From: altheimm@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Murray Altheim)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Liberal/New Age Religion (Was: Santeria and animal-sacrifice)
Date: 12 Nov 92 08:04:52 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <Nov.11.03.00.10.1992.15097@geneva.rutgers.edu>
   ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com writes:
>In article <Nov.10.02.14.39.1992.12520@geneva.rutgers.edu>
   altheimm@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Murray Altheim) writes:

>> In expressing the fear that "Catholics, liberals, or (heaven forbid) 
>> Moslems" take over the "Department of Religious Political Correctness" 
>> you assume rightly that no department of its kind COULD exist in a country
>> that purports religious freedom. The irony is that the fear of many people
>> in this country is that Christian fundamentalists are currently attempting
>> to establish a fundamentalist nation. Those who oppose this are typically
>> labelled Catholics, liberals, Moslems, or worse yet (turn on sarcasm switch)
>> atheists, pagans, or new agers. All simple, blind labels.
>
>I think that this fear is no more justifed that the fear of pagans you 
>dismiss . . . 
>
>I find it a laughable assertion that fundamentalists want to take over and
>establish a fundamentalist nation.  All fundamentalists want to do is stem
>the massive lossage of morality this country is undergoing.  They do not want
>homosexuality to be exalted as acceptable.  They want proscriptions against
>abortion restored.  Unless you call the 50s moral mindset "fundamentalist",
>I don't think anyone wants to turn this into a fundamentalist state.

Since you obviously agree with the fundamentalists to the point that you 
don't see that not EVERYONE agrees with you, I find little point in arguing
over this issue. I don't see that the country was any more moral then than
now. All that has happened is that the availability of media information has
brought all this to your attention, when in the 1950's it was all much more
hidden from the public view. Do you seriously think that there was a time
when abortions or gays did not exist? We didn't keep statistics then nor 
now on the number of hidden abortions or closeted gays, so I hardly think
there is much room for comparison with the 1950's. 

>Plus the fact that already this society is becoming increasingly hostile to
>Christian morality.  Abstinence is not just not taught, it is forbidden.
>Christians are forbidden to meet in public areas.  Christian symbols are
>removed from public view (even if on private property).  Homosexuals are given
>rights to prosletyze that no Christians are ever given.

This assumes that the morality of this country is Christian, which is a
fallacy. People act moral not out of obedience but out of an innate sense
of right and wrong, a sense of responsibility to life. Are you going to go
out on a limb and tell me next that no non-Christian societies are moral?
I suggest you take a trip to a Moslem or Buddhist country if you want to see
morality in action. Christians hardly have a monopoly on morality, contrary
to what many might think.

>> I hope everyone reading this understands that while Christian fundamentalists
>> have every right to practice their religion, as protected by the US
>> constitution, they have NO right to exclude others from practicing theirs.
>
>The question is not religion, but morality.  The traditional American standard
>of morality is being etched away -- or I should say, is collapsing rapidly.
>Most fundamentalists would be quite happy with a return to the morals this
>nation has had for the first 180 years of its existence.

I find it interesting to note that both responses to my posted comments
regarding religious freedom brought up the issue of morality, which is an
entirely different issue than religious freedom. I find nothing in pagan
religion (Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, Odinist, Shintoist, Native American, etc.)
that smacks of immorality, if we allow for the same lassitude in distinction
between belief and practice. The beliefs themselves are, with very few
exceptions, every bit as MORAL as Christian beliefs.

And I find it equally interesting that the two definitions of pagan in
Webster's New World Dictionary are: 1. same as HEATHEN (not part of the 
Jewish, Christian or Moslem religions), or 2. having no religion at all.

>> Just as anyone can point to the fundamentalist quacks (like the Bakkers et
>> al) it is easy to look into pagan and new age religion and find aspects that
>> appear ridiculous from the outside. And some of it is ridiculous from the
>> inside as well. But a great deal of pagan religion and what is purported to
>> be "new age" comes from legitimate, established religious belief, some of it
>> predating Christianity by millenia. And among those religions without a
>> longstanding tradition, there still exists the freedom to practice those
>> beliefs.
>
>Oh, there is no question that the New Age isn't "New".  It's all paganism and
>witchcraft from ancient times.  Yes, it predates Christianity.  Unfortunately,
>societies based on these religions tended to be much nastier than anything
>we've seen today.

What a silly argument. I'm sure we can both go on for days arguing this one.
Nastier? The Inquisition? The Crusades? The second world war? (which began
between a number of countries "claiming" to be Christian). Contrary to
movie westerns, for example, history shows that the predominant societies
of pre-contact America were hunter-gatherer and then agricultural. 
Apart from the squirmishes between peoples over territory (which were no
more religious-based than World War II), these people's battles were not
over religion, nor any different than any other battle over territory.
If you want to dig deep enough back into history (comparing modern day
Christianity with an ancient culture -- apples and oranges), I'm sure we
can find examples of both healthy societies and "nasty" ones (whatever 
that really means).

>> Whether a Christian believes the legitimacy of these beliefs is irrelevant.
>> They are protected by the US Constitution, just as Christian beliefs are
>> protected. To assume that the predominance of any belief is acceptable or
>> even disirable is to allow the establishment of a theocratic state.
>
>Again, the issue is not so much religious belief, as morality.  The U.S. has
>never had a standard religion, but until recently we _did_ have a standard
>set of morals.

[I have responded to the remainder of my post in a previous reply]
>
>If you think that the Catholic Church has done society a bad turn, then just
>take a look at the societies of the Babylonians, Assyrians, Muslims, Druids,
>Aztecs, Romans, Nazis, Hindus, and Communists.

I suppose I could try to respond to each of these assertions in turn, a
task I (nor probably anyone) could do accurately. We know of these societies
in many cases from histories written by their detractors. First of all, you
have listed all together despite the fact that some are ancient and dead,
some are ancient and still alive, and some are modern.

First of all, Nazism and Communism are not religions but political philoso-
phies inimical to religion. Both in China and the USSR every attempt was
made to stamp out the vestiges of religion. Nazism was a political movement
that had Odinist and Christian overtones, but was nevertheless a philosophy,
not a religion. And a pretty cheap shot on your part.

The Babylonians, Assyrians, Aztec and early Muslim societies were victims
of heavy intertribal conflicts. As well as possible victims of hostile
historians. We know something about the beneficial parts of those societies,
and when not involved in conflict, I find nothing to distance them from
early Jewish, Christian or Moslem (ie., "non-pagan") societies. Early 
Jewish history needs little discussion regarding its battles with its 
neighbors.

>Paganism does society far more harm than Christianity.
>
>| Eric Ewanco - Software Engineer   For the rash and outrageous opinions ex-|

Rash and outrageous? I thought that was something _I_ was being accused of. :)

>    "...[T]he greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and
>    organized at Rome by [] Peter and Paul, [is] that Church which has the
>    tradition and faith which comes down to us after having been announced
>    to men by the Apostles.  For with this Church, because of its superior
>    origin, all Churches must agree ...  and it is in her that the
>    faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition."
>       -- St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, c. 180 A.D., 3,3,3.

An interesting choice of signature quotes. Check with your own Christian
theologians and historians. You'll hardly find an unbiased account of
pagan and heretical Christianity in "Against Heresies". Irenaeus is
unfortunately one of our only historical sources, and precisely one of 
the hostile historians I was talking about.

Blessings,

Murray

-- 
Murray M. Altheim      "Ils ont l'orteil de Bouc, & d'un Chevreil l'oreille,
Instructional Consultant    La corne d'un Chamois, & la face vermeille
CSU, Sacramento          Comme un rouge Croissant: & dancent toute nuict
altheimm@csus.edu       Dedans un carrefour, ou pres d'une eau qui bruict."