Come Let Us Reason Together

XXIX

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 09:38:44 0500
To: Rob Weinberg
From: Frank Grose
Subject: Re: Birthdays

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. 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."

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. Now read 2 Chronicles 7:14. I think you can get a better understanding of where I am when I see the erosion of religious freedom in our country. That means prayer (without coercion or any negative connotations to those who may not believe in Jehovah God) in the schools, in the courtroom, or where ever. 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. It is a tradition that has been held to since the colonial era, both in private, government, and public situations. 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. Reading the OT, one marvels at how the Israelites would go from serving God (who performed miracles before their eyes) could fall away so quickly into idolatry. Their cycle was about 400 years. We've done it in less than 200!

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 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.

XXVIII ~ Memo ~ Original Intent & the First Amendment

Date: Wed Oct 08 09:12:22 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg

Frank,

Here is the second of the two memos I wrote nearly ten years ago.

Attachment: original.intent.wpd

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Don Siegelman, Attorney General
FROM: Robert M. Weinberg, Assistant Attorney General
DATE: September 25, 1989

RE: Original Intent and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

This memo is in response to specific questions you've raised following my earlier August 31 memo on prayer in public schools and institutions. You've asked the following questions:

1. What did the original framers of the constitution intend the Establishment Clause to mean?

2. What kind of prayer is allowed?

3. Can this issue (of state sponsored or endorsed prayer) be reconsidered by the Supreme Court on the issue of original intent.

The quick answer is that original intent is of little utility in determining constitutional questions, that no prayer is allowed; and that it is highly unlikely the Supreme Court would give much weight to an original intent argument the next time it has an opportunity to hear a case involving the separation of church and state. I'll try to answer question two briefly first; questions one and three are considered together.

The only kind of state or publicly sponsored prayer which the Supreme Court has upheld is legislative invocations, i.e., religious invocations which precede the commencement of a legislative session or day. See Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) which suggests that prayer might have been acceptable because of longstanding tradition and the fact that the legislative body is composed of adults as opposed to children, an argument that the violation is somehow de minimis. Some circuits have attempted to use this case to fashion a new test of when prayer may be constitutionally acceptable at a state sponsored event such as graduation ceremonies. However, this case is an exception to ordinary Establishment Clause analyses and, as I've indicated earlier, has not been cited by the Supreme Court in subsequent cases as authority for any new kind of test based on "tradition," "historical significance," or de minimis injury.

In Marsh and other cases the Supreme Court has acknowledged that the use of such phrases as "God save the United States and this Honorable Court," which opens judicial sessions in the federal courts, and "In God We Trust," and "One Nation Under God" may ring unconstitutional, but have dismissed the argument on the grounds that the use of such invocations has, over time, lost all religious significance. Marsh, 463 U.S. at 818 (Brennan, J., dissenting). Thus, the only kind of prayer which is allowed would be prayer which has no religious value, if such a thing could be imagined.

It would be easier to answer the question "what kind of prayer is allowed?" if I knew specifically when, where, and why the person asking wanted to pray. I simply can't think of a hypothetical example of permissible state sponsored or endorsed prayer, or prayer at a state sponsored event or institution. Prayer is religion, or an integral part of most religions (interestingly, some religions do not include the institution of prayer, id. at 819 n.40). By definition, prayer serves no secular purpose, and state sponsored or endorsed prayer is, per se, a violation of the first amendment.

This does not mean that individuals can not pray while they are in school. It has jokingly been observed that students pray all the time in school, particularly around exam time. I'm sure a number of high school football players and fans do too before and during football games without the benefit or necessity of being led in religious invocation by the state.

But there are simply no exceptions to the rule that I've been able to find; and while it has been argued that certain "prayers" are so brief or content neutral as to present only a de minimis or negligible injury to those who object, such arguments have been soundly rejected, in both the 11th Circuit and the Supreme Court. And it is no answer to those who do not wish to pray or be subject to state sponsored prayer (even non denominational) — and frankly it is an insult and an affront to the religious dignity and individual conscious of those who do object that they don't have to listen or participate if they don't want to. It is a harsh rule, perhaps, but because it is designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, a rule which suggests no compromise.

There are a number of problems with "original intent" arguments. I read a few law review articles on the subject; it's a running debate among scholars and historians. You might recall that Robert Bork got scorched by the Senate Judiciary committee during his nomination to the Supreme Court for some of his views on original intent and the scope of the Constitution's protections as envisioned by the framers.

The first problem is that no one knows exactly what the framers intended because there's no formal legislative history available. While James Madison did keep records of the proceedings it is said that he jealously guarded his notes precisely because he didn't want later court cases delving into original intent. Although there is discussion and speculation about what the framers intended in the cases, original intent has not been the basis of the Court's rulings, even where, for instance, legislative invocations have been upheld as in Marsh. Rather, the Court carved out a one time exception based on "unique history" and established practice, and discussed, but did not rely on original intent.

