From: aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault)
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
	<7kjy4+n@rpi.edu> <1992Aug22.000004.8112@leland.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Aug20.180717.29099@natinst.com> 
	<1992Aug20.215056.4083@Princeton.EDU>
	<1992Aug21.155404.12425@natinst.com>
	<1992Aug21.214845.10965@Princeton.EDU>
	<1992Aug22.031724.6759@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
	<21AUG199215492898@reg.triumf.ca>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:15:48 GMT

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.

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.

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. 

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).

In article <1992Aug22.031724.6759@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

   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.

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?

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.

Enforced secularism is not the same as religious pluralism. 

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.  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.

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.

Jim Ault, ITS Systems Programmer, aultj@rpi.edu    <><






--
Jim Ault, ITS Systems Programmer, aultj@rpi.edu    <><
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:7190 soc.culture.african.american:9044 alt.activism:15542 misc.legal:16533 soc.culture.usa:6930 oh.general:466