Russians try to ban all but 4 religions!
Melissa
As if their experience under the Soviets wasn't enough to teach them, now the
Russian parliament has passed a law, with the help of the Russian Orthodox
Church, which bans all but 4 major religions which are the only ones they
consider legitimate. Yeltsin vetoed it, but who knows if it will be eventually
pushed through. What a country!
John E. Bredehoft
In article <5rh4n7$mh4...@dialup1.den.amnix.com>,
Once again, this illustrates the dangers of tying a particular denomination
too closely to the civil authorities (and yes, I realize that there are
state Lutheran and Lutheran-Reformed churches today).
You are correct in noting that the Soviet Union's one official religion
policy (and I *don't* mean the Russian Orthodox) was a disaster.
I wonder if Greek Orthodox worship would have been allowed... :)
--
John E. Bredehoft, <mailto:jbre...@deltanet.com>
Theo Tres Thr3 Presents Mall Wilderness (original MIDI music):
<http://users.deltanet.com/~jbredeho/tt3/>
don wiley
Melissa <mel...@amnix.com> wrote in article
<5rh4n7$mh4...@dialup1.den.amnix.com>...
> As if their experience under the Soviets wasn't enough to teach them, now
the
> Russian parliament has passed a law, with the help of the Russian
Orthodox
> Church, which bans all but 4 major religions which are the only ones they
> consider legitimate. Yeltsin vetoed it, but who knows if it will be
eventually
> pushed through. What a country!
I would like to see some discussion of this. I'll kick it off with this.
The Russians don't have a clue as to where they are going with this
"democracy" business. The vast majority of people are suffering terrible
privation, and a select few are making out like bandits, literally, having
been in position to snap up previously state owned property for a song.
Many people, including the army, are months behind in wages..
Then there is the criminal element, the so-called mafia, and a general
lawlessness that extends from street thugs shaking down babuskas peddling
potatoes in the Metro stations to protection rackets to theft and sale of
weapons to incredible fortunes being made and taken abroad from oil, gas
and other natural resources.
So how does a society go about reorganizing itself in view of these
conditions?
It seems to me that it is rather arrogant for outsiders to be perscribing
solutions to Russia's ills. They must find their own way. If a lack of
religious pluralism is a step they need to take, for whatever reason,
should they not have that option? For most of history, your religion was
what the king embraced. I'm not saying this is good or bad (I'm still
thinking this through), but that is how it was. As with all human actions,
there are certain to be all sorts of mixed mixed motives and sinfulness
involved with this.
I hope that those who are well informed on this will bring some relevant
facts, and I look forward to a range of opinions.
don wiley
Evan Kalenik
Melissa wrote:
> As if their experience under the Soviets wasn't enough to teach them,
> now the
> Russian parliament has passed a law, with the help of the Russian
> Orthodox
> Church, which bans all but 4 major religions which are the only ones
> they
> consider legitimate. Yeltsin vetoed it, but who knows if it will be
> eventually
> pushed through. What a country!
It never ceases to amaze me that people are so critical of others who
happen to have an interest in the souls under their care.
Evan
Evan Kalenik
don wiley wrote:
> The Russians don't have a clue as to where they are going with this
> "democracy" business.
Nor have they been helped along by the US government or other champions
of "democracy".
> The vast majority of people are suffering terrible
> privation, and a select few are making out like bandits, literally,
> having
> been in position to snap up previously state owned property for a
> song.
> Many people, including the army, are months behind in wages..
No argument there. The Patriarch of Moscow has sternly criticized the
government for their action or lack of action on those matters.
> Then there is the criminal element, the so-called mafia, and a general
>
> lawlessness that extends from street thugs shaking down babuskas
> peddling
> potatoes in the Metro stations to protection rackets to theft and sale
> of
> weapons to incredible fortunes being made and taken abroad from oil,
> gas
> and other natural resources.
Be careful when you talk about the mafia. Not do deny that it doesn't
exist. But it is not a wholly "Russian" thing. There are three points
to much of it, Moscow, Brighton Beach in NYC and Tel Aviv Israel.
> So how does a society go about reorganizing itself in view of these
> conditions?
> It seems to me that it is rather arrogant for outsiders to be
> perscribing solutions to Russia's ills. They must find their own way.
> If a lack of religious pluralism is a step they need to take, for
> whatever reason, should they not have that option? For most of
> history, your religion was what the king embraced. I'm not saying this
> is good or bad (I'm still thinking this through), but that is how it
> was. As with all human actions, there are certain to be all sorts of
> mixed mixed motives and sinfulness involved with this.
The Pew foundation funded a study of eastern Europe that touched on
this. The professor who received the grant, a Methodist, by the way,
was Paul B. Mojzes,academic dean and professor of religious studies at
Rosemont College, who is
director of the Eastern European Research Project on Proselytism. Part
of his study said the following:``In Eastern Europe, religion is a way
of life. It's a heritage. It's aculture. Whether baptized or not, the
people consider themselves attached to
that heritage.''
Eastern Europeans' view of religious freedom is different from
Americans'
view, Mojzes said.
``They expect the government to step in and control the situation. They
say
if somebody talks to their kids to convince them that they have a neat
religion they should join, the government should step in and say, `Quit
it,
and get out of my village or my town.'
``Many of the large churches, like the Russian Orthodox, started asking
the
West to forbid groups to come. They don't understand that we don't have
structures for forbidding.''
Are they wrong for thinking in this manner? No, not really. If you
understand their point of view, even if you don't agree with it, it
becomes far less sinister than some try to make it. Part of the problem
is that we in the west assume that we are correct and everyone else is
wrong or misguided.
Since the communist government tried to stamp out all religion in the
former USSR, is it really that wrong to have the new government give
those religions a chance to reestablish themselves before making the
area open season for everyone else? Some will say yes, others will say
no. In most cases it depends upon whose ox is being gored.
Evan
John Simmons
I find myself shifting back and forth on this issue.
At any time up to 6-9 months ago, I would have thought the idea of state
involvement in religious affairs to be absurd, and an infringment of basic
human freedoms.
I recall a conversation at my local writers/journalists coffee house with
a writer for the Wall Street Journal (a think-tank type), where the fellow
was pointing out how culturally deprived people from strongly Orthodox
countries are, for not having developed a pluralistic mindset and all of
the "blessings" that come with it, including "democracy".
Now that I'm becoming Orthodox, I'm spending a good amount of time
studying what might be called an Orthodox "worldview", and seeing it's
historical contrast to our beloved pluralism. I'm still a flag waving
American with some libertarian tendencies, but in my mind, this is also a
protectionist motive. Like Evan said, your view of this situation is
likely to be dependent on whether your ox is the one to be gored.
Before Western influence starting steering pre-Communist Russia towards
modernism (and communism). A different historical path had been taken.
While it was far from ideal in many respects, there were at least pockets
of society which are still referred to as "Holy Russia" by many Orthodox
people even up to today. These pockets had a savor of God's presence
which manifested itself in various ways - Pious villages, Monasteries full
of Saints, a unity of values and faith, cultural elements which increased
the rememberance of God, rather than detracting from it, etc. Of course
"The State" did not build this - it could not even have tried.
Manifestations of "Holy Russia" were built by individuals, families, and
villages who sought out God, and were blessed with the presence of leaders
to help in this journey. The state merely provided freedom from
pluralistic distractions. Of course there were social injustices,
economic disparities, and unjust persecutions against non-accepted
religious and ethnicities, but not with the same character as the
inquisitions and witch hunts of the West, as I understand it (and no such
behavior could ever be justified as "Christian" in any context).
Many Orthodox still consider Russia has having been the "3rd Rome"; e.g.
a major historical cultural and ecclesiastical center which contributed to
the spread of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the Gospel - in spite of the
fallen human activities which has detracted from this (The second "Rome"
having been Constantinople - Byzantium). The implications of "Holy
Russia" are also globally spiritual, and go far beyond Russian politics.
In some ways, this blessed state of religious protection was Russia's
downfall. Like an isolated population which is never exposed to
aggressive disease, and therefore does not develop needed antibodies,
the overall culture was not prepared for the Western assault from Peter
the Great's time forward. Nethertheless, a very vibrant Russian faith has
survived Western cultural encroachment, severe persecution, and so far,
the encroachment of even more modern elements, poverty, and corruption.
The monasteries are swelling in numbers. Small pockets of piety are
exploding outward. Miracles, including mass exorcisms are happening.
Where pious Russian faith is reborn, the culture is slowly renewed as
well. Faith may be openly discussed in public schools, while in the
"Free" United States, it is illegal.
The U.S. has been shaped by pluralism, in contrast. Our descendents came
here to find it, oddly enough, for the same reasons that some Russians
would like to avoid it - To be able to seek God in peace, without fear of
persecution and corruption. The great difference is that while Russia
never got a chance do develop the pluralism which would make it's
protection necessary, the West was already on a rapid road to a completely
pluralistic culture - which we considered a "Holy experiment". The
results of this experiment has led to a mind-numbing belief in the
non-existence of truth, except for our own "individual truths", as the
pluralism in which we have sought protection, has leavened our culture and
worldview into a techno-pluralistic malaise. We value what "works for us"
or at least makes money, and regard the idea of religious truth as the
dogmatic stance of an antiquated tribalist, rather than something to be
guarded on a cultural level.
I often wonder what the U.S. would have been like if had developed along
the lines of an Orthodox culture, rather than a pluralist/secular one.
Would our heroes be Saints and Elders instead of Shoe-selling sports
figures? Would our writers be Dostoyevskys and Tolstoys (as a result of
access to holy elders) rather than Henry Millers and Jack Kerouacs?
This seems like a silly comparison. It is impossible to compare different
ages and cultures in this way - it is too grossly speculative and simple
minded. But when I see parts of Russia becoming more like America,
instead of returning to the best aspects of it's past, I have a hard time
thinking that it is "progress".
So, while the concept of barring a pluralistic religious "marketplace"
rubs my libertarian tendencies the wrong way, My growing desire for a
healthy state of the citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven provides for some
sympathies for those who support such restrictions out of true pastoral
concern - even if there are strong negative aspects of this move.
Interestingly enough, St. Seraphim of Sarov - a pillar of "Holy Russia",
had a prophecy regarding the future state of Russia. He saw that Russia
would go through terrible persecutions which would severly trim and test
the church of Russia (e.g. communism). He then saw the Holy Russia would
start to revive once more for a brief period of time, and then would
enter into the final suffering of the time before the apocalypse. Barring
any knowledge of timelines, He appears to have been on target so far.
Regardless of how the politics works, I pray that "Holy Russia" may indeed
reappear in spirit - and that the West may share this spirit, not by
political process, but by the entrance of many into "the kingdom within".
John
Tony Jack Howard
In article <5rh4n7$mh4...@dialup1.den.amnix.com>, mel...@amnix.com
(Melissa) wrote:
> As if their experience under the Soviets wasn't enough to teach them, now the
> Russian parliament has passed a law, with the help of the Russian Orthodox
> Church, which bans all but 4 major religions which are the only ones they
> consider legitimate. Yeltsin vetoed it, but who knows if it will be
eventually
> pushed through. What a country!
Melissa--Please refer to the following letter from the Patriarch of Moscow
for its balanced treatment of the news to which you refer. As is often
the case, we do not receive the whole story. I hope you and others
concerned about religious liberties in Russia will find the letter
enlightening. For more information concerning the Russian Orthodox
Church, please visit her website
http://www.russian-orthodox-church.org.ru/en.htm
PATRIARCH ALEXY OF MOSCOW AND ALL
RUSSIA
July 24, 1997
Moscow
STATEMENT
on the situation
that has developed
around the Bill on the
Freedom of Conscience
and
Religious Organizations
The President of the Russian
Federation B. N. Yeltsin
vetoed on 22 July 1997 the
Bill on the Freedom of
Conscience and Religious
Organizations which was
adopted by the State Duma and
approved by the
Council of the Federation.
This decision of the head of
the state has caused
regret among the faithful of
the Russian Orthodox
Church. Previously, the
Patriarch, the members of
Holy Synod of the Russian
Orthodox Church and other
bishops, who gathered at St.
Sergius' Monastery of
the Trinity for the Feast of
St. Sergius of Radonezh,
made a request to the
President to put the Bill in
force. Similar appeals were
made by the faithful of
our Church and other
traditional religious
organizations in Russia.
The Bill on the Freedom of
Conscience and Religious
Organizations creates
pre-conditions for the effective
protection of both the
individual and society against
the arbitrary actions of
destructive pseudo-religious
cults and foreign
false-missionaries. It removes the
considerable legal gaps
existing in the legislation on
the freedom of conscience
presently in force, and the
need for its radical
improvement has been recognized
by almost all the society.
The Bill brings order into the
legal status of religious
organizations as legal
entities and creates new
conditions for religious
education and cooperation
between religious
organizations and the state in
charitable and
cultural-educational work and in other
spheres of social importance.
The text of the Bill, which is
a fruit of extensive
efforts made by its drafters
in consultation with
Russian religious
organizations, has become an
expression of the ultimate
compromise between
diverse interests really
existing in our society.
The differentiation introduced
in the Bill between
religious organizations
according to the time of their
formation, the number of their
followers and their
prevalence is a very fair
step. Such differentiation
exists in the laws of many
countries in Europe and the
world, with some of them
granting a special legal
status to one or several
confessions - a provision
absent from the Bill.
The reference to Orthodoxy,
Islam, Judaism, Buddhism
and other religions
traditionally present in Russia as
commanding respect is made in
the Bill's preamble
which does not have a direct
legal force. This
reference by no means
infringes on the rights of
religious minorities. Neither
this reference nor any
other norm of the Bill gives
advantages to or imposes
restrictions on religious
organizations on the grounds
of confession.
It is surprising to hear the
Bill criticized by some
foreign state bodies and
religious organizations who
have given no reaction
whatsoever to much less
liberal laws on religion
existing in some countries and
sometimes have given them
direct or indirect support.
This suggests bias and double
standard in their
attitude to Russia.
Regrettably, the Bill has been
sometimes wrongly
interpreted by the Russian and
foreign mass media.
For instance, one of the
publications argued that to
obtain registration all the
new religious organizations
will have to go through a 15
year-long period of
probation. Yet nothing has
been said that this is not
required of organizations
included in centralized
religious structures. The mass
media in many of its
materials maintained bluntly
that the Bill forbids the
activity of specific
confessions - which is absolutely
untrue.
In this connection, I deemed
it necessary to have the
Bill distributed among the
episcopate, clergy and
faithful of our Church so that
a broad discussion could
take place everywhere and the
Orthodox Christians
could voice their attitude to it.
At the same time, there is
much evidence that the
Bill, which has been adopted
by the State Duma
almost unanimously and
approved by the Council of
the Federation, has already
gained a broad social
support. Its ultimate
rejection may cause tension
between the authorities and
most of the people in
Russia, thus making it much
more difficult for our
society to move to that peace
and accord which have
been proclaimed for this year.
It is my conviction therefore
that this Bill needs to be
enforced without changing its
structure and
fundamental provisions.
PATRIARCH OF MOSCOW
AND ALL RUSSIA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"He who knows himself knows everything."
--St. Antony of Egypt
John E. Bredehoft
In article <MPG.e46d77d9...@nntp.best.com>,
Catherine Hampton <x...@hrweb.org> wrote:
>Glory to Jesus Christ!
>
>First, I am going to point out that this thread was originally
>crossposted to the following groups:
>
> alt.satanism
> alt.religion.christian.baptist
> alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox
> alt.religion.christian.lutheran
> alt.religion.christian.presbyterian
>
>Perhaps I'm a bit dense, but I don't see what this topic has to do
>with satanism, and I don't particularly want to discuss satanism, so I
>have deleted that group from from my Newsgroups: line.
>
>In article <5riqto$al7$2...@news01.deltanet.com>, John E. Bredehoft
>says...
>
># Once again, this illustrates the dangers of tying a particular denomination
># too closely to the civil authorities (and yes, I realize that there are
># state Lutheran and Lutheran-Reformed churches today).
>#
># You are correct in noting that the Soviet Union's one official religion
># policy (and I *don't* mean the Russian Orthodox) was a disaster.
>
>Granted, but you'll have a tough time convincing Patriarch Alexey of
>that, I fear. <wry grin> And he isn't the only one -- the axiomatic
>understanding we Americans have that state churches are a BAD idea and
>religious freedom basic to a civilized society does not exist in a lot
>of parts of the world.
I'll grant you this. If I were to state that a state church leads to
government control of private lives, many people would probably say,
"So what?" while others would ask, "What's a 'private life'?"
>This isn't because of religious differences, as far as I've been able
>to tell. (And I've paid attention to this topic -- I've been
>active in Amnesty International for almost 20 years now.) It's because
>the western concept of limitation and separation of power hasn't
>really sunk in, if it has penetrated at all. I have friends in Russia
>and in other parts of the world who find us Americans incredibly naive
>and idealistic when we avoid using power to impose our religion on
>others. The idea that it could be wrong to interfere with a person's
>conscience this way doesn't occur to many people -- they think this is
>proof we don't really believe in our God. :/
>
>In all fairness to the Patriarch, I don't think his support of this
>bill was just a power grab or attempt to cut out the competition. In
>the last few years the Russians have dealt with a flood of cults, and
>I don't mean groups like the Mormons, whose theology many of us
>disagree with, but which do not (as far as I know) engage in a pattern
>of deceptive recruiting and abuse of their members. I mean the
>Scientologists, the Hare Krishnas, and many smaller groups. Some of
>these (esp. the Scientologists) have left already poverty-stricken
>people stripped of what they did have and desperate.
If your interpretation is correct, then there may be a less obnoxious
way to accomplish the same ends. Even among United States non-cult
religions, religious freedom is not absolute (for example, the Mormon
disputes with the U.S. government regarding polygamy in the 19th
century).
Is there some way that Russia could ban the obnoxious actions without
banning the religious groups themselves (or drawing up a list of
"approved" groups)?
>I find the Russian Orthodox Church's involvement in passing this law
>more than a little embarrassing. A few years ago I became an Orthodox
>Christian, and while I'm under a different Russian jurisdiction
>(different group of bishops), this hits a bit close to home. In this
>case, I am relieved and glad that Boris Yeltsin voted with his
>conscience instead of his private political best interest. I hope
>that the Patriarch and others eventually understand that interfering
>with freedom of conscience is a genuine ethical issue even for fellow
>Orthodox Christians outside of Russia. :(
>
>I also hope that he and the members of the Duma learn to tell
>destructive cults from religions they may disagree with, but which
>don't lie to, manipulate and mislead people into joining or staying
>with them.
The problem is to find a way to word a legal definition of a
"destructive cult."
># I wonder if Greek Orthodox worship would have been allowed... :)
>
>;> These churches, and most Orthodox churches, are in full communion
>with one another. Most Orthodox Churches are, in fact, a single
>Church with a single belief system, but different liturgical
>traditions. (In plain English, this means they do their services in
>their native languages, and at some point developed their own music
>and other local variations to standard Orthodox practices.) I've
>worshipped at, and received communion at, Greek Orthodox churches.
>(And several other kinds of Orthodox church.) The priests haven't
>cared that I was nominally "Russian" -- they just wanted to know that
>I was Orthodox in good standing, and that I'd been to confession. :)
>
>Since Russians and Greeks argue about just about any subject under the
>sun, though, it probably depends on whether the Greeks who wanted to
>worship in Russia could talk the people at the Russian consulate into
>giving them visas. <BIG grin>
>
>
>Under the mercy,
>
>
>--
>Catherine Hampton <ar...@tempest.boxmail.com>
>
>(Please use the address in my signature to send email. The address
>in my From: header is a spam trap.)
William M Klimon
On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, Evan Kalenik wrote:
> It never ceases to amaze me that people are so critical of others who
> happen to have an interest in the souls under their care.
One would have thought that the Russian Orthodox would have realized how
disasterous their long-term submission to the state has been. Now they
have a chance to make a fresh start and they are right there willing to
subjugate themselves to the state again. Some folks never learn.
Pax.
WMK.
______________________________________________________________________________
William M. Klimon ("12") wkl...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu
University of Maryland School of Law
500 West Baltimore Street
Baltimore, MD 21201-1786
m...@pobox.com
My problem with this ban is from a different point of view.
There exists, in Russia, a small body of people who, unlike the
Moscow Patriarchate, never capitulated to the Soviet State. They
could not see any compromise or agreement with the body that
martyred 60 million of the faithful. They kept worshipping
(amidst severe hardships, naturally), and are still active to
this day.
My concern does not regard heterodox groups that would be
curtailed by this ban (I'm all for that kind of ban, by
the way). My concern is that the small group of Orthodox
faithful who have not joined the Moscow Patriarchate, would
feel the worst of any ban. In a way, they are more of a
thorn in the side of the M.P. than heterodox groups. The
heterodox can be dealt with easily through education. But
the nonsergianists (for want of a better name) raise questions
that the M.P. can not easily answer (why is it that the New
Martyrs of the Communist Yoke are not officially Glorified?).
I don't know what groups are included among the four allowed
religions under the ban, but I strongly doubt that these would
be among them.
With Love in Christ, our Saviour,
michael, a sinner
Catherine Hampton
(alt.satanism snipped from the Newsgroups: line, again.)
In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.970730175056.121D-
100...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu>, William M Klimon says...
# On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, Evan Kalenik wrote:
# > It never ceases to amaze me that people are so critical of others who
# > happen to have an interest in the souls under their care.
# One would have thought that the Russian Orthodox would have realized how
# disasterous their long-term submission to the state has been. Now they
# have a chance to make a fresh start and they are right there willing to
# subjugate themselves to the state again. Some folks never learn.
Some never do. :/ Assuming that the Patriarch's stand is a) due to
not having learned the necessary lessons from 70 years of communism,
and b) that the rest of the faithful are in the same boat, is a bit
premature to say the least.
As I pointed out, there are a lot of issues involved. At least some
of the support in the Duma for this bill had little to do with
Orthodox antiCatholicism, or antiProtestantism, and a lot to do with
worry about the nasty effects of a flood of new religious groups into
Russia, some of which are definitely cults. (The Hare Krishnas and
Scientologists are big back there, and I know that the cult offshoot
of my old Protestant sect, the International Church of Christ, is as
well.) These groups aren't a problem primarily because of their
theologies. They're a problem because they end up draining people who
are already near the brink of desperately needed money and time.
I am =NOT= suggesting that the Catholic Church is doing this, by the
way. But it seems unrealistic to expect a group of people newly out
of seventy years of Communism and an officially atheistic society to
quickly learn to discern between a new religion they don't approve of,
and a cult whose behavior is rightly the concern of the government. :/
Secondly, as Evan suggested, the Patriarch may well view this
attempt to ban other religious groups from actively proselytizing as
protection of the souls under his care. While I don't agree with this
action, if that is indeed his motive, I can't fault it.
I'd suggest backing off on this one. William, you sometimes come
across as determined to proselytize among Orthodox Christians. I
think I'm pretty tolerant of other believers in Christ, and (for that
matter) other religions, but it can get annoying. And, if I'm
annoyed, others are probably more so.
While I won't pretend to approve of or like the Patriarch's position
on this issue, I suspect that the Russians will do the right thing if
allowed the time and space to think about what they're doing. Plenty
of them don't like this any more than you or I do.
Evan Kalenik
kdi...@erols.com wrote:
> Melissa is right here, both as a religious person (though I
> personally don't like her choice as she also doesn't like mine) and as
>
> a American. In order to safeguard our own religious rights, we must
> allow ALL religious people to practice their faiths so long as they
> are not infringing on the rights of others. This should also include
> poligamy when it is "honest" (again I do not personally approve of
> this but it is accepted in some religions, such as Islam and therefore
>
> should be allowed).
My news server deleted all the messages from sometime on Tuesday to
sometime on Wednesday so I may have missed some things that have been
presented. I would like to comment on a few things that you have said.
How far are you willing to let "ALL religious people to practice their
faiths"? Is anything and everything OK so long as someone calls it part
of their beliefs, even if it doesn't "infringe on the rights of
others"? Who are you, or me to say what is "honest", and who are we to
say what does or doesn't infringe on the rights of others? There are
many groups out there that would use your reasoning to claim their
religious rights are being infringed upon by the US government, and have
been. Some of those groups are pretty tame, others are not.
> As Christians we shoulkd remember that we were once a persecuted
> cult.
Once? Have you read about what goes on in China? Or how about the
Sudan? Or how about some Moslem countries? We are not talking about
ancient history, but today.
> As Americans we should remember that some of our founding
> fathers were members of a persecuted cult.
George Washington was a member of the Church of England, later the
Episcopal Church. Was that a "persecuted cult"?
> We should always speak out against religious intollerence even if that
> faith is not a Christian one. If we desire to evangelize to those
> other faiths (and we should)
> we should first make it safe for all before we do so.
Even if it is a make believe faith? Or a group using "religion" to
cover their behavior, or likes? How about a suicide cult? Should we
speak out against those who may be intolerant to those kind of things?
Evan
Melissa
I didn't get the earlier parts of this thread here so I'll follow up for past
ones in this post.
In article <5rlgkp$4l6$3...@news01.deltanet.com>,
jbre...@delta1.deltanet.com (John E. Bredehoft) wrote:
>In article <MPG.e46d77d9...@nntp.best.com>,
>Catherine Hampton <x...@hrweb.org> wrote:
>>Glory to Jesus Christ!
>>
>>First, I am going to point out that this thread was originally
>>crossposted to the following groups:
>>
>> alt.satanism
>> alt.religion.christian.baptist
>> alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox
>> alt.religion.christian.lutheran
>> alt.religion.christian.presbyterian
Wow, they can read so well.
>>Perhaps I'm a bit dense, but I don't see what this topic has to do
>>with satanism, and I don't particularly want to discuss satanism, so I
>>have deleted that group from from my Newsgroups: line.
Well duh! The fact that the Russians are trying to ban all minority religions
couldn't possibly have anything of relevance to Satanism could it? And btw,
it's polite and proper that when you talk about other peoples' religions (
Islam, Satanism, Atheism, Bhuddism, etc... ) , you capitalize them. My not
capitalizing and abbreviating "xtianity" is in protest of the disrespect most
xtians have for all other religions, shown by the fact that you don't
capitalize them.
[...]
>># You are correct in noting that the Soviet Union's one official religion
>># policy (and I *don't* mean the Russian Orthodox) was a disaster.
>>
>>Granted, but you'll have a tough time convincing Patriarch Alexey of
>>that, I fear. <wry grin> And he isn't the only one -- the axiomatic
>>understanding we Americans have that state churches are a BAD idea and
>>religious freedom basic to a civilized society does not exist in a lot
>>of parts of the world.
>
>I'll grant you this. If I were to state that a state church leads to
>government control of private lives, many people would probably say,
>"So what?" while others would ask, "What's a 'private life'?"
Sure, people who have no idea of what liberty is and don't realize that you
can't have freedom of religion without also having freedom from religion.
>>This isn't because of religious differences, as far as I've been able
>>to tell. (And I've paid attention to this topic -- I've been
>>active in Amnesty International for almost 20 years now.) It's because
>>the western concept of limitation and separation of power hasn't
>>really sunk in, if it has penetrated at all. I have friends in Russia
>>and in other parts of the world who find us Americans incredibly naive
>>and idealistic when we avoid using power to impose our religion on
>>others. The idea that it could be wrong to interfere with a person's
>>conscience this way doesn't occur to many people -- they think this is
>>proof we don't really believe in our God. :/
Of course, that's all they know.
>>In all fairness to the Patriarch, I don't think his support of this
>>bill was just a power grab or attempt to cut out the competition.
Duh!
>>In
>>the last few years the Russians have dealt with a flood of cults, and
>>I don't mean groups like the Mormons, whose theology many of us
>>disagree with, but which do not (as far as I know) engage in a pattern
>>of deceptive recruiting and abuse of their members. I mean the
>>Scientologists, the Hare Krishnas, and many smaller groups. Some of
>>these (esp. the Scientologists) have left already poverty-stricken
>>people stripped of what they did have and desperate.
A free society would legislate against fraud and abuse, not against religion.
>If your interpretation is correct, then there may be a less obnoxious
>way to accomplish the same ends. Even among United States non-cult
>religions, religious freedom is not absolute (for example, the Mormon
>disputes with the U.S. government regarding polygamy in the 19th
>century).
Which, IMO, the Mormons, Muslims, or anyone else should have a right to. It's
only the fact that the mainstream religions didn't like polymgamy that led to
it being illegal and I think that's wrong and a definite imposition of one
religions dictates on all the rest. Honest polygamy harms no one.
>Is there some way that Russia could ban the obnoxious actions without
>banning the religious groups themselves (or drawing up a list of
>"approved" groups)?
Of course there is as far as abuse goes. But it's everyone's right, if they
wish, to take vows of poverty ( catholics do it ) and give all their money to
their religion. Does that make it a cult? No. What makes it a cult is when
people aren't allowed to leave or stop giving if they want to, and in some
cases are treated like slaves without their consent.
>>I find the Russian Orthodox Church's involvement in passing this law
>>more than a little embarrassing.
It's more than that, it's appalling. If you want to have religious freedom and
tolerance, you have to give it to others. It appalls me that a religion which
has been oppressed for so many years under a dictatorship, now willingly joins
another dictatorship in oppressing others.
"You can't keep a man down without staying down with him."- Booker T Washington
>>A few years ago I became an Orthodox
>>Christian, and while I'm under a different Russian jurisdiction
>>(different group of bishops), this hits a bit close to home. In this
>>case, I am relieved and glad that Boris Yeltsin voted with his
>>conscience instead of his private political best interest. I hope
>>that the Patriarch and others eventually understand that interfering
>>with freedom of conscience is a genuine ethical issue even for fellow
>>Orthodox Christians outside of Russia. :(
It's a horrifying shame that there was only 1 person in power in the whole
country with enough of a conscience to veto the damned law. The Russians
obviously need constitutional protections like ours but apparently haven't the
national will to even pass such, but are rather involved in trying to
legislate the exact opposite. That's pathetic.
>>I also hope that he and the members of the Duma learn to tell
>>destructive cults from religions they may disagree with, but which
>>don't lie to, manipulate and mislead people into joining or staying
>>with them.
>
>The problem is to find a way to word a legal definition of a
>"destructive cult."
The ONLY way to protect people ( and I've said this in many Second Amendment
arguments ) WITHOUT DESTROYING LIBERTY, is to outlaw harmful behavior and not
take freedom from the law abiding, like some people are trying to do with guns,
and in the Russian case, religion.
- Melissa ( remove the big X and Y from my spam proofed address to email me )
High Priestess, The Universal Planetary Pantheist Temple
alt.personals.motss.women, the newsgroup for women-seeking-women:
http://www.amnix.com/~melissa/charter.htm
http://www.amnix.com/~melissa/melissas.htm http://www.amnix.com/~melissa
Catherine Hampton
[This followup was posted to alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox and
a copy was sent to the cited author.]
In article <5rqles$f98...@dialup1.den.amnix.com>, Melissa says...