Both Madison and Thomas Jefferson in writings subsequent to the ratification of the first amendment were adamant in maintaining the wall of separation between church and state, neither saw any room for compromise. See Marsh 463 U.S. at 807 (Brennan, J., dissenting). Madison later wrote that he believed that the bill authorizing payment for the office of chaplain for Congress, which I referred to in the first memo, to be unconstitutional, although he had originally voted for it. Interestingly, that Madison originally voted the way he did appears to be one of the factors the Supreme Court gave some weight to in upholding legislative prayer, although the Court ignores Madison's later thinking on the subject.

Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson both refused to declare national days of thanksgiving while they were president because they believed it to be a violation of the Establishment Clause. There is probably considerably more authority for the proposition that the original framers intended the prohibition on church and state to be absolute than there is to the contrary.

Another problem in original intent analysis of the constitution is whose intent you look to. Is it really the intent of the individual framers of the constitution that we are considering, or do we try to determine the original intent of the ratifying states and their legislatures? Id. at 815. The question becomes not what the framers intended the first amendment to mean, but what the states understood they were ratifying. Courts are quick to point out that the Constitution is a living document, and will not be bound by arguments of what the framers might have been thinking, certainly when they couldn't have anticipated a problem like, for example, prayer at public football games.

Another wrinkle: Until the fourteenth amendment was passed, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government; and it was not, I believe, until the 1940's that the first amendment was found applicable to the states. So we may be looking at another tier of analysis, i.e., what did the states believe or understand the effect of applying the first amendment to the states to be when the fourteenth amendment was ratified. Even as conservative as the Supreme Court has become recently, there won't be much room for "original intent" argument in first amendment cases. Constitutional cases simply have a life of their own wholly independent from legislative history. I recall hearing once that Justice Antonin Scalia says he doesn't care at all about what the record of the intent of the legislature is in deciding cases of statutory construction. Although it is tempting for some to criticize the Court with arguments about original intent, I can not recall a case of constitutional significance which has ever been decided on that basis.

To recap, the framers original intent is (1) probably irrelevant to the analysis in constitutional cases, and (2) to the extent it is relevant, probably wholly supports the Supreme Court's absolute prohibition on church and state. The Establishment Clause is a tough rule, but one couched in absolute terms: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..." Should anyone take issue with it, I would recommend they see about amending the Constitution.

XXVII ~ Memo ~ Prayer in Public Schools and Institutions

Date: Wed Oct 08 09:11:22 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg

Frank,

Here is the first of the two memos I referred to that I wrote nearly ten years ago. The law hasn't changed.

Attachment: school.prayer.wpd;

M-E-M-O-R-A-N-D-U-M

TO: Don Siegelman, Attorney General
Walter S. Turner, Chief Assistant Attorney General

FROM: Robert M. Weinberg, Assistant Attorney General

DATE: August 31, 1989

RE: Prayer in Public Schools and Institutions

In Jager v. Douglas County School District, 862 F.2d 824 (11th Cir. 1989), the Eleventh Circuit held that a Georgia high school's practice of having religious invocations delivered prior to public high school games violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court denied certiorari. Arguments presented by the school district such as the fact that attendance at the games was voluntary; that the prayer or invocation was essentially non-sectarian (i.e., denominationally neutral); and that it occurred outside the classroom setting were all rejected by the Eleventh Circuit.

The primary question is whether state action appears to have the purpose, intent or effect of endorsing religion or a theistic belief system at all, and whether there is any secular purpose which can not be achieved by other than religious means. Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 585 (1987); Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 at 56 (1985); Jager, 862 F.2d at 830; cf. County of Allegheny v. Greater Pittsburgh A.C.L.U., ___U.S.___ (Decided July 3, 1989) (deciding constitutionality of city-county displayed creche and menorah during Christmas-Hanukkah season). The question is not whether one religion is established over another or to the exclusion of others, but whether any religious belief system is fostered or endorsed through state or governmental action. Jaffree, 472 U.S. at 52-53.

Governments are constitutionally mandated to "pursue a course of complete neutrality toward religion." Jaffree, 472 U.S. at 60. In the context of public schools, the courts have been "particularly vigilant" in enforcing the Establishment Clause. Edwards, 482 U.S. at 583-584. The fact that a prayer or invocation sponsored or endorsed through state action is denominationally neutral and voluntary is irrelevant and will not be enough to "free it from the limitations of the Establishment Clause...." Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 430 (1962), so long as the action is void of a secular purpose, and has the purpose or effect of endorsing religion.

Alabama statutes pertaining to periods of silence for meditation or voluntary prayer such as Code of Alabama, 1975, §16-1-20.1, and officially written or sponsored prayers such as Code of Alabama, 1975, §16-1-20.2 have been held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985). What may be unclear is whether school sponsored moments of silence which do not invoke religious sentiment will similarly be held unconstitutional.

Alabama does have a "moment of silence for meditation" law which is still on the books, see Code of Alabama, 1975, §16-1-20, but that may be only because it has not been challenged fully in the courts. Jaffree, 472 U.S. at 40 n.1. In other circuits, nearly identical laws and practices have been struck down. See e.g., May v. Cooperman, 780 F.2d 240 (3rd Cir. 1985), appeal dismissed sub. nom. Karcher v. May, 98 L.Ed.2d 327 (1987).

Arguably, pre-game invocations may have valid secular purposes such as to raise school spirit, sense of community pride, sportsmanship, patriotism, etc. But these purposes can be achieved in ways other than by invoking the blessings of any deity. Cf., County of Allegheny, slip op. at 41. ("The absence of a more secular alternative symbol is itself part of the context in which the city's actions must be judged...."). Thus, a pre-game warm up speech, or call for sportsmanship and a recitation of secular values such as honesty and fair play, hard work and patriotism is constitutionally acceptable so long as an invocation of religious belief is not the means whereby the message is conveyed. See, e.g., Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980); and see, Jager, 862 F.2d at 830.

Even where valid secular purposes are articulated, the courts will ask "whether, irrespective of government's actual purpose, the practice under review in fact conveys a message of endorsement or disapproval [of religion]." Jaffree, 472 U.S. at 56 n. 42; Jager, 862 at 831; see also, Lynch v.Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 at 690 (1984) (O'Connor, J., concurring). This is known as the "effects" test. If the state or government sponsored activity has the effect of endorsing religious beliefs, even if a valid secular purpose is recognized, it can not pass constitutional muster. Smith v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 827 F.2d 684, 690 (11th Cir. 1987).

It is irrelevant who owns the property upon which the alleged violation of the Establishment Clause occurs. The focus is not on the ownership (e.g., use of a city facility for a county high school football game); rather the focus is on the sponsorship of the event or activity. See, Jager, 862 F.2d at 831. Thus, last week when City of Montgomery Mayor Emory Folmar recited a prayer prior to the commencement of a county high school football game, the fact that it occurred on city property will not be available to the school board as a defense to a lawsuit challenging high school pre-game invocations. Indeed, the mayor's participation may be viewed by the court, depending upon the proof, as city endorsement of religion subjecting the city itself to liability. Because the city and county of Montgomery share one school system, it is quite likely that a federal court could find the city, as well as the county and school board, in violation of the Establishment Clause.

Furthermore, to persons of any age who do not believe in prayer, religious invocations ... convey the message that the state endorses religions believing in prayer and denigrates those religions that do not. If these prayers are delivered by authority figures, such as teachers [or the mayor],... the message endorsing prayer becomes even stronger.

Jager, 862 F.2d at 832.

As an aside it should be noted that state and local governments are not alone in having their actions or statutes challenged under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The federal government has also been subject to constitutional challenges on the basis that a particular statute, practice or public benefit has the purpose or effect of endorsing religion. See e.g., Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. ___, 101 L.Ed.2d 520 (1988).

There do appear to be exceptions to the general prohibition on theistic invocations recognized by the Supreme Court either in answer to specific challenges, or acknowledged in dicta. For example, the Court has held that the practice of state legislatures of opening each legislative day with a non-sectarian prayer led by a chaplain who is paid by the state is not violative of the first amendment prohibition on the establishment of religion. Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983).

To invoke Divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not, in these circumstances, an "establishment" of religion or a step toward establishment; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country.

Marsh, 463 U.S. at 792. Construing Congressional intent, the Court noted that during the same week that Congress approved the final version of the First Amendment for adoption by the states, it also passed a bill authorizing payment from the federal treasury for the services of a chaplain. Id., at 790-791.

The holding in Marsh however, premised upon two hundred years of "unique" historical tradition is of limited applicability in the context of school prayer and other types of Establishment Clause cases, and has not been cited by the Court as dispositive or authoritative in any of its subsequent cases. See, Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh A.C.L.U., slip op. at 26 n. 52:

It is worth noting that just because Marsh sustained the validity of legislative prayer, it does not necessarily follow that practices like proclaiming a National Day of Prayer are constitutional... Legislative prayer does not urge citizens to engage in religious practices, and on that basis could well be distinguishable from an exhortation from government to the people that they engage in religious conduct.

The Court has also acknowledged and distinguished what seem to be obvious inconsistencies between the holdings in various of its cases and other "accepted" practices of theistic invocation such as the printing of "In God We Trust" on United States currency, and the official proclamation of Thanksgiving, including its religious significance as a national holiday, see Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. at 674-678. Federal courts and the United States Supreme Court open court sessions with "God save the United States and this honorable court," Lynch, 465 U.S. at 693 (O'Connor, J., concurring); and the Declaration of Independence and our country's national anthem contain references to God, Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. at 435, n.21; as does, by statute, the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, Lynch, 466 U.S. 716 (Brennan, J., joined by Marshall and Blackmun, JJ., dissenting).

Other examples, surely, abound, but it has been held, or at least tendered, that these forms of "ceremonial" invocation of deism in fact serve a secular purpose, one of inspiring national commitment to meet a common challenge, patriotism and a sense of common tradition, or of solemnizing public occasions, as opposed to endorsing religious faith. Id. While the Court may or may not be able to explain such discrepancies to the satisfaction of all its detractors, it has consistently held state government to the strictest scrutiny when it comes to the public education of our nation's youth:

Families entrust public schools with the education of their children, but condition their trust on the understanding that the classroom will not purposely be used to advance religious views that may conflict with the private beliefs of the student and his or her family. Students in such institutions are impressionable and their attendance is involuntary... The State exerts great authority and coercive power through mandatory attendance requirements, and because of the students' emulation of teachers as role models and the children's susceptibility to peer pressure... Furthermore, "[t]he public school is at once the symbol of our democracy and the most pervasive means for promoting our common destiny. In no activity of the State is it more vital to keep out divisive forces than in its schools...."

Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. at 584 (citations omitted). The cases construing the Establishment Clause seek to avoid the conflict and divisiveness inherent in persons of different religious, including non-religious, beliefs; not to stifle the free expression of individual religious belief as the detractors of these decisions would argue.

CONCLUSION

Our country was founded by people who knew, firsthand, religious persecution, and what it meant to have unwelcome religious doctrine forced upon them unwillingly. Some of the most ardent supporters of the First Amendment were also the most deeply religious of our founding fathers.

These men knew that the First Amendment, which tried to put an end to governmental control of religion and of prayer, was not written to destroy either. They knew rather that it was written to quiet well-justified fears which nearly all of them felt arising out of an awareness that governments of the past had shackled men's tongues to make them speak only the religious thought that government wanted them to speak and to pray only to the God that government wanted them to pray to. It is neither sacrilegious nor antireligious to say that each separate government in this country should stay out of the business of writing or sanctioning official prayers and leave that purely religious function to the people themselves and to those the people choose to look to for religious guidance.

Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 435. The Establishment Clause may not be popular with the majority in this country, but then, the majority does not need its protections.

XXVI

Date: Wed Oct 08 09:09:22 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Re: HRH Chapter 2

Attachments:
C:\MyFiles\memos\school.prayer.wpd;
C:\MyFiles\memos\original.intent.wpd;

At 12:12 AM 10/8/97 0500, you wrote:

I was really speaking of folk like me who mean absolutely no harm to the Jews.

Sometimes not meaning harm isn't enough. You ever hear this one? A quote from Martin Niemoller, a pastor in the German Confessing Church who spent eight and one half years in a Nazi concentration camp. He wrote:

First they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the Socialists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Or here's an interesting variation:

First they stole the fourth amendment.
I said nothing because I don't deal drugs.
Then they took the sixth amendment.
I was silent because I know I'm not guilty.
When they came for the second amendment,
I kept quiet because I don't own a gun.
Now they've come for the first amendment,
and I can't say anything at all.

~ M. Pablo

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 not a little right on this?

I'm attaching two memos that I wrote in 1989 to then attorney general Don Siegelman that may give some direction. Read school.prayer.wpd first, then original.intent.wpd.

Well, I would say "my God as I understand him" and "his God" as I understand him saying it is.

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?

True. Now, true or false: two wrongs make a right.

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.

Oh, but I do know his response and was careful in the way I worded it to say that his "actions" invited the KKK. And of course, you know how about him being on a white supremacist radio call in show too, although he later denied knowing that was what he was doing. Now, I don't have to say either of those make him a racist or an anti-Semite. My point was: look at the kind of "whackos" (a term we've defined and agree on) that his kind of pontificating attracts. That's great for getting him elected, but I don't think it's very healthy for human or race relations.

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.

Congress is different, and an anomaly for reasons addressed in the memos. The church history minor I was talking to yesterday agreed generally with what you said. His problem was that Moore said he would exclude non-Christians from being invited, because we're "a Christian nation." What next, only Baptist preachers, because Etowah County is historically and majority Baptist? It's a slippery slope, as they say.

He isn't a threaten to 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!

Do not ever believe there is a nationwide push to rid the country of Christianity. That's Christian right propaganda.

I've been thinking about this phrase "Christian right." By definition it is a political movement (which is fine) in the garb of religion (and its attendant moral superiority stuff). Politics with the moral force of God behind them. Led by men with personal political agendas. I dunno. There's some inherent problems and contradictions there.

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.

Prayer in the 90's have become a big deal (again) because the "right" is making it so. Rally around the flag (cross) boys, and follow me. The issue has always been here, and it's because the "right" is pushing the envelope at the moment that the "left" is pushing back. Fundamentally I distrust Moore, because I think he's a hypocrite and he's using God to advance his own personal political agenda. He's using your faith in God to advance himself. He was a nobody before this, couldn't get elected to dog catcher. Mark my words, he'll get caught with his pants down in the wrong house. It is the history of men like him.

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.

Well, I'm a little up on you on that one already, and am studying it again. See the memos again. What you have to be careful about is not buying the snippets of quotes here or there from 200 yrs ago to determine what we're supposed to do with the constitution now. I've read the best arguments from Moore's side, and the State's. I find them disingenuous, legally and intellectually dishonest.

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.

See again the quote from Pastor Martin Niemoller above.

Careful. Name calling is a principal tactic of Democrats and liberals. And I don't think you fit well in either category.

Thank you (I think).

Okay. All clear. You can come out of the hole now. The barrage is over. Hope you got no wounds.

Me? Naaahhh....

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! ; )

Kind of unavoidable since it's really what got us started. I can probably make his case better than you, but his points are very few, basically limited to what you said in this email. And he's unable to respond to the issues I've raised. At least you try.

Are we still friends?

Absolutely!

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.

Myself, I think we should have the freedom to seek perfection, knowing that the seeking is what we are on the earth to do.

“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!

Hey, some of my best friends are Christian....

XXV

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?

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.

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?

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.

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!

XXIV

Date: Tue Oct 07 19:19:23 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Re: Let's change the subject line....

At 05:22 PM 10/7/97, you wrote:

I keep looking for that COMMON foundation, but we seem to be diverging. Any ideas?

Well, in part it depends on who you're talking to. Rob, the guy with opinions on lots of subjects who happens to be Jewish, or Rob, the representative of all Jews. In the latter category, I'm not really worth talking to.

I've tried to define God as I understand Him. I thought somewhere in there we would find agreement. Help me out here.

Well, I know that when I think of God, that it's probably not the same as you think of. And if you remind yourself of that, so we don't make assumptions, we'll be all right. I don't, for myself, have a set definable concept. For myself I think it arrogant to presume I know what he is, because my frame of reference, being human, is so limited. I do not trust in man to tell me, and I do not trust the Bible (NT and OT) to be THE WORD for reasons I've shared before. I do believe we have much to learn from the Bible, and that we should strive to govern our behavior on earth according to what lessons we can derive from it and other sources of "divine inspiration." Finally, I believe that, as you know, there are many paths to the same end, that there is not necessarily ONE WAY, but that the journey is, itself, what is important.

Our nation had lost some of its Christian "character" by the late 1800's, and even more in modern times. BTW, did you know the Pilgrims were actually living in Holland before setting out for the New World? I'll find you a quote on "Christian principles" when I get home tonight.

I had an interesting discussion with someone today who had in his youth minored in church history. He rattled off all sorts of interesting things. He's a Baptist. It made me want to get some books on the history of the various churches in America. I'm presuming you're Baptist, apologies if not. But did you know that Jefferson's famous "wall of separation" letter to the Danbury Baptists was written to ASSURE them that government wouldn't intrude, that historically until recently, Baptists were in the minority, that until recently Baptists were major participants in the forerunner of what has now become Americans for Separation of Church and State? I think it'd be very interesting to compare what the Baptist leadership of today says to that of 50 yrs. ago. I think what we'd find is that since they've become "the majority" they've forgotten the lessons of what if felt like to be in the minority.

Agreed. I've been lead to believe that our founders drew a great distinction between "democracy" and "republic." That difference seems to have been lost in today's world (or perhaps willfully ignored).

As I understand the terms, our founding fathers didn't really believe in "democracy" except at the local level. They didn't trust to the common man especially to make decisions that would affect them as major property holders. The real last bastion of true democracy, IMHO, is at the local school board level. I really think you need to join up with the Republican party and work on convincing them to put you up as a candidate for county commission.

Sadly, I don't think man nor society changes very much very fast.

If at all, judging by history.

Education helps, however.

Amen.

Litigating such issues as I do from the defense perspective, I'm very well aware of what you're saying and agree. My feeling is that the litigation mentality only perpetuates such problems, so I'm always looking for another way, although usually by the time I'm involved, there's a lawsuit pending. Still, we have to find a different way.

You really don't seem to understand where I'm coming from on this.

True, so we just back up and try and different approach. ; )

I'm not sure I'm up to the task of explaining it. But, God seemed to deal more closely with the Jews more before the first century AD. I'm only relying on biblical history.

Clearly the Bible had a profound impact on western civilization. There were other civilizations though. And who else is the Bible going to deal with than the Jews before the first century? That's who wrote it.

Whether I learn the Bible or not, a question we can pose to ourselves is whether there is any way to reconcile my "multiple paths" idea with your ONE WAY beliefs so that everyone is happy.

XXIII

Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 17:22:10
To: Rob Weinberg
From: Frank Grose
Subject: Re: Let's change the subject line....

Rob,

This is a reply to yesterday afternoon's message. BTW, read today's with my flack vest and helmet, but no insect repellent. Didn't get a Purple Heart either!

D'you know your version of the Ten Commandments differs from the Jews'?

No, I didn't know that! But I will get on the Jewish site tonight and get their version and compare with my Bible.

Again, it's a matter of definition. I think the answer may be "no." Ours is not a three part god, and that's a critical distinction. I think part of the Christian right leads to anti-Semitism (more later) issue/problem, is that they ASSUME we have the same view of God, so they say, "what's the diff?" The difference is that the assumption doesn't have a foundation in fact, and if we haven't defined our terms to recognize that there ARE distinctions, miscommunication is the inevitable result.

