From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: A few quotes from a few years ago
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:51:32 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Sep2.172533.17921@dbsun.uucp>, hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:
> In article <1992Sep1.123427.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>
>     cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> 
>> [referred Christian post deleted]
>>
>>     Dittos to both of these postings!  Regarding freedom of religion,
>>the first amendment reads:
>>
>>           Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
>>           of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
>>
>>If I, as an educator, individually decide to include creationism (along
>>with evolution) as a part of the curriculum of a course I teach at a
>>public institution, how in the world can one argue that this is 
>>unconstitutional?  Is congress (or state and local governments)
>>mandating that I teach this?  NO.
> 
> If I as an educator, individually decide to include Satanism (along
> with creationism and evolution) as a part of the curriculum of a course I
> each at a public institution, how in the world can one argue that this
> is unconstitutional?  Is congress (or state and local governments)
> mandating that I teach this?  NO.

     You people (a little Perot lingo there) must all think alike! :-)
Someone else posted the same argument.  Summarizing my response, it
should NOT be unconstitutional for you to teach Satanism at a public
school.  But, if the local school administration believes it is not
in the best interest of the students for me to merely post the Ten
Commandments, or for you to teach Satanism, then we must oblige.

> 
> Rhetoric aside, you, as an educator at a public instituion, have shed
> your individualism and become a spokesman for the State.  That happened
> the moment you accepted tax money.  As a spokesman for the State, you
> cannot "respect an establishment of religion."  
> Congress passes a law giving you tax money, you cannot use 
> that money to preach your religious beliefs.

     First, am I preaching by POSTING the Ten Commandments on a bulletin
board (preferably next to the condom concession area)?  Second, what 
about all of the people in America who are receiving extended unemployment
benefits?  I watched Congress pass the law that allowed them to 
receive this.  Under your argument, "the moment they ACCEPTED this tax
money" (note that the unemployed are not forced to receive this, as I
am not forced to work at a public institution), they "have shed their
individualism and have become spokespersons for the State."  Moreover,
you say that they "cannot use that money to preach their religious
beliefs."  What if they decide to give $10 to their local church?
What if, after spending an eight-hour day job hunting, they decide
to perform some religious-based counseling?  You may want to reword
your argument.
 
>>                                             If another educator decides
>>NOT to post the Ten Commandments and not teach creationism, then more
>>power to her/him.  Just let me present many points of view.
 
> And then the pressure and innuendo starts.  Ms. Smith has the Ten
> Commandments, why not Ms. Brown and Mr. Jones?  I guess Ms. Brown 
> and Mr. Jones are evil, and I don't want *my* kids being taught by
> them!  Teachers who don't post the Commandments might start getting
> phone calls at night, or people talk in the street about them.

     You see that same pressure and innuendo regarding the red ribbon
that is worn, supposedly for AIDS solidarity.  At these Hollywood
awards events, if you do not wear one, the innuendo is that you
are pro-AIDS (which is ridiculous).  I have no problem with 
an educator wearing a red ribbon to class; and if I happened to be
in the minority by not wearing one, then that's fine with me.
People can talk about me in the street all they want.  If I get phone
calls at night, I would get an unlisted number.

> How do you think the Lambs of Christ started getting OB/GYN doctors not
> to perform abortions in North Dakota?  There is one left.  She flies
> in from Minnesota, and is subject to incredible amounts of 
> harassment.  This information was on "60 Minutes".

     The Ten Commandments must be a powerful document if my mere posting
it can lead to the egregious outcomes you mentioned above.  All I 
originally intended to discuss was the constitutionality of the Ten
Commandments, and not personal opinions on its effect.  Using an
argument I hear quite often: the last thing I want to do is make a
moral judgment on this matter.

     C. Perttunen