V6M@PSUVM.BITNET (03/13/85)
<> The attitude of the other Christian sects had been a major concern of the Catholic Church since our realtions with them had not been very smooth either in America or the Old Country. So in spite of Religious freedom there has been sectarian problems throughout our history. The problemof sepera tion of Church and State in this country is a COMPROMISE and Don is correct the the secular left IGNORES the last psrt of the amendment!! THE basic problem of Christian government in this country is that NONE of the sects want anyone else to govern ALL in accordance with A SINGLE sects theology, morality or ethics. Ecumenism only goes so far. This is not to say that Christians and non-Christians CANNOT EVER agree on laws which are CORRECT, ENFORCABLE and apply to the body of the citizenry as a WHOLE. We can, BUT there comes a time when the CHRISTIAN CANNOT compromise and the best example I have is the Anti-abortion position. In spite of some fundamental doctrinal problems the Christian sects have joined in this. ME, Arndt and Dubuc are on the same side in this issue and we have MAJOR doctrinal distinctions. A CHRISTIAN IS OBLIGATED TO SPREAD THE KINGDOM. This implies that under a perfect society all laws would be based on Christianity, all members would be Christians, and Christianity would be the law of the land both SECULAR and THELOGICAL. Remember a religion MUST encompass both the realtionships between God and Man AND the relationships between MAN and MAN since these relationships are determined by GOD. (there is much simplification here) I have no qualms with Black on wanting this. I have a big problem with ITS implementation!!! Simply because I want to live in Catholic Society as Don wants to live in a (I think) fundamentalist society and as others want society shaped to be in accordance with their conscience. So we compromise and we keep the struggle dowen to a minimum. This DOES NOT mean that the Christian accepts all parts of the compromised society AS RIGHT. IT only means that AT the MINIMUM he can't change it. He must work to change what is wrong. As for prayer in public schools!!!! Simple solution here and the atheists called it right (albeit it for the wrong reasons). No obligatory prayer. No moments of silence or meditation or what have you since small children are easily cowered by peer and SUPERIOR pressure. This should be done not because there is no God but because of the threat of religious coercion. See Jody Patilla's article as corroborating evidence. Now I find it ironic that the American Catholic Bishops are backing an amendment for prayer in the public schools!! We HAD a lot of our problems precisely BECAUSE of prayer in the public schools. How soon they forget. Black's point of people being forced to reject religion is well taken, but the compromise I'm going to agree with has had problems and that is ANY valid religious organization should have acces to the public school system to administer to the spiritual and moral needs of its adherents. This couls be administerd in much the same way that colleges and the military handle the chaplaincy!! Here the FREE exercise of religion is implimentated by the state as long as neutrality is maintained. There is an even simpler solution and that is NO government RUN education. A voucher system could implement this easily and equitably. ( No I'm not going to debate this here or in any other newsgroup) I don't have all of Black's postings saved but while I disagree with his theology, in that America exists because of Divine order, I must defend the reasonableness of his position which is CONSISTENT with the fundamentalist world view. And what really upsets me is that most of the critics positions were too much knee-jerk-liberal!!! Most, but not all, of his points were main stream Christian: 1. a country and society should be moral 2. homosexuality is wrong 3. a country should be grateful to God for its blessings These I agree with. And all Christians can. When he ventured off into disputed dogma then I criticize. (Don't worry Don when you are ready to be reconciled we'll be waiting for you :-) ) From his postings I think Don is willing to work within the compromise of a pluralistic society. EVEN I AM. Hell I'm under oath to defend all of the miserable so and so's who infuriate me. I wish his critics would do the same. Marchionni
wkp@lanl.ARPA (03/15/85)
> Don is correct...I have no qualms with Black... > Black's point...is well taken, > > > I don't have all of Black's postings saved but while I disagree with his > theology...I must defend > the reasonableness of his position which is CONSISTENT with the fundamentalist > world view. And what really upsets me is that most of the critics positions > were too much knee-jerk-liberal!!! > > Most, but not all, of his points were main stream Christian: Well, I guess Rich was right. EVEN NON-FUNDAMENTALISTS ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH BLACK! While Black is spouting his hatred of Jews, liberals, and non-missionary-positioners on this net, Machionni has the visciousness to discuss theology with this guy! And denigrating his critics!!!! Even worse! Saying things like "Don is correct," or "I have no qualms with Black," or "Black's point is well taken." Oh great Ubizmo! Is this what people like Marchionni were doing while the European Jews were being put in death camps? (Don't answer this, I know the answer already.) > From his postings I think Don is willing to work within the compromise > of a pluralistic society. Stick it, Marchionni. -- bill peter