I keep looking for that COMMON foundation, but we seem to be diverging. Any ideas?

In our discussions, I use the term "God" as a convenient metaphor for discussion, it's more in keeping with your understanding of the term, because I THINK I understand where you're coming from (I've had more experience living in your world than you've had in mine). But it's merely a term we've agreed upon for purposes of discussion.

I've tried to define God as I understand Him. I thought somewhere in there we would find agreement. Help me out here.

Even if true, it's such a broad generalization of "Christian" as to render it meaningless. The puritans came here to escape the Anglicans in England. There were Catholics and Baptists represented at the convention and different colonies had different religious majorities and sentiments than one another. Nobody had the same universal definition of what it meant to be a "good Christian." For that reason, I've always found it misleading and self deceptive for the "right" to make the argument that we were founded on Christian principles.

And if you read the writings of Jefferson and Madison, the "majority rules" argument is exactly why the first amendment and its precursors in the states were such a high priority.

Well, it won't be as long as one identifiable group claims moral superiority over another, or as long as man is resentful, covetous and jealous of his neighbor.

Sadly, I don't think man nor society changes very much very fast. Education helps, however.

Just be careful not to assume you know all there is to know about the relationships between the races because of that one friendship.

Right, but it goes a long way when you have someone with whom you can talk and ask questions without fear of inadvertently offending them.

You lost me here. Yes, they invite us. But I think I might have the answer for you.

I guess what I was trying to say is that charges of anti-Semitism, racism, and sexual harassment are determined, in some cases, by those making the charge. (This is one of my soap boxes, but I'll try to spare you the long version.) See, I can decide to commit a robbery and go do it. The offender decides to do the crime. With one of the above, claims can be brought by someone else because of their perception of an act or remark. The accused may be innocent, but find this innocence difficult to prove. If I rob 10 houses, 10 owners will know they've been robbed. If I tell 10 different women (in the workplace) that I like the smell of her perfume (or some other absolutely innocent remark or gesture), nine of them may appreciate it and take it as intended while one may file a sexual harassment complaint. That would not only ruin my career, but damage my marriage as well. That isn't fair! If I am paranoid about anything, it is being too "friendly" with women in the workplace. I keep my distance. (I'm off the box now.)

AS YOU UNDERSTAND IT. That is a critical, critical distinction.

On who else's understanding can I depend?

Oooohhh, I don't think I can speak for the Jews on that one.

Okay, it was an honest question after all. I'll look for the "Jewish" answer, which is really the one of interest.

If I understand you correctly, you've just justified the Spanish inquisition, pogroms and the holocaust as divine punishment. Surely you can see how that kind of argument can lead to abuse in the hands of tyrants and demagogues. And (no offense), but if that is your God, I want no part of him.

Oh no! You misunderstood. I certainly didn't mean to imply that at all. But with my knowledge of the history of the OT and the nation of Israel, they have oppressed by their enemies from time to time, i.e. the Babylonian captivity. (If I say more, you will give me the same response again.) You really don't seem to understand where I'm coming from on this. I'm not sure I'm up to the task of explaining it. But, God seemed to deal more closely with the Jews more before the first century AD. I'm only relying on biblical history.

Whackos are those who grasp and idea that's articulated by someone else to justify their own prejudices without self examination of the merits of the concept. You don't do that.

Good definition! I try to gain information and weigh the issues before I assume a position.

XXII

Date: Tue Oct 07 14:09:39 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Re: HRH Chapter 2

At 04:49 PM 10/6/97, you wrote:

"Religion" is man's attempt to reconcile himself to God. Works won't get it. It takes a relationship. Did I say that already?

We are judged by our deeds, not our words. My relationship with God is defined by my deeds, no? I understand what you're saying (no, you didn't say it already), I just view it differently as to which comes first.

What happens when Michael Jordon commits too many fouls? He gets put on the sideline (punished).

Basketball metaphors? I'm sorry, that's a little too simplistic, and it anthropomorphizes God too much. Man may be made in God's image, but it's presumption to assume he is made in ours.

The Israelites were not always an obedient people. They fell into idiolatry periodically. Because they are God's _hosen, (See I'm learning!)

"_hosen?" Um, Frank? You're getting weird on me. And Frank? Go put your flack jacket on. You might want it in a bit.

He keeps dealing with them, and trying to get them to be obedient.

Well, that's the justification for proselytizing, but as I said earlier, it's also been the justification for the pogroms, the Spanish inquisition, the holocaust, etc. If we can't convert them, let's kill the non believer in the name of Christ? I'm never gonna' buy that one.

“Repeat after me, ‘My Jewish friend says I shouldn't say things like that...’ Yes, Jews have made their share of contributions, yes, as a generality, they prize education for its own sake.

