Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: 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?" What part of that am I misreading?
465 posted on 08/21/2003 12:08:11 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 458 | View Replies ]


To: lugsoul
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.

482 posted on 08/21/2003 12:20:36 PM PDT by inquest (We are NOT the world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 465 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson