Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ucf-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!mcnc!duke!ucf-cs!yiri
From: yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid)
Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish
Subject: Rev Bob
Message-ID: <1579@ucf-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 14-Oct-84 11:04:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucf-cs.1579
Posted: Sun Oct 14 11:04:27 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Oct-84 08:12:33 EDT
Organization: UCF, Orlando, FL
Lines: 175

From duke!mcnc!ulysses!unc!akgua!rjb Fri Sep 21 05:02:54 1984

Mr. BenDavid,

You recently submitted this item to net.religion
>>
>>If vocal prayer is a doctrine of some religion then it inheretly
>>designs to impose its vocal prayers on the ears of some whose
>>right it is to be free of such imposed prayer. That is against
>>the constitution. Their right to pray stops at my right not to
>>have it imposed on my ears, the ears of my children, and not
>>have my children subjected to peer ridicule for resisting (even
>>being a passive party to) religious imposition.
>>
>>Christianity from time to time has the doctrine of forced con-
>>version (Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, Naziism, etc.). Shouldn't
>>they too be allowed to "do their thing" in schools under that
>>same principle? Just because it is a doctrine of some religion
>>to pray vocally has no relevance to their right to PRACTICE
>>their religion IN SCHOOL! The whole argument of the constitution
>>relates to the right to practice one's religion in freedom APART
>>FROM PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS and/or governmental ENDORSEMENT. 
>>
>>
Dealing with your first paragraph...

Wouldn't the logical extension of your reasoning say that
I only have freedom of speech as long as it doesn't offend
you ?  I take this tack because religious speech has too
long been relegated to second class status.

Again peer ridicule is exercise of free speech.  Ignorant
and unkind as it can be it is part of the exercise of
free speech.  Would you have the teachers or their
assistants patrolling the school yard searching for 
those ridiculers (?) of their peers and punishing them ?

Christianity must accept "blame" for the Inquisition
and the Crusades but the Nazis were not officially
Christians (they were more into Nature Worship)
although they did put out propaganda that said things
like "God sent Hitler to restore Germany to its
rightfull place....etc etc" and "The 1000 year
Reich will usher in the Millenium..."

Jews were not forced to convert to Christianity.
You were a Jew, by Nazi definition, if a certain
portion of your ancestors were Jews.  Your present
religion at the time these facts were revealed
was not relevant to whether you got to ride the 
train to the concentration camp.

If your assertion is correct please provide a reference
of wide spread forced conversion during Hitler's era.

Remember Nazi dogma said that Jews were subhuman
and it is a tad illogical to want to convert
what you consider subhumans into your elite Aryan
group, isn't it ? (if we assume Nazism is Christian )

Finally, the Constitution as implemented did not prohibit
public exercise of religion (especially Christianity) in
our public institutions.  It remains to be seen if your 
view will carry the day legally but your view is certainly
anti-historical in view of the continuous presence of
God and religion (again usually Christianity) in the
Government from the Continental Congress all the way
down to the House and Senate today who continue to have
invocations and chaplins.  In the beginning of our Republic
this "flaw" was not evident to the Founding Fathers (and Mothers).

Perhaps, like Slavery, it will be a Constitutional error
that is corrected.  But also perhaps it will be recognized
as an exercise of Free Speech which is the outcome I desire.


Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}

   * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I (Yirmiyahu) sent the following reply to Rev Bob via mail so as
to  spare him public embarrassment while still hoping to  impres
on  him  the gravity of the potential consequences of his  views. 
Considering his continued persistence in imposing his din on  our 
ears I think it is now appropriate to share it with the net:

       ^   ^   ^   ^   ^   ^   ^   ^   ^   ^   ^

A more careful and logically precise analysis of my writing should
have shown you that the conclusion to which you leaped does not
logically follow from my writing. You have the right to free speech.
You do not have the right to make me listen to you or your views.
Also, you do not have the right to employ public institutions and/or
government support to make your voice heard. Children are required
to be in school and they have a right not to have repugnant religious
views imposed upon them there. 

The rights of free speech are limited to exercise in a place and 
manner where others are free to go if the wish or stay away if
they wish. That is freedom for both.

Peer ridicule resulting from this may seem like free speech to you
but you'll find that if you go around calling Jews, blacks, and 
others derogatory names you'll probably get your face punched in
sooner or later. The courts do not view this as free speech. You
have a perverted idea of what free speech is - and you are out of
synch with America, the Constitution and the courts, so don't hand
me this founding fathers stuff. Your knowledge of history is spotty
to be charitable. To advocate teaching children such stuff is the
worst form of bigotry. Yes, you are a Bigot.

Contrary to your wishful redefining of Nazis out of Christianity, 
the Third Reich equated to the Third Holy Roman Empire - which 
also explains the Roman Catholic complicity in so many instances
which has been reported in the news recently. Even you mentioned
their belief that they were ushering in the millenium and fighting
the war of Christ against the Jews who 'falsely' claimed to be the
people of God and thus were supplanting/slandering the 'true' church.
Ah, but Christianity more than any other group is adept at dis-
claiming each other if they don't approve, from snake-handlers to
holy rollers to Hitler. Holiness Christians, Jeh---h's Witnesses
and others say YOU'RE not a Christian too. What do you think of
that? That doesn't change my mind about EITHER of you. If you
look like a duck, walk like a duck, and quack like a duck,
THEN YOU'RE A BLINKING DUCK!

Regarding forced conversions. I assumed the readers had the 
intelligence to see that I was talking about both forced con-
versions and persecution. I was wrong and I'm sorry about that.
If you doubt there has been forced conversions, read up on the
Constantine and follow it from there.

Since you clearly stated that you desire the outcome which allows
you to impose your voice on others against their will let me
say that you are in the company of such giants as Constantine,
the Crusaders, the Spanish Inquisitors and Hitler - all of whom
shared with you the view that they had the right to impose
Christian views on others. As intensely as you're going to 
disbelieve this, if you had lived in one of those times and in
one of those places, you would have been one of the first to
follow these champions of evil for they preyed upon just that
point of view. You're ripe for some charismatic champion of
that genre to come along. The next one will have to be far
more sophisticated and subtle of course; more like a Falwell
than a Hitler the next time - honey-sweet and insidious. Maybe
you're right. Maybe America will follow along with you. In
the meantime don't bother to mail me anything else. I haven't
time to try to bring reason to an illogical and unknowledgeable
bigot. Such attempts are almost always futile since, if there
were a bright prospect for illumination, it would presuppose 
characteristics in the individual which would have precluded
such stagnation in the first place.
     * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

I hardly regard this as 'discussion on a number of matters'.
I  take issue with this because I've reached the conclusion  that 
Rev  Bob just doesn't relate to logic or intelligent  discussion. 
I've  therefore concluded that his submissions are not worthy  of 
response  from me.  Incidenetally,  it IS possible to bar Rev Bob 
from  the  Jewish  net - it could become a moderated  net  if  he 
persists. 

In point of fact,  if Rev Bob HAD any real arguments in favor  of 
Christianity he would be writing feverishly on net.religion where 
I have shown quite effectively that Christianity has no basis  in 
history,  no basis in fact,  no basis in the ancient mss.  of the 
'New  Testament' even!  So,  Rev Bob,  if there is anything to be 
said  for Christianity you'd best hurry home to net.religion  and 
try to put out the embers cause the house has already burnt down! 
Perhaps you should try to get a net.religion.Christian...
   net.religion.pagan...
        or net.religion.bigots?

                    Yirmiyahu Ben-David