Come Let Us Reason Together: November 2008

XLI

Date: Sun Nov 02 16:48:13 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Re: Cartoon

At 03:29 PM 11/2/97 0600, you wrote:

I'll let the smoke clear (and my blood pressure drop) a little before I respond to the rest of your message. Gotta come up with some tactful, intelligent way of politely disagreeing with you. I can see by your comments you haven't learned a thing I've been trying to teach you! ; )

Gee, I didn't think there was anything in that last one to get your blood pressure up about. Certainly wasn't trying to bait you. I promise you, I did not INTEND to offend. No joke, now. Did I really? Could it be, I'm just asking, that it is I who am starting to get through to you? The very nature of what we're talking about can engender strong emotions, even when one side is trying not to do so. I think that's really the lesson of what we learn as we grapple with how we reconcile public activities with private beliefs.

Date: Sun Nov 02 17:37:22 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Re: Cartoon III

At 04:11 PM 11/2/97 0600, you wrote:

I just found an editorial in the online edition of the Jerusalem Post on the subject of intolerance. I haven't read it yet, but I send it along hoping it will be of interest to both of us.

Here's the background as much as I know of it. There is a movement afoot in Israel by ultra orthodox "right wing" Jews who are trying to turn Israel into an entirely religious society. It's the Jewish and Israeli version of the "intolerance" I speak of in America by the "Christian right."

For religious Jews, many things are forbidden, or required. Driving on the Sabbath is forbidden. Cooking, turning on lights or using electricity, work of any kind, no matter how trivial. There are some parts of Israel where to drive through it on the Sabbath, will get you stoned. Literally. Israel, they say, is the Jewish homeland. There's no room, they say, for people who don't believe as they do, or who don't practice Judaism as devoutly. That means there's no room for compromise or conciliation on the Palestinian issue. It means women have their place. It means kosher food, or no food at all. It means all sorts of things. Imagine practicing Christianity as you do, but living in a state that is Greek Orthodox, and that you're REQUIRED to live and go about your business according to the way they practice. Same concept.

There are basically three groups of Jews: orthodox, conservative and reform. Within orthodoxy, there are sects like the Hasidim, but generally speaking, the orthodox are the most devout. Not all are right wing zealots by any stretch, but there is a growing political movement in Israel.

I was raised attending reform temples, although today when I go I prefer the services of conservative synagogues, just because I like to hear the Hebrew. Reform don't keep kosher, and may not keep all the commandments relating to the Sabbath and holidays. They're more likely to intermarry, women have more "rights" in the participating, becoming rabbis, etc. Conservatives are somewhere in the middle, they may or may not keep kosher, they've only recently permitted women to become rabbis, but generally they're a little more "observant" than reform Jews.

Originally, children who are born of Jewish mothers are automatically Jewish. A Jewish father alone, is not enough, and those children have to convert, bar mitzah for boys, the mikveh or ritual bath and cleansing for women. There's been a movement in reform and conservatism, especially in America, for a number of years to relax those strictures and make it easier for anyone born of either parent to be considered "a Jew." The orthodox movement referred to in the article don't want those relaxed that way.

About six months ago, the rabbis of the orthodoxy "proclaimed" that reform or conservative Jews aren't "real" Jews. Now, this was bound to offend many Americans, who made substantial contributions to the creation of the Jewish homeland. As an aside, my grandfather was a Russian immigrant. He had no place for religion, but he made many trips and contributions to Israel. I'm sure he'd have very strong feelings on this if he were alive today. Me, I think they're nuts, and no one's gonna' tell me I'm not "Jewish enough." But that's how it starts....

So the article is referring to the raging debate in Israel about what kind of state it will be. Unlike America, which was founded recognizing religious pluralism, Israel was ostensibly founded to provide a place "for Jews." Elements of religion are woven into the fabric of government by design, but only recently are the religious right coming into political power. What you're seeing is the rise of a very vocal political minority who want Israel to become an entirely religious state, and to have their secular laws governed by religious ideology. Now that I think about it, not much different from Iran or Iraq if they had their way, only Judaism instead of Islam.

What shames me, is that it appears the right wing orthodox Jewish zealots have learned nothing about what it means to be persecuted. When a minority who has been persecuted for centuries suddenly comes into political control, they should be the last to discriminate, but no, they've not learned that lesson. I've alluded to the Palestinian situation before, and that's the kind of thing I'm talking about. Failure to learn from history. Those Jews in Israel who are taking the all or nothing hard line are no different from those zealots in this country who want it their way, or no way, and to hell with everyone else. If they don't like it, they don't have to stay.

What it shows is that Israel is not immune to the kind of "intolerance" I speak about in our discussions about the "right" in our country. Same game, different name. I certainly don't have the answer for Israel, but I think what the "right" over there is doing is terribly, horribly wrong. I would hate for some orthodox Jew in control over there to say I wasn't "Jewish enough" to go there, and if I didn't like it, tough. But that's the way it looks like they're trying to go, some of them anyway.

Hope that helps explain and give some background to the article. There's a two volume book called "The Jewish Book of Why" that explains a lot of things about Judaism. If you're in a bookstore, you might want to check it out.

How's the blood pressure?

XL

Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 15:29:42 0600
To: Rob Weinberg
From: Frank Grose
Subject: Cartoon

Frank

Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 16:11:49 0600
To: Rob Weinberg
From: Frank Grose
Subject: Cartoon III

Rob,

I just found an editorial in the online edition of the Jersualem Post on the subject of intolerance. I haven't read it yet, but I'll send it along hoping it will be of interest to both of us.

Frank

www.jpost.com
Sunday, November 2, 1997 2 Heshvan 5758

Opinion ~ Some myths about tolerance
By JONATHAN ROSENBLUM

(October 31) In the furious debates over the conversion bill, the terms tolerance and pluralism have been repeated over and over again with talismanic urgency.

The mere pronunciation of these words is enough to place one on the side of the angels. Those who oppose the state of Israel putting its imprimatur on the idea that Judaism is whatever you will it to be are portrayed as hatred filled, Khomeinis in waiting who lack any concern with the unity of the Jewish people.

However, the failure to accept any belief or action as legitimate, in Jewish terms, reflects neither an indifference to Jewish unity nor a lack of love for one's fellow Jews.

Religious Jews, in fact, are perceived as "intolerant" precisely because they take Jewish unity so seriously. They know and the experience of the last 200 years makes clear that if Judaism is reduced to each individual Jew's projection of his philosophy on the cosmos, we will eventually stop viewing ourselves as one people. Search the Torah, and you will not find one word of support for the proposition: Believe whatever you want; do whatever you please; all is equally precious in God's eyes as long as you are sincere.

Religious Jews recognize that our fates are inextricably linked. The Midrash compares the Jewish people to passengers on a boat. And as the Hafetz Haim used to point out, no one would stand by apathetically while his fellow passenger blasted a hole in the hull of the boat, even if he did so in his own cabin.

Traditionally Jews have seen themselves as possessing a collective task in the world, whose optimal achievement depends on each Jew fulfilling his individual role. In other words, we are each a limb on the body of the Jewish people. As such, no Jew can remain indifferent to the atrophy of any other limb.

"Intolerance" is often an expression of love, and its opposite a sign of a lack of concern. The most loving parent, for instance, will show zero tolerance for his young child running into the street or playing with matches or for the older ones experimenting with drugs or driving 150 km.
per hour.

In the Phaedrus, Plato defines true love as seeking the perfection of the beloved. Criticism, not tolerance, is the lover's tool in bringing about that perfection.

And long before Plato, our Torah made the same point: The mitzvah to reprove one's fellow Jew is immediately followed by the command to love him as your brother. If non religious Jews today do not feel the love of their religious brethren, it is largely due to a lack of personal contact. Ask any Jew who has ever sought a Shabbat invitation to a religious family.

Anyone who does not reject the idea of truth out of hand will, of necessity, be intolerant of something. And that includes the Reform and Conservative movements. The Conservative movement does not recognize the offspring of Jewish fathers and non Jewish mothers as Jews even though the Reform movement does. The Conservative movement requires converts to undergo circumcision and immersion in a mikveh; the Reform movement does not. The Conservative movement requires a woman to receive a bill of divorce before remarrying; for the Reform a civil divorce is sufficient.

Rabbi David Feldman, one of the Conservative movement's leading scholars, recently wrote in the Forward that "the Conservative movement should have the intellectual integrity to sever ties with the Reform, whose conversions and bills of divorce we do not recognize." Many others have asked the same question: "How can we demand that the Israeli government recognize Reform conversions if we ourselves do not?"

Even among the Reform, not quite anything goes. A Cincinnati congregation was expelled from the movement a few years ago for declaring that a relationship to a Godhead is not necessary for humanistic Judaism. And a few months ago, there were protests within the local Reform movement when a Reform rabbi "married" two homosexuals. (Here one may wonder whether the objections were theoological or out of a fear of discrediting the movement in Israeli eyes. A number of Reform rabbis already solemnize homosexual relationships, and the Reform convention currently underway in Dallas seems likely to adopt a resolution calling on them to do so.)

At the other extreme are Reform rabbis who view Orthodox practice as beyond the pale. One local Reform rabbi, breathlessly featured in this paper last week, has decided that one cannot fulfill the mitzvah of prayer in a non-egalitarian minyan. According to this tyro, Rashi, Maimonides, and the Vilna Gaon never prayed.

Reform rejection of traditional practice is often tinged with a healthy dollop of contempt for Orthodox Jews themselves. Simeon Maslin, president of the Reform rabbis' union, writes that "bearded men in black caftans and women wearing sheitels... [who] pray rapidly in sing song Hebrew, pore over the Talmud in segregated yeshivot, buy their meat and fowl from glatt kosher butchers" have by "their obsession with the punctilios of ritual, their manner of dress, their romanticization of the past and, yes, their fanaticism" rendered themselves unfit to be considered authentic Jews.

The only thing distinguishing the Orthodox, it would seem, is that their dividing lines between legitimate and illegitimate are based on objective criterion and age old practice, and not the product of ad hoc intuitions.

Their standards are determined by recourse to the Written and Oral Torah, whose meaning is determined by those of proven halachic expertise. They are not dictated by the prevailing zeitgeist, as determined by polling the laity.

The writer is a Jerusalem Post columnist.

XXXIX

Date: Sun Nov 02 10:07:39 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: School Prayer Venting

At 09:52 PM 11/1/97 0600, you wrote:

The case is not about a community of neighbors, it's about government. First Amendment jurisprudence governs only what governments can and cannot do, not private citizens, neighbors or communities. This is very important. And you should read the first two lines of this paragraph a few times. It's too easy to think that cases like this are a personal attack on YOUR religion, or Christianity in general. They're not. It has nothing to do with hostility to religion in general or Christianity in particular. It has to do with permissible uses of governmental power, and in these cases "might" is not "right" merely because "the majority" happens to agree with it. It is THAT that the founding fathers were addressing in the first amendment, that is what the Puritans were escaping when they came here.

If *they* kept it between themselves and their God, it wouldn't be an issue. But they don't, so it is. The order doesn't tell private citizens, individually or in groups, not to pray. It tells government not to pray. It's a difficult concept to grasp, but keep working on it.

I can't think of any place I personally think is more inappropriate to hear prayer than at a ball game. I don't go to ball games for the religious experience of it. I go to watch people "whup up" on one another. In a private environment, if the sponsors of the game want to make a religious spectacle of it, that's fine I suppose, and I can choose to attend or not. The First Amendment has nothing to do with that. But in a government sponsored arena, it's another ball game entirely. ; ) Because, there, my government is sponsoring, promoting and endorsing religion that I don't subscribe to. Did you ever get a chance to read my memos on this?

The argument that students or the faculty should be permitted to "acknowledge" God is a red herring. Where does acknowledgment stop, and promotion, endorsement, sponsoring or establishment begin? The problem, me amigo, is that I know where the line is drawn, but that those who say they "only want to acknowledge God" don't, they never do and never will because of the "majority rules" mentality. And that's why you have situations cropping up like what happened in Pike County, over and over again.

No religion pushing, no evangelizing, no anti-Semitism!

It's not anti-Semitism. But it is pushing religion and evangelizing when they do it. Remember the early analogy about your right to throw a punch stops just before my nose? Same with religion. Your (general "you") right to practice your religion stops only when you get up in my face with it by using my tax dollars to do it.

The courts and the government just needs to stay the heck out of their business! But it is typical of the intolerance of the "left" (who hark "tolerance" out of the other side of their mouths).

Frank, that's me you're talkin' about there.... When the government sponsored pious ones learn to stay out of my face, then government and the ACLU won't need to intrude in their "business." What business is it of government to hold a prayer meeting? It's really all or none. It couldn't be more offensive to me, not because I'm Jewish. If I were a Christian and someone like Roy Moore presumed to lead me in prayer I would not help but think it was blasphemy coming from him. You have to answer that one Frank.

Were someone to take the time to do a poll on why people want prayer before games and what it means to them, they'd find (much to the disappointment of some who look for such) there is NO intent to put anyone down by it.

Good intentions pave the road to hell. I would like to be able see naked women walking down the streets expressing themselves in their natural splendor, but it offends other people whether the women INTEND to be offensive or not. That they don't intend the harm they cause, is not an answer.

We've touched on this before. There doesn't have to be active intent to discriminate before it becomes objectionable. That's why you don't have to apologize for your views with the qualifier that you're not being anti-Semitic. I don't think you're anti-Semitic merely because you think the Christian right should be permitted to pray whenever and wherever they want to, including using my tax dollars to do it. But the thought process is a not so subtle form of intolerance which can LEAD to active discrimination if not checked. "When they came for the Jews, I said nothing, for I was not a Jew...."

Your thinking is gravitating back to the "majority rules" fallback argument. The teachers in Pike County don't INTEND to hurt the little Jewish kids' feelings, but they do, by fostering an atmosphere where the minority view is ignored, tacitly belittled because it "different." It's insensitive, it's rude, it is in fact benign intolerance because the effect of it makes those who are not in the "majority" second class citizens, and encourages others to treat them that way as I've explained in the past. I cannot see how trying to protect the minority from the UNINTENDED consequences of the majority's insensitivities is intolerance. You're projecting.

Find for us a way that men like Moore can become our spiritual guide while he is holding the gavel, and yet insure that those who don't share his views are not made second class citizens, and you'll have solved the riddle of the Sphinx. But that is what this is all about. Do not rely on trite arguments like, "it wouldn't be so bad, they can ignore it if they want." Because you can't ignore it when it's in your face from men like Moore.

Sorry, I don't mean to instigate another long dialog (that we've had before). I just needed to vent a little.

It's OK... What surprises me is that some of what I think are great arguments still get lost, even though you're a very willing participant in the dialog. It's an opportunity for me to continue to explore how to get through to "the majority." Venting is fine, as long as we continue to make constructive use of it.

My patriotic soul just grieves when yet another of our hard won, long cherished....

Frank, Frank, Frank, Frank, Frank. This has nothing to do with patriotism. No offense, and I've said this before, but if the "Christian right" is appealing to your sense of patriotism, you're being used. Appeals to God, patriotism, and public opinion polls are no answer to solving the problems of intolerance that you see in the tears of a little girl.

I feel I'm very patriotic, if only because the alternatives to America don't look as good. Despite my absolute agreement with the "result" of Judge DeMent's rulings, I have a problem with the way they're drafted. In that case, the ends are good, but the means cannot be legally justified. I'm speaking as a lawyer here. I think he unintentionally overstepped. I believe in the rule of law, firmly, although God knows why, considering what I've seen, I still do. My sense of patriotism tells me DeMent's result is right, but the approach, the method, is wrong, and I intend to assist my office in getting the order straightened out, because I believe in the rule of law. I want the same result, but I want it achieved by different means.

...liberties is ripped away by some activist (tyrant) judge! One day, he too, will stand before a just God and give account for his actions.

Assuming he will stand before God, and that we'll see each other there (or maybe passing each other on our way to separate destinations), I'll bet you a dollar right now that God will welcome that judge and say "Well done. Thanks for looking out for the rest of my children, and protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority. You went a little overboard, but all things considered, you done good!" It's a good example of how our beliefs in God differ.

Judge DeMent is neither an activist, a tyrant, nor a liberal. He was a Republican Bush appointee I believe, FYI. He spent many years in the military, retired general, I think. Very no nonsense, deliberate, law-and-order kinda' guy. Former U.S. Attorney heading up the Montgomery (Middle District) Office, during (I think) the Reagan years, maybe Ford, but I could be wrong. Anyway, he's anything but an activist, (although some lawyers think he's a tyrant).

See how quick you are to label people and judge them, just because you disagree with the result in a particular case? Got to be careful not to mix your legal analysis with political preconceptions.

XXXVIII

Our Views — Clarifying the obvious

We wish we could be as optimistic as Donald Sweeney about U.S. District Judge Ira DeMent's ruling concerning religious activities in Alabama public schools.
Responding to DeMent's clear outline of what is and isn't permissible conduct for public school officials in regard to religious matters, Sweeney, an attorney who often provides legal advice to school boards, said, "No longer will well-intended persons, political or otherwise, be able to argue to our principals or educators that 'the law is not clear, or the law doesn't apply in your city or county so do what you want and what we want you to do. You won't get in trouble.'"
Unfortunately, we doubt that those who have used these arguments in the past will give up simply because another judge has stated what should have already been clear. They will continue to distort for their own political purposes what the U.S. Supreme Court, lower courts and now DeMent have ruled in regard to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and religion in public schools.
The amendment forbids government and its agents — which includes teachers and other public officials — from organizing or officially sanctioning religious activities for the students in their charge. At the same time, individual religious expressions by students may not be forbidden simply because the expressions are religious in nature. Extracurricular activities and organizations of a religious nature must be allowed on the same terms as any other extracurricular activity. Furthermore, religious texts and artwork can be used within an academic context.
These distinctions are not hard to understand. A little common sense, some historical knowledge of why religious freedom is so important and recognition that principals, teachers and other school employees hold state-granted power over students — however benignly that power may be exercised — should be all it takes for school administrators to see what they can and cannot do.
However, since there is clear evidence that administrators in some schools and school systems have not been able to make these distinctions — or have chosen not to make them because of real or perceived political pressures — DeMent's ruling serves a useful purpose. And by making it a ruling of statewide application, he had removed any excuses for school officials who violate the First Amendment's guarantees of religious freedom.

The Birmingham News/Birmingham Post-Herald, Saturday November 1, 1997

Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 21:52:03 0600
To: Rob Weinberg
From: Frank Grose
Subject: Re: Courier Editor

I read about it in the paper (or at least what someone thought was important for me to know about). If you have an electronic copy that you can share, I'd appreciate it.

...I personally agree with the result, as we've discussed generally in the past....

I thought of you when I read the article. I knew you would be pleased. Yes, we differ on this issue. I just think it is sad when a community of neighbors are ordered by outsiders to stop praying (as at ball games) if they want to. It is a thing between them and their God. No religion pushing, no evangelizing, no anti-Semitism! The courts and the government just needs to stay the heck out of their business! But it is typical of the intolerance of the "left" (who hark "tolerance" out of the other side of their mouths). Were someone to take the time to do a poll on why people want prayer before games and what it means to them, they'd find (much to the disappointment of some who look for such) there is NO intent to put anyone down by it. Sorry, I don't mean to instigate another long dialog (that we've had before). I just needed to vent a little. My patriotic soul just grieves when yet another of our hard won, long cherished liberties is ripped away by some activist (tyrant) judge! One day, he too, will stand before a just God and give account for his actions.

I'll keep my "hat" on. ; )

Regards,

Frank

XXXVII

Date: Tue Oct 21 07:37:47 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: The ACLU

Check this out:

School religion curbed—U.S. judge's 'road map' ruling targets '93 Alabama law
By Stan Bailey, David White and Frank Sikora
News staff writers
MONTGOMERY—A federal judge issued a far-reaching injunction Thursday against school-sponsored religious activities in Alabama public schools that had been carried out under a 1993 state law that he had ruled unconstitutional in March.
One school official called the ruling by U.S. District Judge Ira DeMent a "road map" for Alabama public schools to follow.
DeMent issued the injunction against the governor, the attorney general and the state Board of Education and imposed highly detailed directives on DeKalb County school officials. They had cited the 1993 law as authority for a variety of religious activities in DeKalb schools.
DeMent's ruling came in a suit by Michael Chandler, a DeKalb County teacher and assistant principal at Valley Head High School, who sought to ban religious activities in DeKalb Schools ranging from organized prayers in classrooms and at sporting events to distribution of Gideon Bibles to students.
Chandler, 47, said he is pleased with DeMent's ruling: "I hope we can get it behind us and get on with teaching the kids like we're supposed to," he said.....

The Birmingham News, Friday October 31, 1997

Judge lists do's, don'ts on religion in schools.
DeMent says state officials must obey his rules.
By Kendall Weaver
Associated Press Writer
MONTGOMERY—A federal judge Thursday gave Alabama public schools a list of do's and don'ts on prayer and other religious activity, threatening contempt proceedings if state officials disobey.
"I hope he's got their attention now," said Michael Chandler, an assistant principal in DeKalb County, who sued after citing years of coercive religious activity in school events.
The order of U.S. District Judge Ira DeMent was hailed by a school-board lawyer as a clear guideline for teachers and administrators in dealing with the issue in this Bible Belt state, where courts have rejected several school-prayer laws.
Gov. Fob James withheld comment until he has read DeMent's 40-page order. James is a school-prayer advocate who contends that the states hold legal authority concerning religious activity public places.
The judge, while spelling out the way religious freedoms can be exercised in schools, cracked down on DeKalb County educators. He ordered training sessions for faculty and administrators in that county and the appointment of a monitor to watch for violations. He also ruled that Gideon Bibles can't be passed out at the school-bus stops or thrown into school bus windows.
Chandler said that, despite DeMent's ruling last spring that struck down Alabama's 1993 school-prayer law, there were prayers at some spring commencements and over loud speakers at some football games this fall.
He said he has seen a "real belligerent attitude" over the years against federal-court orders blocking public prayers in schools. "I thought it was a real bad example for the students," Chandler said....

* * *

Federal judge's guidelines
Here are some of the key new guidelines on religious activities in Alabama public schools:
Banned
Vocal prayer, Bible devotionals, scripture readings, or distribution of religious materials in schools or on school grounds, or at commencements or school events.
School-printed baccalaureate announcements or commemorations, or school efforts to encourage attendance at such services.
Religious messages or scripture readings delivered over public address systems in schools and at sporting events.
Permitted
Educational use of religious texts in an academic context, such as part of a course of study; voluntary student expressions of religious beliefs in the form of homework, art or other appropriate assignments; student display of religious symbols, so long as students also are allowed to display non-religious symbols "with all applicable time, place and manner restrictions."
Brief expressions by students at commencement thanking God for their academic success, so long as this has not been encouraged by the school and does not invite audience response.
Student announcements over the public address system of "meetings of noncurricular religious clubs."

The Mobile Register, Friday October 31, 1997

Date: Sat Nov 01 10:09:43 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Re: Courier Editor

You've probably read about Judge DeMent's order in the DeKalb County schools case involving student led prayer. Can't tell you anymore about it right now, but the boss asked me to look at it. He has some concerns about its overbreadth, and I'm not sure I don't as well. We'll be looking at it closely in the next few days. Although I personally agree with the result, as we've discussed generally in the past, legally I'm not sure that the order is sufficiently "narrowly tailored" to the ends sought to avoid other problems and be entirely legally defensible. Keep that under your hat, but if anyone asks, you can say we're looking at it closely.

XXXVI

Date: Sun Oct 19 20:18:53 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Re: Acquaintance, Rnd 3

At 05:17 PM 10/19/97 0500, you wrote:

Racist or anti-Semitic thoughts (versus overt actions) are difficult to diagnose.

Not really, and you don't have to be paranoid to catch them. Good intentions pave the road to hell, etc., and many people who don't believe they have a racist bone in their body, often may not have looked deep enough.

If I "think" certain actions are characteristic of a group (or a significant majority of them), is that racist?

Yes. Anytime you allow yourself to indulge a generality, even a positive one, about an individual based upon his membership in a group that he had no control of being part of you run the risk.

If it is, we are all hopelessly racist.

I think we are all racists, but it's not hopeless.

To me, if I allow my preconceived notions to be modified by what I experience, that is not racism. If (the majority of) the group tends to reinforce my negative beliefs, that is not racism.

Generally true on both counts.

It is fact, based on observation and experience. If my preconceived notions are proven false, then I can modify my belief on the same grounds. The key here is to not take actions against a member of a group because of the way you feel about the group as a whole.

Yes, sometimes we have to reexamine some of the generalities though. We judge others by our own standards. You're a well traveled man, and understand through experience the concept of cultural diversity. It's natural for us as white men to view what blacks have to do to get along according to our own standards. But we often miss some critical motivational factors because we're judging what they say by our own standards. I try hard not to be a bleeding white liberal. Indeed, I often challenge racial preconceptions of my non-white acquaintances. But I'm beginning to realize I may have been making judgments without having all the facts when it comes to race.

I think where you and I may not quite have a common understanding is about things that you interpret as anti-Semitic, but are not intended to be so.

I think my only point was that "best intentions" still often hide race based preconceptions about people. We've bandied the word "anti-Semitism" about a lot, but it's race consciousness generally that I'm focusing on these days.

I tried to be conscious not to do them, but I may have done it inadvertently a few times. Am I rambling again?

No, it's a good example of how even the most innocuous thing done with no mal-intent at all can be culturally insensitive.

Public expression by individuals has always been protected, and vigorously so by people like the ACLU. It's when people with government power, as officials of the government, endorse or promote their own personal brand of religion, using the government's resources to do it, that people get hurt.

Has the "anti-Christian left" already sufficiently stifled freedom of speech, and the freedom of thought is the next objective? Dangerous ground, that course!

I assume you meant "Hasn't." And the answer is an emphatic "no." Did you catch the thing on Moore on 20/20 last Thursday night? An atheist, looked like he was in his late sixties, white man, was "invited" to leave the courtroom before the prayer that Moore's pastor led. He had to walk in front of and through a packed room full of jury venire members to leave. But he'd been summoned by court process to come and do his civic duty. And I'm sure he wanted to do it. But now he's been identified to the whole room full of people as a "non believer." Will he get on a jury? What influence as an ordinary citizen will he have in the jury room in deliberations? Will they dismiss him as a crank? In fact, what happened on a psychological level was that in order to participate and do his civic duty he's had to pass a religious qualifications test. When he walked out, he failed the test. Judge Moore just created the perfect environment for someone to be shunned for their religious (non)beliefs.

The first amendment protects the free speech and thought rights of individuals from the government. The government and its officials have no first amendment protections, because the amendment wasn't designed to protect "the government." Moore can think and say anything he wants when he's not on government time, using the state's resources my tax dollars paid for.

Oh, puh leeze.... Santa Clause, reindeer and the Easter Bunny are all fine, for the same reason Halloween paraphernalia is. Christmas trees are too. What could be more religious in origin than Thanksgiving, and yet we have turkey dolls, pilgrims, etc. In that context they don't have a religious primary significance, and are simply symbols of what has become a generic holiday season. As to Christmas trees, is that a symbol that the government is endorsing and promoting druidism? Naaahhh....

The principles of humanism (another recognized "religion") are taught as fact.

“Recognized” in a twisted sense of logic by Judge Brevard Hand in reasoning that has been rejected. You want to call evolutionary theory a religion called humanism? We're going backward here.

And New Age practices are taught to help the kids "find themselves" or learn to interact with their "spirit guides." Is religion being taught in the public schools? Absolutely! And it is promoted by the U.S. Government, as long as it isn't Christianity. Many Christians respond, not by litigation, but by home schooling their children.

Well, it's an interesting question where this "spirit guide" philosophy ends and religion begins. There've been lawsuits by prisoners who don't want to attend, as a precondition to favorable parole consideration, Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous on the basis that it's occasional references to God and frequent references to a "higher power" is a religion. They've won in a couple of federal courts and in New York and California. Personally and legally I disagree with those courts (and the ACLU). I don't think those programs promote or endorse religion. But perhaps I draw the line differently when it's not specifically identifiably denominational. I do not view "spirituality" as "religion."

But imagine what a contribution to the world we could make, if we could do it! How can we expect the world to be able to do it, if you and I, two reasonably intelligent and well-intentioned thinkers can't? Yes, it'll be difficult, but the alternative sure ain't working.

I guess what I am saying is that I know of no way to measure our progress. But, for the record, I am for world peace and peaceful relations between individuals and groups. It is the "how to achieve it" that is the philosophical bottomless pit.

Just because we don't have the answers to "how" right now, doesn't mean if we don't keep plugging away at it that we won't tomorrow. It was inconceivable to man once that he could fly. But he kept plugging away.

Agreed. Your understanding of the precepts of Christianity are correct. I just wish more "Christians" understood them that well. : (

Well, we'll just take them one at a time, eh?

“The question is -- whether you think it's realistic or not -- can it be?”

No place on earth is a perfect place. But I think America has a pretty good track record of accommodating varied religious beliefs and practices.

Well, I'd say it's better than many, if not most. But the nature of the issue is one that we must always be vigilant to ensure it remains so.

Yeah, the Mormons and some Indians may not quite agree to a great degree. At least we haven't taken lethal action against individual members, Waco excepted (but then they were under the banner of Christian, so it was okay to waste them). I didn't see the ACLU jumping to defend their liberties or screaming when they were violated. Don't misunderstand, I am not endorsing Koresh or his lifestyle, but reduced to its lowest terms, our Government attacked and destroyed a home church.

The ACLU is very concerned about the use of force in that case. The thing is, Koresh wasn't attacked BECAUSE he was running a home church. But by the same token he can not use the "church" as a shield for his criminal acts. The gov't may have botched the job, and Koresh may be a martyr to the militia and separatist mentality. It wasn't religious freedom he was exercising though.

Whether we like it or not, the Bible was a key document of influence in American law and government. As one who uses the law, you should know more about one of its foundations.

Well, they say the devil can quote scripture, and I'm sure I've been accused of that from time to time. When I read it, it'll be to learn more about the whole of western civilization, not just the USA. But ultimately I think I'm more interested in the dynamics of how man has used it well or, more often, perverted it to his own uses.

XXXV

Date: Sat Oct 18 11:35:06 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Re: Chairman of Board

At 08:57 AM 10/18/97 0500, you wrote:

I think I discovered some "truth," or something very close to it. I'll be sending it (a tape) to you. Subject: Original Intent. Hope you find it personally and professionally enlightening. Consider it my contribution to the "original intent" discussion.

We'll see. The biggest reason I'm auditing this class at AUM is to find out who the players were and what the writings involved were. I don't really care what the history professor thinks, although he serves the necessary purpose of filling in historical facts -- so and so was there, this person was not, this person grew up here, that one went to school there, this event had just taken place, that kind of thing. Since they're available, or really to the degree they're available, I intend to make my own evaluation of whether "original intent" is even ascertainable based on primary documents, not what someone else says they say, pro or con.

The next question once I've done that, is determining what relevance it has to our society and jurisprudential thought today. If the Constitution was meant to be a barebones document that was intended to evolve as circumstance and necessity dictate or suggest (not merely temporary politics), then original intent, while informative, will not be dispositive. If I have a predisposition toward a conclusion I'm looking for, it's that there was no unified original intent, as its modern proponents would argue. We'll see.

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 17:17:57 0500
To: Rob Weinberg
From: Frank Grose
Subject: Re: Acquaintance, Rnd 3

Rob,

I'm back at the office (Saturday) to work some more....

Hey, you are a government employee. You're supposed to goof off most of the time; certainly not be dedicated enough to work on such a beautiful Saturday! Of course I'm just kidding. That "government employee" stereotype has only very limited applicability, from my experience.

You know if one allows himself to be influenced by others, it tends to broaden his horizon in various directions. Don't get me wrong, I'm not ready to join Green Peace, contribute to the ACLU, or anything like that quite yet. But you have held up a few mirrors for me to examine myself in. For that, I am grateful.

Well, we may be having definitional issues again. We're not really talking about people who overtly practice anti-Semitism, but about approaches to thinking about getting along with one another that can lead to discrimination and result in anti-Semitism.

Racist or anti-Semitic thoughts (versus overt actions) are difficult to diagnose. If I "think" certain actions are characteristic of a group (or a significant majority of them), is that racist? If it is, we are all hopelessly racist. To me, if I allow my preconceived notions to be modified by what I experience, that is not racism. If (the majority of) the group tends to reinforce my negative beliefs, that is not racism. It is fact, based on observation and experience. If my preconceived notions are proven false, then I can modify my belief on the same grounds. The key here is to not take actions against a member of a group because of the way you feel about the group as a whole. There are streets in Athens that I (as a white man) wouldn't walk down alone at night. That isn't racism. If I commit an injustice toward a black person because streets with that reputation exist in Athens, that is racism.

I think where you and I may not quite have a common understanding is about things that you interpret as anti-Semitic, but are not intended to be so. I'm not sure how to define or deal with that kind of situation. When members of separate groups interact there's bound to inadvertent insults or offenses. For example, in Vietnam, if I were sitting in a room with Vietnamese, and put my leg up on my other knee (such that the bottom of my foot was toward the person to my side), that was an insult. When I got to Korea, I was advised not to express myself to a Korean by putting my hand on his shoulder (because the shoulder was where the "good spirits" dwelled, and doing this would cause them to depart). I tried to be conscious not to do them, but I may have done it inadvertently a few times. Am I rambling again?

I'm sensing a tendency that you are viewing things in the extremes here. I've certainly never said that or made a connection between ordinary belief in Christ and anti-Semitism. We're talking about the dangers of a thought system that implicitly encourages moral superiority over peoples who believe differently. There's a difference between your belief that Christ is your savior, and therefore the ONE WAY for your, and believing that he's everybody else's and they better get on board or suffer the consequences.

I am having difficulty with the fight against public expressions of one's religion (if it happens to be Christianity, because no other religion is being attacked so vigorously in America today) being justified in terms of trying to destroy a "thought system." Has the "anti-Christian left" already sufficiently stifled freedom of speech, and the freedom of thought is the next objective? Dangerous ground, that course! Let me leave that subject before I get on my soap box and not get any leaves raked. ; ) Let's remember that we should not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Lest you doubt that the move is anti-Christian, rather than anti-religious, take a drive by a local public school. (You know the place where "religion" is not to be taught?) You will find jack-o-lanterns and witches drawn and/or posted as holiday decorations. Halloween is traditionally a satanic holiday. And Satanism is accepted by the Court as a religion. The principles of humanism (another recognized "religion") are taught as fact. And New Age practices are taught to help the kids "find themselves" or learn to interact with their "spirit guides." Is religion being taught in the public schools? Absolutely! And it is promoted by the U.S. Government, as long as it isn't Christianity. Many Christians respond, not by litigation, but by home schooling their children.

Do you think the idea of a world of people getting along who have many different beliefs in God is a worthwhile pursuit? If you believe that ought to be a goal the "right" should share, then we're halfway there.

“Wow! That is a pretty tall order, kind of like setting out to eat an elephant! While the idea that a world of peace is a worthy goal on an individual, community, or national level, the reality of the world in which we live is that it is unrealistic and unachievable."

That sounds like a "no." Now you're letting the obstacles get in the way of the goal. I'll tell you this. If I didn't believe it was a goal we should pursue, no matter how realistic or achievable it appears, we wouldn't be talking at all. In fact, it has occupied much of my thoughts these days.

You misunderstood my response. I favor "working toward" world peace and good relations with folks of different groups. I do it on a personal basis whenever I can. I was commenting on that as being a goal for you and I to pursue to find a common base of understanding. I guess what I am saying is that I know of no way to measure our progress. But, for the record, I am for world peace and peaceful relations between individuals and groups. It is the "how to achieve it" that is the philosophical bottomless pit.

“Okay, I've thought about it. It has nothing to do with my ‘one way’ belief. I don't know how many ways I can say it. Being Christian is not anti-get-along with anyone. I have good neighbors and friends who aren't.”

You go off on a tangent here. And, it sounds a little defensive. Again, belief in Christ as YOUR savior doesn't automatically have to equate with anti-get along in my book. Indeed, as I understand the precepts of Christianity, it should be exactly the opposite. It doesn't have to be us against them, Pogo. And it shouldn't be.

Agreed. Your understanding of the precepts of Christianity are correct. I just wish more "Christians" understood them that well. : (

The question is, whether you think it's realistic or not, can it be?

No place on earth is a perfect place. But I think America has a pretty good track record of accommodating varied religious beliefs and practices. Yeah, the Mormons and some Indians may not quite agree to a great degree. At least we haven't taken lethal action against individual members, Waco excepted (but then they were under the banner of Christian, so it was okay to waste them). I didn't see the ACLU jumping to defend their liberties or screaming when they were violated. Don't misunderstand, I am not endorsing Koresh or his lifestyle, but reduced to its lowest terms, our Government attacked and destroyed a home church. There are a lot of tangential issues that are used to cloud the argument, but that is the main point. That is a precedent. Koresh may have been a criminal, but the action by the government was uncalled for. When I heard they were using CS gas, I knew something bad would be the result, even before the place caught fire. (No, I'm not a member of a militia group.)

“ ‘And so, on a number of different fundamental levels, although I hate to have to say “never,” I don't think I'd ever accept the premise that the Bible is the inerrant word.’

“Could you rephrase that thusly? ‘I will never accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God, unless and until, I can prove it to myself to be so.’ If you will say that, my friend, you'll get no criticism from me, and you'll have set out an achievable objective.”

I'm not sure that turnabout is better from where you stand.

It is far better! It means you will set out to prove the Bible to and for yourself. That is my objective. Hey, you are a smart guy in a very responsible position. If for no other reason, you need first hand knowledge of what the Bible says. Whether it makes a change in your personal beliefs is another matter altogether. Whether we like it or not, the Bible was a key document of influence in American law and government. As one who uses the law, you should know more about one of its foundations.

“ ‘Original intent’ will be addressed in another session. Your knowledge of history seems to have a hole here and there as well. Excuse me, but wasn't it Franklin (probably the least Christian of our founding fathers) who addressed the assembly during a hopeless deadlock and quoted Psalm 127:1, then called for a prayer (which lasted for hours)?"

Yup, that's what Franklin did, called for it anyway. That's what you do. It's what I'd do if I thought it would stop the fighting. Shame people by calling on their gods before them. What I've learned is that he was a deist. And all sorts of other things. But the fact that I can talk about God doesn't mean you can imply any sense of religiosity about me.

Franklin was a deist; no argument. Whatever his motivation, it worked. Barry Farber has a neat saying that I like, "A lot of truth is spoken through false teeth." God has used even more unlikely characters than a deist to accomplish his purposes. See 2 Peter 2:15 16 and, as Paul Harvey would say, for the "rest of the story" see Numbers 22:21 30. God is sovereign. He can do whatever he wants!

“If Washington didn't believe God responded, all those artists who painted him in prayer sure led us astray. Washington was a man of prayer!”

You are applying today's standard. In earlier times, becoming a minister was on par with becoming a doctor or lawyer. Going into politics was an honorable pursuit for those in the ministry.

We deify and romanticize our founding fathers and the important leaders of our day. Princess Diana and Mother Theresa die a week apart, and who gets the lion's share of the press for all her "good works"? That's precisely my point. Relying on the artistic or literary (or even "historical") portrayals of important or popular figures is not proof of who they really were.

Undoubtedly their legends are larger than life. Get your father to speak about his father (if deceased), and you'll probably see another example of this.

I agree with your example of how the deaths of Princess Di and Mother Teresa were played in the media. But then look at O.J.! I guess the history book writers have agendas as well. But I'm not sure it used to be this way to the extent it is now. Revisionists with a political agenda use (their interpretation of) history as a tool. I like to look for old history books in used book stores. The older the better.

XXXIV

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 08:57:23 0500
To: Rob Weinberg
From: Frank Grose
Subject: Chairman of Board

Date: Sat Oct 18 10:25:49 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Re: Acquaintance, Rnd 2

I just don't know anyone who is truly anti-Semitic.

And please don't consider being Christian and believing that acceptance of Jesus Christ as saviour is required for redemption is anti-Semitic. It is no more anti-Semitic than it is anti-black, anti-Indian, or anti-Eskimo. I'm not speaking of history. I'm speaking of now.

I'm sensing a tendency that you are viewing things in the extremes here. I've certainly never said that or made a connection between ordinary belief in Christ and anti-Semitism. We're talking about the dangers of a thought system that implicitly encourages moral superiority over peoples who believe differently. There's a difference between your belief that Christ is your savior, and therefore the ONE WAY for you, and believing that he's everybody else's and they better get on board or suffer the consequences.

“Do you think the idea of a world of people getting along who have many different beliefs in God is a worthwhile pursuit? If you believe that ought to be a goal the "right" should share, then we're halfway there.”

Wow! That is a pretty tall order, kind of like setting out to eat an elephant! While the idea that a world of peace is a worthy goal on an individual, community, or national level, the reality of the world in which we live is that it is unrealistic and unachievable.

Okay, I've thought about it. It has nothing to do with my "one way" belief. I don't know how many ways I can say it. Being Christian is not anti-get along with anyone.

You go off on a tangent here. And, it sounds a little defensive. Again, belief in Christ as YOUR savior doesn't automatically have to equate with anti-get-along in my book. Indeed, as I understand the precepts of Christianity, it should be exactly the opposite. It doesn't have to be us against them, Pogo. And it shouldn't be. The question is: whether you think it's realistic or not, can it be?

"Original intent" will be addressed in another session. Your knowledge of history seems to have a hole here and there as well. Excuse me, but wasn't it Franklin (probably the least Christian of our founding fathers) who addressed the assembly during a hopeless deadlock and quoted Psalm 127:1, then called for a prayer (which lasted for hours)?

If Washington didn't believe God responded, all those artists who painted him in prayer sure led us astray. Washington was a man of prayer!

Think about this, because I think you're making my point. Washington is "recorded" as this devout man and all that. But he was a military leader who had a commanding presence who then took on a political role. He had many foibles. I'm not knocking him. But with few exceptions, anyone who seeks those offices hasn't got spirituality on the brain. We deify and romanticize our founding fathers and the important leaders of our day. Princess Diana and Mother Theresa die a week apart, and who gets the lion's share of the press for all her "good works"? That's precisely my point. Relying on the artistic or literary (or even "historical") portrayals of important or popular figures is not proof of who they really were.

XXXIII

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 23:40:45 0500
To: Rob Weinberg
From: Frank Grose
Subject: Re: Acquaintance, Rnd 2

Overt anti-Semitism may not be as prevalent as it used to be except as you've noted. But for me, there's not much of a fine distinction between the kind of intolerance and disregard for the beliefs of others you saw in those Pike County Schools articles and overt anti-Semitism. History and experience shows it just doesn't take much to go from one to the other. That's why I, like Deputy Barney Fife, say you got to "nip it, nip it in the bud!"

I cannot fault you, or anyone of Jewish heritage, from being vigilant for such hostilities. Just be careful not to carry it to the point of paranoia. There really isn't an anti-Semite behind every tree. Believe me, I would be on your side in a heartbeat, opposing anti-Semitism (although I cannot fully appreciate being the object of it). I just don't know anyone who is truly anti-Semitic. And please don't consider being Christian and believing that acceptance of Jesus Christ as saviour is required for redemption is anti-Semitic. It is no more anti-Semitic than it is anti-black, anti-Indian, or anti-Eskimo. I'm not speaking of history. I'm speaking of now.

Do you think the idea of a world of people getting along who have many different beliefs in God is a worthwhile pursuit? If you believe that ought to be a goal the "right" should share, then we're halfway there.

Wow! That is a pretty tall order, kind of like setting out to eat an elephant! While the idea that a world of peace is a worthy goal on an individual, community, or national level, the reality of the world in which we live is that it is unrealistic and unachievable. Rob, I have stood shoulder to shoulder to North Korean troops; I've looked into their eyes. I've also seen the cold hatred in the eyes of Chinese troops. The eyes of the worst criminal you've ever seen wouldn't compare. I could feel the hatred. Regardless, I didn't hate them. Given the necessity of a situation, I would have had to kill them, but without hate.

It's easy to say "yes" to that proposed mission statement, but you have to seriously and honestly ask yourself whether that's an objective you can reconcile with your belief that there is only "One Way." Give it some serious thought, and if you have doubts, that's OK, maybe we can explore them.

Okay, I've thought about it. It has nothing to do with my "one way" belief. I don't know how many ways I can say it. Being Christian is not anti-get along with anyone. I have good neighbors and friends who aren't Christian. I have four black neighbors, some are Christian, some are not, an some I don't know their religious inclinations. I get along with all of them, and try to be a good neighbor to them. I do this for several reasons, 1) getting along with others (regardless of race, religion, or ear size) is just the way I am, 2) as a Christian, I represent Christians as a group, 3) as a white person, I represent the white race. I want my black neighbors the see the "good side" of the white race; I want them to see a Christian in a positive light. They are good neighbors to be. Race isn't a factor. I'd decline an invitation to dinner if chitlins was on the menu, but I wouldn't eat them anywhere.

XXXII

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 22:55:16 0500
To: Rob Weinberg
From: Frank Grose
Subject: Acquaintance

Rob,

I have learned a lot from you regarding the history of the Jews. I can understand why you must be vigilant in watching for hostilities. While such treatment in the past is inexcusable, I just hope that the climate, in this country at least, is not hostile. As a gentile Christian, I don't see anti-Semitism as a problem for American Jews (except for the KKK, Skinheads, etc.), but they are kooks.

Our lack of being able to find a common foundation on which to evaluate beliefs is rather frustrating. Let's make it our goal to find some basis of agreement. What are your views on Creation as found in Genesis? I know we may not share the exact same understanding of who our respective "God" is, but do you believe in a Creator? Also, do you accept the Torah as God's (Jehovah) word?

Regards,

Frank

Date: Thu Oct 16 09:59:11 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Re: Acquaintance

At 10:55 PM 10/15/97 0500, you wrote:

Our lack of being able to find a common foundation on which to evaluate beliefs is rather frustrating.

Well, I've been thinking about it a lot these days too, but don't be frustrated. That you recognize the inherent difficulties is the first major hurdle to overcome. That you want to get past it is what truly sets you apart and what makes me believe our dialog is worthwhile and potentially very productive not just for its own sake, but for future lessons we can apply.

Let's make it our goal to find some basis of agreement.

Agreed! Now, what we have to do is define our "mission statements." Think in terms of "let's put a man on the moon within this decade." (Oh, that's been done.) You get the idea. To get us started:

Do you think the idea of a world of people getting along who have many different beliefs in God is a worthwhile pursuit? I'm not being facetious. People who react negatively to the "Christian right," as I am prone to, do not believe that generally speaking the "right" shares that goal. If you believe that ought to be a goal the "right" should share, then we're halfway there.

What are your views on Creation as found in Genesis? I know we may not share the exact same understanding of who our respective "God" is, but do you believe in a Creator? Also, do you accept the Torah as God's (Jehovah) word?

Well, we know that I don't believe in the inerrant word of the Bible, whoever's version we're looking at, including the Torah. Even accepting the premise for the sake of argument that in its original (Greek? Hebrew? Aramaic?) it was divinely written, there are too many translation and compilation issues for me it accept it at face value. There are too many internal inconsistencies for it to be self-proving. So I doubt how fruitful our discussions can be on that topic. We can't have much meaningful debate on what the Bible *really* means or how to interpret it when your approach is that it's divinely written and it says what it says and I'm looking at it as fourteen levels of hearsay.

The Talmud is centuries of debate about what the lessons from the Bible really mean. It is that search for meaning that is intrinsic to Jewish scholarship (if I may generalize). Paul wrote 60 years after the death of Jesus as if he were there. Why are there multiple "the gospel according to..." in the N.T.? Shouldn't there be just one "the gospel"? I have a problem with things like that. I don't think science and evolutionary theory have to be incompatible with the genesis story, but believe (accepting for the sake of argument that God created the world) that it was written in the common metaphor of the day according to man's then-understanding of nature and the nature of things. And so, on a number of different fundamental levels, although I hate to have to say "never," I don't think I'd ever accept the premise that the Bible is the inerrant word.

We might have a shot if we began with the mutual premise that the Bible is subject to mis-interpretation because it was "recorded" by man, recognizing the limitations of its authors, the idea that they were expressing themselves in the language of the day, using concepts that were limited by their comparative lack of scientific understanding, that ours by the same token is also limited, recognizing the probabilities mis translations contribute to misinterpretation.

Look at the debate about what our founding fathers meant only a short 200 years ago, the "original intent" question. We don't have translation problems, but already we have frame of reference questions that may never be answered. The writings of Jefferson were written in the language of the day, so there *would* be references to the divine hand of God, even though Franklin, Madison, Jefferson, Washington and many others didn't believe he played a hand in current events. Concepts of "ordered liberty" were influenced if not derived from the radical (for the time) philosophical writings of men like Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau. Their "natural law" theories are not expressed in the Bible and yet Jefferson and the framers write in terms that employ the idea of intervention by God. So the language of the day, even though in English, had variations of meaning that we don't employ as readily today.

Madison himself was a central figure in the debates, yet he does not publish his extensive "Notes" until after his death, expressly because he did not want people arguing and publishing among themselves about original intent. There's a lot we'll never know about what really went on, the backroom compromises, the nighttime meetings among members with agendas, probably where the real work was done. Was Hamilton really absent as he appears, or was he working behind the scenes, and if so, to what degree?

And that's only 200 years ago. Multiply that by 10 and we have ten times the number of problems going back just to the origin of the new testament, let alone the issues of different versions, mis-translations and publication by men like King James who likely had their own agendas. Multiply those problems by 30 (6000 yrs/200 yrs. = 30) and you've got 30 times the potential problems with the meaning of the old testament.

Anyway. Didn't mean to turn that into the definitive argument about why the Bible isn't THE WORD, just to provide my frame of reference, and thoughts about the difficulty in discussing various part of it without a common or mutual approach to the topic.

XXXI

Date: Sun Nov 02 16:48:13 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Re: Cartoon

At 03:29 PM 11/2/97 0600, you wrote:

Date: Sun Nov 02 17:37:22 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Re: Cartoon III

At 04:11 PM 11/2/97 0600, you wrote:

I just found an editorial in the online edition of the Jerusalem Post on the subject of intolerance. I haven't read it yet, but I send it along hoping it will be of interest to both of us.

About six months ago, the rabbis of the orthodoxy "proclaimed" that reform or conservative Jews aren't "real" Jews. Now, this was bound to offend many Americans, who made substantial contributions to the creation of the Jewish homeland. As an aside, my grandfather was a russian immigrant. He had no place for religion, but he made many trips and contributions to israel. I'm sure he'd have very strong feelings on this if he were alive today. Me, I think they're nuts, and no one's gonna' tell me I'm not "Jewish enough." But that's how it starts....

How's the blood pressure?

XXXI

Date: Mon Oct 13 11:30:33 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Re: Birthday Greetings

Dear Frank,

As "argumentative" as my replies sometimes are, I try very hard nonetheless (not always successfully I fear) to display respect for your faith and at the same time challenge the logic of what you say. That is far easier said than done, for how do I get you to critically examine the basis and logic of your arguments without challenging your faith itself? I know that we're past qualifiers and apologies in advance, but know always that my replies are not intended to be disrespectful of your relationship with God.

I'm reminded that when I was young the question arose "if Jews were the chosen people (or something like that) then why isn't everybody Jewish?" It's as close to saying that Judaism is THE way, as we come I suppose. The answer is that Judaism is the one religion...for the Jews. What others believe or how they practice is between them and their view of God. That probably accounts for why Jews do not evangelize. But it's a valuable lesson in learning to live in a pluralistic society.

The real value, to me, of our dialog is trying to answer the question: "how do we learn to get along?" Like Rodney King said after the L.A. riots, "can't we all get along?" When I challenge you, it is in search of that answer. They're questions we, as white men, should ask ourselves not only with respect to religion, but also race and sexual relations.

The biggest problem in human miscommunication is the failure to define common terms and goals. We've seen a little of the first already. The nature of our discussions are now very susceptible of drifting into the danger zone of failure to define goals, so we should constantly remind ourselves of what those goals are (or make sure we even agree).

This is my approach to all "disputes" and how to arrive at consensus: As westerners, we have a linear approach, two points on a line. People who are trying to come to agreement bargain back and forth along the line. They may arrive in the middle, but unless that's where they wanted to be from the start, neither side is going to be happy with the result. It's what I call the Arab and Jew approach, bargaining, haggling over terms. It doesn't work, and it's the principal problem with litigation as the answer to dispute resolution.

Instead of thinking in linear terms, we should think in terms of a plane. Rather than looking for a point *between* us that we'll reluctantly accept, we should look for a point in space that we both readily agree is where we want to be, and work toward that point from our separate ends. That way, there's no give and take, just two sides striving toward a truly common goal from their own perspective.

If we go back to your original question: "What do we [Christians] do to change this attitude [by the Jews that the Christian right is the biggest threat]?" then the common goal in space we both strive for is, "how do these two cultures get along in a pluralistic society?" Obviously, the question becomes whether it's even possible, but if we can agree that that is a worthy common goal in and of itself, the "how" becomes a separate issue. "But it's just impossible," some say. To which I reply, "if you only focus on the obstacles, you'll never reach the goal." We just take the obstacles one step at a time.

Anyway, that's where I'm coming from. Got things to do and people to see. Take care. Rob

Sessions vows to fight for right to display.
By Karen MacPherson.
Birmingham Post-Herald
WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., says he won't give up his fight to win Senate approval this year of a resolution allowing the display of the Ten Commandments on government property....

Birmingham Post-Herald, Tuesday October 14, 1997

XXX

Date: Sat Oct 11 16:08:18 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Back to square one.

At 09:38 AM 10/11/97 0500, you wrote:

When I read about the Pilgrims and all the hardships they endured, and how much they relied on God to watch over them and to preserve the colony, and I think how we as a nation have become "self reliant" and are pushing God out of society, I weep for my nation.

'Course, them heathen injuns who kept the pilgrims alive didn't hurt, neither. And we sure did the right neighborly thing by them for "thanks" too. Hey, I'm not saying God didn't have a part in it, 'could'a even made sure the Indians were there, since the pilgrims sure didn't know how to take care of themselves. Blind faith, in the absence of all else, can indeed work miracles, I'll accept that. But let's give a little credit where credit is due too. Look at the Mormons and the Oregon Trail. Those people were nuts, but they got there, probably because they were nuts. But the idea that God put us in the hands of the Indians to get through those times, leads to this mentality that the land and everybody on it is just there for us to take as long as we believe in God, 'cause he put it there for us, and to hell with everybody else.

I've tried reading parts of it aloud to my family, and I break up. To see where we once were in our reliance on God to where we now are as a national society is very upsetting to me. I love my country that much. The Pilgrims saw themselves in much the same role as the Children of Israel coming to "The Promised Land."

Yeah, see above. Frank, with all due respect to your beliefs and personal affection for you, get over it. Does it not occur to you that God would want us to be as self reliant as we can be? Being self reliant does not necessarily mean we need not be thankful or grateful or give up our faith. It just means we don't have to be so clingy, and dependent on God to do for us what we can do for ourselves, and more importantly, our neighbor. How many nails have you driven for Habitat for Humanity? Made any contributions to Amnesty International lately? Do you separate your garbage between recyclables and other waste? Done any "Big Brother" work through your church for kids living in the projects? Do you check off that extra dollar on your Alabama Power bill? Spent time in a soup kitchen lately? Contributed to a shelter for battered women? Have you asked any of the homeless in Huntsville if there's anything you can do for them? This is "the message" I'd want spread if I were God.

Saying that people aren't going to church enough anymore is an easy answer, but it's misleading. Statistically, people are going the same amount as they were before, if not more. But since then, problems that used to be hidden are more visible, which is good, because it means we should be dealing with them. All the sins to you: drug and alcohol abuse, child abuse, incest, wife beating, homosexuality, theft and robbery, rape and murder. They were always there, and you're fooling yourself if you want to believe otherwise.

Now, I'll grant you that there's also something more invidious and insidious going on too. Kids are killing kids, committing heinous, atrocious crimes we'd not have dreamed of when you and I were kids. And I don't have the answer, but they're growing up in third world country conditions, right in our own backyard. We spend more on building prisons than we do on schools, when we KNOW that better schools and child care would solve a major part of the problem. (How willing would you be to vote for an increase in property taxes, double them, if it went to schools. I'd do it in a heartbeat, everyone else votes against it. How much of a sacrifice are you willing to make, to make this world a better place, like it was, or so we're told, when it was founded?)

The Europeans came to this country and they TOOK IT, by force. What he did not destroy with the diseases he carried, he simply appropriated to himself. When he ran out of room, he took some more. We made slaves out of the people who were already here, taught them to make slaves of one another (although many tribes did that already), and brought slaves ourselves. When we'd sucked the life out of the land we had, we moved westward and repeated the story over and over again. This is what God had in mind back when we were more of a God fearing nation?

And we did all this with God's assistance, or blessing. That's the moral of how our country was founded.

Like the pilgrims looking for their own promised land, we drove the Mormons out of the Ohio Valley to look for their own. The westward expansion, beginning with the flight from Europe to the Americas was always in the name of religious freedom, to escape from persecution, and no one, NO ONE, seems to be getting the big picture. And I'll tell you what's missing from the big picture. Those who take never give back, they've just taken and moved on. There's just something not very Christ-like about this scenario. If that's what it means to be a Christian nation, you may understand why I really don't care to lay claim to it.

After reading that section, take a Bible and read Deuteronomy chapter 28 and look for the parallels with our own country. It is frightening to see and to know that God is true to His word.

We're always gonna' see parallels, especially when we want to and when we're looking for them. Read your horoscope at the end of the day, and 9 times out of 10, it'll seem right on point to what happened to you that day. What makes the Bible a great work, divinely inspired or not, is that it is a compilation of universal stories, that man continues to repeat. Why? Because man refused to learn, or is incapable from learning, from the past. So the old stories always seem new. No big miracle there, man just ain't that bright.

I don't want Christianity to be an "in your face" or "you're going to hell if you don't do this" situation. I just would like to see those who happen to not believe the way I do be tolerant with those who want to continue to ask God's blessing and guidance on their lives and their endeavors.

I dunno, Frank. We seem to be going round and round on this one. Don't know if you've had a chance to read the memos I sent. It's a lie, Frank. Whoever told you that people are trying to suck God out of the system, or trying to turn the country into some godless society is lying to you. There are many, many, many, more people out there, in this country, let alone this world, who don't believe as you do. I think you're confusing the fact of their existence with some threat to your God. Nobody's out to get you or take your God from you. Period. That chicken-little-the-sky-is-falling argument carries no weight with me, it never will. It is ... a lie.

It is a tradition that has been held to since the colonial era, both in private, government, and public situations.

Believe that all you need to if that is a tenet of your faith, although why it's a necessary part of your relationship with God is beyond my grasp. You have been fed a selective view of history that scholars without an agenda are still debating. You want to go through history and pick and chose the parts that suit your arguments and your beliefs, fine. Even assuming for the sake of argument that were true, what value is it? 200+ years makes you more right and closer to your God? You can't trace your church back to colonial times. Why do you fudge history or your analysis with such an argument? Those are the same fallback arguments used by the segregationists in the 50's and 60's. They're great rhetoric for inciting passion, but they add nothing to the debate.

It is indeed troubling to see the God who established and preserved and prospered this nation now treated with such disdain by the government and society.

I just can't respond to this. What the believers of your faith (all faiths, but we're picking on Christianity generically at the moment) have done to this land itself, the people it found here, the people it brought here unwillingly, and the people who came here looking for a better place than what they left behind is a sacrilege. Particularly that they did it in the name of God or said that God was on their side while they did it.

It's just a lie, Frank. God is not treated with disdain by the ACLU’ers and their ilk (like me). It's the people who claim God gave them the right to take and destroy, to belittle, ignore and castigate in the name of THEIR God that are treated that way. It's classic transference. It's the man and his hypocrisy that's being attacked, not God. It's what he does, not what he believes, that people like me find objectionable.

As a Christian, I believe there is only one way to Heaven (That is why Judge Moore cannot invite a Buddhist to pray in his courtroom, and would lose the respect and support of Christians if he did.),

But it's OK, to lose the respect and support of the Jews, Catholics, Buddhists, Muslims, atheists, agnostics, deists, the chinese, the japanese, the blacks, the hispanics, the indians, the immigrants, etc., because (1) they're not in the majority; and (2) there's a "historic tradition" of ignoring the minority's feelings on the subject dating back to colonial days. What have I left out Frank? Why does the hypocrisy of Moore's defense not scream at you like it does at me?

See, it's Moore that's saying "my way or the highway," it's Moore who says "my way or no way at all." The highway ain't an option, 'cause this is my country too, and it was never his to begin with. That leaves "my way or no way at all." If that's the only option Moore sees, then fine. I'd rather have no way than his way. Because that's the choice he gives me. Is any of this making sense?

but I prefer to present the Gospel to others in a gentle and loving way. They must believe it to accept it. But it is always the option of those with whom it is shared to simply say, "No, thank you." That is where my responsibility ends. I don't push it.

Yes, you don't push it. You share. And while the less secure and hypersensitive of my "ilk" might see things differently, I see the distinction and applaud you for it. I've said before that Christians like you give Christianity a good name. So stop believing the lie when people like Moore tell you I'm attacking YOUR faith when I'm trying to put a stop to HIS abuses.

Come Let Us Reason Together

XLI

XL

XXXIX

XXXVIII

XXXVII

XXXVI

XXXV

XXXIV

XXXIII

XXXII

XXXI

XXXI

XXX

Subscribe Via Email

Blog Archive

United States Supreme Court Decisions

Rob's Links

Frank's Links

A Comment on Comments

About the Author