From: altheimm@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Murray Altheim)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Liberal/New Age Religion (Was: Santeria and animal-sacrifice)
Date: 10 Nov 92 07:14:39 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

(please note cross-posting when replying)

In article <Nov.8.01.04.45.1992.8552@geneva.rutgers.edu>
   scott@petros.b17a.ingr.com writes:
>>
>>    Santeria's "right" to perform animal sacrifices 
>>
[discussion of constitutionally-protected freedom of religious expression...]
>>
>>Praise God for the stance by Hialeah, FL. How can a God fearing country
>>stand for such "twits" against God's mandates? As Christians, how can we
>>allow this type of judgement in our courts?
>
>Christians think this is a bad idea.  However you might want to read
>some history before suggesting a change.  The problem is that once you
>allow the state to regulate religious practice, you had better be very
>sure that the people doing the regulation are of right religion.  What
>happens when Catholics, or liberals, or Moslems, take over the
>Department of Religious Political Correctness?  Given the current
>political situation, any relaxation of the constitutional protections
>would be very likely to establish a sort liberal/new age religion.  Do
>you really want to run that risk?
>
>--clh]

I find it ironic that such a reasonable and well-thought out response falls
into the same trap I see in many of the posts on this board, and in the
Christian community in general.

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 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 first part of a simplistic, dogmatic attack on those opposing one's
views is to put a label on those opposing views. Last time I visited a 
Christian bookstore, I perused the "New Age" section out of curiosity. From
someone with a fair amount of experience in pagan religion, as well as 
familiarity with "New Age" ideas, I'm always surprised at the incredible
distortion thrown on the subject among Christian writers. Even environmental-
ists come under the fundamentalist gun, ie. "How to Save the Earth Without
Worshipping Nature" (or something like that).

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.

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.

In that case, you'd better hope that the church in power is yours, or be
willing to convert quick. We've all seen the consequences for those who
oppose a theocracy, and it's usually a lot worse than the Santerian chickens.

And on a related topic, does anyone on this board even have a decent
definition for "liberal" or "new age" that comes even close to reality?
Or is this just an ignorant buzzword thrown out to trigger a learned
negative response? For myself, almost every time someone used "liberal"
when discussing Christianity, they had almost no understanding of 
religion outside of their narrow, biased belief.

Remember it was only this year that the Vatican recognized the possibility
that the earth is round. What they've done for science, they've done for
society. Why are so many people more afraid of thinking freely than they
are of God? Nowhere in the bible is thinking proscribed. If your beliefs
are so weak as to not stand up to any scrutiny, then maybe the necessary
response is fear, dogma and blindness. It's not the way I want to live,
nor is the way I believe God intended. 

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."

[My response was directed to a poster was obviously fundamentalist (or
pretending to be).  I would be equally opposed to a Department of
Religious Political Correctness no matter what theological position it
considered to be correct.  --clh]