From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: or.politics
Subject: Re: Religion is belief, not behavior (was Re: new initiative)
Date: 28 Jan 93 08:24:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: qiclab.1993Jan28.082429.26646
Reply-To: Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.

stever@crosstalk.tv.tek.com (Steven E. Rice  P.E.) writes:

>Hmmm, there appears to be a communication problem here somewhere.  In
>response to a previous article, I wrote:

>>> Scott seems confused about the difference between belief and behavior.
>>> Religion is a belief, although there may be behaviors which stem from
>>> that belief.  . . .

>George La Belle (labelle@hfglobe.intel.com) apparently has concluded that
>the constitutional protection for all beliefs extends to all behaviors
>as well.  In article <C1HAry.Iz2@hfglobe.intel.com>, he wrote:

>> Fine, the analogy is correct. If homosexuals "believe" they are
>> attracted to same sex partners, then act upon that belief; how does
>> this differ from  Christians who "believe" Jesus is god and act
>> accordingly? Looks the same to me.  . . .

>The difference is in the actions which result from the respective
>beliefs.  In his letter to the Christians at Galatia(*), the Apostle
>Paul reminded his readers that the Roman government had passed no
>laws forbidding the behaviors that result from believing in Christ:

>     [T]he fruit of the Spirit [i.e., the behavior which results
>     from believing in Jesus Christ and following His commandments]
>     is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
>     gentleness and self-control.  Against such things there is no
>     law.

>To the best of my knowledge, neither the United States government nor
>any of its political subdivisions have passed laws against such
>behaviors.  Therefore, the behavior of "Christians who 'believe' Jesus
>is god and act accordingly" is in accordance with the law.

>On the other hand, at least one state (Georgia) has a law prohibiting
>sodomy (anal intercourse).  Note that the Georgia law doesn't impose
>sanctions upon "homosexuals [who] 'believe' they are attracted to same
>sex partners" -- it imposes sanctions upon a specific behavior.  The
>United States Supreme Court ruled in 1985 that the Georgia statute
>was constitutional, concluding that there was no indication the
>framers of the Constitution had intended to protect such actions.

But Oregon (and many other states) does *not* have such laws. And 
further, such laws are frequently enforced in an *extremely* biased 
manner. On of the silliest examples was the case a couple years 
back where a man was convicted of sodomy for having admitted to
performing oral sex on his wife. (the admission was in testimony at a
divorce hearing). Rather than repeal the law, the state passed a
law to pardon THAT SPECIFIC PERSON. Something very strange is going 
on there...

Laws against oral sex and anal sex almost *never* specify the sex
of the parties involved. Yet if you take a look at who gets *charged*
with them a pattern emerges. If both parties are of the same sex,
one or both will be charged. If they are of differring sexes, the
law gets overlooked, and almost *never* results in both being 
charged. (see the case above, where the husband was charged but
the wife wasn't). 

So even in the states that have sodomy laws, the laws are *enforced*
in a highly discriminatory manner.

In states like Oregon, where there are no such laws, the "behavior"
you refer to is not illegal. So why allow discrimination based on it?
And *not* allow discrimination based on religion?

Also, the prime symptom of being a "minority" is that if people *think*
you belong to the group in question they will discriminate against you.
Without feeling that they *need* any evidence. 

-- 
Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/51	 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)