bch@unc.UUCP (Byron Howes ) (10/07/83)
>>In some towns, it is illegal for Christians to have regular Bible >>studies in their homes, without a permit. It violates zoning >>ordinances, and if people complain (which they have, in some cases), >>the Christians can be ordered to desist. 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. >>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.) 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. Nevertheless it is not illegal to pray (non-disruptively) anywhere or at any time. It is illegal for someone to conduct organized prayer at non-voluntary gatherings in state institutions. >>It is illegal to teach that the world was created by an intelligent >>creator in the public schools. But it is legal, and practically >>mandatory, to teach that the world originated as a result of random >>(unintelligent) processes. Neither statement can be scientifically >>verified or disproved, but one cannot be taught in public schools, >>and the other can. 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. >>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. 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. >>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. Well, you say, the supplier of funds can >>attach whatever stipulations he, she, or it desires. Fine, I don't >>want any state run university which was partially funded by my money, >>either in the form of tax dollars or donations, to teach such-and-such. >>What's the difference? The stipulations are constitutional, not arbitrary. Don't try to throw that straw man at us. >>In the job market, Christians are discriminated against if they won't >>"play the game," which means lie, cheat, and steal like everybody >>else. Since when is being honest an attribute that only Christians hold? How does this repress Christians more than anyone else? >>In politics, Christians are discriminated against in that if they >>advocate laws which conform to their values, they are accused of >>"forcing their beliefs on others." Yet if non-Christians advocate >>laws which conform to their values, that's "making use of the >>legislative process." Isn't using my tax money to pay for abortions >>forcing the beliefs of pro-abortionists on me? Don't I have a say >>in what my children are going to be taught in the public schools? >>Don't I have a say in what my tax money is spent on? No, I don't, >>because if I did, that would violate the separation of church and >>state. 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. >>As a final, if rather ludicrous, example, consider that it is >>socially unacceptable to quote the Bible in a discussion group >>called "net.religion." If you believe the Bible, that is. If >>you don't believe it, you can, of course, quote it as much as >>you like for the purpose of ridicule. Only an offensive few "make fun" of bible quotes in net.religion. 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? >>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. >>Gary Samuelson Hmmm. The mythical secular humanists again. I think I've been here before Byron Howes UNC - Chapel Hill decvax!duke!unc!bch