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

To: lugsoul
There is no "official" church, nor any "official" church doctrine.

There would still have to be an official organization, otherwise anybody could just up and call himself an imam.

Anyway - the idea that their are some faiths with fall within "thereof" which do not fall within "religion" is among the most tortured Constitutional constructions I've seen, and is worthy of none other than William O. Douglas in its lack of textual support.

That's not what I said. I said that a "faith" is not a religion. Religions are modes of worship, and the organizations centered around them. There's only a slight variation of context between the two clauses that are influenced by the surrounding words. You seem to be reading way more into my statements than there actually is.

694 posted on 08/21/2003 2:20:51 PM PDT by inquest (We are NOT the world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 687 | View Replies ]


To: inquest
"There would still have to be an official organization, otherwise anybody could just up and call himself an imam."

Yep. That would be the case. Though not everyone would have to agree, or listen to him. It is more of a bottom-up thing than a top-down thing.

701 posted on 08/21/2003 2:29:35 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 694 | View Replies ]

To: inquest
Okay, then - let's get back to the basic question. Moore said Hinduism and Buddhism are not "religions" as that word is used in the 1st Amendment. Why not? What else is not? What would be required for them to be "religions?" What kind of "organization" do they need? Is Islam a "religion" for purposes of the 1st Amendment?
703 posted on 08/21/2003 2:32:22 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 694 | 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