Replies

In his own words, he said that those things were not within the proper definition of "religion." Do you agree or disagree?

They are not within the definition of the word "religion" as modified by the word "establishment".

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. If you're trying to suggest that he's out to trample on the rights of non-Judeo-Christians, I'd be interested in seeing how. It would be rather out of character for him, since he'd be violating the word of God, as he understands it, if he were to do so.

I'm not saying he is trying to trample on them. But if they are not protected by the Constitution, others can. And he is pushing the view that they are not protected by the Constitution.

Now, since you seem to think that "religion" means something different when modified by the word "establishment" than otherwise, please explain how - why are these faiths not "religions" when modified by the word "establishment?"