# I didn't get the earlier parts of this thread here so I'll follow up for past
# ones in this post.
I gather you were posting from alt.satanism. That's why -- I snipped
it from my reply, then and this time. :( I am not comfortable with
discussing satanism because I don't have any respect for it. It is
the antithesis of what I believe and, while I realize certain people
do genuinely believe it, it isn't something I can condone even to the
extent of including it in a list of other religions I discuss.
For that reason, I feel it is inappropriate to post to the newsgroup
for satanism. I don't want to start a flamewar. Please respect my
limits, as I do yours.
kdi...@erols.com
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Melissa is right here, both as a religious person (though I
personally don't like her choice as she also doesn't like mine) and as
a American. In order to safeguard our own religious rights, we must
allow ALL religious people to practice their faiths so long as they
are not infringing on the rights of others. This should also include
poligamy when it is "honest" (again I do not personally approve of
this but it is accepted in some religions, such as Islam and therefore
should be allowed).
As Christians we shoulkd remember that we were once a persecuted
cult. As Americans we should remember that some of our founding
fathers were members of a persecuted cult. We should always speak out
against religious intollerence even if that faith is not a Christian
one. If we desire to evangelize to those other faiths (and we should)
we should first make it safe for all before we do so.
No Jesus, No Peace
Know Jesus, Know Peace
Kevin Dickover
<)))><
.
Dean Christakos
On Thu, 31 Jul 1997, Melissa wrote:
> blah blah blah why can't the russians be as free as us blah blah blah
> blah wacky religions are a human right blah blah blah russia is
> oppressing the people by not letting missionaries pour in blah blah blah
> blah blah why can't they be more like america blah blah blah inalienable
> right to proselytize blah blah blah "banning religion" blah blah blah
> blah blah religious liberty like the USA should be in all countries blah
Yeah, I've heard it all before.
Somehow, I fail to see how applying the USA's incredibly strict standards
of religious liberty is not idiotic when applied to radically different
cultures like Russia.
The previous religious laws advocated by the Duma were far superior than
the current one (being less blatantly restrictive yet still focused on the
main purpose: ie, strictly regulating foreign missionaries), but they were
vetoed by Yeltsin. The backlash culminated in the current one.
> A free society would legislate against fraud and abuse, not against religion.
>
Certainly there are many form of religion that qualify as "fraud", and
some even qualify as "abuse."
-Dean Christakos
John E. Bredehoft
In article <5ro9uv$lto$1...@shell5.ba.best.com>, <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
>My problem with this ban is from a different point of view.
>
>There exists, in Russia, a small body of people who, unlike the
>Moscow Patriarchate, never capitulated to the Soviet State. They
>could not see any compromise or agreement with the body that
>martyred 60 million of the faithful. They kept worshipping
>(amidst severe hardships, naturally), and are still active to
>this day.
>
>My concern does not regard heterodox groups that would be
>curtailed by this ban (I'm all for that kind of ban, by
>the way). My concern is that the small group of Orthodox
>faithful who have not joined the Moscow Patriarchate, would
>feel the worst of any ban.
Respecting your opinion (even though I personally don't agree with it).
However, how does the Moscow Patriarchate view this group? Would they
be considered as "heterodox" as some of the others, since they were
not in full fellowship with the bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate?
John E. Bredehoft
In article <MPG.e4aa3b69...@nntp.best.com>,
Catherine Hampton <x...@hrweb.org> wrote:
>[This followup was posted to alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox and
>a copy was sent to the cited author.]
>
>In article <5rqles$f98...@dialup1.den.amnix.com>, Melissa says...
>
># I didn't get the earlier parts of this thread here so I'll follow up for past
># ones in this post.
>
>I gather you were posting from alt.satanism. That's why -- I snipped
>it from my reply, then and this time. :( I am not comfortable with
>discussing satanism because I don't have any respect for it. It is
>the antithesis of what I believe and, while I realize certain people
>do genuinely believe it, it isn't something I can condone even to the
>extent of including it in a list of other religions I discuss.
>
>For that reason, I feel it is inappropriate to post to the newsgroup
>for satanism. I don't want to start a flamewar. Please respect my
>limits, as I do yours.
a true "Church of Satan" organization in Russia? Are there bishops of
the "Church of Satan" who are trying to secure rights for their
denomination? (I speak of human organizations here.)
If it turns out that there were such organizations (rather than individuals)
that were affected by the ban, then I would have no problem posting these
messages to that newsgroup. From my point of view, excluding Satanists
from a discussion of Russian religious law is equivalent to excluding
Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses.
Maybe there are Satanists that can provide constructive input to this
discussion...then again, maybe you're right... :)
John E. Bredehoft
In article <33E1445B...@webspan.net>,
Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net> wrote:
>kdi...@erols.com wrote:
>
>> Melissa is right here, both as a religious person (though I
>> personally don't like her choice as she also doesn't like mine) and as
>>
>> a American. In order to safeguard our own religious rights, we must
>> allow ALL religious people to practice their faiths so long as they
>> are not infringing on the rights of others. This should also include
>> poligamy when it is "honest" (again I do not personally approve of
>> this but it is accepted in some religions, such as Islam and therefore
>>
>> should be allowed).
>
>sometime on Wednesday so I may have missed some things that have been
>presented. I would like to comment on a few things that you have said.
>How far are you willing to let "ALL religious people to practice their
>faiths"? Is anything and everything OK so long as someone calls it part
>of their beliefs, even if it doesn't "infringe on the rights of
>others"?
It has to be approached on a case-by-case basis. Kevin specifically
spoke of polygamy (I offer a differing view in another post).
>Who are you, or me to say what is "honest", and who are we to
>say what does or doesn't infringe on the rights of others? There are
>many groups out there that would use your reasoning to claim their
>religious rights are being infringed upon by the US government, and have
>been. Some of those groups are pretty tame, others are not.
When I was a member of a United Methodist church, my pastor went to an
Upland (California) City Council meeting and argued against a ban on
allowing persons to hold candles during Christmas Eve services. (OK,
so it's not equivalent to the sufferings of others... :) )
>> As Christians we shoulkd remember that we were once a persecuted
>> cult.
>
>Once? Have you read about what goes on in China? Or how about the
>Sudan? Or how about some Moslem countries? We are not talking about
>ancient history, but today.
Americans tend to ignore the outside world at times, although some
American Christians argue that they are being persecuted today because
of the effective prohibition on bureaucratically-sponsored Deistic
prayer in government-run educational institutions.
>> As Americans we should remember that some of our founding
>> fathers were members of a persecuted cult.
>
>George Washington was a member of the Church of England, later the
>Episcopal Church. Was that a "persecuted cult"?
Yes, it was. Episcopalians were *not* popular in the years immediately
following the Revolution, and some fled to Canada and England.
Actually, Kevin was probably talking about some of the other Founding
Fathers, such as Jefferson. I don't know how many Catholics and Baptists
were numbered among the Founding Fathers, but those groups were certainly
persecuted.
>> We should always speak out against religious intollerence even if that
>> faith is not a Christian one. If we desire to evangelize to those
>> other faiths (and we should)
>> we should first make it safe for all before we do so.
>
>Even if it is a make believe faith? Or a group using "religion" to
>cover their behavior, or likes? How about a suicide cult? Should we
>speak out against those who may be intolerant to those kind of things?
I think that Kevin (and the Russians) were excluding the "controlling"
cults from the list of acceptable religious groups.
>
>Evan
John E. Bredehoft
In article <33e137dc...@news.erols.com>, <kdi...@erols.com> wrote:
> Melissa is right here, both as a religious person (though I
>personally don't like her choice as she also doesn't like mine) and as
>a American.
The key word here is "American." As Catherine Hampton has already noted,
our concepts of individual liberty may not necessarily apply in Russia.
It is even possible that, in that particular society, Christ's word may
best be spread by having a single "official" church.
However, historical precedents in church-state combinations suggest
that, even in Russia, this is not the way to go.
>In order to safeguard our own religious rights, we must
>allow ALL religious people to practice their faiths so long as they
>are not infringing on the rights of others.
I think that Catherine was noting that this is what Russia was
*attempting* to do -- i.e., limiting the practice of "cult-like"
religions that infringe on the rights of their members -- but they
just went about it in the wrong way.
>This should also include
>poligamy when it is "honest" (again I do not personally approve of
>this but it is accepted in some religions, such as Islam and therefore
>should be allowed).
The question is where to draw the line. There is no absolute religious
freedom in the United States -- society has determined, for example,
that if I were a part of a religion that believed in child sacrifice,
I should *not* be allowed to practice this religion, since it is
detrimental to society in general.
Likewise, a case can be made that polygamy, which would include legal
recognition of marriage of one man to multiple women, would be harmful
to society. If nothing else, it would result in bizarre entanglements
in the legal and health care fields. (Would a company extend health
benefits to all spouses, or just one, or just five?)
> As Christians we shoulkd remember that we were once a persecuted
>cult. As Americans we should remember that some of our founding
>fathers were members of a persecuted cult. We should always speak out
>against religious intollerence even if that faith is not a Christian
>one. If we desire to evangelize to those other faiths (and we should)
>we should first make it safe for all before we do so.
If we approach the world from a position of strength, we will not be
successful. Only if Christians approach the world from a position of
weakness will we be effective.
> No Jesus, No Peace
> Know Jesus, Know Peace
> Kevin Dickover
> <)))><
>.
kdi...@erols.com
On Thu, 31 Jul 1997 22:05:18 -0400, Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
wrote:
>kdi...@erols.com wrote:
>
>> Melissa is right here, both as a religious person (though I
>> personally don't like her choice as she also doesn't like mine) and as
>>
>> a American. In order to safeguard our own religious rights, we must
>> allow ALL religious people to practice their faiths so long as they
>> are not infringing on the rights of others. This should also include
>> poligamy when it is "honest" (again I do not personally approve of
>> this but it is accepted in some religions, such as Islam and therefore
>>
>> should be allowed).
>
>My news server deleted all the messages from sometime on Tuesday to
>sometime on Wednesday so I may have missed some things that have been
>presented. I would like to comment on a few things that you have said.
>How far are you willing to let "ALL religious people to practice their
>faiths"? Is anything and everything OK so long as someone calls it part
>of their beliefs, even if it doesn't "infringe on the rights of
>others"? Who are you, or me to say what is "honest", and who are we to
>say what does or doesn't infringe on the rights of others? There are
>many groups out there that would use your reasoning to claim their
>religious rights are being infringed upon by the US government, and have
>been. Some of those groups are pretty tame, others are not.
>
What I believe that Melissa was referring to with the phrase
"honest poligamy" was a situation where all of the parties in the
marriage are aware of all the other parties in the marriage. When a
person has more than one spouse, and they are unaware of each other,
that would be "dishonest poligamy. Again let me repeat that I find
the concept of poligamy distasteful and foolish (who would want to
have four wives mad at him all at the same time??) but it is practised
by a "major" religion (Islam) and therefore should be allowed. As far
as other religious belifs that are being infringed on by the US
government, teh question that we have to ask ourselves is "are they
harming anyone". If the answer is no then we must allow them.
>> As Christians we shoulkd remember that we were once a persecuted
>> cult.
>
>Once? Have you read about what goes on in China? Or how about the
>Sudan? Or how about some Moslem countries? We are not talking about
>ancient history, but today.
>
Ok, do you find that a good thing?? I assume that you do not.
Freedom in the world must be increased. Religious freedom is a very
good place to start. (I would like to see the "Bill of Rgihts" go
worldwide honestly to be precise in definition of increasing freedom
worldwide)
>> As Americans we should remember that some of our founding
>> fathers were members of a persecuted cult.
>
>George Washington was a member of the Church of England, later the
>Episcopal Church. Was that a "persecuted cult"?
>
Kind of but I was more referring to Pilgrims and Quakers (also
Catholics in MD) who did leave The UK (and other places) to find
religious freedom.
>> We should always speak out against religious intollerence even if that
>> faith is not a Christian one. If we desire to evangelize to those
>> other faiths (and we should)
>> we should first make it safe for all before we do so.
>
>Even if it is a make believe faith? Or a group using "religion" to
>cover their behavior, or likes? How about a suicide cult? Should we
>speak out against those who may be intolerant to those kind of things?
>
The definition of a "make believe faith" is hard to come up with.
Melissa would say that Christianity is a "make believe faith". Again
the question we have to ask ourselves is "are they hurting anyone?"
I would say that a suicide cult wouldn't be protected but how do
you find them? Usually you don't untill they kill themselves. I
wouldn't want the "faith police" checking out every service in
America, would you?
>Evan
kdi...@erols.com
On 1 Aug 1997 19:53:27 GMT, jbre...@delta1.deltanet.com (John E.
Bredehoft) wrote:
>In article <33e137dc...@news.erols.com>, <kdi...@erols.com> wrote:
>> Melissa is right here, both as a religious person (though I
>>personally don't like her choice as she also doesn't like mine) and as
>>a American.
>
>The key word here is "American." As Catherine Hampton has already noted,
>our concepts of individual liberty may not necessarily apply in Russia.
>It is even possible that, in that particular society, Christ's word may
>best be spread by having a single "official" church.
>
I would say that as a free society we should urge others to follow
our example, particularly in reguards to religious liberty and
freedoms of speach and the press. The First Amendment Rights are
critical to the evolution of a free society.
>However, historical precedents in church-state combinations suggest
>that, even in Russia, this is not the way to go.
>
>>In order to safeguard our own religious rights, we must
>>allow ALL religious people to practice their faiths so long as they
>>are not infringing on the rights of others.
>
>I think that Catherine was noting that this is what Russia was
>*attempting* to do -- i.e., limiting the practice of "cult-like"
>religions that infringe on the rights of their members -- but they
>just went about it in the wrong way.
>
>>This should also include
>>poligamy when it is "honest" (again I do not personally approve of
>>this but it is accepted in some religions, such as Islam and therefore
>>should be allowed).
>
>The question is where to draw the line. There is no absolute religious
>freedom in the United States -- society has determined, for example,
>that if I were a part of a religion that believed in child sacrifice,
>I should *not* be allowed to practice this religion, since it is
>detrimental to society in general.
>
That is certainly true. But if the activity is weird but not harmful
we should allow it.
>Likewise, a case can be made that polygamy, which would include legal
>recognition of marriage of one man to multiple women, would be harmful
>to society. If nothing else, it would result in bizarre entanglements
>in the legal and health care fields. (Would a company extend health
>benefits to all spouses, or just one, or just five?)
>
I do not think that "bizarre entanglements" would be a sufficient
reason for disallowing it. I am not sure that the case that it is
harmful to society can also be made, in other parts of the world it is
practised without an obvious detremental effect to society. Drinking
alcohol, TV and smoking have been shown to be harmful to society and
yet we allow them. Why, because the harm that these things do is more
then outweighed by the limitation of our rights that they would
impose.
Catherine Hampton
In article <5rte5h$inl$3...@news01.deltanet.com>, John E. Bredehoft
says...
# I have another reason for removing alt.satanism from the post. Is there
# a true "Church of Satan" organization in Russia? Are there bishops of
# the "Church of Satan" who are trying to secure rights for their
# denomination? (I speak of human organizations here.)
#
# If it turns out that there were such organizations (rather than individuals)
# that were affected by the ban, then I would have no problem posting these
# messages to that newsgroup. From my point of view, excluding Satanists
# from a discussion of Russian religious law is equivalent to excluding
# Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses.
If this were a purely human rights discussion, say in
soc.rights.human, I'd agree with you. Since the newsgroups in this
thread were all religious newsgroups, though, and since all but one
were Christian newsgroups, I suspected an attempt to start a flamewar
by crossposting when I saw the Newsgroups: line.
