Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 00:12:46 0500
To: Rob Weinberg
From: Frank Grose
Subject: Re: HRH Chapter 2
You wrote:
When you look to the origins of specific acts of ant-Semitism, you'll find that it is rooted in intolerance of people who believe differently, and the defenseless become the scapegoats.
I can understand how (or why) you to my statement about "don't blame it on Christians." I should have been more explicit. Yes, your people have suffered greatly at the hands of "Christians" in the "name of God." Hitler was a Catholic, and has never been excommunicated. I was really speaking of folk like me who mean absolutely no harm to the Jews.
I will never accept the idea that God sends people like Hitler to shepherd his wayward flock if that is what I'm supposed to be gathering from what you say.
This may be hard for you to accept, but take a look at Jeremiah 25:9 and Habakkuk Chapter 1, especially verses 4 and 12. How can you not accept what is clearly written in the Bible? Hitler got his, as did the Caldeans in Hab 2:5 9. Those who oppose Israel will never prevail for long.
My questions are designed for us to reach a common understanding of terms we use. First things first. I've not really made any arguments.
Sorry, I didn't mean to overrun my headlights.
Yes, it is my job. But I do fight fair too. We should not consider it a contest, though. It is merely a journey we are traveling together for the moment on our own searches for truth.
Please continue to call foul when I step out of bounds. Hey, I'm a novice at this sort of thing. This is a real challenge for me. And I want to be factual. (For example, I spent over an hour finding the scripture references used a few paragraphs ago. I knew it was there, I just couldn't find the specific scriptures. I even had to call a minister friend of mine to help me out.)
Flack jacket still on? Helmet, too? Insect repellant?
Absolutely bass ackwards. The first amendment's establishment clause applies to public places, the free exercise clause protects you from government intrusion into private places of worship. What you do in private, as an individual or in a group, is your concern, as long as you're not violating some other law. It's what you do with my tax dollars to pay for your idolatry (one view by Jews of Christianity and its three part god) that concerns me.
Okay, its time for you to explain the "establishment clause" to me. Case reference would help too. (My copy of the Constitution don't have explanatory footnotes.) Any quotes from Jefferson or Madison? Shucks, I thought they just didn't want a "national religion" (meaning denomination" in today's parlance). They didn't want another "Church of England" problem. I'm I not a little right on this?
'Got news for you. My God don't need people like Moore to front for him. My God thinks he's an imbecile and the worst form of hypocrite, someone who would use God to advance his own personal political agenda. My God prefers a humble man who leads by example, not someone whose actions invite the KKK to attend (which is what happened at the rally in Montgomery). Mine is a God of love and compassion and tolerance and understanding, his is a jealous god who can justify all forms of tyranny, intolerance and abuse as long as it's done in the name of God.
Now cool down, take a long deep breath. Slip low into the foxhole. This may be a "Danger Close" mission, as they would say in the artillery. You are using terms like "my God" and "his God" without defining the terms. You must have been listening to liberals spout stuff like that. True or false: Wasn't other judges in Gadsden having prayer in their courtrooms before the stuff it the fan? Judge Moore didn't cave to pressure from the ACLU. And if you don't know Judge Moore's response when he learned that someone who'd been invited was a KKK member, you owe it to yourself (and everyone else that you relate this example to) to find out and tell the FULL STORY, not just the part that serves your agenda. Judge Moore is doing nothing more than asking for the God he believes in to give wisdom and guidance to those who must make decisions regarding the life of other people. I commend him for that. He isn't preaching or giving an alter call. Congress opens with prayer. He isn't threaten anyone nor are his actions threatening to anyone. It is part of a nation wide push to rid the U.S. of all vestiges of Christianity. Yes, I think I can identify with anti-Semitism. I can feel it by another label, anti-Christian. And with your experience with anti-Semitism, I really don't understand your allying yourself with them. Don't you see that they'd just as soon turn on the Jews? Talk about intolerance!!! One judge in a little town in Alabama is no threat to anyone. He is being cast as a modern day Daniel, and look who is against him!
To answer your question, "prohibit the free exercise thereof" is simple enough. The Mormons believed in bigamy, certain American Indians believe in ingesting peyote as part of their religious ceremonies. The courts have held that the government has the right to regulate such actions, as it does with church services that violate noise ordinances or animal sacrifices by groups that believe in Santeria.
No problem with that. But the simple act of saying a prayer to one's God is suddenly in the 90's a big deal. Sorry, those examples just aren't germane here. They are in no way in the same category.
No one's prohibiting Moore from exercising his religion. That's his BIG LIE. What he does as an individual is protected under the "free exercise" clause. What Moore does as a state official is not protected, but is regulated by the "establishment" clause. See the difference between official and individual actions?
I believe I understand the difference. Good thing we didn't have the ACLU around when Washington was running things. I understand he was a praying man too. This "new" interpretation of the First Amendment is fallacious. I believe if you research it thoroughly, you'd prove that to yourself.
What people object to is his use of government resources to summon and subpoena jurors and witnesses, to compel people to attend a place of government for the purpose (one the side) of promoting his brand of religion. I don't believe in his God and I resent like hell the idea that if I don't like it, I can wait outside in the hall while the business of government goes on without me, particularly if I was summoned there in the first place.
You know that very few have objected, especially until the ACLU got involved. Where is their tolerance? If I were on the jury, I'd appreciate such a prayer. Why should I be denied? Tolerance is a cheap shot used by liberals with an agenda. Those who hark that are some of the most intolerant.
The bumper sticker sloganists say "Save the Commandments." From whom? They don't need saving, they're not in jeopardy, except from scribes and pharisees like Moore.
Careful. Name calling is a principal tactic of Democrats and liberals. And I don't think you fit well in either category.
Okay. All clear. You can come out of the hole now. The barrage is over. Hope you got no wounds.
Sorry about the little diatribe. You must have been tired when you wrote that and I know it pushed some buttons with me. This is not a contest of words or ideas.
Now look what you made me do! You led me into a Roy Moore discussion before I had my case complete. Good work, counselor. You are good! ; ) Are we still friends?
Frank, I really think you're intellectualizing here. You say you would accept it, but I think that may be because you've never had your little girl come home to you in tears because her parents raised her to believe differently than those in control or the majority at school.
No, I wasn't intellectualizing. I was trying to answer you as honestly as I could. Having never walked a mile in those shoes, I can't say for certain how I would feel or what I would do. I didn't say I'd like the situation, but I'd have to be "tolerant." That truly is a sad situation. I hope it gets satisfactorily resolved.
Thank you. Now, the fact that you CAN accommodate the situation personally (as do I) isn't the same thing as saying you SHOULD HAVE TO in a perfect world.
There will be no "perfect world" as long as man runs it. Some, like Hitler, have tried to make it perfect, but their definitions of perfect were screwed up. Personally, I prefer freedom more than perfection.
Some might even say that's mighty Christian of me, too, eh? ; )
You're coming around. : ) All you need are a few more Christian friends like me!
All Rights Reserved
0 comments:
Post a Comment