shad@teldata.UUCP (Warren N. Shadwick) (05/16/84)
* There seems to be a concerted (conspiratorial) effort in the United States by the federal government to kill religion. A few points to ponder: * One Supreme Court decision that calls one school's policy of prayer unconstitutional. Now, everything that relates specifically to non-secularism is being called unlawful. Even to the private, quiet, individual saying of grace before meals in the school cafeteria. * An Oregon U.S. district court decision to enjoin the Portland school board from having an invocation during commencement exercises. * A federal appellate decision against a Judaic rabbi teaching the Talmud to children in his own home (was found to be in violation of a Florida city's zoning ordinance). * The defeat of the federal prayer amendment. * The defeat of the federal equal access legislation. * The Supreme Court has refused to review Rev. Sun Yung Moon's case in which he was found guilty of tax evasion on not reporting income from a bank account that he claims was for his church but was in his own name. Tell me if I'm wrong but as I understand all Catholic bishops and cardinals have the church accounts in their own names. I'm sure this list is by no means complete. Somehow I thought it would never come to this here. The freedom of religion is the rock upon which this nation was founded. A quote seems in order here: "But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them [the People] under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security." -- The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776. The United States will never be able to live down this great document and the Constitution. If our country, as it once existed, is to be restored it must be through the People by love. Yours always in Freedom, Warren N. Shadwick
heahd@tellab1.UUCP (Dan Wood) (05/21/84)
With reference to the recent debates in Congress over school prayer and
religious club's access to public school facilities, I don't belive that the
federal government should matain laws forbidding prayer or other religious
activities in public schools, on the other hand, I also don't belive that laws
(i.e., constitutional amendents) should be enacted to sanction such practices.
The reason for this is the historical tendency of christians to interpret
freedom of religion to mean freedom for christians to force their views of the
cosmos on other peoples. I know in my heart (and from personal experience)
that there are teachers out there that would take a constititutional amendment
granting the *right* to pray in school as a mandate to make every child in
their class pray to the christian god rather then allowing each child to pray
to their own god (or goddess) in the manner that they see fit.
The author of the original article on this subject should explore more
closely the life and thoughts of the principal author of the document he
quotes. Thomas Jefferson (also the author of Virginia's Statute For Religious
Freedom), in his efforts to make religious freedom a basic tenent of this
government, was concerned the christians (or some other religious group that
might grow as powerful as the christians) would try to make their own
religion the officially recognized religion of the state, and thus establish a
tyranny as vicious as any political one. To paraphrase the great man in his
Notes on Virginia, he didn't care if a man had one god or ten and he didn't
think it was anybody else's business either, especially not the government's.
The point I'm trying to make (I can hear a lot of you sighing "It's about
time") is that the federal government was more right than wrong in the actions
sighted.
Dan Wood
Editorial replys by responsible groups or individuals are welcomed.
!tellabs1!heahdkeduh@hogpd.UUCP (D.HUDEK) (05/22/84)
<<||>> In the original article, the author postulated a conspiracy on the part of the federal government (of the USA) to kill religion. The author offered some points to ponder, and I'd like to take him up on it..... >* One Supreme Court decision that calls one school's policy of > prayer unconstitutional. Now, everything that relates > specifically to non-secularism is being called unlawful. Even to > the private, quiet, individual saying of grace before meals in > the school cafeteria. O.K., I'm game. What was the school's policy ? It's hard to form an opinion on this one without knowing the facts of the case. Did the school force the children to recite poems/essays directed to a particular representation of "God"? For the Supreme Court (I'm assuming the United States federal Supreme Court) to rule this way, I would assume some sort of force or coercion was involved, but as I indicated earlier, I really don't know which case is being referred to. The second and third sentences are somewhat bewildering. How do they follow from the first? Who is calling everything unlawful? I really do not believe that the "private, quiet, individual saying of grace before meals in the school cafeteria" has been called unlawful by any responsible party. Are you sure it was quiet, individual prayer and not a group exercise? >* An Oregon U.S. district court decision to enjoin the Portland > school board from having an invocation during commencement > exercises. I see nothing wrong with this. Why should a public entity endorse a particular religion by having an invocation at a public ceremony? If some people want this sort of thing, why don't they talk their local minister/priest/etc. into letting them stop by their church/synagogue/etc. before or after the public ceremony for their own private, religious one ? >* A federal appellate decision against a Judaic rabbi teaching the > Talmud to children in his own home (was found to be in violation > of a Florida city's zoning ordinance). This one may have a valid point concerning the "government" harassing a religion, but maybe not. Without knowing the facts involved, who can say? Was the rabbi "facilitating a religious experience" or was he/she (do they have female rabbi(plural) ? ) charging money and giving lessons in his home (similar to piano, or history, or whatever) ? If it was the latter, then he should be subject to the same laws as a piano teacher would be. >* The defeat of the federal prayer amendment. Which proposed amendment was this? I don't recall it (doesn't prove anything, I know, and I should read the papers more but...) Can you give us the wording? Remember, you have proposed a conspiracy, so it would be desirable to have a lot of factual ammunition :-) >* The defeat of the federal equal access legislation. Again, I must plead ignorance. I am not aware of exactly what legislation you are referring to, but I do recall hearing on the radio that some sort of law HAD been passed that would allow religious groups access to school facilities on an equal footing with non-religious clubs (like the chess club, etc.) This I was happy to hear, but maybe it was just local to New Jersey ??? >* The Supreme Court has refused to review Rev. Sun Yung Moon's > case in which he was found guilty of tax evasion on not reporting > income from a bank account that he claims was for his church but > was in his own name. Tell me if I'm wrong but as I understand > all Catholic bishops and cardinals have the church accounts in > their own names. If it is true that the bishops and cardinals have been doing this, then they should stop it. I guess the point being raised is why did they pick on the Moonies and not the Catholics... with the implication that the government would start with the small fry and move on to the big guns if successful. I don't necessarily see this as bad. Why shouldn't big corporations like the Catholic church have to pay taxes the same as Exxon? It hasn't put Exxon out of business, and the Catholic church certainly claims to have a much more worthwhile and beneficial product to sell than gas !!! In the original article, there were then some comments concerning freedom of religion. I would like to make the plea for freedom FROM Organized Religion. As I recall it, many of our forefathers ( does anyone really think I mean only the males by this?... just to be safe let me specifically state that I also mean foremothers ) left their countries because of persecution. It seems their religous beliefs didn't quite coincide with those of the official federal religion. Please don't lets us (hey, colloquial !) allow the government to be swayed by the political might of organized religion into repeating past mistakes. If one particular brand of religion (probably would be some flavor of Christianity) "takes over" so to speak, there's no longer too many places left to escape to. Persecution is ugly; persecution in the name of religion is abominable !! Hey that was fun !! I hope my tone was not too argumentative, but what the heck.... it's easy to delete hate mail :-). This whole subject intrigues me, but both sides (most of which are well-meaning and kindly people otherwise) feel so strongly about the issues that things get rather heated up and abusive fairly quickly. Let's see if we can debate the topic a while longer before slipping into flames (and condemning people to same :-) ) {ihnp4! or pegasus!} hogpd!keduh