From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:31:35 GMT

In article <AULTJ.92Aug25131548@caleb.rpi.edu>, aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault)
writes:
|>In article <1992Aug22.000004.8112@leland.Stanford.EDU>
|>yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau) writes:
|>
|>   |> This idea that anything or anyone that accepts state money is an
|>   |> extension of the government is ridiculous.  
|>
|>   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.

A teacher has no business doing his private work in class. Reading the Bible is
not part of his contract of employment, he may do it in his own time but not in
the time he is paid to teach.


|>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.

I suspect that you are being disingenououos. Books of children's bible stories
are usualy designed to prostelatize, few people have an interest in reviving the
old Pantheic religion. The difference is the same as making children read the
Gettysburg address, a speach made by a politician for a political purpose and
making them read an election speach by George Bush.


|>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 ban would apply equally to the Koran or to the Torah.


|>In article <1992Aug21.232801.4697@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu
|>(Carl M. Kadie) writes:
|>
|>   Note the double standard. "Pornographic material" is not banned from
|>   the traditional library (presumably because the library is protected
|>   by academic freedom), but it is banned from computers (presumably
|>   because academic freedom doesn't protect computers.)
|>
|>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).

Because there is also a later ammendment which bans the establishment of
religion. This was instituted as much to prevent the interference of the State
in church matters as the other way round. There is no constitutional ban on the
establishment of pornography, states may therefore pass a law which requires
schools to display pornographic material in their schools. 


|>In article <1992Aug22.000004.8112@leland.Stanford.EDU>
|>yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau) writes:
|>
|>   |> I will end with a quote from George Will (June 28, 1992) about the Lee
|>   |> v. Weisman decision:
|>
|>   Ooooh.  George Will.  Now there's a voice to quote from when you want
|>   to get a liberal to see your viewpoint.
|>
|>No, my hopes of getting liberals to see my viewpoint (or the flaws in
|>their own viewpoints) were dashed many articles ago.

My hopes of seeing humility in an evangelical was dashed rather a long time ago
too. Pity since it vanity a cardinal sin, I'm allowed vantiy since I don't
accept their belief system. Does this guy realise that there are many flaws in
his own viewpoint?


|>  I was just
|>trying to ask a question, pull out my yardstick and measure the
|>so-called 'liberalism' of the net by the responses.  Looks like I need
|>hip-boots to wade through it all.

Contempt from people like this is the most delightful complement. They can't
cope with an idea so they label it "subversive" and hope they can ignore it.


|>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.

Nope, academia is pretty unrepresentative. Out in the real world there is plenty
of bigotry and intolerance. I'm pretty optimistic that it's decreasing but the
bigots definitely have the upper hand at present.

This guy's real objection is not being prevented from practicing his religion
but being prevented from forcing it on others.



--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: alt.censorship