion, the opinion of a renowned supreme court justice of that era carries a lot more weight than that of anyone living today.”
That is highly debateable. One man one vote. His opinion only carries more weight than anyone elses if it is good and eloquent enough to persuade more people, (which admittedly it does. He was obviously a very talented and erudite individual. Still, doesn’t persuade me). Besides, being from that era he is neccesarily rooted in that era. He didn’t have much idea as to how the US would grow and develop - theres a whole raft of social issues he couldn’t possibly have forseen, starting with mass immigration from non-English speaking nations.
“Even in my own lifetime, though, it was accepted as too obvious to need stating that freedom of religion applied only to legitimate religions, and not whacko cults like mohammedism and wicca.”
I agree...but who decides what is a “legitimate religion”? Is it purely on the basis of numbers? There have been times when Christianity was regarded as a “whacko cult”. There have been more recent times when “Baptist” was regarded as a “whacko cult”. Don’t get me wrong, I share your misgivings about islam and wicca (and indeed several others), but I also think prescribing them is a dangerous step.
“Atheism, certainly, as is right and proper. But what in the world would make you think he would discriminate against Catholicism and Anglicanism? That makes no sense whatsoever.”
Atheism is a bona fide belief system (or unbelief system) shared by a very large number of people world wide. I think they are wrong, but I’m certainly not so scared of them I want to ban them. Both Catholicism and Anglicanism are hierarchical in nature and both, by neccesity, endorse the idea of “state” relgion, a concept he would certainly be opposed to introducing into the US (me too, actually, and I’m not even American). In particular, there was a lot of anti-catholic opinion in the US at the time.