From: stever@crosstalk.tv.tek.com (Steven E. Rice  P.E.)
Subject: Re: Religion is belief, not behavior (was Re: new initiative)
Organization: Tektronix TV Products
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 02:24:15 GMT

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.

The difference is not in the beliefs.  The difference is in the
behaviors which result from the beliefs.

Unfortunately, some extreme cases have come to light recently which
provide very clear delineation of the difference between belief and
behavior:

   1. In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Jeffrey Dahmer apparently believed
      in both necrophilia and necrophagia.  However, he is not in
      prison for his beliefs.  He is in prison for killing and
      eating and/or freezing the flesh of a number of boys and
      young men.

   2. In Medford, Oregon, a man whose name I don't remember is in
      jail.  At least at one time, he was a professing Christian
      and a lay leader in his church.  But he isn't in jail because
      of his beliefs.  He is in jail awaiting trial on charges that
      he sexually abused a number of children with the intent of
      infecting them with AIDS.

In each of the cases cited, the individual is not in jail because
of his beliefs.  He is in jail because his actions violate the law.

>                              . . . Belief leads to behaviour in
> both cases and is the basis for "minority" status.

The law doesn't make belief the basis for minority status.  The Civil
Rights laws creating the concept of minorities as protected classes
weren't enacted until the 1960s, but religious and political beliefs
have been constitutionally protected since the inception of the
Republic.

					Steve Rice

(*) Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord! *
stever@tv.tv.Tek.com                                   [phone (503) 627-1320]
Newsgroups: or.politics