Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!dual!lll-crg!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion
Subject: "Christian" Nations
Message-ID: <1618@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Sep-85 23:30:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1618
Posted: Tue Sep 17 23:30:49 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Sep-85 05:40:42 EDT
References: <1137@ames.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 41
Xref: watmath net.politics:11077 net.religion:7697

I don't particularly disagree with this section of Ken Barry's article:

>	The Constitution is, as always, what the Supreme Court says it
>is. I would think that declaring the US Christian would be about as direct
>a violation of the 1st Amendment as one could imagine, and fortunately
>the 9 people whose job it is to decide such things seem likely to agree,
>based on what they've decided in the past.
>	I would consider people that authored such a law to be either
>religious bigots, or terminally silly, depending on their intent. The
>former is unfortunately more likely than the latter, which is why such
>a declaration would cause me deep concern, and have my active opposition,
>were it proposed seriously. The Thought Police already have most of the
>world for their playground; let's not invite them into our homes.

The following section, however, is a bit hyperbolic:

>>Has it ever occured to any of us that this country really IS a religious/
>>christian country and should be coined as such to the extent that Iran is
>>considered a Muslim country, or Russia is considered an atheist country
 
>	If you notice how Russia and Iran treat those who don't subscribe
>to their respective state religions, I think no further answer is
>necessary.

Well, these aren't the ONLY countries which have official religions.  Don't
forget Great Britain, which IS officially a "Christian" nation, with an
established church.

>>Would it be religious tyranny for the federal government to take a stand on
>>religious issues?

>	It is religious tyranny for the government to support any particular
>set of religious beliefs, or to show any special favor to particular
>religious groups.

Well, this is a bit overstated.  I'll be the first to concede that the
English government has in the past been tyrannous about religion.  Burt it
is hardly so now.  It is the lust for power and domination which drives
oppression, not the stated excuse.

Charley Wingate


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com