I'm one of the moderators of soc.religion.islam, and have on occasion
participated in a range of newsgroups with discussions on a range of
subjects. I have no problem talking with Pagans, Hindus, and other
polytheists as well. But I cannot and will not give my sanction to
Satanism, even to the extent of extending it recognition as another
religion with which I do not agree. I disagree with much of Islam,
for example, but Muslims do not intentionally pick what my Faith holds
to be the representative of evil and worship it. (Not by a long
shot.) Neither do Jews, Hindus, or most Pagans.
I know that many who call themselves "satanists" believe that Satan is
not, in fact, what he is viewed as by Christians. But there are
limits to what I can be around and accept as valid, and this goes
beyond them.
May the Lord have mercy on us all.
Catherine Hampton
In article <5rtern$inl$4...@news01.deltanet.com>, John E. Bredehoft
says...
# If we approach the world from a position of strength, we will not be
# successful. Only if Christians approach the world from a position of
# weakness will we be effective.
"Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of
you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not
many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the
world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world
to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of the world and
the despised things -- and the things that are not -- to nullify
the things that are, so that no one may boast before him."
-- I Corinthians 1:27-29a
"To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly
great revelations [St. Paul is talking about the revelations he
received from God], there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a
messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the
Lord to take it away from me. But He said to me, "My grace is
sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness."
-- II Corinthians 12:7-10
And when I think of all the great men and women of God, most of whom
were weak and uninfluential before He chose them and the Holy Spirit
came upon them... The Prophet and Lawgiver Moses -- a stutterer and
shy man who had been raised as an Egyptian away from the Israelites
and whose first act on their behalf was to murder a man. The
Patriarch Abraham -- a nomadic sheepherder. The Prophet King David --
the youngest son of an unrespected family, a teenage kid who had never
fought a battle. The Theotokos, Mary the mother of our Lord and
Savior Jesus Christ, a young girl who was asked to bear the burden of
a pregnancy which most of the society around her must have viewed as
evidence of fornication, at a time when this was a terrible disgrace
for both the mother and the child.
John, may God bless you for realizing this, and mentioning it here.
You aren't the first to, of course. The principle of weakness
becoming strength through the grace of God comes from the Holy
Scripture and has been repeated by the Church Fathers many times
through history. But sometimes we desperately need reminding, and I
can't think of a more appropriate occasion.
May God grant us His Grace. :)
Catherine Hampton
In article <5rtdnq$inl$2...@news01.deltanet.com>, John E. Bredehoft
says...
# Respecting your opinion (even though I personally don't agree with it).
# However, how does the Moscow Patriarchate view this group? Would they
# be considered as "heterodox" as some of the others, since they were
# not in full fellowship with the bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate?
Yes, they probably would, John. Patriarch Alexey does not tolerate
what he feels are uncanonical schismatics gladly. Traditionally the
Patriarch in Moscow has not tolerated schismatics An eighteenth
century Patriarch, Nikon, made some fairly minor reforms to Russian
Orthodox worship which brought about a split between the main body of
Orthodox and what were called the "Razscholniki" in Russia -- usually
called "Old Believers" in Russia.
The Old Belivers were severely persecuted, not over any important
doctrinal differences, but because the schism was viewed as a
political threat and for other political reasons. Many left Russia --
we had a group of them living south of us in Woodburn, Oregon when we
were at Reed. The sad truth about Orthodoxy is that our weak point has
always been the abuse of temporal power by people in ecclesiastical
authority.
From what I know of Russian history, even as I studied it at Reed, any
schismatic group would be in danger if there were temporal/legal
authority to suppress them. :/ And, while I'm none too fond of what I
view as extremism in Orthodoxy, whether they acknowledge it or not I
view them as my brothers and sisters and do not want to see this
happen to them.
Melissa
In article <33e3b1b5...@news.erols.com>, kdi...@erols.com wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Jul 1997 22:05:18 -0400, Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
>wrote:
>
>>kdi...@erols.com wrote:
>>
>>> personally don't like her choice as she also doesn't like mine) and as
>>>
>>> a American. In order to safeguard our own religious rights, we must
>>> allow ALL religious people to practice their faiths so long as they
>>> are not infringing on the rights of others. This should also include
>>> poligamy when it is "honest" (again I do not personally approve of
>>> this but it is accepted in some religions, such as Islam and therefore
>>>
>>> should be allowed).
>>
>>sometime on Wednesday so I may have missed some things that have been
>>presented. I would like to comment on a few things that you have said.
>>How far are you willing to let "ALL religious people to practice their
>>faiths"? Is anything and everything OK so long as someone calls it part
>>of their beliefs, even if it doesn't "infringe on the rights of
>>others"? Who are you, or me to say what is "honest", and who are we to
>>say what does or doesn't infringe on the rights of others? There are
>>many groups out there that would use your reasoning to claim their
>>religious rights are being infringed upon by the US government, and have
>>been. Some of those groups are pretty tame, others are not.
>>
>
> What I believe that Melissa was referring to with the phrase
>"honest poligamy" was a situation where all of the parties in the
>marriage are aware of all the other parties in the marriage. When a
>person has more than one spouse, and they are unaware of each other,
>that would be "dishonest poligamy.
Exactly. Honest polygamy is what most Mormons did. Dishonest polygamy is like
the stories about traveling salesmen who had 10 wives in different cities, none
of which knew about the others.
>Again let me repeat that I find
>the concept of poligamy distasteful and foolish (who would want to
>have four wives mad at him all at the same time??)
That's fine, don't do it then. But it harms no one else and should not be
illegal, IMO.
> but it is practised
>by a "major" religion (Islam) and therefore should be allowed.
The Mormons might even go back to it if it didn't mean destruction of their
state by the feds, like they were threatened with before. And who cares?
Anything done between 2 or more consenting adults, which harms no one else,
should be legal.
>As far
>as other religious belifs that are being infringed on by the US
>government, teh question that we have to ask ourselves is "are they
>harming anyone". If the answer is no then we must allow them.
>>> As Christians we shoulkd remember that we were once a persecuted
>>> cult.
>>
>>Once? Have you read about what goes on in China? Or how about the
>>Sudan? Or how about some Moslem countries? We are not talking about
>>ancient history, but today.
>>
>
> Ok, do you find that a good thing?? I assume that you do not.
>Freedom in the world must be increased. Religious freedom is a very
>good place to start. (I would like to see the "Bill of Rgihts" go
>worldwide honestly to be precise in definition of increasing freedom
>worldwide)
[snip]
Me too. In fact I think we ought to offer our Constitution to any country that
will willingly adopt it.
>>> We should always speak out against religious intollerence even if that
>>> faith is not a Christian one. If we desire to evangelize to those
>>> other faiths (and we should)
>>> we should first make it safe for all before we do so.
>>
>>Even if it is a make believe faith? Or a group using "religion" to
>>cover their behavior, or likes? How about a suicide cult? Should we
>>speak out against those who may be intolerant to those kind of things?
>>
> The definition of a "make believe faith" is hard to come up with.
>Melissa would say that Christianity is a "make believe faith".
No, I think it's based on myth, fantasy, wishful thinking, and legend though.
The term "make believe" is too fuzzy and subjective and could be used to say
that anyone elses' religion but yours is not valid, not a "real" one. I don't
doubt that xtianity is a real religion, I just think it's basis is bogus and
that it leads people to not having to be responsible for their own behavior.
> Again
>the question we have to ask ourselves is "are they hurting anyone?"
Exactly. And to clarify that even more, I like Heinlein's definition of sin.
Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily.
All other "sins" are invented nonsense.
( Hurting yourself is not sinful-just stupid. )
- Lazarus Long ( paraphrased )
From the novel "Time Enough For Love"
By the late Robert A. Heinlein
In other words, nothing should be illegal or banned unless it causes clear &
uncalled-for harm to others. ( my personal definition of sin )
Mark my words, if you do anything more than that, you take liberty away from
the law abiding good people and it becomes a less than free society.
> I would say that a suicide cult wouldn't be protected but how do
>you find them? Usually you don't untill they kill themselves. I
>wouldn't want the "faith police" checking out every service in
>America, would you?
The fact of the matter is that in a free society it's sometimes hard to catch
people until they actually do harm. But anything less leads to a police state.
You can ensure that people don't commit suicide only by locking them up and
keeping an eye on them 24 house a day. If you do that with everyone
preemptively, what are you living in?
- Melissa ( remove the big X and Y from my spam proofed address to email me )
High Priestess, The Universal Planetary Pantheist Temple
alt.personals.motss.women, the newsgroup for women-seeking-women:
Constance L. Crouch
:I mean the Scientologists, the Hare Krishnas, and many smaller groups.
Catherine Hampton <ar...@tempest.boxmail.com>
Catherine, could you please email me privately the details of this? I'm
in the dark about it, & I'd love to know whatever info you have. I KNOW
the Scientologists are a cult, since I'm an old SF fan, & know the history
of Hubbard, who boasted at a SF con that he'd bet money he could start a
religion & get rich off the fools that believed in it -- & then proceeded
to so exactly that.
Mags
PRIVATE POSTS TO m...@mail.utexas.edu ONLY! FLAMES DUMPED OR RETURNED.
Evan Kalenik
Catherine Hampton wrote:
> In article <5rtdnq$inl$2...@news01.deltanet.com>, John E. Bredehoft
> says...
>
> # Respecting your opinion (even though I personally don't agree with
> it).
> # However, how does the Moscow Patriarchate view this group? Would
> they
> # be considered as "heterodox" as some of the others, since they were
>
> # not in full fellowship with the bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate?
>
> Yes, they probably would, John. Patriarch Alexey does not tolerate
> what he feels are uncanonical schismatics gladly. Traditionally the
> Patriarch in Moscow has not tolerated schismatics
That is somewhat true, but reality is not as bad as that sounds. The
Patriarchate, for example, attempted to help the Old Believers regarding
a piece of property that they owned. They gave him the cold shoulder.
As regards the Church Abroad, there is at least one priest that I know
of who asked for and received permission from the Patriarch to serve in
Russian Orthodox churches in Moscow. That is following the rules. The
problems seem to come with those who visit and don't ask. When they are
not allowed, they complain. They would, however, be the first to
insure that a visiting priest from California had the permission of the
bishop of New York to serve in New York (along with that of California).
Evan
kdi...@erols.com
On Thu, 07 Aug 1997 20:24:56 -0400, Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
wrote:
>kdi...@erols.com wrote:
>
>> What I believe that Melissa was referring to with the phrase
>> "honest poligamy" was a situation where all of the parties in the
>> marriage are aware of all the other parties in the marriage. When a
>> person has more than one spouse, and they are unaware of each other,
>> that would be "dishonest poligamy. Again let me repeat that I find
>> the concept of poligamy distasteful and foolish (who would want to
>> have four wives mad at him all at the same time??) but it is practised
>>
>> by a "major" religion (Islam) and therefore should be allowed.
>
>The other side of that question, is can the government make into law
>what it believes to be in the best interests of this country. Was
>polygamy outlawed only on religious grounds or was it done for other
>reasons.
>
I can not say for sure weather or not poligamy was outlawed for
religious reasons or not but my gut instinct is that it was. If a
compelling reason to show that it is not in the best interests of this
country could be shown then of course it can be outlawed but I really
do not see an obvious one. Again let me state that I am not defending
the concept of poligamy. My personal opinion is that it is sinful and
not acceptable to God but in America first amendment rights do take
precedance.
>> As far as other religious belifs that are being infringed on by the US
>>
>> government, the question that we have to ask ourselves is "are they
>> harming anyone". If the answer is no then we must allow them.
>
>How do you know? And how do you define "harm".
>
Doing injury or damage
>> >> As Christians we shoulkd remember that we were once a persecuted
>> >> cult.
>> >
>> >Once? Have you read about what goes on in China? Or how about the
>> >Sudan? Or how about some Moslem countries? We are not talking
>> about
>> >ancient history, but today.
>
>> Ok, do you find that a good thing?? I assume that you do not.
>> Freedom in the world must be increased. Religious freedom is a very
>> good place to start. (I would like to see the "Bill of Rgihts" go
>> worldwide honestly to be precise in definition of increasing freedom
>> worldwide)
>
>Regardless, Christianity is still viewed by many as a "cult" and it is
>persecuted. In the same vein, it isn't a free world, and persecution
>does take place. I see no reason to act unilaterally in letting Moslem
>practices become legal in this country until such time as there is the
>quid pro quo, that being the end of the persecution of Christians by
>Moslems in their countries. I also have no problem with defending the
>American way of life. If someone wants to have four wives, they are
>perfectly free to go to a country where that is allowed. No one is
>keeping them here with a gun.
>
The Bill of Rights is not a quid pro quo situation. Because other
countries infringe on Christian religious freedoms does not mean that
we get to infringe on the rights of Muslims or Buddists or Satanists
or atheists. The American way of life includes the first amendment.
People should not have to leave the country in order to get their full
first amendment rights.
>> The definition of a "make believe faith" is hard to come up with.
>> Melissa would say that Christianity is a "make believe faith". Again
>> the question we have to ask ourselves is "are they hurting anyone?"
>> I would say that a suicide cult wouldn't be protected but how do
>> you find them? Usually you don't untill they kill themselves. I
>> wouldn't want the "faith police" checking out every service in
>> America, would you?
>
>Unfortunately, many suicide cults like to take a lot of unbelievers with
>them. The basic problem with your suggestions, however, is that you
>have two conflicting objectives. In the US, the government is
>responsible to protect her citizens in a variety of ways. The
>government also has been given restrictions by "the owners" about not
>infringing on the rights of the individuals. The wisdom of saying that
>yelling FIRE in a crowded theater was not a form of protected free
>speech has to be used when dealing with all of our rights. With rights
>come responsibilities and for the benefit of the majority, some of our
>rights often have to be trimmed a bit.
>
>Evan
>
So then you would support having "faith police" at every religious
service held in America? Who is going to pay for this?
Evan Kalenik
kdi...@erols.com wrote:
> I can not say for sure weather or not poligamy was outlawed for
> religious reasons or not but my gut instinct is that it was. If a
> compelling reason to show that it is not in the best interests of this
>
> country could be shown then of course it can be outlawed but I really
>
> do not see an obvious one.
I would think that it violates our culture would be compelling enough.
The United States does base its background on Judeo-Christian beliefs
and culture, like it or not. Why shouldn't the United States be able to
enact laws that preserves what the United States is rather than giving
in to any and all groups who come here with their own culture.
> Again let me state that I am not defending the concept of poligamy.
> My personal opinion is that it is sinful and not acceptable to God but
> in America first amendment rights do take precedance.
In this case, as in other cases, while it may be the beliefs of some, it
is not the culture of the United States. It doesn't, again in this case
but others can be applied, have to be on religious grounds that polygamy
is outlawed. The United States has a culture and it was to this culture
that some folks wanted to come. Once here, do they have a right to
change what they found to suit them? What about the others who came
here for what we have, not wishing to go along with what other groups
want?
> >> As far as other religious belifs that are being infringed on by the
> US
> >> government, the question that we have to ask ourselves is "are
> they
> >> harming anyone". If the answer is no then we must allow them.
> >
> >How do you know? And how do you define "harm".
> >
> Doing injury or damage
If polygamy damages the American way of life, is that enough? That is
why I asked about how you define harm. It can be physical, it can be
mental. It can be to the individual or it can be to the group.
> The Bill of Rights is not a quid pro quo situation. Because other
> countries infringe on Christian religious freedoms does not mean that
> we get to infringe on the rights of Muslims or Buddists or Satanists
> or atheists. The American way of life includes the first amendment.
> People should not have to leave the country in order to get their full
>
> first amendment rights.
Nor should people come here, knowing what is here, and then demand that
we change our country to suit them. If that infringes on their peculiar
religious beliefs, too bad. No one forced them to come, no one is
forcing them to remain. As people move up economically in this country,
they move from the ghetto to the suburbs. None want to bring the ghetto
along with them. This country is blessed with many things, our culture
is one of them. When people come here, they should accept our culture,
not the other way around.
