Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!hogpc!hogpd!keduh
From: keduh@hogpd.UUCP (D.HUDEK)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: RE: Federal Attack on Religion?
Message-ID: <331@hogpd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-May-84 10:43:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: hogpd.331
Posted: Tue May 22 10:43:14 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 23-May-84 09:00:42 EDT
Lines: 111

<<||>>

In the original article, the author postulated a conspiracy
on the part of the federal government (of the USA) to
kill religion. The author offered some points to ponder, and
I'd like to take him up on it.....

>* One Supreme Court decision that  calls  one  school's  policy  of
>  prayer    unconstitutional.    Now,   everything   that   relates
>  specifically to non-secularism is being called unlawful.  Even to
>  the  private,  quiet,  individual saying of grace before meals in
>  the school cafeteria.

O.K., I'm game. What was the school's policy ? It's hard to form
an opinion on this one without knowing the facts of the case. Did
the school force the children to recite poems/essays directed to a 
particular representation of "God"?  For the Supreme Court (I'm assuming
the United States federal Supreme Court) to rule this way, I would
assume some sort of force or coercion was involved, but as I indicated
earlier, I really don't know which case is being referred to.

The second and third sentences are somewhat bewildering. How do they
follow from the first?  Who is calling everything unlawful? I really
do not believe that the "private, quiet, individual saying of grace
before meals in the school cafeteria" has been called unlawful
by any responsible party. Are you sure it was quiet, individual
prayer and not a group exercise?

>* An Oregon U.S. district court decision  to  enjoin  the  Portland
>  school  board  from  having  an  invocation  during  commencement
>  exercises.

I see nothing wrong with this. Why should a public entity endorse
a particular religion by having an invocation at a public ceremony?
If some people want this sort of thing, why don't they talk their
local minister/priest/etc. into letting them stop by their
church/synagogue/etc. before or after the public ceremony for
their own private, religious one ?

>* A federal appellate decision against a Judaic rabbi teaching  the
>  Talmud  to children in his own home (was found to be in violation
>  of a Florida city's zoning ordinance).

This one may have a valid point concerning the "government"
harassing a religion, but maybe not. Without knowing the facts
involved, who can say? Was the rabbi "facilitating a religious
experience" or was he/she (do they have female rabbi(plural) ? )
charging money and giving lessons in his home (similar to piano,
or history, or whatever) ?  If it was the latter, then he should
be subject to the same laws as a piano teacher would be.

>* The defeat of the federal prayer amendment.

Which proposed amendment was this? I don't recall it (doesn't prove
anything, I know, and I should read the papers more but...)
Can you give us the wording? Remember, you have proposed a 
conspiracy, so it would be desirable to have a lot of factual
ammunition   :-)

>* The defeat of the federal equal access legislation.

Again, I must plead ignorance. I am not aware of exactly what
legislation you are referring to, but I do recall hearing on the
radio that some sort of law HAD been passed that would allow
religious groups access to school facilities on an equal footing
with non-religious clubs (like the chess club, etc.) This I was
happy to hear, but maybe it was just local to New Jersey ???

>* The Supreme Court has refused to  review  Rev.  Sun  Yung  Moon's
>  case in which he was found guilty of tax evasion on not reporting
>  income from a bank account that he claims was for his church  but
>  was  in  his  own name.  Tell me if I'm wrong but as I understand
>  all Catholic bishops and cardinals have the  church  accounts  in
>  their own names.

If it is true that the bishops and cardinals have been doing this,
then they should stop it. I guess the point being raised is why
did they pick on the Moonies and not the Catholics...  with the
implication that the government would start with the small fry
and move on to the big guns if successful. I don't necessarily
see this as bad. Why shouldn't big corporations like the Catholic
church have to pay taxes the same as Exxon? It hasn't put Exxon
out of business, and the Catholic church certainly claims to have
a much more worthwhile and beneficial product to sell than gas !!!

In the original article, there were then some comments concerning
freedom of religion. I would like to make the plea for
freedom FROM Organized Religion. As I recall it, many of our
forefathers ( does anyone really think I mean only the males
by this?... just to be safe let me specifically state that
I also mean foremothers )
left their countries because of persecution. It seems
their religous beliefs didn't quite coincide with those of
the official federal religion. Please don't lets us (hey, colloquial !)
allow the government to be swayed by the political might of 
organized religion into repeating past mistakes. If one particular
brand of religion (probably would be some flavor of Christianity)
"takes over" so to speak, there's no longer too many places left
to escape to. Persecution is ugly; persecution in the name of
religion is abominable !!


Hey that was fun !!  I hope my tone was not too argumentative, but what
the heck.... it's easy to delete hate mail :-). This whole subject intrigues
me, but both sides (most of which are well-meaning and kindly
people otherwise) feel so strongly about the issues that things get
rather heated up and abusive fairly quickly. Let's see if we can
debate the topic a while longer before slipping into flames (and 
condemning people to same  :-)   )

{ihnp4!   or   pegasus!} hogpd!keduh