david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) (02/04/85)
There was a recent newspaper article about a government official who wrote favorably about state religion to a group of church schools. This did not disturb the Reagan administration. It should disturb everyone who is a Christian; after all, Jesus was put to death by the cooperation of the official political and religious powers of that time. Doesn't anyone remember the Holy Roman Empire, or the persecution of Quakers and other sects at the time of the English Revolution? Why do you think the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, of assembly, and of speech, in one declaration? Well, for example, the first law suppressing minority religious sects at the time of the English Revolution (300+ years ago) was the Quaker Act which prohibited the assembly of more than three Quakers, even for religious meetings. Of course, nearly half of them were put in jail at one time or another, since they were not so cowardly, but when they came to this country, before the union of states, they passed the first laws providing religious freedom. Later, we have the First Amendment as it is. The idea of a state religion which supports our military- industrial complex is no different than that of the Church supporting the Empire. The Empire profited from warfare all over the world, and taxed everyone else. The Church "saw that this was good," to obtain the kingdom of God by force. As far as that goes, I'm not at all happy with my own Catholic Church's letter concerning nuclear warfare: I recall asking the man who is said to be principally responsible for writing it how long would the Church continue to give morally conditioned acceptance of nuclear deterrence, conditioned on negotiation in good faith to eliminate these weapons, when there has never been any time that the total number has not been increased deliberately. He could not say. This was two years ago, then negotiations failed altogether. Meanwhile, we have a government which borrows a staggering deficit, as if there is no tomorrow, to primarily support defense-related industries and militant political states (at least one is really the world's first military-industrial welfare state). Not to mention one that doesn't give a damn about starvation in Africa or human rights in Third World nations. It's purpose seems to be to employ the entire planet in producing and using weapons, paying for them by shirking its moral responsibility to those who are suffering. The Soviet Union is no better. What about Reagan's Shining City upon the Hill? It's right there with the Light of the Nations. At the feet of the God of Armed Forces and National Defence -- who (why poke around with clouds) comes on the wings of a fighter-bomber. What about the upcoming Geneva talks? How can it be that the new ones will succeed? They surely will not if we have an economy based on military production, and a state religion that brain-washes its citizens, a state religion that is opposed to the teachings of Christ, replacing charity and nonviolence with state propaganda mixed with self-fulfilling apocalyptic imagination. The mad Emporer Nero may have had time to fiddle while Rome burned, then to blame it on the Christians. But how much responsibility do we Christians have if we wait to see how long the Emporers will fiddle while the good Earth burns. A witness in the Westmoreland trial was recently quoted by the Washington Post as saying that the motto of the CIA is: "They shall know the truth, and the truth shall set them free." This, of course, is a wellknown verse of the Gospel. I would hate to think that the state religion would "disinform" a new generation that there is little difference between the CIA and the apostles, or that, in fact, there would be little difference between the CIA and their teachers and pastors. David Harwood
wfi@unc.UUCP (William F. Ingogly) (02/10/85)
> There was a recent newspaper article about a government > official who wrote favorably about state religion to a group of > church schools. This did not disturb the Reagan administration. > It should disturb everyone who is a Christian; after all, Jesus > was put to death by the cooperation of the official political > and religious powers of that time. > Doesn't anyone remember the Holy Roman Empire, or the > persecution of Quakers and other sects at the time of the English > Revolution? Why do you think the First Amendment guarantees freedom > of religion, of assembly, and of speech, in one declaration? What makes you think the Fundamentalists in the Reagan administration and their supporters in the religious right care about the First Amendment? America is a pluralistic society, and these people would like nothing better than to see pluralism abolished and a right-wing 'Christian' state established (but their brand of Christianity, of course). There's a book available in paperback called 'Holy Terror'; it describes in detail the Fundamentalist right's agenda for America. My impression of the book is that the authors' extreme paranoia is not entirely justified given the facts they report, but any freedom-loving American should be aware that fanatics are close to the seats of power and are getting closer every day. ------------------------------- "Oh, yes, he's a Christian." W. F. Ingogly "But is he a REAL Christian??" Univ. of North Carolina