[net.religion] "Christian" Nations

mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (09/18/85)

I don't particularly disagree with this section of Ken Barry's article:

>	The Constitution is, as always, what the Supreme Court says it
>is. I would think that declaring the US Christian would be about as direct
>a violation of the 1st Amendment as one could imagine, and fortunately
>the 9 people whose job it is to decide such things seem likely to agree,
>based on what they've decided in the past.
>	I would consider people that authored such a law to be either
>religious bigots, or terminally silly, depending on their intent. The
>former is unfortunately more likely than the latter, which is why such
>a declaration would cause me deep concern, and have my active opposition,
>were it proposed seriously. The Thought Police already have most of the
>world for their playground; let's not invite them into our homes.

The following section, however, is a bit hyperbolic:

>>Has it ever occured to any of us that this country really IS a religious/
>>christian country and should be coined as such to the extent that Iran is
>>considered a Muslim country, or Russia is considered an atheist country
 
>	If you notice how Russia and Iran treat those who don't subscribe
>to their respective state religions, I think no further answer is
>necessary.

Well, these aren't the ONLY countries which have official religions.  Don't
forget Great Britain, which IS officially a "Christian" nation, with an
established church.

>>Would it be religious tyranny for the federal government to take a stand on
>>religious issues?

>	It is religious tyranny for the government to support any particular
>set of religious beliefs, or to show any special favor to particular
>religious groups.

Well, this is a bit overstated.  I'll be the first to concede that the
English government has in the past been tyrannous about religion.  Burt it
is hardly so now.  It is the lust for power and domination which drives
oppression, not the stated excuse.

Charley Wingate

tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (09/19/85)

Wingate:
> I'll be the first to concede that the
> English government has in the past been tyrannous about religion.  Burt it
> is hardly so now.  It is the lust for power and domination which drives
> oppression, not the stated excuse.

You'd think differently if you were a Scientologist.  They are routinely
denied visas and their books cannot be distributed.  Don't get me wrong; I
despise Scientologists; there's a lot of bad blood between them and
Thelemites, due to L. Ron stealing large amounts of money and property from
Jack Parsons.  But they still have a right to follow their moronic religion
without impediment.
-=-
Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking
ARPA:	Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K	uucp:	seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim
CompuServe:	74176,1360	audio:	shout "Hey, Tim!"

bnapl@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) (09/20/85)

In article <k.544> tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes:
>Wingate:
>> I'll be the first to concede that the
>> English government has in the past been tyrannous about religion.  Burt it
>> is hardly so now.  It is the lust for power and domination which drives
>> oppression, not the stated excuse.
>
>You'd think differently if you were a Scientologist.  They are routinely
>denied visas and their books cannot be distributed.  ...

That doesn't mean that GB, or any other country, must grant them a visa,
especially if these persons are under investigation in another Western
country for criminal wrongdoings.  How does GB go about restricting the
distribution of Scientologist meterial?

>Don't get me wrong; I
>despise Scientologists; there's a lot of bad blood between them and
>Thelemites, due to L. Ron stealing large amounts of money and property from
>Jack Parsons.  But they still have a right to follow their moronic religion
>without impediment.

As do Thelemites!

>-=-
>Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking
>ARPA:	Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K	uucp:	seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim
>CompuServe:	74176,1360	audio:	shout "Hey, Tim!"


-- 
Tom Albrecht 		Burroughs Corp.
			...{presby|psuvax1|sdcrdcf}!burdvax!bnapl

news@sysvis (09/25/85)

>> [Wingate.]  I'll be the first to concede that the English government has in
>> the past been tyrannous about religion.  But it is hardly so now.  [...]
>  [Maroney.]  You'd think differently if you were a Scientologist.  They are
>              routinely denied visas and their books cannot be distributed.

Sorry, Wingate.  If true, this is certainly religious based harassment.  Old
habits die hard.  However, it is "better" now (for some).  Now ol' Tim turns
right around and does the same thing.  To wit:

> Don't get me wrong;(sic) I despise Scientologists; [Wow!] there's a lot of 
> bad blood between them and Thelemites(?), due to L. Ron stealing(?) large 
> amounts of money and property from Jack Parsons.  But they still have a
> right to follow their moronic(?) religion without [judgmental?] impediment.

       Aren't you lumping ALL (moronic) scientologists together and condemning
them as a group?  Your earlier postings led me to believe that you considered
"lumping" to be less than desirable.  Do you also lump all Baptists with Jerry
Falwell, all atheists with Madeline Murray O'Hare, or all Roman Catholics with
the Pope?  Why is it now okay for you to so lump?  You defended Islam (earlier
postings), without a religious degree in their precepts.  Now you condemn
Scientologists, I presume without a degree in those precepts.  How did you ever
get such a wide ranging knowledge?  Why is it okay for you to JUDGE the Moham-
medans(good), Scientologists(bad), etc. without due process of ideas?   Was the
`theft' by L. Ron alleged, or a court judgment?  Can you, Tim, state just what
it is that you feel is "moronic" about either the Scientologists or their reli-
gion, in the interests of fairness?  I feel that Islam has been covered pretty
well lately, at least up to the point where interested individuals can further
research it on their own.

Don't get the idea that, because *I* attempt, in my own limited way, to defend
religious (and intellectual) freedom of expression on this net, that I feel the
need to adhere to any person/group discussed.  Thereby, I am nipping in the bud
those who wish to write responses full of accusations about my personal loyal-
ties and then condemn me for them.  I stand for INDIVIDUAL freedoms of expres-
sion, discussion, religion, and ideas.  Totally!

                 ...!ihnp4!sys1!sysvis!george
The ideas expressed here are mine.  No one else is responsible for them.