[net.religion] Life in a Judeo-Christian State

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.

andrew@orca.UUCP (Andrew Klossner) (10/06/83)

Science fiction is good at presenting possible future scenarios.  There
is a book by Robert Heinlein presenting a plausible future world in
which the fundamentalists have come into control.  The title gets
changed every decade or so; the last such seems to be "Revolt in 2100"
(because the plot revolves around the revolutionary underground which
wants to restore a non-sectarian government).

This novel is part of Heinlein's "Future History Series", and so can
also be found in his megabook, currently titled "The Past Through
Tomorrow", available in paperback as a single (thick!) volume.

Another future theocracy is presented in "Gather Darkness" by Fritz
Leiber.  An enjoyable read, but not as relevant to this discussion
since the state religion is not based on Christianity.

  -- Andrew Klossner   (decvax!tektronix!tekecs!andrew)  [UUCP]
                       (andrew.tektronix@rand-relay)     [ARPA]

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