From: scruggs@zeus.franklin.edu (Kevin Scruggs)
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'Hare
Organization: Franklin University (Columbus, OH)
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 21:11:50 GMT

In article <adams.726593804@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>scruggs@zeus.franklin.edu (Kevin Scruggs) writes:
>>In article <root.726502852@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>Hardly.  If the feds supply some of the funding of the local PBS station,
>>>and some portion of that money is used to broadcast a religious program
>>>(lets say it's educational, for sake of argument) that is hardly
>>>'establishment' of religion.  And by the way, if 'subsidizing' religion
>>>were unconstitutional, then churches wouldn't be tax exempt, now would
>>>they?
>>I disagree with churches being tax exempt as well...
>'The power to tax is the power to destroy.'  In another post, I said I have
>no problem with them paying user fees for fire protection, etc.  I believe
>income tax and proerpty taxes present larger problems.
>
>>>The establishment clause is meant to protect religious liberty by
>>>disallowing the establishment of a national religion.  Nothing more.
>>>The Supreme Court is dead wrong, cf the founders comments on the purposes
>>>of the BofR.
>>>>	 This point is still under contention. Personally, I find it rather
>>>>silly that religious groups feel the need to congregate in public buildings/
>>>>schools when plenty of churchs/temples/mosques infest the landscape...
>>>
>>>A non-denominational bible study?  A group of kids who want to meet to talk
>>>about religion?  Why should they be banned from school property when any
>>>other group may meet?  That is plain and pure discrimination.
>
>>Oh please, we both know we aren't talking about metaphysical debating
>>societies here. (wouldnt be opposed to those tho...) We are talking about 
>>cells of a religion. A micro congregation if you will... Something that 
>>definitely doesnt need to be subsidized on government property.
>
>Never heard of non-denominational bible studies?  They tend to be open to
	        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>discussing many aspects of biblical interpretation.  I've taken part in
>them, and participants have been from all stripes...
>
	I still find it interesting that you still cling to purely
xian terminology. If it were an inter-faith academic study group 
			              ^^^^^
I could see it. Otherwise it is just another xian advocates group. I have no
problem with pure information, it's advocacy I disagree with. Attempts to make
Bible study groups appear anything less than a 'micro-congregation' is 
analagous to calling Genesis creation-science...
>>>I see a lot on PBS that I don't agree with.  So what?  I just look at is
>>>diversity.  IF PBS wants to run a program that reflects favorably on
>>>wiccans, so what?  It's a free country...
>>>
>>I think the point in contention was religious ceremonies, not just
>>ducumentaries...
>Big deal...want to broadcast a wiccan ceremony?  Go ahead.  Heck, I'd
>welcome the chance to learn more about it...
>
>>>You make the assumption that I don't support true equal access.  You are
>>>wrong.  I really don't care who or what is on TV, so long as NOONE is
>>>restricted.  You want equal access for everyone EXCEPT Christians.  Nice
>>>double standard you have there.
>
>>	I am the one who uses the term 'religious group' you're the one stuck 
>>sectarian terms such as bible study. You can't even think in any other terms.
>If Muslims, Jews, Wiccans, etc, etc, want to meet, that's just fine.  I use
>the 'bible study' since that's the think that seems to draw the ire of
>so-called 'freedom groups', like the ACLU.
>
>>You remind me of a USMC Ssgt that thought atheist was some sort of protestant
>>denomination when I told him why I refused to be herded off to church 
>>services.....
>Can't skip the attempted insults, eh?  Sorry, but just because a USMC Staff
>Sgt. didn't know what an atheist is, has no implications of what I know or
>do.
>
	If I were insulting you, you'd know it.

>Read more of my stuff.  I hardly want to push my religion on anyone...
>
>>	It just so happens that xianity happens to be the most obnoxious
>>and widespread religion in these parts... 
>Guilt by association...because someone is Christian they are automatically
>suspect?
	twistie-twistie-twistie...

	Merely probability. Xians being the majority, it is more likely that
they'd be the nexus of a church-state separation arguement. And xianity is an
ideology of domination/conquest.
>
>>oh, btw, I saw how quickly you started twisting my statements. Are you a 
>>creationist too???...
	Creationists are notorious for distorting things to support their
arguements.
>Depends what you mean by that.  Do I agree with ICR that the earth is only
>6000 years old?  No way.  I suspect that science is near enough with the
>estimate of a 4.5 billion year old earth.  Not that that denies divine 
>creation in any way.
>
> -Steve
>--
>  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
>                         -------------------
>   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
>   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558


-- 
	|||				...Your future hasn't been written yet.
       / | \				   No one's has. Your future is what 
    =Mysh+Krysa=			   you make it...    
							   -Emmet L. Brown-