[inquest]

What do you think it means when he says that considering Hinduism or Buddhism to be "religion" for purposes of the 1st Amendment would be an "erroneous assumption?"

Not for the purposes of the first amendment in general, but for the purposes of the establishment clause. He has acknowledged that Hindus and Buddhists have a God-given right to practice their faith. That's the free-exercise clause.

Under the establishment clause, he's saying that it refers to the establishment of particular sects. In other words, he's saying it's not possible to "establish" Christianity in general at the expense of other religious traditions, because Christianity is not a religious organization; it's a point of view. If you want to disagree with him, that's fine, but it doesn't make him a fanatic. It's well within the views of many at the time of the founding.

[lugsoul]

Are you actually taking the position that "religion" means one thing for the Establishment Clause and another for the Free Exercise Clause?

[lugsoul]

"He has acknowledged that Hindus and Buddhists have a God-given right to practice their faith. That's the free-exercise clause."

Not exactly. He has said they have a right to practice their faith given to them by the Judeo-Christian God. He has NOT acknowledged that they have a CONSTITUTIONAL right to practice their faith under the 1st Amendment. THAT'S the free-exercise clause.

Does "religion" mean the same thing in the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, or not?