[lugsoul]

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?"

[inquest]

And he is pushing the view that they are not protected by the Constitution.

I'm just not seeing that from what you posted.

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?"

"Religion" was defined by Madison (and I'm paraphrasing) as a mode of worship. Modes of worship are associated with religious sects. Hence, when the Constitution speaks of an "establishment of religion", it's referring to an establishment (that is, investment with governmental office) of an organization oriented around a particular mode of worship. Buddhism is not an organization. Hinduism is not an organization. But they are faiths whose followers exercise various modes of worship, and so these followers are protected by the free-exercise clause in their worship.