> >> The definition of a "make believe faith" is hard to come up with.
> >> Melissa would say that Christianity is a "make believe faith".
> Again
> >> the question we have to ask ourselves is "are they hurting anyone?"
>
> >> I would say that a suicide cult wouldn't be protected but how do
>
> >> you find them? Usually you don't untill they kill themselves. I
> >> wouldn't want the "faith police" checking out every service in
> >> America, would you?
> >
> >Unfortunately, many suicide cults like to take a lot of unbelievers
> with
> >them. The basic problem with your suggestions, however, is that you
> >have two conflicting objectives. In the US, the government is
> >responsible to protect her citizens in a variety of ways. The
> >government also has been given restrictions by "the owners" about not
>
> >infringing on the rights of the individuals. The wisdom of saying
> that
> >yelling FIRE in a crowded theater was not a form of protected free
> >speech has to be used when dealing with all of our rights. With
> rights
> >come responsibilities and for the benefit of the majority, some of
> our
> >rights often have to be trimmed a bit.
>
> So then you would support having "faith police" at every religious
> service held in America? Who is going to pay for this?
I am simply saying that not every crack pot has the right to do what
they want and claim freedom of religion to excuse it. Not every
individual belief that someone coming to this country brings with them
is protected or guaranteed if it has been found to be harmful to the
American way of life. The last I looked, it was still our country.
People came here for the American Dream. I see nothing wrong with
preserving it.
Evan
Evan Kalenik
kdi...@erols.com wrote:
> >I would think that it violates our culture would be compelling
> enough.
> >The United States does base its background on Judeo-Christian beliefs
>
> >and culture, like it or not. Why shouldn't the United States be able
> to
> >enact laws that preserves what the United States is rather than
> giving
> >in to any and all groups who come here with their own culture.
> >
>
> Yes, we do base our background on Judeo-Christian beliefs, and I do
>
> like it. But we base our legal system on The Bill of Rights.
No, we base it on the Constitution. The first words are "We the
people", not "I".
> The First Amendment to the Constitution of The United States of
> America
>
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
>
> or prohibiting the free excercize thereof; or abridging the freedom of
>
> speach, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
> assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
>
> Please note that I interpret the word *no* in The First Amendment to
>
> mean NO. No isn't really a word that needs deep thought to interpret.
>
> No means no, it is that simple.
Again, it says "no" to establishing a religion. It said "no" to
prohibiting the free exercise thereof, not that every individual
activity that some claim to be religious beliefs is allowed. There is
not anything wrong with saying that one believes in polygamy but that
the laws of the United States prohibits that activity. You can still
believe in it but you can't practice it. So it isn't that simple.
> If you do not want to have four wives then for God's sake do not
> marry four women. We do not get to legislate to "preserve our
> culture". < Tacos and pizza are infringing on the popularity of
> grilled cheese and tomato soup, quick write the Congress-DO SOMETHING
> :-)> > Our culture will survive on its strengths, if it needs to be
> defended by Congress then it needs to change.
I do wish that Congress would do what you said, but with the current
administration, that is unlikely. However, why should we unilaterally
surrender our culture and our way of life to satisfy every person who,
on their own, of their own free will, came here fully knowing the laws
that existed when they came in the door? No other country in the world
does that, nor should we. Again, why should we give into anyone's
individual beliefs that may or may not be based on religious convictions
if they run counter to the wishes or desires of the majority? Why
should they get hurt just to satisfy every little group that comes
along. Anarchy would be the best case scenario of your suggestions.
> >If polygamy damages the American way of life, is that enough? That
> is
> >why I asked about how you define harm. It can be physical, it can be
>
> >mental. It can be to the individual or it can be to the group.
> >
>
> No, the American way of life is not a person. People's rights take
> precedence over idea's rights (if they have rights).
But you ignore the rights of those who are here, who are happy with the
situation as it is to satisfy every little group that comes here or who
claim that their desires are part of their religion. Look at a coin and
see where it says out of many one. Your ideas are the reverse of that.
> >Nor should people come here, knowing what is here, and then demand
> that
> >we change our country to suit them. If that infringes on their
> peculiar
> >religious beliefs, too bad. No one forced them to come, no one is
> >forcing them to remain. As people move up economically in this
> country,
> >they move from the ghetto to the suburbs. None want to bring the
> ghetto
> >along with them. This country is blessed with many things, our
> culture
> >is one of them. When people come here, they should accept our
> culture,
> >not the other way around.
> >
>
> Ahh, its not a melting pot, its not even a stew, its "America, love
> it or leave it" The Constitution does not protect our culture, it
> protects our rights.
The laws that are passed are done to protect or preserve the Country, or
they should be. The Constitution is a part of our culture, it is a part
of the American way of life. If one want's to own slaves because it is
their religion, should they? If they want to murder little children
since it is part of their religion, should they? How far do you want to
go to insure that every little fringe group gets to do what they want?
> >> So then you would support having "faith police" at every religious
>
> >> service held in America? Who is going to pay for this?
> >
> >I am simply saying that not every crack pot has the right to do what
> >they want and claim freedom of religion to excuse it. Not every
> >individual belief that someone coming to this country brings with
> them
> >is protected or guaranteed if it has been found to be harmful to the
>
> >American way of life. The last I looked, it was still our country.
> >People came here for the American Dream. I see nothing wrong with
> >preserving it.
> > How do you enforce this? Would animal sacrifice be ok? Again you
> still haven't gotten away from the "faith police"
>
> <(singing)"The faith police are comin to arrest me, The faith police,
> they come to me in my dreams"> (;-)>
By allowing every group to do what they want, regardless of the effects
of their "beliefs" on others could just lead to what you have said.
Evan
Melissa
In article <33ED1EA1...@webspan.net>,
Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net> wrote:
>kdi...@erols.com wrote:
>
>> I can not say for sure weather or not poligamy was outlawed for
>> religious reasons or not but my gut instinct is that it was. If a
>> compelling reason to show that it is not in the best interests of this
>>
>> country could be shown then of course it can be outlawed but I really
>>
>> do not see an obvious one.
>
Uh, no. Our culture is supposed to be one of tolerance and if you want a
society that's free and fair, it has to be that way for everyone. There is no
harm caused by honest polygamy, so why outlaw things that harm no one? It's
just an attempt by people to impose their religious and moral beliefs on all
others and that's wrong.
>The United States does base its background on Judeo-Christian beliefs
>and culture, like it or not. Why shouldn't the United States be able to
>enact laws that preserves what the United States is rather than giving
>in to any and all groups who come here with their own culture.
So why not make laws that outlaw all other religions then. No, I'd better not
give you any ideas. You just sound very intolerant and like an authoritarian
control freak.
>> Again let me state that I am not defending the concept of poligamy.
>> My personal opinion is that it is sinful and not acceptable to God but
>> in America first amendment rights do take precedance.
Since when was it considered sinful and not acceptable to anyone's god? There
was polygamy from ancient times right up to the present and some religions
still allow it. It was only some pope who declared it immoral wasn't it?
>In this case, as in other cases, while it may be the beliefs of some, it
>is not the culture of the United States. It doesn't, again in this case
>but others can be applied, have to be on religious grounds that polygamy
>is outlawed. The United States has a culture and it was to this culture
>that some folks wanted to come. Once here, do they have a right to
>change what they found to suit them? What about the others who came
>here for what we have, not wishing to go along with what other groups
>want?
What about tolerance for the non-harmful differences of others?
>> >> As far as other religious belifs that are being infringed on by the
>> US
>> >> government, the question that we have to ask ourselves is "are
>> they
>> >> harming anyone". If the answer is no then we must allow them.
>> >
>> >How do you know? And how do you define "harm".
>> >
>> Doing injury or damage
>
>If polygamy damages the American way of life, is that enough?
Does it? Can you prove that? I don't think so.
>That is
>why I asked about how you define harm. It can be physical, it can be
>mental. It can be to the individual or it can be to the group.
The only true sin is causing clear and uncalled-for harm to others and polygamy
doesn't do that. Any other sins are imagined sins and they don't count. Like if
you imagine that people who wear green shirts are somehow harming you and want
to ban green shirts.
>> The Bill of Rights is not a quid pro quo situation. Because other
>> countries infringe on Christian religious freedoms does not mean that
>> we get to infringe on the rights of Muslims or Buddists or Satanists
>> or atheists. The American way of life includes the first amendment.
>> People should not have to leave the country in order to get their full
>>
>> first amendment rights.
>
>Nor should people come here, knowing what is here, and then demand that
>we change our country to suit them.
Oh please! Allowing people to marry who they want is not changing the country
to suit anyone.
>If that infringes on their peculiar
>religious beliefs, too bad.
What if someone wants to infringe on your "peculiar" religious beliefs? Because
your intolerance is mighty peculiar to me.
>No one forced them to come, no one is
>forcing them to remain.
No one is forcing you to stay either. Move to Iran where you'd probably like
the moral tyranny better.
> As people move up economically in this country,
>they move from the ghetto to the suburbs. None want to bring the ghetto
>along with them. This country is blessed with many things, our culture
>is one of them. When people come here, they should accept our culture,
>not the other way around.
Heaven forbid that they be allowed to live their lives freely and do what they
want!
>> >> The definition of a "make believe faith" is hard to come up with.
>> >> Melissa would say that Christianity is a "make believe faith".
>> Again
>> >> the question we have to ask ourselves is "are they hurting anyone?"
>>
>> >> I would say that a suicide cult wouldn't be protected but how do
>>
>> >> you find them? Usually you don't untill they kill themselves. I
>> >> wouldn't want the "faith police" checking out every service in
>> >> America, would you?
>> >
>> >Unfortunately, many suicide cults like to take a lot of unbelievers
>> with
>> >them. The basic problem with your suggestions, however, is that you
>> >have two conflicting objectives. In the US, the government is
>> >responsible to protect her citizens in a variety of ways. The
>> >government also has been given restrictions by "the owners" about not
>>
>> >infringing on the rights of the individuals. The wisdom of saying
>> that
>> >yelling FIRE in a crowded theater was not a form of protected free
>> >speech has to be used when dealing with all of our rights. With
>> rights
>> >come responsibilities and for the benefit of the majority, some of
>> our
>> >rights often have to be trimmed a bit.
>>
>> So then you would support having "faith police" at every religious
>> service held in America? Who is going to pay for this?
>
>I am simply saying that not every crack pot has the right to do what
>they want and claim freedom of religion to excuse it.
Of course not but if you want freedom of religion for yourself, you need to
give it to everyone else too.
So if you want a free country, only clear & uncalled-for harmful behavior to
others should be illegal.
>Not every
>individual belief that someone coming to this country brings with them
>is protected or guaranteed if it has been found to be harmful to the
>American way of life.
Again, the American way of life is supposed to be a melting pot, or as someone
recently better described it; a tossed salad. So no one should get to dictate
to everyone else what they "believe" or "imagine" to be harmful.
> The last I looked, it was still our country.
Who is "our"? Everyone who lives here should be treated freely and fairly.
>People came here for the American Dream. I see nothing wrong with
>preserving it.
Then you should have no problem with tolerance.
- Melissa ( remove the big X and Y from my spam proofed address to email me )
High Priestess, The Universal Planetary Pantheist Temple
alt.personals.motss.women, the newsgroup for women-seeking-women:
kdi...@erols.com
On Sat, 09 Aug 1997 23:33:17 -0400, Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
wrote:
>kdi...@erols.com wrote:
>
>> >I would think that it violates our culture would be compelling
>> enough.
>> >The United States does base its background on Judeo-Christian beliefs
>>
>> >and culture, like it or not. Why shouldn't the United States be able
>> to
>> >enact laws that preserves what the United States is rather than
>> giving
>> >in to any and all groups who come here with their own culture.
>> >
>>
>> Yes, we do base our background on Judeo-Christian beliefs, and I do
>>
>> like it. But we base our legal system on The Bill of Rights.
>
>No, we base it on the Constitution. The first words are "We the
>people", not "I".
You are right, The Constitution-but the Bill of Rights is contained
therein. I am not sure what you mean by "The first words are "We the
people", not "I". Could you explain what you are driving at here.
>
>> The First Amendment to the Constitution of The United States of
>> America
>>
>> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
>>
>> or prohibiting the free excercize thereof; or abridging the freedom of
>>
>> speach, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
>> assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
>>
>> Please note that I interpret the word *no* in The First Amendment to
>>
>> mean NO. No isn't really a word that needs deep thought to interpret.
>>
>> No means no, it is that simple.
>
>Again, it says "no" to establishing a religion. It said "no" to
>prohibiting the free exercise thereof,
Once we get to "no law prohibiting the free excercise {of religion}
how do you interpret that to mean that we get to prohibit unharmful
religious activity? You are missing the point of *NO*.
> not that every individual
>activity that some claim to be religious beliefs is allowed. There is
>not anything wrong with saying that one believes in polygamy but that
>the laws of the United States prohibits that activity. You can still
>believe in it but you can't practice it. So it isn't that simple.
>
>> If you do not want to have four wives then for God's sake do not
>> marry four women. We do not get to legislate to "preserve our
>> culture". < Tacos and pizza are infringing on the popularity of
>> grilled cheese and tomato soup, quick write the Congress-DO SOMETHING
>> :-)> > Our culture will survive on its strengths, if it needs to be
>> defended by Congress then it needs to change.
>
>I do wish that Congress would do what you said, but with the current
>administration, that is unlikely.
You actually want Congress to defend grilled cheese sandwhiches and
tomato soup from pizza and tacos?? Maybe you mean something else.
Please tell me what I said that you wish Congress would do-God I hope
it not the grilled cheese thing.
> However, why should we unilaterally
>surrender our culture and our way of life to satisfy every person who,
>on their own, of their own free will, came here fully knowing the laws
>that existed when they came in the door? No other country in the world
>does that, nor should we. Again, why should we give into anyone's
>individual beliefs that may or may not be based on religious convictions
>if they run counter to the wishes or desires of the majority? Why
>should they get hurt just to satisfy every little group that comes
>along. Anarchy would be the best case scenario of your suggestions.
>
No, actually the best case senario would be a free society.
Anarchy is not neccesary for a free society. Part of the reason for
the BOR is to protect the minority from the majority.
>> >If polygamy damages the American way of life, is that enough? That
>> is
>> >why I asked about how you define harm. It can be physical, it can be
>>
>> >mental. It can be to the individual or it can be to the group.
>> >
>>
>> No, the American way of life is not a person. People's rights take
>> precedence over idea's rights (if they have rights).
>
>But you ignore the rights of those who are here, who are happy with the
>situation as it is to satisfy every little group that comes here or who
>claim that their desires are part of their religion.
Muslims have practised poligamy for well over 1300 years. There are
almost as many Muslims in the world as there are Catholics. There are
over 5,500,000 Muslims in the US. Hardly " every little group that
comes here or who claim that their desires are part of their
religion."
> Look at a coin and
>see where it says out of many one. Your ideas are the reverse of that.
>
How are your rights damaged if someone else has four wives? I
trust God. I trust Him with my life and my families lives. I trust
Him to keep his promises even though He knows that I cannot keep mine.
My ideas are not the reverse of "In God We Trust". Frankly, it
bothers me that you would say that. God also has given us the ability
to believe in Him or reject Him. If that is ok with God, why would it
not be ok with the US.
>> >Nor should people come here, knowing what is here, and then demand
>> that
>> >we change our country to suit them. If that infringes on their
>> peculiar
>> >religious beliefs, too bad. No one forced them to come, no one is
>> >forcing them to remain. As people move up economically in this
>> country,
>> >they move from the ghetto to the suburbs. None want to bring the
>> ghetto
>> >along with them. This country is blessed with many things, our
>> culture
>> >is one of them. When people come here, they should accept our
>> culture,
>> >not the other way around.
