You are talking about the disbursement of taxes, which has everything to do with the government and what the people of a given state wish to do with that money, not the establishment clause in the Constitution, which is there for a very different purpose indeed (to prevent the establishment of a specific, state religion, to counter the notion of English religious dictate which rather peeved off the Puritans). To confuse the two issues, one very pragmatic and concerned with state politics and money, and the other of the mind of the framers, will never yield a conclusion of any sense whatsoever.
And Buddhism is considered by its own followers to be a philosophy, not a religion.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 05:40 (UTC)You are talking about the disbursement of taxes, which has everything to do with the government and what the people of a given state wish to do with that money, not the establishment clause in the Constitution, which is there for a very different purpose indeed (to prevent the establishment of a specific, state religion, to counter the notion of English religious dictate which rather peeved off the Puritans). To confuse the two issues, one very pragmatic and concerned with state politics and money, and the other of the mind of the framers, will never yield a conclusion of any sense whatsoever.
And Buddhism is considered by its own followers to be a philosophy, not a religion.