From: joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:14:20 GMT
Organization: Dept. of CS Ball State University Muncie IN

In article <AULTJ.92Aug25131548@caleb.rpi.edu> aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault) writes:
>1. The teacher was forbidden to read his own Bible silently to himself
>in class, or to leave it lying on his desk.

I admit that if this is true (I have my doubts), then it's wrong.  Perhaps
it is possible to to get overzealous in the protection of the constitution.
Since Christians are by far the most frequent offenders in this area,
then perhaps we see it in Christians first.  When one group consistently
tries to force its ideas into the classroom, then the fight to prevent
this can cause too much sensitivity.  It's necessary to be careful.

>2. Two books (related to children's Bible stories) were ordered
>removed from the bookshelf of the classroom.  Books on Greek mythology
>and other religions were allowed to remain on the shelf.

More information is necessary here.  What other religions were allowed 
to remain.  Did the bible books present the stories in a religious
context, or as myths with a moral point?  I am hesitant to regard
the Greek mythology books as being in the same category.  I know of
no book in this area which presents the myths as anything other
than fantasy stories.  Certainly nothing which claims that they have
any religious truth.

In essence I agree with you.  All books which pushed a specific religious
viewpoint should have been removed.

>If you (plural) can't see that this is open hostility to Christianity,
>and only Christianity, then I am amazed and ashamed that we as a
>country have fallen this far. 

Pat Robertson is very big on this point.  There is a movement afoot
in this country which seeks to ban Christianity.  I watch his
show frequently.  He amazes me.  The man is a master at the double
standard.  He frequently calls for suppression of the expression of
ideas which he doesn't like, then argues that any attempt to defend
the constitutional idea of the separation of Church and State is
an offense against freedom of speech.  The separation of church and
state has made him a multimillionaire by protecting him from taxation.
It protects his schemes by making it illegal for the government to
check his books.  Were these things removed he would scream like a
stuck pig.  But as long as they are there protecting him, he is free
to play mind-manipulation games with his followers by claiming that
there are enemies of Christianity behind every bush.  

It is indicative of his manipulation that he sees refusing to allow 
his ideas to hold sway in the schools, and refusing to supress ideas
which he doesn't like elsewhere as being equally indicative of the
movement against Christianity.  Note that usually other religious
ideas are suppressed in schools also, and he is certainly not having
his own speech suppressed anywhere else.  In essence, any time he
doesn't get his way, he perceives that the enemies of Christianity
are on the march again.

>Note the double standard.  "Religious speech" is supposedly supported
>by the First Amendment, but it is banned from public schools
>(presumably because the freedom to exercise religion doesn't extend to
>public schools).

There is no presumption about it.  Public schools *cannot* be allowed
to appear as if they are supporting ANY particular religion.  Period.
Religious speech most certainly is protected by the first amendment.
Robertson has his own show, and the Christian Broadcasting Network
is certainly not being muzzled.  Christianity has more power now than
it has had at any time in this country's history.  If you let anyone
tell you that there is a movement to ban it, you are allowing yourself
to be lied to.

And Robertson is certainly free to present his ideas in the classroom.
He need only declare that he is not a religious leader.  Of course,
then his profits will be open to taxation, but I gather it isn't
worth that to him....

>My hope is that Usenet is not a representative sample of the people of
>the world: The fact that a large proportion of people on Usenet (or
>even in academia) seem to hold radical liberal values may not be
>indicative of the rest of the world.

This blows my mind.  I have been reading usenet for about two months 
now.  I have noticed something.  People post here representing all 
different viewpoints.  People post from a great variety of locations
and positions.  Yet the extremists always get around to saying, "This
is just the way you usenet people are."  I have seen extremist 
conservatives call the usenet population "liberal".  I have seen
extremist liberals call the usenet population "fascist".  I think
the truth is that the large proportion of netters are moderates.
What happens is that people like Mr. Ault tend (elsewhere in their
life) to hang out with people who think like them, listen to people
who think like them, and otherwise receive confirmation that their
extremist sensitivities are the norm.  Usenet presents a forum in
which, for the first time, they can present their ideas to a large
audience and receive immediate response from the general population.
They are then shocked when people come back and tell them exactly
how extremists are viewed.  The reaction of Mr. Ault (and Mr. Nilges,
and many others that I have seen on here) is:  "You people are wierd.
This is just a usenet thing."  Sorry Mr. Ault.  Could you present
your ideas to the entire population of America at once, and receive
immediate response, the average commentary would be much the same.
It's time to consider the possibility that you have been operating
with ideological blinders on.

Joe
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,talk.abortion