>> >
>>
>> Ahh, its not a melting pot, its not even a stew, its "America, love
>> it or leave it" The Constitution does not protect our culture, it
>> protects our rights.
>
>The laws that are passed are done to protect or preserve the Country, or
>they should be. The Constitution is a part of our culture, it is a part
>of the American way of life. If one want's to own slaves because it is
>their religion, should they? If they want to murder little children
>since it is part of their religion, should they? How far do you want to
>go to insure that every little fringe group gets to do what they want?
>
Perhaps you are forgetting that I prefaced this with the statement
that the first question we must ask ourselves is "does it hurt
anyone?" I think that anyone can see that slavery and child sacrifice
would be covered by that. How far? as long as they are doing no harm,
they get to do what they want.
>> >> So then you would support having "faith police" at every religious
>>
>> >> service held in America? Who is going to pay for this?
>> >
>> >I am simply saying that not every crack pot has the right to do what
>> >they want and claim freedom of religion to excuse it. Not every
>> >individual belief that someone coming to this country brings with
>> them
>> >is protected or guaranteed if it has been found to be harmful to the
>>
>> >American way of life. The last I looked, it was still our country.
>> >People came here for the American Dream. I see nothing wrong with
>> >preserving it.
>
>> > How do you enforce this? Would animal sacrifice be ok? Again you
>> still haven't gotten away from the "faith police"
>>
>> <(singing)"The faith police are comin to arrest me, The faith police,
>> they come to me in my dreams"> (;-)>
>
>By allowing every group to do what they want, regardless of the effects
>of their "beliefs" on others could just lead to what you have said.
>
>Evan
>
Actually Evan, you are advocating the "faith police". You are the
one that believes that the American way of Life can be destroyed be
freedom.
>
>
No Jesus, No Peace
Know Jesus, Know Peace
Kevin Dickover
<)))><
.
John E. Bredehoft
In article <5sle0q$g7k...@dialup1.den.amnix.com>,
Melissa <meli...@Yamnix.com> wrote:
>In article <33ED1EA1...@webspan.net>,
> Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net> wrote:
>
>>The United States does base its background on Judeo-Christian beliefs
>>and culture, like it or not. Why shouldn't the United States be able to
>>enact laws that preserves what the United States is rather than giving
>>in to any and all groups who come here with their own culture.
>
>So why not make laws that outlaw all other religions then. No, I'd better not
>give you any ideas. You just sound very intolerant and like an authoritarian
>control freak.
The Judeo-Christian culture is not equivalent to Christianity, and in some
cases is diametrically opposed to it. If the Judeo-Christian culture were
made the official religion of the U.S., Christianity would be the first
religion to be outlawed.
Melissa
In article <5sndm5$1p5$7...@news01.deltanet.com>,
>> Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net> wrote:
>>
>>>The United States does base its background on Judeo-Christian beliefs
>>>and culture, like it or not. Why shouldn't the United States be able to
>>>enact laws that preserves what the United States is rather than giving
>>>in to any and all groups who come here with their own culture.
>>
>>So why not make laws that outlaw all other religions then. No, I'd better not
>>give you any ideas. You just sound very intolerant and like an authoritarian
>>control freak.
>
>cases is diametrically opposed to it. If the Judeo-Christian culture were
>made the official religion of the U.S., Christianity would be the first
>religion to be outlawed.
Sorry but that doesn't make a whole lotta sense to me.
Evan Kalenik
John E. Bredehoft wrote:
> Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net> wrote:
>
> >I would think that it violates our culture would be compelling
> enough.
> >The United States does base its background on Judeo-Christian beliefs
>
> >and culture, like it or not. Why shouldn't the United States be able
> to
> >enact laws that preserves what the United States is rather than
> giving
> >in to any and all groups who come here with their own culture.
>
> Not applicable to the Latter Day Saints, who have been here longer
> than
> some of the anti-foreigners.
But the Mormons didn't exist when the Constitution was written. Home
grown groups have no different rights than those who come here. Home
grown groups today are probably worse than some of the sects that are
coming into the United States.
Just because you are a citizen of the United States, you can't do
whatever you want, regardless of the question of religious practices and
beliefs.
Evan
Evan Kalenik
kdi...@erols.com wrote:
> You are right, The Constitution-but the Bill of Rights is contained
> therein. I am not sure what you mean by "The first words are "We the
> people", not "I". Could you explain what you are driving at here.
The emphasis that you are making on individual rights, which is not
wrong, is perhaps overshadowing the reason for the Constitution. While
there are many cases where the rights of individuals, as outlined in the
Bill of Rights, may be trimmed. The most classic one is on free
speech. One can not yell fire in a crowded movie theater, just because
you want to. That is not protected free speech. So, regardless of what
is in the Bill of Rights, there are times that the government can limit
or trim what could pass as free speech if it is in the best interests of
other citizens of the country, or movie theater.
> >> Please note that I interpret the word *no* in The First Amendment
> to
> >> mean NO. No isn't really a word that needs deep thought to
> interpret.
> >> No means no, it is that simple.
> >
> >Again, it says "no" to establishing a religion. It said "no" to
> >prohibiting the free exercise thereof,
>
> Once we get to "no law prohibiting the free excercise {of religion}
>
> how do you interpret that to mean that we get to prohibit unharmful
> religious activity? You are missing the point of *NO*.
The people of the United States have a right to decide what kind of
behavior they are willing to tolerate here. The Supreme Court in
Reynolds v. United States upheld the conviction of a Mormon on polygamy
charges. In Prince v. Massachusetts the court upheld a law prohibiting
people under 18 from selling newspapers, magazines or merchandise in
public. Here a Jehovah's Witness girl younger than that felt it was her
duty under J-W beliefs, to do that. Here you have religious practices
that conflicted with the public interest and the religious practices
were not protected.
Now those laws may not have been enacted to counter a specific
religion's practice or beliefs. In Prince v. Massachusetts, it didn't
matter if the publications that were being sold were religious tracts or
the local newspaper, if you weren't 18 you couldn't sell them.
So when you say :
" Once we get to "no law prohibiting the free excercise {of religion}
how do you interpret that to mean that we get to prohibit unharmful
religious activity? You are missing the point of *NO*."
I would suggest that you look at the decisions of the Supreme Court on
*NO* since it isn't the same as yours.
> You actually want Congress to defend grilled cheese sandwhiches and
> tomato soup from pizza and tacos?? Maybe you mean something else.
> Please tell me what I said that you wish Congress would do-God I hope
> it not the grilled cheese thing.
No it isn't. I was agreeing with you when you said that Congress should
leave us alone. Unfortunately, this president and congress will nanny
us to death.
> No, actually the best case senario would be a free society.
> Anarchy is not neccesary for a free society. Part of the reason for
> the BOR is to protect the minority from the majority.
Not really. The BOR is to protect the individual from the Government.
It is a check against the government getting out of control.
> >But you ignore the rights of those who are here, who are happy with
> the
> >situation as it is to satisfy every little group that comes here or
> who
> >claim that their desires are part of their religion.
>
> Muslims have practised poligamy for well over 1300 years. There are
>
> almost as many Muslims in the world as there are Catholics. There are
>
> over 5,500,000 Muslims in the US. Hardly " every little group that
> comes here or who claim that their desires are part of their
> religion."
When they take over here, they are perfectly free to change the laws to
suit them. No one says that public interest can't change.
> > Look at a coin and
> >see where it says out of many one. Your ideas are the reverse of
> that.
> >
>
> How are your rights damaged if someone else has four wives? I
> trust God. I trust Him with my life and my families lives. I trust
> Him to keep his promises even though He knows that I cannot keep mine.
>
> My ideas are not the reverse of "In God We Trust". Frankly, it
> bothers me that you would say that. God also has given us the ability
>
> to believe in Him or reject Him. If that is ok with God, why would it
>
> not be ok with the US.
I say that since you carry individual rights well past what the Supreme
Court has ruled on a number of cases. As far as you seem to be
concerned, anyone can do anything that they want so long as they say it
is their belief. You are not willing to recognize that the rest of
society has a say in some of this and that the public interest has
always played a role in how we live. You can't outlaw a religion and
you can't enact laws that will have a detrimental effect on a specific
religion. But just because a group forms and wants to believe that they
have the right to do what is contrary to existing laws does not mean we
have to roll over and play dead.
> Perhaps you are forgetting that I prefaced this with the statement
> that the first question we must ask ourselves is "does it hurt
> anyone?" I think that anyone can see that slavery and child sacrifice
>
> would be covered by that. How far? as long as they are doing no harm,
>
> they get to do what they want.
The public interest has been that polygamy would not be allowed.
Period. It doesn't matter if it hurts someone or not. Just as
individuals have rights, so does society.
> Actually Evan, you are advocating the "faith police". You are the
> one that believes that the American way of Life can be destroyed be
> freedom.
No, I am simply stating that the Supreme Court has found that when the
public interest is one thing, no one can claim exemption from it because
they have some religious beliefs that are contrary to that law. If you
want anarchy, then you let anything go. Of all the practices of
assorted "beliefs", polygamy is pretty tame. Other practices are not.
Part of the problem with the United States today is that everyone is
more concerned with their "rights" and have no desire to discuss their
responsibilities. That is a shift from what used to be the case.
Evan
James B. DiGriz
Melissa wrote:
>
> In article <5sndm5$1p5$7...@news01.deltanet.com>,
> jbre...@delta1.deltanet.com (John E. Bredehoft) wrote:
> >In article <5sle0q$g7k...@dialup1.den.amnix.com>,
> >Melissa <meli...@Yamnix.com> wrote:
> >> Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>The United States does base its background on Judeo-Christian beliefs
> >>>and culture, like it or not. Why shouldn't the United States be able to
> >>>enact laws that preserves what the United States is rather than giving
> >>>in to any and all groups who come here with their own culture.
> >>
> >>So why not make laws that outlaw all other religions then. No, I'd better not
> >>give you any ideas. You just sound very intolerant and like an authoritarian
> >>control freak.
> >
> >cases is diametrically opposed to it. If the Judeo-Christian culture were
> >made the official religion of the U.S., Christianity would be the first
> >religion to be outlawed.
>
> Sorry but that doesn't make a whole lotta sense to me.
>
>
> High Priestess, The Universal Planetary Pantheist Temple
> alt.personals.motss.women, the newsgroup for women-seeking-women:
> http://www.amnix.com/~melissa/charter.htm
> http://www.amnix.com/~melissa/melissas.htm http://www.amnix.com/~melissa
I don't think you can legitimately make the distinction he's drawing,
but I see the point. There are a lot of Christians who should fervently
hope Jesus doesn't show up again any time soon. I think they know it,
too. People forget that Jesus was not a namby-pamby weakling. He kicked
ass with the money changers in the temple, for instance. That's an apt
illustration, too, I think. I think he would be righteosly pissed off at
what passes for a religion in his name, to the point that he would ask
his Pop for Satan's job. "Dad, haven't we overdone this mercy and
forgiveness thing?"
No, no, doesn't mean I'm going to accept him as my Saviour, etc, etc.
Give me a break.
James B. DiGriz
John E. Bredehoft
In article <5solpd$mfc...@dialup1.den.amnix.com>,
Melissa <meli...@Yamnix.com> wrote:
>In article <5sndm5$1p5$7...@news01.deltanet.com>,
> jbre...@delta1.deltanet.com (John E. Bredehoft) wrote:
>>
>>The Judeo-Christian culture is not equivalent to Christianity, and in some
>>cases is diametrically opposed to it. If the Judeo-Christian culture were
>>made the official religion of the U.S., Christianity would be the first
>>religion to be outlawed.
>
>Sorry but that doesn't make a whole lotta sense to me.
Yes, it's foolish :), but the Judeo-Christian culture is a works-based
system which promotes ethical behavior and outside righteousness
(e.g. "Go to the church of your choice -- it doesn't matter what the
church believes, as long as they dress nicely).
Christianity is faith-based and does not depend upon performance.
John E. Bredehoft
In article <33F076F4...@ix.netcom.com>,
James B. DiGriz <jbdi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Melissa wrote:
>>
>> In article <5sndm5$1p5$7...@news01.deltanet.com>,
>> jbre...@delta1.deltanet.com (John E. Bredehoft) wrote:
>> >Melissa <meli...@Yamnix.com> wrote:
>> >>In article <33ED1EA1...@webspan.net>,
>> >> Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>The United States does base its background on Judeo-Christian beliefs
>> >>>and culture, like it or not. Why shouldn't the United States be able to
>> >>>enact laws that preserves what the United States is rather than giving
>> >>>in to any and all groups who come here with their own culture.
>> >>
>> >>So why not make laws that outlaw all other religions then. No, I'd better not
>> >>give you any ideas. You just sound very intolerant and like an authoritarian
>> >>control freak.
>> >
>> >cases is diametrically opposed to it. If the Judeo-Christian culture were
>> >made the official religion of the U.S., Christianity would be the first
>> >religion to be outlawed.
>>
>> Sorry but that doesn't make a whole lotta sense to me.
>>
>>
>> High Priestess, The Universal Planetary Pantheist Temple
>> alt.personals.motss.women, the newsgroup for women-seeking-women:
>> http://www.amnix.com/~melissa/charter.htm
>> http://www.amnix.com/~melissa/melissas.htm http://www.amnix.com/~melissa
>
>I don't think you can legitimately make the distinction he's drawing,
>but I see the point. There are a lot of Christians who should fervently
>hope Jesus doesn't show up again any time soon. I think they know it,
>too.
If our salvation is dependent upon what we do, then *none* of us should
hope that Christ returns soon.
>People forget that Jesus was not a namby-pamby weakling. He kicked
>ass with the money changers in the temple, for instance. That's an apt
>illustration, too, I think.
Agreed.
>I think he would be righteosly pissed off at
>what passes for a religion in his name, to the point that he would ask
>his Pop for Satan's job. "Dad, haven't we overdone this mercy and
>forgiveness thing?"
If you want a church of the perfect, then you need to remove free will
and reduce all of us to robots. For some reason, God chose not to do that.
>
>No, no, doesn't mean I'm going to accept him as my Saviour, etc, etc.
>Give me a break.
>
>James B. DiGriz
Melissa
In article <33F076F4...@ix.netcom.com>,
"James B. DiGriz" <jbdi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Melissa wrote:
>>
>> In article <5sndm5$1p5$7...@news01.deltanet.com>,
>> jbre...@delta1.deltanet.com (John E. Bredehoft) wrote:
>> >In article <5sle0q$g7k...@dialup1.den.amnix.com>,
>> >Melissa <meli...@Yamnix.com> wrote:
>> >> Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>The United States does base its background on Judeo-Christian beliefs
>> >>>and culture, like it or not. Why shouldn't the United States be able to
>> >>>enact laws that preserves what the United States is rather than giving
>> >>>in to any and all groups who come here with their own culture.
>> >>
>> >>So why not make laws that outlaw all other religions then. No, I'd better
not
>> >>give you any ideas. You just sound very intolerant and like an
authoritarian
>> >>control freak.
>> >
>> >cases is diametrically opposed to it. If the Judeo-Christian culture were
>> >made the official religion of the U.S., Christianity would be the first
>> >religion to be outlawed.
>>
>> Sorry but that doesn't make a whole lotta sense to me.
>>
me )
>>
>> High Priestess, The Universal Planetary Pantheist Temple
>> alt.personals.motss.women, the newsgroup for women-seeking-women:
>> http://www.amnix.com/~melissa/charter.htm
>> http://www.amnix.com/~melissa/melissas.htm http://www.amnix.com/~melissa
>
>but I see the point. There are a lot of Christians who should fervently
>hope Jesus doesn't show up again any time soon. I think they know it,
>ass with the money changers in the temple, for instance. That's an apt
>what passes for a religion in his name, to the point that he would ask
>his Pop for Satan's job. "Dad, haven't we overdone this mercy and
>forgiveness thing?"
>
>Give me a break.
Yeah, I've always thought that if Jesus showed up some day in modern times,
he'd probably spend about a month puking when he saw what people have done in
his name.
kdi...@erols.com
On Tue, 12 Aug 1997 08:16:39 -0400, Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
wrote:
>kdi...@erols.com wrote:
>
>> You are right, The Constitution-but the Bill of Rights is contained
>> therein. I am not sure what you mean by "The first words are "We the
>> people", not "I". Could you explain what you are driving at here.
>
>The emphasis that you are making on individual rights, which is not
>wrong, is perhaps overshadowing the reason for the Constitution. While
>there are many cases where the rights of individuals, as outlined in the
>Bill of Rights, may be trimmed. The most classic one is on free
>speech. One can not yell fire in a crowded movie theater, just because
>you want to. That is not protected free speech. So, regardless of what
>is in the Bill of Rights, there are times that the government can limit
>or trim what could pass as free speech if it is in the best interests of
>other citizens of the country, or movie theater.
>
I accept that. The government does limit rights in order to prevent
harm to its citizens. What you are failing to prove is how
expreassions of faith that you disapprove of will harm the country. I
disapprove of idolatry as well as poligamy but I do not want laws
passed forbidding it.
>> >> Please note that I interpret the word *no* in The First Amendment
>> to
>> >> mean NO. No isn't really a word that needs deep thought to
>> interpret.
>> >> No means no, it is that simple.
>> >
>> >Again, it says "no" to establishing a religion. It said "no" to
>> >prohibiting the free exercise thereof,
>>
>> Once we get to "no law prohibiting the free excercise {of religion}
>>
>> how do you interpret that to mean that we get to prohibit unharmful
>> religious activity? You are missing the point of *NO*.
>
>The people of the United States have a right to decide what kind of
>behavior they are willing to tolerate here. The Supreme Court in
>Reynolds v. United States upheld the conviction of a Mormon on polygamy
>charges. In Prince v. Massachusetts the court upheld a law prohibiting
>people under 18 from selling newspapers, magazines or merchandise in
>public. Here a Jehovah's Witness girl younger than that felt it was her
>duty under J-W beliefs, to do that. Here you have religious practices
>that conflicted with the public interest and the religious practices
>were not protected.
>
I am guessins that the examples you give are more then 100 years
old or they are going to have to fire everyone at the mall (:-)>
>Now those laws may not have been enacted to counter a specific
>religion's practice or beliefs. In Prince v. Massachusetts, it didn't
>matter if the publications that were being sold were religious tracts or
>the local newspaper, if you weren't 18 you couldn't sell them.
>
>So when you say :
>
>" Once we get to "no law prohibiting the free excercise {of religion}
>how do you interpret that to mean that we get to prohibit unharmful
>religious activity? You are missing the point of *NO*."
>
>I would suggest that you look at the decisions of the Supreme Court on
>*NO* since it isn't the same as yours.
>
The Supreme Courts opinions of slavery were different then mine as
well (Dredd Scott) but they saw fit to change them. Given that nearly
everyone working at the mall is under 18, I am guessing that they
changed their mind there as well. We can only hope that they will see
fit to allow for religious freedom as well.
>> You actually want Congress to defend grilled cheese sandwhiches and
>> tomato soup from pizza and tacos?? Maybe you mean something else.
>> Please tell me what I said that you wish Congress would do-God I hope
>> it not the grilled cheese thing.
>
>No it isn't. I was agreeing with you when you said that Congress should
>leave us alone. Unfortunately, this president and congress will nanny
>us to death.
>
And yet you want them to pass laws about who people can marry, this
hardly sounds consistant.
>> No, actually the best case senario would be a free society.
>> Anarchy is not neccesary for a free society. Part of the reason for
>> the BOR is to protect the minority from the majority.
>
>Not really. The BOR is to protect the individual from the Government.
>It is a check against the government getting out of control.
>
>> >But you ignore the rights of those who are here, who are happy with
>> the
>> >situation as it is to satisfy every little group that comes here or
>> who
>> >claim that their desires are part of their religion.
>>
>> Muslims have practised poligamy for well over 1300 years. There are
>>
>> almost as many Muslims in the world as there are Catholics. There are
>>
>> over 5,500,000 Muslims in the US. Hardly " every little group that
>> comes here or who claim that their desires are part of their
>> religion."
>
>When they take over here, they are perfectly free to change the laws to
>suit them. No one says that public interest can't change.
>
Perhaps you need to reread Federalist number 10
>> > Look at a coin and
>> >see where it says out of many one. Your ideas are the reverse of
>> that.
>> >
>>
>> How are your rights damaged if someone else has four wives? I
>> trust God. I trust Him with my life and my families lives. I trust
>> Him to keep his promises even though He knows that I cannot keep mine.
>>
>> My ideas are not the reverse of "In God We Trust". Frankly, it
>> bothers me that you would say that. God also has given us the ability
>>
>> to believe in Him or reject Him. If that is ok with God, why would it
>>
>> not be ok with the US.
>
>I say that since you carry individual rights well past what the Supreme
>Court has ruled on a number of cases. As far as you seem to be
>concerned, anyone can do anything that they want so long as they say it
>is their belief. You are not willing to recognize that the rest of
>society has a say in some of this and that the public interest has
>always played a role in how we live. You can't outlaw a religion and
>you can't enact laws that will have a detrimental effect on a specific
>religion. But just because a group forms and wants to believe that they
>have the right to do what is contrary to existing laws does not mean we
>have to roll over and play dead.
>
When you enact laws that prevent someone from parctising their
religion you are in effect outlawing their religion. If the
government decided that baptism was harmful and passed laws preventing
it, would that not in effect outlaw Christianity?? By the way we can,
and do, pass laws that have a detrimental effect on specific
religions-although we should not.
>> Perhaps you are forgetting that I prefaced this with the statement
>> that the first question we must ask ourselves is "does it hurt
>> anyone?" I think that anyone can see that slavery and child sacrifice
>>
>> would be covered by that. How far? as long as they are doing no harm,
>>
>> they get to do what they want.
>
>The public interest has been that polygamy would not be allowed.
>Period. It doesn't matter if it hurts someone or not. Just as
>individuals have rights, so does society.
>
Any right that society might haveis outwieghed by individual
rights. BTW I see no mention of sociatal rights in the Constitution.
>> Actually Evan, you are advocating the "faith police". You are the
>> one that believes that the American way of Life can be destroyed be
>> freedom.
>
>No, I am simply stating that the Supreme Court has found that when the
>public interest is one thing, no one can claim exemption from it because
>they have some religious beliefs that are contrary to that law. If you
>want anarchy, then you let anything go. Of all the practices of
>assorted "beliefs", polygamy is pretty tame. Other practices are not.
>
>Part of the problem with the United States today is that everyone is
>more concerned with their "rights" and have no desire to discuss their
>responsibilities. That is a shift from what used to be the case.
>
>Evan
>
>
"Poligamy is pretty tame"? I thought it was going to destroy the
American way of life, which one is it? If it is not harmful, then
we must allow it.
Pixie
Melissa wrote:
: Yeah, I've always thought that if Jesus showed up some day in modern
times,
: he'd probably spend about a month puking when he saw what people have
done in
: his name.
:
As a christian, I definitely have to agree with you. Too many people use
religion as an excuse to hurt other people.
Pixie
Daniel Glassman
On Wed, 13 Aug 1997, Melissa wrote:
>
> Yeah, I've always thought that if Jesus showed up some day in modern times,
> he'd probably spend about a month puking when he saw what people have done in
> his name.
>
This comment unfortunatly shows an all to pervasive concept among both
Christians and non-Christians alike - which is that Jesus is not here now
but away someplace and doesn't know what is happening. The truth is that
He is here, always has been, always will be. Even when we can't see Him.
This remind me of a quote I had filed away. This was found carved on the
wall of a bunkroom in a concentration camp -
I believe in the sun, even though it doesn't shine.
I believe in love, even when it isn't shown.
I believe in God, even when He doesn't speak.
Of course I do not deny that there have been and still are terrible things
done in the name of Jesus, but that doesn't mean that He doesn't know
about it.
Daniel
Anthony Q. Bachler EV#00002
No, just that he doesn't care.
Daniel Glassman wrote in article ...
J & L Fox
John E. Bredehoft <jbre...@delta1.deltanet.com> wrote in article
<5u21oc$h0j$3...@news01.deltanet.com>...
> >> I believe in the sun, even though it doesn't shine.
> >
> >But it does shine for all to see.
>
> If it is a winter day in Portland, Oregon, then how do you know whether
> or not the sun exists?
> --
Do you mean "the sun, the star Sol, center of the Solar system, hot ball of
gases, around which revolves the Earth?" Many scientists assumed some time
back it was this, following empirical observation of its effects, on cloudy
days as well as clear.
Eventually we will have iron-clad proof that it is exactly that: this is my
own belief. I could be wrong, but I'm committing myself publicly to that
belief.
Similarly, I empirically observe the effects of God, the Holy and Undivided
Trinity, in the world around me, under all sorts of circumstances. I have
yet to see His existence disproven convincingly. I believe one day I will
have iron-clad proof of that too. But 'til then, I hope He'll grant me the
strength not to need it.
-John
Evan Kalenik
kdi...@erols.com wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Aug 97 22:06:18 GMT, meli...@Yamnix.com (Melissa) wrote:
>
> <Melissa, I am snipping all of your comments that are not directed
> at me, Evan and his tolerance level for difference do not need to
> rehashed. If you think that I have snipped stuff that belongs, please
>
> forgive me.>
Since my computer was down (and still is not up to speed until the
replacement modem arrives) I missed the comments that were referred to
above. Please don't think that my silence meant anything.
I might add that your tolerance level for differences to what you think
is far less than what you may interpret mine to be.
If you have problems with the direction that the US Supreme Court has
taken in support of legislation enacted by Congress and agreed to by the
Executive branch of the US Government, you are perfectly free to
express those opinions. Somehow, when I, or others who disagree with
you express our opinions that may support the actions of the United
States Government on this, somehow we are less pure than you.
Like it or not, this country has established some norms (most of them
have been tossed out over the years unfortunately), that the majority
have supported for the benefit of the country. While some of them may
seem to trample on the individual rights of the individuals, there has
to be some price that is paid by the citizens of this country to keep
this country what it is, and what it was about this country that our
forefathers thought enough of to want to come here. Is there a balance
somewhere? Yes. Is it always fair to every individual in the United
States? No. The Constitution guarantees the right to pursue happiness,
not the granting of happiness.
I find it interesting, Kevin, that those like you who pretend to preach
tolerance, when faced with practicing that same tolerance that you
preach, fall short.
Evan
Jonathan Stokes
On 6 Sep 1997 14:55:59 GMT, "J & L Fox" <jd...@online.rednet.co.uk>
wrote:
John, your post makes me smile : )
the day is coming and it won't be long, may your faith endure and your
relationship with God and others grow stronger.
sofia
Constance L. Crouch
Melissa (meli...@Yamnix.com) wrote:
: Daniel Glassman <gb...@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us> wrote:
: >On Wed, 13 Aug 1997, Melissa wrote:
: >> Yeah, I've always thought that if Jesus showed up some day in modern times,
: >> he'd probably spend about a month puking when he saw what people have done
: in his name.
: >This comment unfortunatly shows an all to pervasive concept among both
: >Christians and non-Christians alike - which is that Jesus is not here now
: >but away someplace and doesn't know what is happening. The truth is that
: >He is here, always has been, always will be. Even when we can't see Him.
: That's because you worship a man as an incarnation of your god.
: >This remind me of a quote I had filed away. This was found carved on the
: >wall of a bunkroom in a concentration camp -
: >
: > I believe in the sun, even though it doesn't shine.
: But it does shine for all to see.
: > I believe in love, even when it isn't shown.
: Could be rather foolish if someone was about to kill you.
: > I believe in God, even when He doesn't speak.
: Schizophrenia?
: >Of course I do not deny that there have been and still are terrible things
: >done in the name of Jesus, but that doesn't mean that He doesn't know
: >about it.
: Again, only if you equate him with your god.
: - Melissa ( remove the big X and Y from my spam proofed address to email me )
: High Priestess, The Universal Planetary Pantheist Temple
: alt.personals.motss.women, the newsgroup for women-seeking-women:
: http://www.amnix.com/~melissa/charter.htm
: http://www.amnix.com/~melissa/melissas.htm http://www.amnix.com/~melissa
I see the "Melissa" troll has arrived. Go away, Melissa, if you don't
believe. Otherwise, admit you have no life & do nought but sit around
griping about others' faiths when the only think YOU believe in is sex.
No-one is hunting YOU up to tell you what to believe. So do everyone a
favor & be polite enough to return the favor. You had to come HERE to
find something to gripe about & get your jockeys all in a twist.
Mags
kdi...@erols.com
On Sun, 07 Sep 1997 20:44:50 -0400, Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
wrote:
>kdi...@erols.com wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Aug 97 22:06:18 GMT, meli...@Yamnix.com (Melissa) wrote:
>>
>> <Melissa, I am snipping all of your comments that are not directed
>> at me, Evan and his tolerance level for difference do not need to
>> rehashed. If you think that I have snipped stuff that belongs, please
>>
>> forgive me.>
>
>Since my computer was down (and still is not up to speed until the
>replacement modem arrives) I missed the comments that were referred to
>above. Please don't think that my silence meant anything.
>
>I might add that your tolerance level for differences to what you think
>is far less than what you may interpret mine to be.
>
Look to Melissa's post of 8/10. Her response was more to you then
to me. Most of her response delt with her preception of your ability
to tolerate differances of people whose actions that you disagree
with. My response was directed to the comments that she made to my
part of the posting. I did not wish to respond with about 20 lines to
a 175 line post. That is why I snipped the comments that did not deal
directly with my post.
>If you have problems with the direction that the US Supreme Court has
>taken in support of legislation enacted by Congress and agreed to by the
>Executive branch of the US Government, you are perfectly free to
>express those opinions. Somehow, when I, or others who disagree with
>you express our opinions that may support the actions of the United
>States Government on this, somehow we are less pure than you.
>
I do not think that you are less pure then me. If I gave you that
impression, please accept my apology. I am sorry.
>Like it or not, this country has established some norms (most of them
>have been tossed out over the years unfortunately), that the majority
>have supported for the benefit of the country. While some of them may
>seem to trample on the individual rights of the individuals, there has
>to be some price that is paid by the citizens of this country to keep
>this country what it is, and what it was about this country that our
>forefathers thought enough of to want to come here. Is there a balance
>somewhere? Yes. Is it always fair to every individual in the United
>States? No. The Constitution guarantees the right to pursue happiness,
>not the granting of happiness.
>
This is the kind of reasoning that gets used when decisions like
Dred Scott are made by the Supreme Court. Protection of the rights of
individuals is why the Bill of Rights was passed. Surely you
understand that. Perhaps those traditions getting tossed out over the
years wasn't a big enough hint for you.
>I find it interesting, Kevin, that those like you who pretend to preach
>tolerance, when faced with practicing that same tolerance that you
>preach, fall short.
>
Evan, I tolerate your views, I just find them unsupported by the
Constitution. Remember that unlike The UK, our Constitution is a
written document. We cannot say that just because a practise is a
tradition that it is Constitutional. That would be part of the
benefit of having a written constitution.
Again, I am sorry if I gave you the impression that I think that you
are bigoted. I never ment to give that impression. My argument with
you is strictly on Constitutional terms. I think that we probably
both share the same distaste for poligamy in actual practise. I also
don't like it when people burn the flag, but I do not think that it is
a crimminal act.
Evan Kalenik
kdi...@erols.com wrote:
> Look to Melissa's post of 8/10. Her response was more to you then
> to me. Most of her response delt with her preception of your ability
> to tolerate differances of people whose actions that you disagree
> with. My response was directed to the comments that she made to my
> part of the posting. I did not wish to respond with about 20 lines to
>
> a 175 line post. That is why I snipped the comments that did not deal
>
> directly with my post.
I will find it. If I misunderstood, I apologize. As I said my
computer needed a new mother board and my back up was not as functional
as I had thought. I missed quite a few messages and e-mails over the
past month.
> >Like it or not, this country has established some norms (most of them
>
> >have been tossed out over the years unfortunately), that the majority
>
> >have supported for the benefit of the country. While some of them
> may
> >seem to trample on the individual rights of the individuals, there
> has
> >to be some price that is paid by the citizens of this country to keep
>
> >this country what it is, and what it was about this country that our
> >forefathers thought enough of to want to come here. Is there a
> balance
> >somewhere? Yes. Is it always fair to every individual in the United
>
> >States? No. The Constitution guarantees the right to pursue
> happiness,
> >not the granting of happiness.
> >
> This is the kind of reasoning that gets used when decisions like
> Dred Scott are made by the Supreme Court.
And that kind of reasoning gave us the some good things as well. In
fact, decisions like Dred Scott probably was far more the exception than
the rule.
> Protection of the rights of
> individuals is why the Bill of Rights was passed. Surely you
> understand that. Perhaps those traditions getting tossed out over the
>
> years wasn't a big enough hint for you.
>
> >I find it interesting, Kevin, that those like you who pretend to
> preach
> >tolerance, when faced with practicing that same tolerance that you
> >preach, fall short.
> >
> Evan, I tolerate your views, I just find them unsupported by the
> Constitution. Remember that unlike The UK, our Constitution is a
> written document. We cannot say that just because a practise is a
> tradition that it is Constitutional. That would be part of the
> benefit of having a written constitution.
Tradition can, however, become law, and not violate the Constitution.
What do you object to in my views that you think are
"un-constitutional"? That the US government can enact legislation?
That is all that I am saying.
> Again, I am sorry if I gave you the impression that I think that you
>
> are bigoted. I never ment to give that impression. My argument with
> you is strictly on Constitutional terms. I think that we probably
> both share the same distaste for poligamy in actual practise. I also
> don't like it when people burn the flag, but I do not think that it is
>
> a crimminal act.
As regards flag burning, neither do I. However, if you ever bury
someone who died defending what that flag stands for, perhaps your views
would be different. I hope that you never do, but I have. It does give
one a different perspective on things.
As regards a disagreement on "Constitutional terms", I have simply
stated some decisions that the Supreme Court has come down with against
people who claimed that their religious rights were being tampered
with. There is a fine line that the government can walk that the
Supreme Court has said doesn't violate the Constitution. The
Constitution does not always say that Congress can pass no law. I would
strongly suggest that you pick up a good book on Constitutional law and
read it. While you may have an admirable view of how you think the
Constitution was framed, what was meant by the founding fathers, etc.,
you don't. I am not saying that you should change your opinion, only
that you should learn a little about the Bill of Rights and how the
Supreme Court has ruled on issues regarding freedom of Religion and the
logic used for the decision (as well as the logic used for those
dissenting opinions).
Evan
kdi...@erols.com
On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 00:13:58 -0400, Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
wrote:
>
>kdi...@erols.com wrote:
>
I am sorry to hear of your computer hassles, apology accepted and
understood.
<snip>
>> This is the kind of reasoning that gets used when decisions like
>> Dred Scott are made by the Supreme Court.
>
>And that kind of reasoning gave us the some good things as well. In
>fact, decisions like Dred Scott probably was far more the exception than
>the rule.
>
Any good examples. Usually it creates bad things in my way of
thinking. Dred Scott would be one example, Gideon on the other hand
attacked tradition.
<snip>
>> Evan, I tolerate your views, I just find them unsupported by the
>> Constitution. Remember that unlike The UK, our Constitution is a
>> written document. We cannot say that just because a practise is a
>> tradition that it is Constitutional. That would be part of the
>> benefit of having a written constitution.
>
>Tradition can, however, become law, and not violate the Constitution.
>What do you object to in my views that you think are
>"un-constitutional"? That the US government can enact legislation?
>That is all that I am saying.
>
I do not deny that the US government can passs legislation, I do
however deny the governments right to voilate the first amendment
while doing so.
>> Again, I am sorry if I gave you the impression that I think that you
>> are bigoted. I never ment to give that impression. My argument with
>> you is strictly on Constitutional terms. I think that we probably
>> both share the same distaste for poligamy in actual practise. I also
>> don't like it when people burn the flag, but I do not think that it is
>> a crimminal act.
>
>As regards flag burning, neither do I. However, if you ever bury
>someone who died defending what that flag stands for, perhaps your views
>would be different. I hope that you never do, but I have. It does give
>one a different perspective on things.
>
Sorry to be obtuse here but I don't quite understand what you are
getting at here. Do you think that flag buyrning should be
crimminalized? Or do you just have an extreme distaste for it? It is
sometimes mentioined by those who have fought for our country that
those are precisely the rights that they are defending.
>As regards a disagreement on "Constitutional terms", I have simply
>stated some decisions that the Supreme Court has come down with against
>people who claimed that their religious rights were being tampered
>with. There is a fine line that the government can walk that the
>Supreme Court has said doesn't violate the Constitution. The
>Constitution does not always say that Congress can pass no law. I would
>strongly suggest that you pick up a good book on Constitutional law and
>read it. While you may have an admirable view of how you think the
>Constitution was framed, what was meant by the founding fathers, etc.,
>you don't. I am not saying that you should change your opinion, only
>that you should learn a little about the Bill of Rights and how the
>Supreme Court has ruled on issues regarding freedom of Religion and the
>logic used for the decision (as well as the logic used for those
>dissenting opinions).
>
>Evan
>
Constitutional history was about ten years ago but I think that I am
pretty solid ground here. I did take a year of it. My intrepretation
may liberal to your eyes but hardly, I think, coming from out of left
field.
Evan Kalenik
kdi...@erols.com wrote:
> I do not deny that the US government can passs legislation, I do
> however deny the governments right to voilate the first amendment
> while doing so.
The problem with your desires, however, is that the rulings that have
come down from the Supreme Court have said that they don't violate the
Bill of Rights in particular, nor the Constitution in general. Our
Constitution has set up the system that determines if it does or doesn't
violate anything. You are free to think that it does, the Supreme Court
is free to think otherwise. In this case, when push comes to shove, the
Supreme Court has the last say. In a sense you are arguing with
yourself. You want the Constitution upheld where you want and you want
to ignore it where you want.
> Sorry to be obtuse here but I don't quite understand what you are
> getting at here. Do you think that flag buyrning should be
> crimminalized? Or do you just have an extreme distaste for it? It is
>
> sometimes mentioined by those who have fought for our country that
> those are precisely the rights that they are defending.
Personal experience often colors the way one looks at things. The same
person who objects to the road side stops to check for people driving
while under the influence of alcohol will often, after a member of the
family or close friend gets killed by a drunk driver, run around
demanding that bars be closed or that they should check more places or
install equipment in cars that won't allow a car to start if the driver
has had too much. I do have an extreme distaste for flag burning. I
find a certain amount of hypocrisy when people do it and then wrap
themselves in that same flag looking for protection.
> Constitutional history was about ten years ago but I think that I am
> pretty solid ground here. I did take a year of it. My intrepretation
>
> may liberal to your eyes but hardly, I think, coming from out of left
> field.
Mine was longer than that. I don't think that you are on solid ground
here for the reasons that I stated above. Nor are your views liberal, I
think that they are more libertarian which in my way of thinking is
conservative.
Evan
kdi...@erols.com
On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 18:06:54 -0400, Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
wrote:
Evan,
this is my last post on this topic. At this point we are going
around in circles. Lets stop wasting each others time. I give you
the last word here. I rest.
>
>kdi...@erols.com wrote:
>
>
>> I do not deny that the US government can passs legislation, I do
>> however deny the governments right to voilate the first amendment
>> while doing so.
>
>The problem with your desires, however, is that the rulings that have
>come down from the Supreme Court have said that they don't violate the
>Bill of Rights in particular, nor the Constitution in general. Our
>Constitution has set up the system that determines if it does or doesn't
>violate anything. You are free to think that it does, the Supreme Court
>is free to think otherwise. In this case, when push comes to shove, the
>Supreme Court has the last say. In a sense you are arguing with
>yourself. You want the Constitution upheld where you want and you want
>to ignore it where you want.
>
As far as I know, the Court has yet to face a serious challenge on
the legality of poligamy but that is kind of beside the point. The
U.S. government has a habit of making laws based on tradition without
seriously contemplating the Constitutional implications of those laws.
Dred Scott, the CDA, and flag burning laws are good examples of this
behavior. As Americans we rely on the Supreme Court to protect us
from this type response to faction. Unfortunatly the Court will,
sometimes make an incorrect ruling. Hopefully they reverse themselves
down the line. Sometimes the Court must be forced to do this. The
Civil Rights movement would be a good example of this.
In recent times, we, as a society, have been alltogether to willing
to give up our rights in order to fight a precieved threat (crime,
falling social order, etc.). My feeling is that when we start doing
this it becomes hard to stop. That scares me. For that reason I will
vigorously oppose any attempt to take our civil liberties away. I do
not feel that that makes me a Libritarian. I do recogize the right
and responsibility of the government to legislate. If you think that
I am a Libratarian, so be it. On this issue, maybe I am in the
strictest definition of the word. But I still voted for Jimmy Carter
last election. I might do it again next election. Go figure.
>> Sorry to be obtuse here but I don't quite understand what you are
>> getting at here. Do you think that flag buyrning should be
>> crimminalized? Or do you just have an extreme distaste for it? It is
>> sometimes mentioined by those who have fought for our country that
>> those are precisely the rights that they are defending.
>
>Personal experience often colors the way one looks at things. The same
>person who objects to the road side stops to check for people driving
>while under the influence of alcohol will often, after a member of the
>family or close friend gets killed by a drunk driver, run around
>demanding that bars be closed or that they should check more places or
>install equipment in cars that won't allow a car to start if the driver
>has had too much. I do have an extreme distaste for flag burning. I
>find a certain amount of hypocrisy when people do it and then wrap
>themselves in that same flag looking for protection.
>
I understand much better where you are coming from here. That
hypocrisy however, is a price we have to pay in a free society.
>> Constitutional history was about ten years ago but I think that I am
>> pretty solid ground here. I did take a year of it. My intrepretation<
>> may liberal to your eyes but hardly, I think, coming from out of left
>> field.
>
>Mine was longer than that. I don't think that you are on solid ground
>here for the reasons that I stated above. Nor are your views liberal, I
>think that they are more libertarian which in my way of thinking is
>conservative.
>
>Evan
>
<covered above, but since I am resting, I am not snipping>
Evan Kalenik
kdi...@erols.com wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 18:06:54 -0400, Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
>
> wrote:
>
> Evan,
> this is my last post on this topic. At this point we are going
> around in circles. Lets stop wasting each others time. I give you
> the last word here. I rest.
My last words have already been given. In my prior message I said:
> >The problem with your desires, however, is that the rulings that have
>
> >come down from the Supreme Court have said that they don't violate
> the
> >Bill of Rights in particular, nor the Constitution in general. Our
> >Constitution has set up the system that determines if it does or
> doesn't
> >violate anything. You are free to think that it does, the Supreme
> Court
> >is free to think otherwise. In this case, when push comes to shove,
> the
> >Supreme Court has the last say. In a sense you are arguing with
> >yourself. You want the Constitution upheld where you want and you
> want
> >to ignore it where you want.
I think that it said it all.
Evan
Jeremiah
Someone on this thread wrote:
> >Like it or not, this country has established some norms (most of them
> >have been tossed out over the years unfortunately), that the majority
> >have supported for the benefit of the country. While some of them may
> >seem to trample on the individual rights of the individuals, there has
> >to be some price that is paid by the citizens of this country to keep
> >this country what it is, and what it was about this country that our
> >forefathers thought enough of to want to come here. Is there a balance
> >somewhere? Yes.
I think that norms are fine, and benefitting the country is important.
I also think that none of this requires forcing someone to be a
particular religion, or publically and governmentally giving special
priviledges to a religion that the majority already can privately give
special credence to. What I mean is that the majority believes what it
does, has its right to do so, and is free to build it's meeting places
and do as they please so long as they do not violate someone else's
property rights, or commit violence against an individual except in
self-defence, if that individual is attacking them, for instance.
As far as banning religions, taxing churches, or silencing people's
beliefs, I think that taxes should be fair, and if so, then make them
equal, or get rid of them in general if they are unfair. As to
silencing or banning expression, the private sector, and privately owned
meeting places like churches etc., are already free, so what is the
issue?? As far as the U.S. government actually bringing up religion to
encourage one, that is something many who were fleeing England at the
founding of the colonies were particularly aware of the effect of
forcing people to go to the King's official church, etc., and all the
sectarian warfare of the time. As for the Communist Regime, they
advocated the altruism of the worker's state or you went to siberia.
Is it always fair to every individual in the United
> >States? No. The Constitution guarantees the right to pursue happiness,
> >not the granting of happiness.
Here I agree. As to fairness, this point is relevant. As to legal
principal, I think that laws should consider the private versus the
public sectors and keep the private sector as free as it can possibly be
as long as taxes are paid to keep the courts open for contract lawsuits,
and to keep the cops and firemen there. Real crimes, like murder and
rape, and theft, robbery, extortion, and breaking contracts illegally,
are fit for legislation. As far as religion, I think that no subsidy
should go to religious OR private affairs - including education; public
education should be limited to the basics, and not include religion,
sex, gymn, etc. The duties of government are to provide for courts,
cops, firemen, and payment to compensate legislators and juries for
their time, and to provide for the defence of the country.
The duties of the government are NOT to interfere with the failure of
religionists to educate their own flock/children as to their religious
differences. I think that legal and administrative matters are mundane
and pretty easy, from a justice point of view. The Family Values and
Moral Fabric are concerns best left to individuals and the groups they
make up to improve themselves and raise/teach themselves and their loved
ones for their self-improvement. This is a great private and
group-oriented movement that has an effect on the public at large, but
it cannot be legislated. Big Government fails, as the liberals have
proved.
> >
> This is the kind of reasoning that gets used when decisions like
> Dred Scott are made by the Supreme Court. Protection of the rights of
> individuals is why the Bill of Rights was passed. Surely you
> understand that. Perhaps those traditions getting tossed out over the
> years wasn't a big enough hint for you.
>
> >I find it interesting, Kevin, that those like you who pretend to preach
> >tolerance, when faced with practicing that same tolerance that you
> >preach, fall short.
> >
> Evan, I tolerate your views, I just find them unsupported by the
> Constitution. Remember that unlike The UK, our Constitution is a
> written document. We cannot say that just because a practise is a
> tradition that it is Constitutional. That would be part of the
> benefit of having a written constitution.
>
> Again, I am sorry if I gave you the impression that I think that you
> are bigoted. I never ment to give that impression. My argument with
> you is strictly on Constitutional terms. I think that we probably
> both share the same distaste for poligamy in actual practise. I also
> don't like it when people burn the flag, but I do not think that it is
> a crimminal act.
>