Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: krueger@writeon.physics.arizona.edu (Theodore Krueger) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: 1st amendment (was: religious courses in a se Message-ID: Date: 19 May 91 02:42:51 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of Arizona, Telecommunications, Tucson AZ Lines: 23 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Tom Blake recently spoke concerning his disatisfaction (to put it mildly) with what he found to be hipocrasy in the church with respect to the recent war in the gulf. I do not wish to debate with him the old matter of whether or not war for any cause is or can be considered a christian act, but I do wish to give him my opinion on another matter he mentioned, namely that no one in his congregation felt it necessasary to disagree with him. There are many reasons for this other than the implied everyone agreed with you. First, several churches are, in my opinion, quite liberal politically (for example, here in Tucson, one church sports a signfront which states "It's a sin to pay for nuclear weapons!" Second, many christians that I know will not openly confront other, loudly vocal members, either because they do not want to be in strife with a brother, or because they have learned that it does not pay to have a short conversation with someone who holds a point of view dogmatically (IMHO). So please, don't read other people's lack of confrontation as acceptance or agreement with your point of view. Ted -- Be Excellent To Each Other