tim@unc.UUCP (Tim Maroney) (09/29/83)
Recently I have been going on a campaign of contacting religious groups which advocate "turning this nation around", i.e., making the U.S. a Judeo-Christian nation rather than the nasty secular humanist society they say it is now. I tend to ask a series of very specific questions dealing with what life will be like in this proposed system for those of us outside the Judeo-Christian tradition. For instance, as a witch, would I be able to live without worrying that my job, my children, or my home would be taken away from me? If I were to be sent to prison for some crime, would my chances for parole depend on whether or not I was a good Christian girl? Would I be able to teach in public schools, or run for public office? In short, would I enjoy the same freedoms that born-again Christians enjoy in the current "secular humanist" society? Originally, I considered these questions strictly rhetorical. I naively believed that these Christians would not advocate the restriction of someone's freedom on the basis of religion. Then I began to notice that I was not getting any answers. The young man from Maranatha Ministries who was passing out a newsletter advocating a Judeo-Christian nation hemmed and hawed for a few minutes before telling me that "it didn't matter" what my position in this future society was, as long as I eventually "turned to Christ". A young woman from the same organization refused to reply to my questions at all, saying she hadn't really thought much about it. I decided to get in touch with some of the more famous organizations. I called the 700 Club. The young man who answered the phone was very polite. He told me that my questions were very good and offered to send me some literature. He did not answer any of my questions, and I had already read most of the literature he offered me. (Tim LaHaye's "Battle for the Mind" and C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity") I had less success when I called the PTL Club. The fellow who answered the phone did not want to talk, so I asked him to send me some literature. "What about?" he asked. "The legal position of non-Judeo-Christians in a Judeo-Christian America," I replied. He said he would get right on it and took down my name and address. The other day I received a letter from PTL congratulating me on having "accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal saviour" and recommending a local minister I could get in touch with. This unwillingness to answer what are very simple questions makes me nervous, and it leads me to suspect the worst. Therefore, judging from conversations I have had with some born-again Christians, the literature they have written on the subject, and the views they have expressed on their television shows, here is my vision of what life in a Judeo-Christian America would be like. The first people to feel the effects of the new order would be those groups which would be the easiest and safest to attack -- homosexuals, people involved with the radical left, and people involved in the occult or "cults". The homosexuals would be the simplest to destroy. They would simply be driven back underground by the threat of felony convictions or, at the least, the loss of their jobs, homes, and families. The radical left would have to be handled with more care. After all, McCarthyism almost did for red-baiting what Hitler did for anti-Semitism. While not faced with actual imprisonment, someone who admitted to being a Communist or a Socialist would find job opportunities limited and their movements watched. People who were not members of the state-sponsored religions would be fair game. After all, even now "de-programming" is advocated by many Christian groups. No doubt a thriving private de-programming business will be established and de-programming centers set up, "rehabilitating" the benighted with the good, old-fashioned methods of hard work, prayer, and sleep-deprivation. By making it government policy that the Constitution guarantees "freedom of religion" rather than "freedom from religion", the rights of atheists and agnostics to their own beliefs will be effectively removed. The children of unbelievers will be easy to spot during morning prayers at public school. Of course, it is not required that they participate in prayers. It is strictly "voluntary". There is, however, nothing to prevent a good Christian teacher from taking the poor little heathens aside and explaining to them that if they don't become Christians and pray, they will go to Hell. The teacher could even encourage the other children to witness to the child, using schoolyard peer-pressure for the glory of God. Naturally all teachers in the public schools will be Judeo-Christians by law, and if a teacher falls into the undesirable category of being a "secular humanist", she will understand that her job depends on keeping her radical views to herself. The poor are an especially vulnerable group. Welfare handouts from the state will, of course, no longer exist, but the Churches will handle charity work. Of course, those who utilize church charity will have to listen to a sermon if they wish to recieve aid, or perhaps submit to the local pastor "checking up" on them every now and then to see that they are deserving. Of course, a hefty portion of the poor will be unbelievers -- atheists, agnostics, witches, homosexuals, Communists, etc. who have lost their jobs, so requiring them to listen to Christian sermons will be doing them a favor. It will all be "voluntary". Heck, they wouldn't have to accept church charity. They could just as easily watch their children go hungry or cold. It is inevitable that certain elements among the poor will commit crimes such as prostitution or theft. These criminals can be put in prison with other lawbreakers, such as fornicators, homosexuals, stubborn witches or cultists and Sabbath breakers. Once in prison, the sky's the limit in experimenting with various methods of religious conversion. Only Judeo-Christian literature and counseling will be allowed, and the prisoners will understand that their chances for parole will depend on whether or not they have seen the light. I mean, let's be serious. Everybody knows that Christians are less likely to commit crimes than non-Christians. Since non-believers are basically sick people who deserve pity, all of these actions will be undertaken in the spirit of kindness and concern. Unbelievers will know that when the government imprisons them or restricts their activities, it is in their own best interests. They won't be FORCED to convert, only to follow the basic Christian tenets of pre-marital chastity, obedience to authority, and respect for the Sabbath. By the same token, candidates for public office won't be required to be Judeo-Christians, just to sign an oath swearing to uphold Bibical principles. Thus the non Judeo-Christian element will be rendered politically powerless without the fuss and bother of dis-enfranchisement. I have not written this article off the top of my head. A good bit of research has gone into it. I have talked to Christians who advocate a Judeo-Christian state, have read their books and watched their television network. If there are any Moral Majority Christians out there who take issue with what I have written, I ask them to get in touch with me and tell me where I am mistaken. I would also like it if they would tell me what WOULD happen to me and my family in a Judeo-Christian state. This is something I would really like to know, and the lack of response I have gotten so far is anything but reassuring. ___________ Pamela Troy c/o Tim Maroney duke!unc!tim (USENET) tim.unc@udel-relay (ARPA) The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
shacklet@ittral.UUCP (Cliff Shackelton) (10/03/83)
I too am disturbed by the political implications you describe, and Jerry Falwell et al scares me to no end with some of thier ideas. However, this does not stop me from being a Christian. The organized church has problems that can't be ignored. The whole point to christianity is that it is voluntary. I was like you at one time, disgusted with the church,(I was a Roman Catholic) they were trying to run my life. But through all the muck-a-luck I discovered that by reading the bible, and following it's principles I came to a very personal relationship with Jesus Christ. The freedom I feel is that I know I have eternal life. I can only speak for myself, and say that no one could have forced me into this state of mind and I could never agree with anyone passing any kind of legislation that mandates this belief. Some people are ready to hear the word and some are not. It is all according to the will of God for that person. We are all individuals with our own needs. I can present the fact without Jesus you will not see heaven and will die an eternal death. It's up to you to decide this is the truth and believe it, and to ask Jesus to come into your life. He died for your sins as well as mine and forgiveness is yours for the asking. I tell you these things as a friend and will pray for your salvation. C. Shackelton ITT Telecom
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (10/03/83)
About these Judeo-Christian religious fundamentalists who propose that THEY be the ones who run things in the country (I wonder how long the "Judeo" part would last; only until they got rid of all the other "offensive" groups?---"First they came for the gays, but I was not gay, so..."). Realize that, yes, they are denied important freedoms vital to their existence. Freedoms like: 1) the right to impose one's views on other people because it says that things should be a certain way in the Bible 2) the right to squelch opposing views that are detrimental to their benevolent (?) control of society (for its own good, of course) 3) the right to shut groups of people out of society because they do not adhere to their code of "ethics" Aren't these freedoms guaranteed to them under the Constitution? Could someone remind me which amendment it was? One that hasn't been passed yet? :-) Rich
decot@cwruecmp.UUCP (Dave Decot) (10/04/83)
Sounds like the \Star Trek/ episode, "I, Mudd," in which a planet of androids wanted to take over the galaxy so that the poor illogical humans would be "happy....and....controlled." Dave Decot ..!decvax!cwruecmp!decot
berman@ihuxm.UUCP (10/05/83)
How about moving this discussion to net.opium?
davidl@tekid.UUCP (David Levadie) (10/06/83)
"This unwillingness to answer ... simple questions ... leads me to suspect the worst." (?) Therein lies part of your problem. The people you are dealing with do not live by rational constructs, they live by dogma and faith. You are asking them to impose rationality - in this case, foresight or planning - upon their thoroughly non-rational Weltanshaung. You are interpreting their reactions by putting yourself in their place, and you do not think, or rather react, the way they do, so your suspicions of dire plots are unfounded. Your vision of a future under the gentle ministries of the MM types may be close to accurate. However, it will not occur by design but by mindless, slavish adherence to "principles", coupled with knee-jerk reaction.
