No...it's not. violence/nonviolence are moral ideals...not a faith.
See below.
Neither "violence" nor "non-violence" constitute a religion for the purposes of the First Amendment.
Your post is sophomoric at best. "Non-violence" is a tenant or principle of several religions, and as such is a component of those religions, but it is not independently a religion unto itself.
There are several non-Abrahamic religions who's entire "faith" is non-violence. Similar to atheism who's only "faith" is non-magical thinking. I don't like calling atheism a religion, but I'm speaking in terms of past SCOTUS?(not sure, not an attorney, it's why I'm asking, trls) findings upholding non-faith as a religion/belief, for example.
One can be a Quaker and practice non-violence.
One can be a Buddhist and practice non-violence.
Both Quakers and Buddhists are recognized as religions. Pacifism alone does not a religion make.
You are making my point. Using your example:
One can be a Quaker and practice non-violence.
One
cannot be a
Theravada Buddhist and practice
violence. (google it) They believe that any intentional violence is a non-Buddhist act. (googling it will take you some time, but may be worth it.)
Both Quakers and Buddhists are recognized as religions. Pacifism alone does not a religion make
? Pacifism has historically been rooted in the religious fear of reincarnation. (google Pythagoras)
Buddhism is a perfect example of Pacifism as religion. Theravada Buddhism holds no belief that isn't rooted in Pacifism. If it isn't Pacifism, it isn't Theravada Buddhism. (google it)
Use google to find the Supreme Court definition of religion and stop asking others to do your homework.
Not in school anymore
Also, google it didn't cut it. I require much more than simple googling offers. Also, goggle sent me here anyways
