rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (09/21/84)
Mr. BenDavid writes >> >> >>If vocal prayer is a doctrine of some religion then it inheretly >>designs to impose its vocal prayers on the ears of some whose >>right it is to be free of such imposed prayer. That is against >>the constitution. Their right to pray stops at my right not to >>have it imposed on my ears, the ears of my children, and not >>have my children subjected to peer ridicule for resisting (even >>being a passive party to) religious imposition. >> >>Christianity from time to time has the doctrine of forced con- >>version (Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, Naziism, etc.). Shouldn't >>they too be allowed to "do their thing" in schools under that >>same principle? Just because it is a doctrine of some religion >>to pray vocally has no relevance to their right to PRACTICE >>their religion IN SCHOOL! The whole argument of the constitution >>relates to the right to practice one's religion in freedom APART >>FROM PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS and/or governmental ENDORSEMENT. >> >> Dealing with your first paragraph... Wouldn't the logical extension of your reasoning say that I only have freedom of speech as long as it doesn't offend you ? I take this tack because religious speech has too long been relegated to second class status. Again peer ridicule is exercise of free speech. Ignorant and unkind as it can be it is part of the exercise of free speech. Would you have the teachers or their assistants patrolling the school yard searching for those ridiculers (?) of their peers and punishing them ? Christianity must accept "blame" for the Inquisition and the Crusades but the Nazis were not officially Christians (they were more into Nature Worship) although they did put out propaganda that said things like "God sent Hitler to restore Germany to its rightfull place....etc etc" and "The 1000 year Reich will usher in the Millenium..." Jews were not forced to convert to Christianity. You were a Jew, by Nazi definition, if a certain portion of your ancestors were Jews. Your present religion at the time these facts were revealed was not relevant to whether you got to ride the train to the concentration camp. If your assertion is correct please provide a reference of wide spread forced conversion during Hitler's era. Remember Nazi dogma said that Jews were subhuman and it is a tad illogical to want to convert what you consider subhumans into your elite Aryan group, isn't it ? (if we assume Nazism is Christian ) Finally, the Constitution as implemented did not prohibit public exercise of religion (especially Christianity) in our public institutions. It remains to be seen if your view will carry the day legally but your view is certainly anti-historical in view of the continuous presence of God and religion (again usually Christianity) in the Government from the Continental Congress all the way down to the House and Senate today who continue to have invocations and chaplins. In the beginning of our Republic this "flaw" was not evident to the Founding Fathers (and Mothers). Perhaps, like Slavery, it will be a Constitutional error that is corrected. But also perhaps it will be recognized as an exercise of Free Speech which is the outcome I desire. Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (09/25/84)
Bob Brown writes, in part: >Again peer ridicule is exercise of free speech. Ignorant >and unkind as it can be it is part of the exercise of >free speech. Would you have the teachers or their >assistants patrolling the school yard searching for >those ridiculers (?) of their peers and punishing them ? ... >Finally, the Constitution as implemented did not prohibit >public exercise of religion (especially Christianity) in >our public institutions. It remains to be seen if your >view will carry the day legally but your view is certainly >anti-historical in view of the continuous presence of >God and religion (again usually Christianity) in the >Government from the Continental Congress all the way >down to the House and Senate today who continue to have >invocations and chaplins. In the beginning of our Republic >this "flaw" was not evident to the Founding Fathers (and Mothers). Schools are places for the education of minors. Any speech by them which disrupts the classroom should be proscribed. I hope Bob Brown does not believe that the first amendment to the Constitution protects screaming tykes. It does not protect juvenile ridicule, either. This is also true of adults. Consider such crimes as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, slander, harrassment, being a public nuisance, perjury, public disordliness, etc. These are not protected rights, even for adults. There is a difference between the Founding Fathers' guarantee of Free Speech and Bob Brown's claim of Free Talk. Also, schools are NOT public places, though they may be publicly owned. A public place is one open to someone off the street to enter, such as a park or a movie theater (note this may be privately owned and may charge a fee, but may not prohibit an individual from entering, and is thus a public place). Since schools do have restricted access ("visitors must first report to the office" where they are or are not approved), it is not a public place. If it were, then, say, Moonies would have free run of the hallways. The Constitution prohibits teacher-administered group prayer, as this would necessarily involve the establishment of some religion or religious tenets. Other