swatt@ittvax.UUCP (Alan S. Watt) (10/06/83)
This discussion raises a fascinating example of why it is necessary to limit government power. Pamela Troy is worried about what her life as a non-Christian practicing witch is going to be like under a Judeo-Christian state. Gary Samuelson is frustrated with what his life as a believing Christian is already like in our supposedly "secular humanist" state. Other people have equally valid concerns. Now what is going on here? We have several distinct groups of people, who cannot reach a consensus on matters of religious belief or personal morals. Everyone is worried about what will happen to their group of people if some other group of people should somehow get control of government power. Historically, such concerns are amply justified; true tolerance seems to be even more difficult for governments to attain than a balanced budget. There are some things about which all people in a society simply *must* agree. For example, we all drive on the right side of the road; or we all agree that "alphabetical order" means that "a" comes before "q"; we all agree that a certain green piece of paper with George Washington's portrait on it is worth 1 dollar, and so forth. Now I believe it is true that where consensus cannot be reached, and the subject matter is such that multiple views cannot co-exist, then there *must* be spatial separation between the two systems. That is, driving on the right side of the road is not God-given; it is easy to imagine other ways of driving (indeed the English are reported to have invented some :-) ), but given the nature of the activity of driving, the same location cannot allow both driving on the right, and driving on the left. Members of some Episcopal congregations simply cannot agree whether they are going to use the new prayer book, or the 1928 version (really). They clearly cannot both be accomodated in the same service. Nations are a good historical example of partitioning of space between two systems that cannot co-exist. However, even within a nation there are many different domains controlled more or less by different interests within that nation. Now when space has been partitioned between two incompatible systems, one party assumes control of one side, and the other party assumes control of the other. Our capitalist systems have tended to recognize this by the concept of private property rights. If it's my pen, I can fill it with green ink if I want to, even if you believe green ink is the work of the devil. Similarly in my home I can sleep until noon and leave the toilet seats up, regardless of what you and your group deem proper. However, private property rights aren't absolute. People can't use the privacy of the home to murder their wives, or beat their children. We could no doubt come up with an infinate number of exceptions to my rights to control my own space. Still the partitioning of space into "mine" and "yours" has real meaning in terms of who gets to say what gets done and how. What the exact division is between those things about which we must all agree and those things which are properly left to private discretion is in itself a subject of debate. Further, it will change over time. An example is environmental concerns. Before there was either extensive knowledge about the behavior of the environment or the ability to affect it on a large scale, it was rarely a public issue. Now that both these conditions have changed, it is seldom a private issue any more. Still, unless some paritioning is respected, you simply can't accomodate diversity. Talleyrand once advised Napolean that the proper activity of the French state was to govern the territory of France, rather than attempt to export the revolution to the rest of Europe. He was making a statement here about the wisdom of respecting existing territorial divisions. Napolean, however, couldn't resist "improving" the rest of Europe, to his downfall. On a smaller scale, within our country, there is no shortage of groups which wish to "improve" society by either requiring some thing they deem good, or prohibiting some thing they deem evil. The problem arises when these groups will not respect existing divisions, or use an agent which does not respect them. Government is always in danger of being the agent to impose some group's view of what must or must not be done on others. Gary claims that in some towns regular Bible studies cannot be held without a permit. Until relatively recently, literature on birth control could not be sent through the U.S. Mail. I just heard of a case brought by the A.C.L.U. against a town asserting that putting up a traditional Christian nativity scene violated the separation of church and state. Now since nobody has solved the real problem of how to get universal consensus on all these issues, I can't see that having any single way imposed on us is any solution. I believe a society as large and diverse as ours can only survive if that diversity is allowed to continue. I believe this is only possible if the spatial partitioning which permits the members of diverse groups to set up their own ways of doing things is respected. Unfortunately, the only way to do this is to curtail the ability of government to interfere with what goes on in "private space". As soon as the power is there, I guarantee you it will be used by any group in power which doesn't like some of the things going on. In this context, the distinction between "liberal" and "conservative" ("democrat" and "republican", if you prefer) is seldom a useful one. In the 15 or so years I've been paying attention, I have yet to see an adminstration which wasn't eager to "improve" society by requiring or prohibiting something or another (for their own good, of course). So the thing to watch is not whether we get a "Judeo-Christian state" or a "Secular Humanist state" or a "Progressive Socialist state" so much as what the powers of that state are goint to be. If the powers are great, good intentions will count for very little. Government power is already much to great; and the society is still full of groups that want to add to that power if will benefit their pet goals. Concentrate on reducing government power, or at least stopping the increase of government power. The particular politics of whomever is in power won't matter so much then. - Alan S. Watt