Ban Satanism? Yup, That's Constitutional

Wauck finds interesting stuff.  Here he summarizes the work of another and makes an additional point.

...While there is widespread disagreement about what the word “religion” means in contemporary usage, the issue for constitutional purposes is, What did the word “religion” mean as used in the Constitution’s First Amendment, at the time the document was written, for purposes of free exercise? 

The author has no doubts, nor do I, that any objective historical examination will show that, for the authors of the Constitution and for many decades later, the word “religion” and the concept that it communicated did not include Satanism....

So how come izzit that so many 'think' otherwise?

...he does place the blame for conservative intellectual confusion on this matter on an ideologically fundamentalist interpretation of the Constitution as embodying an ideology of absolute individual freedom. From an historical standpoint that is clearly a mistaken notion. What it amounts to is a libertarian ploy to convince conservatives—by a fundamentalist reading of the Constitution that utilizes an anachronistic modern usage of words like “religion” rather than a correct historical understanding—that the Constitution is an ideologically libertarian screed, rather than an effort to preserve social order according to the ideals of the Founding period.  ...

It has been noted that there is a school of thought which takes the Constitution--and ONLY the Constitution--as the guide-star for law in this country.  But there is another group of thinkers which take the Declaration PLUS the Constitution as the fundamentals.

The Declaration's reference to "......laws of Nature and Nature's God...." bolsters the 'historical' argument noted above.

And--by the way--it also militates against recognition of Trannies as a protected class.