Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ulysses.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!ulysses!smb
From: smb@ulysses.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Catching up
Message-ID: <725@ulysses.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 3-Dec-83 13:43:48 EST
Article-I.D.: ulysses.725
Posted: Sat Dec  3 13:43:48 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 4-Dec-83 06:16:01 EST
References: <678@qubix.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 19

I find Larry Bickford's example of an ideal Judaeo-Christian state to be
extremely frightening.  Many of my objections are political -- but I find
it very upsetting that he can derive (for example) a welfare system or
an educational system or a judicial system for his interpretation of the
Bible.  Damnit, that's the whole point -- I don't agree with your religious
beliefs, I don't agree with (many of) your moral principles, and I don't want
a political system forced on me because some people think it's divinely
ordained.  Before you try to set up such a system, remember one thing:  even
discounting atheists and believing non-Christians, there is no consensus on
what the Bible means or should mean in the political arena.  Contrast, for
example, the Pope's pronouncements on the role of government with the picture
painted by Larry:  Larry seems inclined towards minimal government inter-
ference, while the Pope's vision is more that of a Social Democrat.  Or
contrast Larry's view of the balance between the rights of the victim and
the rights of the accused with Jesus' teachings about judgement and mercy.

No, I'll take a secular state any day.  Such a state can provide far more
freedom for everyone, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Moslems, witches, atheists,
and everyone else.