Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ccice5.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!houxm!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!teddy!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccice5!rdz
From: rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion
Subject: Re: It Cant Happen Here
Message-ID: <645@ccice5.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Jan-85 12:52:48 EST
Article-I.D.: ccice5.645
Posted: Tue Jan 22 12:52:48 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 25-Jan-85 21:37:31 EST
References: <658@ihopb.UUCP> <7474@brl-tgr.ARPA> <643@ccice5.UUCP> <7601@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: CCI Central Engineering, Rochester, NY
Lines: 53
Xref: watmath net.politics:7140 net.religion:5361

> 
> Gee isn't it nice to see people responding to my comments by throwing
> out random insults to my intelligence (its so USENET to do that...)

I wasn't trying to insult your intelligence.  I was trying to point-out
that you seem to have forgotten some of the things that have happened in
this country since the early 17th century.  I will promise to try to use
the :-) symbol in the future.
> 
> 	Please show me the provisions of applicable federal law which
> 	exempt [any] religious organization from the requirement to
> 	promptly report known violations of law to authorities (you don't
> 	get to use priveledged relationship, may people in these churches
> 	OTHER than the pastor/priest/whatever are involved in this, and they
> 	can't have a priveledged relationship (legally speaking).  Also
> 	the same for immigration law.

There are many things done without the support of law.  I don't think you
can just dismiss church law.  There are many that would hold that above
federal law.
> 
> 	Whether proper authorities have ENFORCED laws against religious
> 	organizations is immaterial (the state always has the option of
> 	non-enforcement).

And the individual has the option of civil dis-obedience.
> 
> 2) Even if EVERY ONE of the people being so sheltered were to die in
> 	[El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, wherever], please explain how
> 	that would significantly alter the situation in [Central America,
> 	the US, anywhere else].  I doubt all the people in question ARE
> 	in such danger (although some may be), and besides, in countries
> 	where civil wars (revolutions...), claim multiples of tens of
> 	thousands (50K in El Salvador?), I'm still not convinced a
> 	significant improvement is being made.

You might not feel that way if it were your life that wasn't "significantly
alter[ing] the situation".
> 
> I strongly suspect that the entire operation is an attempt, not to engage
> in a humanitarian effort, but to force the government to change its
> Central America policy, which would be an unconstitutional attempt
> (although not an unusual one), to influence political affairs via
> religion.  [yes, I know Falwell does it all the time, that doesn't
> make it right...]

I don't want to turn this into something for net.religion, but I must once
again point-out that there are many people that hold the "Law of God" (as
interpreted by men, granted) above the "Law of Man".  And then there are
some who just can't do or support something they feel to be wrong.


	*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***