vocal prayer is permitted only if it is not disruptive. In school, I believe it would be permissable during a period devoted to extra-curricular activities (such as an "activities" period after school), but not during classroom hours, that is, periods where attendance is mandatory. Vocal prayer deserves no more protection during hours than any other expression of personal belief would receive. Finally, silent, personal prayer has always been permitted, and it is also guaranteed. A QUESTION: My question to those who feel the status quo is insufficient: does your religion teach that God is less likely to hear silent prayer than vocalized prayer? Does it teach that God listens more carefully to group prayer that to individual prayer? If it does not, then your ends are socially motivated rather than religously motivated, and you ought to frankly concede that. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (10/02/84)
> Mr. BenDavid writes > >> > >>Christianity from time to time has the doctrine of forced con- > >>version (Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, Naziism, etc.). Shouldn't > >>they too be allowed to "do their thing" in schools under that > >>same principle? Just because it is a doctrine of some religion > >>to pray vocally has no relevance to their right to PRACTICE > >>their religion IN SCHOOL! The whole argument of the constitution > >>relates to the right to practice one's religion in freedom APART > >>FROM PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS and/or governmental ENDORSEMENT. > >> > >> > Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb} > Christianity must accept "blame" for the Inquisition > and the Crusades but the Nazis were not officially > Christians (they were more into Nature Worship) > although they did put out propaganda that said things > like "God sent Hitler to restore Germany to its > rightfull place....etc etc" and "The 1000 year > Reich will usher in the Millenium..." > Remember Nazi dogma said that Jews were subhuman > and it is a tad illogical to want to convert > what you consider subhumans into your elite Aryan > group, isn't it ? (if we assume Nazism is Christian ) [Place trinitrotoluene v-e-r-y carefully...] Pardon me for exploding a few myths, but Hitler found the basis for his actions in a rather well-referenced (but little-read) book - THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES "Build a better race of people! Select those who are better and get rid of the rest!" Nazism was evolution in living color - and living horror. The evolutionary philosophy doesn't stop there. The "Bulldog of Darwin," Thomas Henry Huxley, viewed blacks as unhuman and unfit to survive, and was fully prepared to accomplish natural selection - with him being the natural selector (naturally :-). Karl Marx wanted to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin (Darwin declined). After his study of Marx, Lenin also took a very big interest in Darwin, and therein found full justification for his revolution and later slaughters. Then there was this Mussolini guy, who also found his support in Darwin... For further study, I recommend _Evolution and Christian Faith_, an excellent work by zoologist Bolton Davidheiser (PhD, Johns Hopkins, specializing in Genetics) but little-known, even among creationists. But then, "Nobody expects Auschwitz!" -- The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford {amd,decwrl,sun,idi,ittvax}!qubix!lab You can't settle the issue until you've settled how to settle the issue.
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (10/03/84)
Larry,
If you're going to blame Darwin for Nazism, you may as well blame
Jesus for the Inquisistion, right?
Darwin only sought a cogent explanation of what he observed. He never
suggested that what was "natural" was "right". Other creatures, who
cannot distinguish right and wrong, must do what is natural. Man can
do what he pleases. The Origin of the Species does not teach Social
Darwinism.
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!davidmrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/04/84)
> [Larry Bickford] > > Mr. BenDavid writes > > >> > > >>Christianity from time to time has the doctrine of forced con- > > >>version (Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, Naziism, etc.).... > > Pardon me for exploding a few myths, but Hitler found the basis for his > actions in a rather well-referenced (but little-read) book - > THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES I'm not going to waste space making the obvious argument that the ideas of evolution have to be misused to "support" the ideas of Hitler and others. I'll recommend reading "The Mismeasure of Man" by Stephan J. Gould. The point (as I see it) is that ideas (such as Christianity and evolution) have characteristic patterns of abuse. Larry has accurately pointed out some characteristic abuses of evolutionary ideas, and I would oppose those abuses, such as teaching that evolution supports racism. Especially if the government is attempting to perpetrate those abuses. If the government teaches (in the public schools or elsewhere) that evolution means racism is right, then I will oppose that teaching. I also oppose the government perpetrating typical religious (including Christian) abuses. Such as institutionalizing religion. (School prayer is a fine example of this.) That is why I oppose school prayer, but not teaching of evolution. public schools. -- Mike Huybensz ...mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh