From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: [US politics] Snubbing God
Date: 28 Jul 92 06:01:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Jul25.184333.20976@gboro.glassboro.edu>, kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes...
> 
>Robert Weiss quotes Mario Cuomo:
> 
>> "We need a leader who will stop the Republican attempt - through laws and 
>>  through the courts - to tell us what God to believe in, and how to apply 
>>  that God's judgment to our schoolrooms, our bedrooms and our bodies."
> 
>and says
> 
>> Cuomo's speech is an argument for a leader who will not employ a morality
>> that is God given. The key item in this argument is that of origin. Cuomo is
>> not against a "republican morality" (if there is such a thing), or against
>> Bush's morality (again, if there is such a thing), rather he is arguing
>> against applying God's standards.
> 
>But I am not certain that this is correct.  In particular, Gov Cuomo does not
>refer only to "God's judgement", but to "that God's judgement".  `That God'
>being whichever one the Republicans want us to believe in.  I consider this an
>important difference.  (Personally, I find the `civil religion' of the US to
>be some distance from Christ's teachings as revealed in God's Word.)

	For that explanation to be incorrect, "that God" would have to 
be different than "God." Are you be presenting that Gov Mario is 
saying that "that God" of the Republicans is a different one than God?

[...]

>Gov Cuomo is obviously not in as great a minority as a Christian would be in
>Iran.  (Roman Catholics are outnumbered by Protestants in the US, but they are
>the single greatest denomination.)  However, he is capable of feeling for the
>minority religions here exactly what he feels for the minority religions in
>other countries.

	The posit wasn't whether Cuomo was a wonderful pluralistic 
person or not. I have no arguments with that, nor would I. However, I 
questioned whether Cuomo was sleighting God or not by his remarks.
I'm sure that Solomon was a wonderful pluralistic person, but he 
offended God by building temples for his many wives.

>I personally strongly support the separation of church & state, and oppose any
>effort of religious majorities to take advantage of their greater numbers. 

	To an extreme though. You seem to be implying that Christians 
should not vote and enact legislation based on their convictions, but 
that everyone else should be able to. There is the danger of 
discrimination against Christians due to the fact that more people are 
nominal Christians that nominal something else, and so the opinions of 
Christians may become legislated. But that is discrimination of the 
rankest kind: discrediting a view not based on quality or content but 
on origin.

	This is becoming more and more commonplace. The ACLU argues 
that the Hyde amendment is a violation of church and state because in 
his letters Henry Hyde writes, `God Bless.' This is the same attitude 
that we have here. The view that one person's view, because it is 
religiously based, should be denied a hearing in the public square. 
The view that religious convictions should be stricken from the docket
in favor of irreligious convictions, so that we don't violate the 
emanations from the establishment clause. 

	But what this view is doing is censoring those who are 
religiously motivated from playing their rightful part in the open 
marketplace of legislation of ideas.



 en agape,
 Bob 
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU