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