Okay, I actually said it three times. I'll try to refrain, unless it is absolutely essential for the discussion. Okay? What I really understood from your response to this and other similar comments is, "We don't WANT to be considered "_hosen" and don't want anyone reminding us of that fact." I'll comply.

Friend, you totally misunderstand. I can't speak for all Jews, although the debate among Jews as to what it means to be "chosen" is probably endless. If the Jews don't themselves know what it means, how can the Christian? Here, my point is that we don't have a common definition of this honorific, and it's unhealthy to generalize about a group of people. It's meaningless to me for a Christian to say, "We're supposed to love the Jews, because they're the chosen people." Chosen to what end? To suffer? To lead by example? I know you'll say, "But the Bible says they are." But we elevate the Jew to this "chosen" status and we're not even clear on what it means. What is clear, and this is my main point, is that when we do that -- generalize about any group -- we head down a path that leads toward conflict.

“What kind of God is it that would exclude from heaven someone who doesn't accept Christ as his personal savior, yet nonetheless adheres in every other significant way to his teachings?”

To try to keep it short, suffice it to say, a JUST God. He has provided a way of escape. If that way is rejected, why should He provide alternate ways. The way I read it, there is no Plan B.

Not a bad answer. If I go to the doctor with some ailment, and he prescribes a course of treatment, who am I to disregard the prescription and just pick and choose what I want to do, or how to get well? Kind'a defeats the purpose of going in the first place, eh?

“The history of every overt act of anti-Semitism begins with the answer ‘no.’ And ‘no’ is the message the Christian right teaches.”

Don't just blame it on Christians. I think it was God's idea.

SECURE YOUR FLACK JACKET NOW....

Frank, not to erect unnecessary barriers here, but that's just warped. My point was that men who do not follow the righteous path will twist and pervert the word of God to their own ends. 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 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. And I don't mean to suggest that every Pat Robertson, Jim Baker, or Jerry Falwell will become a Hitler. Only that you have to watch such men that preach that theirs is the only way, to make sure they don't.

(Just an aside, when the hyssop was dipped into the bason (trench at the threshold) and struck upon the doorposts, they were unknowingly making a sign of the cross.) Selah. Think about it.

O.K., I thought about it. I think you're reaching.

(Honestly, your questions just scream for the answers I've been giving.) Hmmmh!!! I wonder if that is by design?? You know how lawyers are reputed for getting people to say the things they want them to say.

The biggest fault in communication between two people, between the sexes, the races, whatever, is the failure to define common terms. For example, before people decide how they want government to operate, first they have to agree that they even want a government. Then they have to agree on what government is and why, on a general level, it is even necessary, and what its role is in society. If you try and implement the "how" before you agree on the "whether," "why" or "what," you never reach accord. 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.

(I enjoy our contest of words and ideas! But, hey, I'm at a disadvantage. This is your job!)

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.

“Hearing people pray in OUR communal space though is another matter.”

So the First Amendment only applies in ones private place or in a religious institution??? Come on now!!! Perhaps you need to explain "prohibit the free exercise thereof" to me.

Flack jacket still on? Helmut, 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.

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 court's 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. Not every act done "in the name of God" is protected by the free exercise clause.

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 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.

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.

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.

“You and I don't share the same view of God or, more importantly, what God expects of us.”

Well, I've told you who mine is. Who is yours?

I guess it's easier to describe what it isn't, like some of what I said above. I would say my God is more concerned with what I do than what I say, how well I follow the golden rule, than how many offerings I've made in his name.

“Remember my hypothetical of the black belt county commission that turned every public event in the county into a Moslem ceremony? Strip away everything you know about what actually is, and imagine that you lived in that county, as a good Christian. And the questions becomes, how do you feel?”

If the elected Commission were Moslem, and they had a prayer before meetings, I would respect that. I'd prefer they be Christian, praying to the God I believed in, but I wouldn't have a problem with it. A Jewish prayer would be far more acceptable to me. A Satanist prayer would be very difficult to handle, however.

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. If the Moslem example doesn't work for you, then use the Satanist example you proffer. Either way, you must admit you are being compelled to compromise your principles in order to participate in government, and THAT is what the free exercise and establishment clauses are supposed to protect against.

“If you can REALLY imagine what it would be like to live there, you'd understand what it is to walk a mile in my shoes, and you might understand and truly appreciate the answer to the question you pose.”

A very ponderable point. While I could accommodate the situation of which you refer hypothetically, I know there are plenty of others who couldn't or wouldn't be inclined to. In that regard, you are right.

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.

XXI

Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 16:49:10
To: Rob Weinberg
From: Frank Grose
Subject: Re: HRH Chapter 2

But formalized religion has never been my thing or my wife's. Nevertheless, we consider ourselves very spiritual....

"Religion" is man's attempt to reconcile himself to God. Works won't get it. It takes a relationship. Did I say that already?

