garys@bunkerb.UUCP (Gary Samuelson) (10/08/83)
I'm not sure that this response is worthwhile, because I think that
Byron Howes missed the purpose for my response to Pamela Troy's article.
I will attempt to explain. Pamela Troy wrote an article describing
what she feared would happen to society if the 'Judeo-Christians'
obtained the power that the 'secular humanists' now have (the terms
'Judeo-Christian' and 'secular humanists' are hers, not mine).
I took it upon myself to attempt to show that Christians do not
enjoy quite as much freedom as she would like us to believe. Thus,
my article dealt only with examples (some specific, and some generic)
where Christians are denied rights under current conditions. Some
of those examples, as Byron notes, could be extended to include
non-Christians. I do not object to that. In fact, it supports my
main contention that life in these United States isn't as wonderful
as she seems to claim.
For reasons of space, most of my original statements are deleted.
I apologize if that confuses anyone.
By the way, I make it a personal rule not to prolong a discussion
beyond four articles (article, response, rebuttal of response, and
rebuttal of rebuttal). Hence, in this case, Byron can have the last
word, if he likes.
BH:
I cannot believe that there is a law in any town in the United States that
specifically prohibits Christians from gathering together in a private
home or specifically prohibits Bible Study in a private home. I expect
there may be specific ordinances that prohibits groups greater than size
N from gathering in private homes on a regular basis, but that is not
an example of discrimination against or repression of Christians. The
laws apply equally to atheists, witches, Moslems, Jews or members of the
Chamber of Commerce.
GS:
Yes, the laws in question (zoning ordinances, as I said) are general
in their wording. And they were probably not written for the purpose
of repressing anyone.
BUT, the laws apply to those against whom they are enforced. I know
of cases where such laws have been enforced against Christians; do
you know of cases where such laws have been enforced against any of
the other groups mentioned? I don't (which is not to say that it
hasn't happened), and I am not about to examine the records at every
town hall in America to find out.
The law could no doubt be declared unconstitutional, if someone could
afford the necessary litigation.
GS:
It is illegal to pray in a public school. (This may be technically
incorrect, but that is the way the general public perceives the law.)
BH:
Huh? If that is the way the general public perceives the law, then how
come the polls consistantly show a majority of people against the insti-
tution of prayer in public schools?
GS:
Simple, that is the way the public perceives the law, and that is the
way they want it to stay. Why would it require a constitutional
amendment "to restore voluntary prayer", if that were not the case?
BH:
Strange as it may seem to you and some others on this net, evolution
does not imply the lack of a Deity. You insult my beliefs when you
try to throw that off as truth. What is being taught in schools is
the process whereby our world came to be, without regard to motivation.
It does stand in contradiction to the Christian Fundamentalist view
of history, but nobody should be teaching atheism. If they are, I'll
stand with you and the ACLU in opposing them.
GS:
I consider the following pairs of statements to be mutually exclusive
(in other words, both statements in each pair cannot be true):
1a. Life originated from non-living matter through natural physical
and chemical processes.
1b. Life was created by a supernatural being.
-----
2a. The material universe has always existed.
2b. The material universe was created by a supernatural being.
I think you will find that the ACLU is opposed to statements 1b and
2b being taught in public schools, in favor of statements 1a and 2a.
Refer to recent and current cases in the Arkansas and Louisiana
courts. You shouldn't make promises on behalf of the ACLU.
What biology text is used in your local public schools (Serious
question) ?
GS: It is illegal to teach Christian moral values in public schools.
But it is legal to teach anti-Christian moral values. And if you
are going to claim that the school don't, or shouldn't, teach
any moral values, I submit that it is not possible to avoid
teaching some set of values.
BH:
Who is teaching anti-Christian values? While I suspect (but am not sure)
that you are referring to sex education where is it in the Bible that
says information about sex and birth control cannot be imparted? If
someone is teaching kids to deface Christian churches or is running a
Masters and Johnson-type sex institute in a state-run school, I want to
know about it as much as you do.
GS:
No, I am not referring to sex education. I do not even mean 'sexual
morality' when I use the term 'morality' alone. I, in fact, am in
favor of sex education. HOWEVER, I also believe that along with the
facts, some guidelines for responsible sexual behavior ought to be
taught. If children are not taught some set of guidelines, they will
(it seems to me) assume that there aren't any.
Actually, I must admit that I had no specific case in mind when I
made the original statement.
GS:
I graduated from a privately operated, religiously affiliated college.
At that college, it is illegal to hold Bible classes in certain
buildings, because those buildings were constructed in part with
money from federal grants.
BH:
The stipulations are constitutional, not arbitrary. Don't try to throw
that straw man at us.
GS:
The interpretation of the Constitution which says forbids Bible classes
in buildings built with money from federal grants is arbitrary.
Where in the Constituition does it say that the government has the
right to restrict what is taught in a private school?
BH:
Since when is being honest an attribute that only Christians hold?
How does this repress Christians more than anyone else?
GS:
It isn't, and it doesn't. That doesn't make it right.
BH:
Everybody's tax money goes for things they don't believe in. That's
part of our "great democracy" that everybody talks about. I feel
the same way about MX missiles that you feel about abortion. I will
fight the best I can against holocaust machinery and expect you to
fight against abortion. I don't like American History as it is taught
in the public schools -- it is a rose-colored glasses view of the
role this country has played in world affairs. Again, Christians are
no more discriminated against than anyone else. There are things
all of us don't like. Nobody's forcing you to have an abortion,
nobody's forcing me to fire an MX missile.
GS:
I agree with what you say in this paragraph.
BH:
Only an offensive few "make fun" of bible quotes in net.religion.
GS:
So where is the public rebuke of those offensive few?
BH:
More often is the case that people object to Bible quotations being
used as exclusive "proof" of some statement of dogma. Has an
evolutionist ever quoted Darwin at you?
GS:
If I am attempting to explain what I believe (in religious questions)
or, in some cases, why I believe it, I will quote the Bible. Is
that unreasonable? Yet that is what it appears is found objectionable.
GS:
Now, as for what life will be like if the secular humanists
gain all the power they want, no doubt the first thing they
will do is put all Christians in mental institutions, since
they are obviously irrational and a threat to society.
BH:
Hmmm. The mythical secular humanists again. I think I've been here
before
GS:
I used the term because Pamela Troy used the term in her article.
I don't think much of it, as a meaningful classification, either.
My point was that I don't want Pamela Troy to have any more power
than she wants me to have, for similar reasons.
Incidentally, her entire article sounded like that one statement.
Gary Samuelson