Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!brl-tgr!wmartin
From: wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin )
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.politics,net.legal
Subject: Re: religion and public life: texas
Message-ID: <3753@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 2-Aug-84 12:00:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.3753
Posted: Thu Aug  2 12:00:26 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 4-Aug-84 02:37:34 EDT
References: <950@shark.UUCP>, <955@shark.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistics Research Lab
Lines: 19

If you go by the INTENT of the framers of the document, rather than
the current interpretation of the wording, I doubt that you could
ascribe 1st Amendment protections to non-Christian belief systems.
We have an attitude of toleration and acceptance which classes
Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc., as "religions" of equal legal
status with the various Christian denominations. To the "Founding
Fathers", any non-Christian belief system was simply "heathenism"
or pagan; these beliefs would not be accorded the status of a
"real" "religion", which would only be defined as one of the Christian
sects or denominations.

We have, of course, since then expanded the interpretation of the
wording to include all we now define as "religion". (This is still
culturally determined, though -- if you claim religious beliefs
mandate that you smoke pot, sacrifice virgins, engage in polygamy,
or otherwise act contrary to social conventions, your claims of
"religious" justification often get scant shrift.)

Will