From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: On topic? Right!
Date: 13 Nov 1992 17:56:34 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <roelle.721669238@uars_mag>, roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes:
>The guarantee of religious freedom in this country provides an
>umbrella for a profusion of beliefs and motivations.  "Policing"
>would undermine this freedom.

Please note, I said "self-policing."  Perhaps you don't know what that term
means.  It means that an organization with whom a person is affiliated makes
that affiliation conditional upon behavior of the individual.  E.g., if a
televangelist is affiliated with a particular church, and behaves in a way
inconsistent with the policies of that church, it's incumbent upon that church
(not the government, which is what the guarantee of religious freedom is all
about) to sever the association with the individual.  This in no way infringes
religious freedom.

Now, when a televangelist gets in a particularly nasty scandal (i.e., when he
becomes a big enough inconvenience to the church with which he's affiliated),
various churches HAVE been known to remove such an individual from the
ministry.  Since they haven't done that with most televangelists, we must
conclude that they do not find the behavior of such televangelists against
their policies.

Of course, a televangelist, if removed by his church from the ministry, is free
to create his own church.

>Ordination is not like accreditaton
>practiced by colleges and Universities (i.e. a standard).  The
>Baptists ordain their ministers, the Methodists do theirs, the
>Catholics their Priests, etc.  Personally I have never given T.V.
>evangelists much thought because IMO they are obviously wacky. Guess
>I overlooked the fact that there were people like you who take them so
>seriously :-).

They purport to represent the churches with which they're affiliated.  If the
churches don't publicly disagree with those claims, we must assume that they DO
indeed represent those churches.  As I said, self-policing is a must.

>>So why don't the rest of you *DO* something about it?  Like make efforts to
>>have the churches disavow these peoply you claim (when it's convenient for you
>>to do so) are charlatans.
>
>I imagine the T.V. evangelists would love the attention.  They would
>become victims of religious persecution,

Bullshit!  Religious persecution because their own church says they don't
represent the church?  Give me a break.
>
>>        H  H Y   Y PPPP   OOO    CCC  RRRRR III TTTTT EEEE   !!!
>>        H  H  Y Y  P   P O   O  C   C R   R  I    T   E      !!!
>>        HHHH   Y   PPPP  O   O  C     RRRR   I    T   EEE     !
>>        H  H   Y   P     O   O  C   C R  R   I    T   E
>>        H  H   Y   P      OOO    CCC  R   R III   T   EEEEE   !
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>You don't have to shout (I AM wearing my glasses).  Like you said
>before, "How typical".  When discussing religion this word is often 
>trumped out, right Carl?

I call them as I see them.  When one Christian says "But those aren't real
Christians," yet does nothing to prevent them from claiming the authority of
the church, that's pretty undeniably hypocrisy, don't you think?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic