Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ecn-pc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!ecn-pc!wdm
From: wdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (Tex)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.legal,net.misc
Subject: Re: Autodialing Falwell - a different perspective
Message-ID: <461@ecn-pc.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 25-Jan-86 18:47:18 EST
Article-I.D.: ecn-pc.461
Posted: Sat Jan 25 18:47:18 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 26-Jan-86 06:06:49 EST
References: <1225@mtuxo.UUCP> <11434@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <709@cylixd.UUCP> <11515@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: wdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (Tex)
Organization: Cybotech Product Development Laboratory
Lines: 49
Xref: watmath net.religion:9052 net.legal:2797 net.misc:9211
Summary: 

In article <11515@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> spp@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Stephen P Pope) writes:
>There seems to be a couple of general misconceptions here.

    Indeed.

>
>One, is that Falwell's fund raising operation primarily supports
>his "freedom of speech".  Actually, it's the other way around.
>He uses his freedom of speech to support his fundraising.

    Are you saying that Falwell's right to freedom of speech does not 
    cover his fundraising activities?   I would be interested to hear how
    you justify this.
    
>He doesn't really make public how he spends
>his money, but presumably it supports Moral Majority type
>operations of all sorts, few of which fall under the 
>first amendment.  

    Actually, virtually anything that a church does is protected under
    the Constitution.  I am not certain that that is what the Framers 
    intended, but that is the way that it has been interpreted.

>I'm not saying the guy shouldn't be allowed
>to operate.  I'm just saying it's not a question of "freedom
>of speech".

    You are correct, it is a question of freedom of religion.

>
>On a related subject, does anybody remember the GOP's
>organized, public effort to tie up the Democrat's 
>fundraising phones during that telethon in 84?

    I don't.  Please let me know where proof of an "organized, public
    effort" to tie up the Democrats' phones can be found.  I have a feeling
    that this is another "Falwell supports the bombing of abortion
    clinics..."

    Lest I be misunderstood, I am NOT a supporter of Falwell's, I am NOT
    a Christian, and I am NOT strongly conservative.  I just feel that the
    general mood on this group has been that since Falwell is a flake, he
    shouldn't have the Constitutionally protected freedoms that everyone
    else has.  
    
    It is so true that a society can be judged by how it treats its least 
    popular.