Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site 3comvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm
From: michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion
Subject: Re: "Secular Humanism" banned in the US Schools.
Message-ID: <220@3comvax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Sep-85 01:32:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: 3comvax.220
Posted: Mon Sep 16 01:32:04 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Sep-85 02:48:59 EDT
References: <1072@ulysses.UUCP> <607@hou2g.UUCP> <11384@rochester.UUCP> <314@rruxo.UUCP> <11464@rochester.UUCP>
Organization: 3Com Corp; Mountain View, CA
Lines: 93
Xref: watmath net.politics:11026 net.religion:7665

[Line eater monster's sacrificial victim.]  

Frank Ray writes:  

> Has it ever occured to any of us that this country really IS a religious/
> christian country and should be coined as such to the extent that Iran is
> considered a Muslim country, or Russia is considered an atheist country ...

The United States was established as a *secular* nation because so
many states were founded by individuals who had experienced religious
persecution.  In addition, the sorry examples of the Thirty Years' War
and other bloody religious conflicts during the Protestant Reformation
were still fresh in the memory.  The image of such a disaster occurring
in the new United States -- particularly since America had (and has) so
many different religions, none of whom were in a position to dominate
the others -- led to the Constitutional prohibition on governmental
interference with religion.  These reasons still apply, in spades!  

> If one looks at the founding fathers, they would find many instances of the
> them refering to not only the constitution but also to God for wisdom in
> guiding the country.  When the president takes the oath of office he says:
> "So help me God."  Each day congress begins it's session with the Lord's
> prayer.  Behind the Supreme court bench is a huge plaque with the Lord's
> prayer on it.  Lincoln's Gettysburg Address mentions God.  Christmas is
> very much a national holiday.  On all our currency is 'In God We Trust.'

These all fall under a legal principle which may be
described as ``don't fault the little things.''  

> Would it be religious tyranny for the federal government to take a stand
> on religious issues?

You mean religious issues such as what is ``true'' and what is
``heretical''?  And once ``truth'' is defined, wouldn't saving
nonbelievers and heretics' souls from eternal damnation -- or
at least saving others from being contaminated -- be in order?  
Wouldn't the next logical step be to burn heretics at the stake?  

> Has religious tyranny existed in this country?  

Massachusetts and other colonies prior to independence exhibited
religious tyranny at times.  The Salem witch trials -- during
which many innocent people were executed purely on ``spectral''
evidence -- certainly constituted an episode of religious tyranny.  

> The seperation of church and state I believe originally meant that people
> would have the freedom to worship as they pleased without government
> oppression.  I don't believe it meant the exclusion of government in
> declaring itself to be of a religious faith if it thought itself as much.  

In my opinion, many people of different religious faiths would
have *great* difficulty feeling ``at home'' in a country where
the government declared ``itself to be of a religious faith''
which differed from individuals' own beliefs.  Such a divisive
influence is *precisely* what the constitutional prohibition on
governmental involvement with religion was designed to prevent!  

> Some people would make the claim that if our government took a stand on
> religion that those who believed differently would be singled out or
> somehow alienated.  I don't think so.  

Whether you think they should or not, ``those who believed
differently'' would inevitably *feel* ``singled out or somehow
alienated.''  You may not agree, but this is *their* country too!  

> The Constitution and the Bill of Rights protects all the people the same
> as it protects members of the Nazis or Communist party even though these
> people in principle don't agree with and in some cases would like to
> abolish our form of government.  In order not to have words put in my
> mouth by Rosen I hereby state that I do not equate Nazis or Communists
> with any other group of people.

Sorry, Ray, *I* don't want to be ``protected'' just as ``Nazis or
Communist party'' or others who ``would like to abolish our form
of government'' are protected!  *All* religions consider themselves
to be the repository of ``truth,'' and therefore would like to
replace *all* the others.  Once any particular religion becomes
``established,'' all other religions become subversive to it!  

> One final thought, if the Government declared this country to be founded
> on the beliefs that upset some people, would those people have a legitimate
> right to claim that this declaration was unconstitutional because of a
> violation of their rights?

Only if the declaration made by the government *was*
unconstitutional and *was* a violation of their rights.  

________________

Michael McNeil
3Com Corporation     "All disclaimers including this one apply"
(415) 960-9367
..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm