From: ap290@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ruth M. Hanschka)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.words-l
Subject: Re: amendment 2
Date: 8 Nov 1992 06:43:36 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ap290@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ruth M. Hanschka)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, ST402747@BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU (blomberg cepeda) says:

>Judith: Maybe Ruth made the first hit, but it seems that the return fire set
>off her fuel tanks...

Not even close, baby; all he got were fumes from the empties....  You've
never seen me really angry, and I sincerely pray to God you never do.

>Ruth: I have to wade in here with the opposition. I find it extremely

Fair enough, everyone else is.  Go ahead and swing away.

>disturbing that someone claims an ability to decide what I do with my life
>based on their own interpretation of an amazingly ambiguous book. As it is,

Did I do that?:-)  No.  That's your interpretation [8-)] of what I said.  You
are free to do as you please, just don't ask me to approve.  All I ask is
the same favor.  So far, Graham and Jim haven't seen fit to grant it....

>anyone who claims to take literally both the Gospel and Paul is IMHO admitting
>that God is (oxy)moronic or that they have an extra brain lobe in another
>dimension.

Yup!  You got it!  By definition, the God I believe in is beyond human
understanding.  Then too, I've been accused of being lost in space before.
Frankly, half the time I'm not sure the accusers are wrong.:-)

>     The Constitution was written so that the adherents of no one religious
>creed to remake the country to their own image--or at least not easily--and
>while what _that_ meant may have changed in a couple of centuries, it is part
>of the genius of that document that its strictures are still applicable in
>very changed circumstances. Because Hindus are very offended by the killing of
>cows, does that mean that they can have beef commercials banned? If fundy
>Moslems are distraught by the sight of unveiled females, does that mean they
>have a write to amend any local constitution so that any ban on discrimination
>against women with bare heads would be illegal?

You missed the whole point of my original comments.  I didn't say that it 
ought to be illegal, I *said* that I couldn't vote for it.  Would you ask
a pro-veil Moslem to vote in favor of an ordinance permitting women to
leave them off in the workplace?  You shouldn't ask someone to vote
against her or his conscience, no matter what the vote is about.  That may
mean a person's choosing not to vote on an issue, because she couldn't 
vote either yes or no with a clear conscience.  

>     Or more equivalent--if atheists ruled a state, would it be okay for them
>to say that any county or city cannot ban discrimination against practicing
>adherents of any sect (including Christians).

In an ideal world, the laws wouldn't be necesary.  In my view, the atheists
*are* ruling this state, and there is no law on the books banning 
discrimination against "adherents of any sect..."  Oh, it may be there, but
it's not enforced.

>     Legislate unto others as you would have them legislate unto you.
>
I might, if I believed that the legislation would do any good.  Change mens'
hearts, and the laws are unnecessary.  Change the laws before that, and all
it will do is provide more paperwork for government clerks and law courts.
Sure, you can levy jail terms and fines, but will it do any good?  Really?
In the long run?  I'd say not, based on past experiments with this one.
We've had antidiscrimination laws on the books, heck, in the Constitution
for over a century.  Do we still have nazi graffiti on synagogues?  Cross
burnings? Hate crime legislation?  Ok, get a gay rights bill passed - then
wait a hundred years for people's minds to catch up with the laws.  Heck, to
be safe, make it 150.  And good luck.

>
-- 
		###	Ruth Hanschka, the Nethead    ###
			- ap290@cleveland.freenet.edu
	      Where anything can happen, and it usually does
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU