Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 13:19:21 0600
From: Frank Grose
To: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Re: Night Off
Rob,
For now I only have time to acknowledge the receipt of a very welcomed message from you. There is much in it to which I'm eager to respond. Time will only permit a brief response to a couple of points.
Switching gears, it occurs to me just this a.m. what a serious disadvantage you've been at, not having read the cases "in the original" as it were. There's generally been a lot of hysteria and hyperbole about what the Supreme Court said and did in those cases from the 60's forward. I've been reacting to what you say with what I've read in the original as opposed to what you've been *taught*, as though we were on level playing field. In order for us to objectively discuss the issue, you really need to read "the source." People learn at their own pace (as I'm doing with the Bible), so you tell me what cases you're most interested in reading, and I'll get them to you.
Thank you for acknowledging the above. I recognize that you have advantages over me in many areas related to this discussion, your legal training and professional talents, access to court cases, and years of dealing with the finer (legal) points of the SOCS issue, to name only a few. I have relied on Barton and a few other sources (that seemed to be credible) for most of my information. (I do carefully evaluate the credibility of authors and look for source documentation in their work.) If going flying, I always conducted a preflight inspection of the aircraft, including even such simple things as opening the fuel tank caps and physically the fuel levels. I periodically test fired my weapons to ensure the weapon and the ammunition were genuine. I wanted to make sure my "tools" was up to the task. I regard information (and its sources) in much the same way, be it of a political, technical, or religious nature. The last thing I want to find out when I get in a firefight is that my ammo is blank.
Here's another thought I had this a.m. How would you *feel* about the legality of a state law requiring the posting of a crucifix and depiction of Jesus in every classroom above the blackboard on the wall behind where the teacher stands? Include in the law a requirement that the state and national flags should also be prominently displayed in each classroom at each corner of the room on that wall. Without regard to what the Supreme Court has said, *should* such a law be legal? Knowing there will be the occasional Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, atheist, agnostic in those rooms, does that make a difference to you? Would it make a difference if you were the Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, etc.?
I would be opposed to such a law for several reasons. (Even though I suspect that is a loaded question, I'm going to tell you just how I feel.) A law requiring a depiction of Jesus in every classroom would be promoting the Christian religion. A crucifix would be indicative of a Catholic influence (since the Christian cross is empty). I would be in favor of the national flag (and pledging allegiance to it) since such would tend to engender nationalistic pride. I don't have any strong feelings about the state flag(s), I suppose. Never thought much about it, I guess. I would object to teachers not being allowed to display the state flag, however (because of what current meaning some may attach to some historical meaning of it). State flags with symbology of the Confederate era are the only example that come to mind. Clearly, in a pluralistic society as we have, our roots are diverse. Those with ancestors who were on the opposite side that flag represented at some point in history may find it objectionable, such as Chicanos in Texas. However, it IS the state flag, and resident of the state should recognize it for what is presently represents. The same could be said for the national flag (by Japanese, Germans, etc.). You may well take issue with the next. Immigrants who came to America (after we were a nation), came knowing and accepting that the predominant religion was (broadly Christian), and that our government was founded upon biblical principals. I haven't check the casualty list, but I'd be surprised to find many Muslims and Buddhists among them, especially lists from our earlier wars of independence. Therefore, speaking very broadly again, The United States was primarily a WASP nation. But with our generosity and good will toward people of other less fortunate countries, we opened our borders and put out the welcome mat. Now for these same people to want to change this nation (yes my nation), gets under my patriotic skin. Were I to immigrate to a Muslim country, I would expect to go in and try, legally or otherwise, to make it non Muslim. I was in Korea in the early 80's. They were even then preparing for the 88 Olympics. I saw many areas of forced "westernization" by the government. Sadly, it eroded some of the uniqueness and national beauty of the Korean culture as a result. Back to your classroom. Were I to be in an area of this country that was predominately Muslim or Buddhist, and went to a school where most of the teachers and students were of that belief, I honestly don't think I would be offended or even mind them exercising their religion. I would not be offended if individuals shared their beliefs with me, but for the school to promote that religion and try to convert me in the process, is where I would object. (I can easily distinguish between exercising and promoting, and that is the point that you and I can't seem to reach an understanding on.) As long as they weren't promoting, I wouldn't object. Would it make a difference if I were non-Christian? I honestly don't think so. The atheist and agnostic are in a little different category since they have no professed religion, per se. Hopefully enough of whatever religion was being EXERCISED would cause them to get interested enough to consider their position. I guess, to me, any religion is better than no religion (in that most recognized real religions have some organized and respected set of rules for living) at all. Of course, I, like each individual, thinks his respective religion in "the right" religion. If I didn't think mine was better, I'd switch.
My denomination, (I was wondering how long it would take you to get around to asking. ; ) I deliberately didn't tell you voluntarily.)? I am Assembly of God. You can rightfully call me fundamentalist and evangelistic.
You pose some very interesting questions. I'm compelled by them, as well. But I need more time to consider (and research) my answer to the others. I'm hooked on this dialog also. Thanks for being there. : )
Regards,
Frank
All Rights Reserved
0 comments:
Post a Comment