From: mgresham@dscatl.UUCP (Mark Gresham)
Newsgroups: ga.general
Subject: Re: Warning: Religion!
Keywords: religion, state
Date: 23 Aug 92 03:57:38 GMT
Distribution: ga
Organization: Digital Systems Co., Atlanta GA

In <1992Aug18.214632.13648@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> oaa@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (owen.a.alexander) writes:
}In article <46766@dscatl.UUCP> mgresham@dscatl.UUCP (Mark Gresham) writes:
}>In  <1992Aug14.141612.29066@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> oaa@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (owen.a.alexander) writes:
}>}
}>}Okay, let me try to understand your point.  Because the law stipulates
}>}Sunday, then you assume that the law is there because of the religious
}>}belief of others.  If the law said Monday, then I guess we would not be
}>}having this discussion, right?
}>
}>And I suppose that Sunday was the *randomly* chosen day for
}>Chick-fil-A to be closed, right? :-)
}
}In the case of Chick-fil-A, Sunday was not a random day.  I think that
}it is widely know that they are owned by Christians, who have chosen to
}remain closed on Sundays for a variety of reasons.  I know of stores
}that are closed on Saturday because they are Jewish owned or that are
}closed on certain religious holidays.  In these cases we know the
}reason.  For alcohol sales, I do not know the reason Sunday was chosen.
}Regardless, we seem to be going in circles, and maybe we should just
}drop this point and let it rest.

In Georgia (which is the state we are talking about, BTW) the
reasons were for imposition of a specific religious doctrine.
I recognize that you appear to reside in New Jersey, so you probably
don't have an historical perspective on Georgia's "blue laws."
However, It has only been in the last 30 years (perhaps even more
recently than that) that those "blue laws" did not apply to *all*
businesses.  Yes, ALL retail businesses were required to close on
Sunday, and it was clearly imposition of a particular religious
doctrine.   (I forget whether pharmacies were excluded from that
and allowed to open after morning church services were over.  I do
recall that "Plaza Drugs" in their early 1960s TV ads touted that
"Plaza Drugs never closes" and they were literally open 24-hours a
day, seven days a week by the time of that ad -- it was a very
"in-town Atlanta" pharmacy.  And that did make a difference, too,
Atlanta being seen as the "Sodom and Gomorrah" blight on the state
by the rural areas.  I can even recall when DeKalb County (now
considered one of the two central counties of metro-Atlanta) was
completely "dry."

}>}[...] Would you exclude
}>}any of the following from being a religion?
}>}
}>}   - Christianity - the religion derived from Jesus Christ based on the
}>}                    Bible as sacred scripture
}>}   - Satanism - obsession with or affinity for evil
}>}   - Humanism - a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human
}>}                interests or values
}>}   - Atheism - the doctrine that there is no deity
}>
}>How you "slice the pie" regarding definitions here is very
}>revealing in terms of your indoctrination, Owen.
}
}Perhaps my definitions were not the best, I tried to use them as from
}the dictionary.  The point I wanted to make is that I think everyone has
}a set of beliefs, doctrine, guidelines, etc. that they hold to strongly,
}otherwise I don't think we would be having such lively discussions.

Sigh... Not the definitions, but the choices of what to define:
you chose to divide the religious world up as "Christianity,
Satanism, Humanism, Atheism" -- and that's what reveals your
indoctrination.  That kind of world-division is probably so
"obvious" to you that you cannot see any other.  It's not your
claim to Christianity that I condemn, it's the myopic way in which
you categorize the rest of the world.

}
}>And most secular humanists and atheists will argue that their
}>beliefs do not constitute a "religion" no more than an ardent
}>belief in "free speech" creates a Church of Free Speechism or a
}>a firmly held belief in the value of public education implies
}>a "Church of Public Education" -- there are many "strongly held
}>beliefs," which, though organized or even institutionalized, do
}>not constitute a "religion," in spite of Webster.
}
}Perhaps they should not be called religions,

No, they shouldn't.

}but from abstract view there
}isn't a whole lot of difference.

Sure there is.  Because in many cases those terms can
refer to a methodology of approaching a religion, but are not
a set of religious doctrines.  For example, although there are no
"Atheistic Christians," there are both "Atheist Humanists"
and "Christian Humanists."  Whether you like it or not, there are
people who refer to themselves as the latter, it has historical
foundations as well as Biblical ones.  (Of course, I tend to agree
with the Rev. David Rankin where his main complaint about Jerry
Falwell is that he is "not Christian.")

}My Christian beliefs are based on the
}Bible.

And there are others whose beliefs are based on the Bible who may
have come to very different conclusions from you regarding
doctrine, politics, ethics, and aesthetics.  And yet, they are
clearly "Christian."  (Falwell aside, for the moment.)

 > Most other religions are based on some set of principles or
}beliefs.  Humanism, Atheism, Feminism, and other "ism's" have some set of
}principles/beliefs/doctrine that define that particular group.

But (except for atheists) not exclusively aside from also being
Christians.

} If someone
}holds strongly to those beliefs, then it will influence their behavior
}and what they believe good laws should be.  A feminist may believe women
}should be treated just like men and support a law allowing them to fight
}in combat.  A Christian may believe that men and women are created
}differently, apart from physical differences of course, and doesn't
}think men and women should be treated the same.

But a Christian may instead believe that women and men should be
treated equally.  (Treating men and women equally is also only a
small part of the feminist movement, though possibly the most
widely accepted.)  I suggest you examine a variety of hymnals
and worship materials produced in the last two decades.  The
Lutheran Book Of Worship (1978), developed by what was at the time
four synods (including the very conservative Missouri Synod, the
only one of the four not to merge into becoming the Evangelical
Lutheran Church of America), eliminated gender-specific language
(regarding humans) from hymns and worship materials.  (They did,
however, retain gender-specific references to Deity.)  The
Lutheran faith is undeniably accepted as a representative part
of mainstream Christianity.

}  Either may be right or
}wrong, but just because one is based on "religion" should not be a
}disqualifier.  This is what got me started with this whole discussion.
}It seemed that the argument was that because a law was passed that
}looked like it was influenced by a religion, that it should be illegal.

The argument is that imposition of specific religious doctrine by
civil law should be illegal.  The issue raised was that the
prohibition of alcohol sales on Sunday was precisely that.

}My point is that a lot of laws are influenced by different groups and
}different people with different beliefs.  Excluding "religion" from
}being an influence and allowing Humanism or Feminism or something else
}is not "proper".

No one is excluding influence, but civil imposition of a specific
religious doctrine.  The same would be the case if all businesses
were required to close between sundown on Friday and sundown on
Saturday, or if there was a prohibition against eating red meat on
Friday.

}>Read your history, Owen.  The instances of religious persecution
}>at the hands of civil authorities is extensive over the centuries
}>and with probably more rife *between* Christian sects than between
}>religions with greater differences, even.
}
}History will also show that a great number have suffered under
}Communism, Marxism, and other non-religious authorities.

Read my paragraph more carefully.  I was talking about religious
persecution of one Christian by another Christian over matters of
doctrine through the use of civil law.  Such was the case of the
trial of Michael Servetus under old Justinian (Roman) civil law
when accused of heresy by John Calvin (in Geneva).  Servetus was
burned at the stake for his religious beliefs.
  Your quick reference to Communism, Marxism as a retort also
belies your indoctrination, as you appear to contrast it in
with Christianity as having an obligatory connection with
non-religion.  I've got news for you: there are many atheists who
are violently anti-Communist and anti-Marxist, and see themselves
politically, socially and economically as "conservatives."  There
are also many Christians who are social/economic/political
liberals supportive of remarkably social/communist/Marxist ideas
(one may particularly look to certain parts of Latin America for
examples) and yet who are extraordinarily conservative within the
spectrum of Christian doctrines of faith.
  (I personally am not a fan of communist/Marxist thought by any
means.)
  Let me point to an example of what "separation of church and
state" is *not*, using one of the Baltic countries as an example.
In that country, Lutheranism is the primary approach to
Christianity, and since the fall off the U.S.S.R. has been
publicly growing by leaps and bounds.  But under Soviet
domination, even though the churches were allowed to keep their
doors open and hold services of worship, in no way (including
during worship) were they allowed to do anything that resembled
"education."  No Sunday Schools, no classes on doctrine, no
education on church doctrine through sermons -- they did, however,
cleverly circumvent this through careful selection of music for
the choirs.  But in addition, the public school teachers would
show up for services and take note of students participating in
church activities -- for example, if a child was seen
participating in the choir, they would get demerits for it in
their school record.
  That is not separation of church and state.  But it is also not
an example of what is touted as "exclusion of religion" in public
schools today in the U.S., nor is our public educational system
headed that way.  It IS, however, an example of our past, where
specific doctrines of religious faith WERE promoted by public
schools (see my posting elsewhere about the Catholic student who
would not participate in a school-sponsored Protestant religious
service).  Both the "Baltic state" story above and the "Catholic
student" story are examples of imposition of a specific doctrine
by civil law.  Our current prohibition of institutionally
sponsored and *led* prayer in public schools is a protection
against *both* of those atrocities.

I do not object to your claim to Christianity, Owen; but I would
strongly object to the use of civil law for the imposition of your
view of Christian doctrine on other Christians of differing views
or on non-Christians.

Cheers,

--Mark Gresham

dscatl!mgresham@gatech.edu

==========================