From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 18:56:58 EDT

In article <AULTJ.92Aug25131548@caleb.rpi.edu> aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault) writes:
>
>   Yep.  But that doesn't give free reign for those formally employed
>   by the state and acting on behalf of the state to do whatever they
>   please.
>
>Or even exercise their right to freely exercise their religion.  The
>"establishment clause" in the hands of the liberals is being wielded
>as a weapon in attempts to fully extinguish the "free exercise clause"
>for those that believe in the Judeo-Christian God.
>
>Whatever they please, you say?
>
>A school teacher in Denver was silently reading his Bible to himself
>during quiet time in class.  He never read the Bible to his students,
>or even told them what he was reading.  The Supreme Court recently let
>stand, without comment, a ruling by a District Court that upheld the
>following actions:
>
>1. The teacher was forbidden to read his own Bible silently to himself
>in class, or to leave it lying on his desk.
>
>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.

One apparent example of a misguided judicial decision is hardly a
foundation for your claims that "liberals" have "wielded as a weapon in
attempts to fully extinguish the 'free exercise clause' for those that believe
in the Judeo-Christian God."

The case you cite is a lone example of an improper application of the
establishment clause (based ont he facts as presented).  Furthermore, it says
absolutely nothing to support your accusation of hostility aimed, in
particular, at a "Judeo-Christian God."

And it has absolutely nothing to do with the benedictions-at-graduations
case that you started out decrying.


>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. 

The charge that a country, in which the legislators, executives, judges,
and people of every state, and of the country as a whole are, *overwhelmingly*
Christian, and in which most politicians, and even the President, openly
refer to God on a frequent basis, practices "open hostility to Christianity"
is simply ludicrous--and demonstrates just how extreme *your own* vision
of what is happening is.

You might as well be claiming that Iran is openly hostile to Islam, or that
Israel is openly hostile to Judaism!


>   Nadine Strossen, President of the ACLU, said much the same thing in a
>   speech:
>
>   >From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
>   >Newsgroups: alt.censorship
>   >Subject: Re: On the other hand (was: Stopping vehement hate posting)
>   >Date: 27 Mar 92 02:09:16 GMT
>   [...]
>   >
>   >   "First, as we've seen, it's impossible to draw narrow regulations
>   >precisely specifying the particular words and contexts which should lead
>   >to sanctions. 
>
>Unless, of course, the Supreme Court is busy deciding exactly what
>kinds of religious words spoken by which people in which contexts are
>deemed to be "coercion" and are therefore to be banned.

Where has the SC banned particular words?

And regarding contexts--you have a point, though it is not the one you
wish to made.  Individuals, in their activities as agents of the state, should
not *ever* be allowed to lead prayer--whether it be the start of a legislative
session or a high school commencement.

No person has a *right* to have the state provide a prayer-leader.  But *I*
(and many others) *do* have the *right* not to be subjected to *state*-lead
prayer.


>If a teenager is supposedly mature enough to decide whether or not to
>have an abortion, don't you think that they could discern between a
>ceremonial prayer and proselytizing?

Distinguishing between prayer and proselytizing has absoltuely nothing
to do with the question at hand.  It is offensive to me (and others) for
the government to presume to support religion in any fashion.


>More than that, because The Supreme Court has begun the process of deciding
>which kinds of religious speech are acceptable and which are not, they
>are far further along toward "establishing" a religion (or rather an
>animosity toward Christianity) than you think.

Given that the SC has not done enough (in my eyes) in that it does allow
many references to the "Judeo-Christian God" ("In God We Trust" for example)
and by allowing things like state-sponsored benedictions at the start of
legislative sessions.

>Enforced secularism is not the same as religious pluralism. 

No it is not.  And the state should *not* be getting involved in "religious
pluralism."  There is simply no way to find *any* prayer that will not
offend some people's religious beliefs.

Just as you, as a Christian, have a right not to be subjected to state-
sponsored prayers glorifying Satan, atheists and agnostics have a right not
to be subjected to state-sponsored prayers glorifying *any* "god."


When you are prepared to state that you believe that it should be perfectly
acceptable for a high school to present a satanic benediction at your
child's graduation ceremony, then you can come back and argue the question
of what constitutes "establishment."

You'll still be wrong, but at least you will be consistent.  Right now, all
you are doing is to espouse the governmental endorsement of those religions
that *you* deem to be *acceptable*.

(Unless you are prepared to suggest that you can establish "pluralistic"
prayers that will satisfy *all* religious ideas, including not only
christianity, but also atheism, agnosticism, and even satanism.)


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk