“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.
“One man one vote.”
Excuse me? The truth is not subject to vote.
“His opinion only carries more weight than anyone elses if it is good and eloquent enough to persuade more people”
No, his opinion carries more weight if it is more credible, whether he is eloquent or not, and most especially if it is correct. His opinion is more credible because he is closer to the event in question, and therefore had direct access that we don’t, and because he has demonstrated intelligence and wisdom over the long term. As for persuasion, it is a fact of the human condition that it is easier to persuade most people of a plausible falsehood than an implausible or unpalatable truth.
“Still, doesn’t persuade me”
Well then, you need to add to your store of information and reconsider.
“Besides, being from that era he is neccesarily rooted in that era.”
Doesn’t matter. The Constitution is also of and 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.”
Again, irrelevant. The Constitution says what it says. It doesn’t suddenly start meaning something else just because the left makes the argument you just made. It is morally bankrupt to “reinterpret” the Constitution to suit the whims of the moment, rather than using the procedures for amendment set forth in that document.
“I agree...but who decides what is a “legitimate religion”
I do.
But seriously, folks, that was already decided when the Constitutional Convention met.
“Is it purely on the basis of numbers?”
You really need to get in touch with the principle that the truth is not subject to popular vote.
“There have been times when Christianity was regarded as a “whacko cult”
The fact that people can be wrong serves to demonstrate only that people can be wrong.
“There have been more recent times when “Baptist” was regarded as a “whacko cult”
Not in the same way that wicca is. It was never regarded as other than Christian. More of a fundamentalist sect than a whacko cult.
“I also think proscribing (mohammedism and wicca) is a dangerous step.”
Not even remotely as dangerous as failing to proscribe them.
“Atheism is a bona fide belief system (or unbelief system) shared by a very large number of people world wide.”
That must be some new use of the term “bona fide” that I haven’t run across before. Yes, it is true that Satan has deceived “a very large number of people world wide,” but in what way does that make his lies “bona fide?”
“but I’m certainly not so scared of them I want to ban them.”
WRT mohammedism and wicca, you should be that scared. WRT atheism, it would be sufficient to refrain from according it the intellectual credibility that inheres in a legitimate religious belief.
“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”
At the time that the Constitution was ratified, several of the original states had official state religions, and there was nothing in the Constitution that required them to be abolished. This was not a concept that needed “introducing” into America.
“In particular, there was a lot of anti-catholic opinion in the US at the time.”
It would be more accurate to say that some people held anti-Catholic opinion, while others did not. I know of nothing to show that Justice Story was bigoted against Catholicism.