Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site unc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!floyd!clyde!ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!unc!tim From: tim@unc.UUCP (Tim Maroney) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Catching up Message-ID: <6384@unc.UUCP> Date: Sat, 10-Dec-83 22:18:00 EST Article-I.D.: unc.6384 Posted: Sat Dec 10 22:18:00 1983 Date-Received: Tue, 13-Dec-83 03:09:18 EST References: <678@qubix.UUCP> Organization: CS Dept., U. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill Lines: 131 Well, Paul Dubuc and Gary Samuelson, I do believe that Larry Bickford has provided a perfect example of why so many of us get nervous when we hear the words "Judeo-Christian Country". In his recent article "Catching Up", there is not pussy-footing around about "equal time for Christians." The theme is Christian dominance of other beliefs, and Larry makes no bones about it. In our present society people like Larry and people like Tim and me have precisely the same rights and restrictions. None of us can be pressured by the government to abandon our religious convictions unless we practice them in a way which would injure other citizens. None of us can use public funds to practice or prosletyze for our faith. Larry could not spend public funds to set up a nativity scene, and I could not use these same funds to erect a temple to Pan. All religions are treated equally under the law. But Larry seems to think this is just awful. He feels that if everyone can decide for themselves whether or not to follow the dictates of Christianity, the country is just not safe. People aren't "trustworthy" enough to make this descision. I don't really know why I am bothering to reply unless it's because this is the first time I've ever seen Larry attempt to address specific points in an opposing article. I will also try to address points in his article, but I may have to be briefer than I would like to be. (I really should be typing my thesis.) I hear so much about "you can't legislate morality." BALONEY! Every law on the books is legislated morality! That's what legislatures are for - to determine right and wrong, and associate punishment with the wrong. The question is WHOSE morality. If your religion practices human sacrifices on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, I think you'll definitely find there has been a law passed regarding your free exercise thereof. (Don't laugh too hard; there was a convict in a California prison who claimed a religion that required the sacrifice of a nude young woman.) I am fascinated by your concept of law and morality. In the first place, laws are not "legislated morality." They are restraints placed on citizens to avoid the injury of other citizens. (Please explain to me the morality implicit in the fact that we drive on the right side of the road in this country rather than the left.) Murder, theft, and fraud are illegal, not because they are immoral but because a society which permitted these things could not function. To put it simply, it would be immoral for me to lie about someone, but it would not be illegal unless the lie injured the person physically or financially. Gluttony is considered by the Bible to be immoral, but it is not illegal because the person who indulges in it injures nobody but himself. If you were to threaten me with prison for living with Tim, we might separate. If the government exerted enough pressure, I might also abstain from sex and alcohol, discard my Tarot cards and renounce Wicca, but my convictions would not alter one whit. I would still consider responsible pre-marital sex a good thing, and I would still revere Pan rather than Christ. Would the fact that I had been browbeaten into living a "Christian" life make me moral, even by your standards? Of course not! This is what is meant when people say "You can't legislate morality." No, I did not laugh at your story about the convict, and I believe you. There are always people who will twist religious beliefs into an excuse for injuring others. That is why I am against a religious government. The state would be too powerful a weapon for such people - and unfortunately, there are many of them. Last year in Tennessee, two young fundamentalist men burned down the house of a neighbor because they had found pornographic magazines in it, and recently, in Spartanburg, a local reverend was convicted after leading his family in an attack on a young man. They jumped him in a parking lot and put him in a hospital for a couple of days. Of course, the preacher claimed that his trial and imprisonment were examples of "religious persecution." In describing your proposed Judeo-Christian state you say: It establishes a morality profitable to the majority of the well intentioned. It would change the judicial system from the current adversary system back into a quest for truth. Certainly, there are more possibilities for abuse than the current system, yet I think the reward is worth it: a safe and sane society, peace in the streets, a respect for those in authority, an active discouragement of wrong-doing: A safe and sane society, you mean, for Larry Bickford. For the non-conformist, the non-Judeo-Christian, life could become very dangerous. You seem appallingly willing to make the world safer for you by making it more hazardous for others. Larry Bickford, that peaceful, sane, respectful Christian, would, indeed, sleep soundly in such a society. You and your family would be safe from hearing any views opposed to the government approved morality and free from seeing any lifestyle that differed from your own. Those of us base enough to be irreverent dissenters, however, would lie awake listening for your gestapo. Would witches have problems? Probably. Although worship of God could not be compelled, it would be made evident to all that the basis for both law and government is God, and that practice which would place another above the law-giver shows disrespect for the law. How, exactly, would it be "made evident" to me that not worshiping the Judeo-Christian god was an act of lese-majeste? A few cops, perhaps, stationed outside of our coven-meeting and slapping their billy-clubs suggestively in their palms? Or will those "problems" you so calmly speak of do the trick? Tax sanctions, or the loss of my home, my job, my freedom? You seem to dismiss these things with a casual shrug, but then, you wouldn't have to worry about them, would you? Would public-school children be compelled to pray as their teacher does? Even as the school day begins with the Pledge of Allegiance, so the teacher can also ask the class to pause and remember the Source of the laws, freedoms, and privileges they have. And if the little dickens don't tow the line and worship, the teacher can give them a lesson in what you so quaintly call, "respect for authority." If your ideal society can "make it evident" to adult citizens what god they should worship, think what could be done with children! I'm sure those nasty atheists will think twice about pursuing their godless course when Junior comes home crying every day because teacher whipped him for not bowing his head. It's amazing how malleable people can be when their children are in your power. I wonder what your reaction would be, Larry, if someone were to announce that witchcraft should be the state religion, that Christians should be pressured (not compelled, of course) by the government into converting, and that all children in public schools should be told to revere Pan for their every blessing. I imagine you would be outraged, and so would I. In fact, if your rights as a Christian were threatened, I would be on your side. Therein, I think, lies the difference between us. Pamela Troy ____________________________________________________________ c/o Tim Maroney, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill duke!unc!tim (USENET), tim.unc@csnet-relay (ARPA)