Date: Wed Nov 05 08:06:49 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Re: Team Effort
At 11:41 PM 11/4/97 0600, you wrote:
This must be an answer to prayer! The above is the most welcomed thing you've said in any of our dialogs.
You Christians! There you go bringing prayers into it! ; ) Seriously, it wouldn't have been possible if you didn't have an edge and willingness to engage in the DIALOG as opposed to pontificating arguments already. And truthfully, it's where I've been trying to get us to since the start. I had a hunch we could get there, or at least, always think it's worth the effort.
It is not so much "government" that is hostile to religion (specifically Christianity), but the judiciary (that is being used by the ACLU).
We should probably be keeping a separate pad for the "questions" we pose one another. Not sure when I'll get to it, but if I get a chance I'll see if I can't do a rough outline.
The first question posed from the left is "Is the Christian right a threat to tolerance?" or something like that. The question from the right is "Is the government hostile to religion?" Trying to answer those questions we can get bogged down in the endless debate again, but we still need to try to the extent that we're working toward the conclusion "what role can there be for religion in governmental affairs?"
Yes, I would like to see a situation where those in government (somewhat a stretch to classify principals and teachers in that category, if you ask me) be ...
Ah....but see, it's not a stretch for me. Discussing this issue goes to the question of the definition of the meaning of "threat" in the first question about what exactly is the "harm" to non-Christians if Christians exercise their right to religion under the auspices of the government. This is an important point for "my side" to get "your side" to come to understand.
...able to acknowledge their God and make religious expressions. The reason you are seeing so much reaction from the right, is that the perception is that our freedom of religion is being taken away, piece by piece. (And looking at the last 35 years of history, one could conclude that is the plan.)
I disagree with the validity of the perception (except with Thursday's anomaly from Judge DeMent). And recent Supreme Court jurisprudence suggests a trend that is more middle of the road. So, that's another line in the outline, a sub-part of the "hostile" question. Identifying whether and how the courts have taken away the freedoms, in what contexts, actual factual analysis of the truth of the claim that your personal religious freedoms are being infringed.
Unfortunately, back in the 60's and 70's the Christians were silent.
Scholars of church history would suggest otherwise, and would suggest that in those times, the majority of Christians were in agreement with the principles outlined in the cases, because, the argument goes, they saw how it protected them.
Also, what you're seeing recently is more, it can be argued, a reflection of a new vocal minority (the Christian right) who is only now finding its political voice. From where I sit, the call of the "right" for a return to traditional values, etc. is misleading, it misperceives where we actually are today in terms of spirituality as a nation, where we were before in comparison, and calls for a return to a time that never was. Some of the books I told you about last months may help me address the truth of these claims, but I've not had a chance to get into them. Great intentions.... and all that...
Okay, let's get started. I define it as man trying to reconcile himself to God (or a god, or some higher state of being). It takes on many ceremonial and ritualistic practices. For the sake of keeping the discussion between the ditches, let's confine our definition of religion to the principal religions of Judaism, Christianity, Catholicism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. While they are recognized by government and the courts, let's not consider Humanism, New Age, Satanism, etc. as religions, for the purpose of our discussion. At the appropriate time, we may throw them into the mix, but not initially.
I agree with this approach generally. Let's keep it simple. Interesting how you mention Christianity and Catholicism, alone as separate religions. Freudian slip? It does suggest to me however that we need to bear in mind the plurality of faiths that believe in Jesus as the Christ, because there are hosts and hosts of "Christians" who do not believe as you do on these questions. Nationally, you are, in fact, in a small, but very vocal, minority.
Also, there isn't actually any religion called "Humanism." That's something coined for Judge Brevard Hand to define people who think creationism should not be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution theory. It's a misnomer from the right. I only mention that since our discussion will likely take us into the realm of what to do about teaching evolution and creation in the schools.
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 14:36:03
To: Rob Weinberg
From: Frank Grose
Subject: The Pray Fray
Rob,
Thanks for the heads up on the escalation of the prayer issue. I'm afraid I agree with you regarding a coming confrontation. Considering the status of his own case, the wisdom of Judge Moore in getting involved is perhaps unwise.
The AP article carried some rather positive statements from the Governor as well. Being an assistant (or is it THE assistant) Attorney General, and holding the convictions about such issues as you do, how would/could you defend him? Would defending him not be part of your job description?
All Rights Reserved
0 comments:
Post a Comment