“The Jews are God's chosen people whether we like it or not. The Bible says that, not me. Deu 7:6 ‘For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.’ ”

See, I get confused here. If we're the chosen people already, why are people trying to converts us? Why isn't that a contradiction? If Paul says we ain't got it right no more, then we're no longer chosen, no? Does the N.T. supercede the old where there is a conflict?

What happens when Michael Jordon commits too many fouls? He gets put on the sideline (punished). The Israelites were not always an obedient people. They fell into idiolatry periodically. Because they are God's _hosen, (See I'm learning!) He keeps dealing with them, and trying to get them to be obedient. Despite all the great exploits of Moses, when God told him to "speak to" the rock, he "smote" it as before. As a result, he didn't go into Cannan. God is loving, but he is also just. If you find an apparent conflict between the OT and the NT, consider it an opportunity to learn, because you are missing some information somewhere. I say again, studied methodically, the Bible will prove its authenticity. If you have a real interest here (albeit academic), I'll try to help. But it will be as I understand and believe it (with my Christian bias).

Repeat after me, "My Jewish friend says I shouldn't say things like that..." Yes, Jews have made their share of contributions, yes, as a generality, they prize education for its own sake.

I don't consider that a cheap shot. Rather I interpret it as God commands you to love all, regardless of whether they believe as you do. Now, THAT is what makes you a Christian in the best sense of the word.

I'll take that as a compliment, although "loving people" is not what MAKES me Christian. It is only an attribute. Just for your information, "Christian" is a wildly used term, and there are times I've been reluctant to wear that badge because it has been so abused by misguided people. Last night, our pastor was telling of a "street preacher" who in his red light mini sermon told him he was going to Hell. I recall a post chaplain in Korea who was the biggest drunk in the club. He was Catholic, but certainly not all Protestants are tee totalers.

Hebrews 9:19 27, especially verse 22.

Does this passage means that Christ has already died for the sins of Jews, so it's just an immutable "given" as concerns Jews that we'll be there?

Yes, Christ died for your sins and mine (yesterday's sins, today's sins, and tomorrow's sins), the key is accepting that sacrifice. That is on a personal level. Refer to 1 Corinthians 15:1 4 for the essentials of the Gospel. Note that the word "Scriptures" therein refers to the OT. The scriptures which foretold the coming of Christ (starting with Genesis 3:15) were fulfilled. In your Bible study, concentrate on this issue. If the book gives multiple forecasts of what will occur, and they do occur precisely as predicted, it should cause one to give serious consideration to the possibility that it may be from God. The second part of the your question requires a more deliberate study of OT prophets, like Zechariah (Chapter 12:10 is a good verse), and of the Revelation. The "remnant" will be saved through the Tribulation, but most won't be, if I understand the Bible correctly.

What kind of God is it that would exclude from heaven someone who doesn't accept Christ as his personal savior, yet nonetheless adheres in every other significant way to his teachings?

To try to keep it short, suffice it to say, a JUST God. He has provided a way of escape. If that way is rejected, why should He provide alternate ways. The way I read it, there is no Plan B. (I'm not being anti-Semitic or taking any moral high ground here. I'm only sharing what I believe.) A just judge would have to sentence his own son if he broke the law wouldn't he. God is not willing that any should perish. He's gone to great lengths to prove it and provide a way to escape eternal punishment.

The history of every overt act of anti-Semitism begins with the answer "no." And "no" is the message the Christian right teaches.

Don't just blame it on Christians. I think it was God's idea. What would have happened in a Hebrew house in Egypt on the night of the first Passover, had the blood not been applied to the lentil and doorposts? No Plan B there either! (Just an aside, when the hyssop was dipped into the bason (trench at the threshold) and struck upon the doorposts, they were unknowingly making a sign of the cross.) Selah. Think about it.

AHA! So, you ARE a part of the "Christian right!" : 0

I was afraid you’d get to that point sooner or later. If I fit YOUR Christian right mold, what can I do? But, I am NOT your enemy! ; ) (Honestly, your questions just scream for the answers I've been giving.) Hmmmh!!! I wonder if that is by design?? You know how lawyers are reputed for getting people to say the things they want them to say.

If there were more Christians like you, who shared their faith without ramming it down someone else's throat, it'd be OK.

Thanks again. That is saying much of someone on the "Christian right." : )

I enjoy our contest of words and ideas! But, hey, I'm at a disadvantage. This is your job!

Hearing people pray in OUR communal space though is another matter.

So the First Amendment only applies in ones private place or in a religious institution??? Come on now!!! Perhaps you need to explain "prohibit the free exercise thereof" to me.

You and I don't share the same view of God or, more importantly, what God expects of us.

Well, I've told you who mine is. Who is yours?

Remember my hypothetical of the black belt county commission that turned every public event in the county into a Moslem ceremony? Strip away everything you know about what actually is, and imagine that you lived in that county, as a good Christian. And the questions becomes, how do you feel?

If you can REALLY imagine what it would be like to live there, you'd understand what it is to walk a mile in my shoes, and you might understand and truly appreciate the answer to the question you pose.

XX

To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Let's change the subject line....

At 11:19 PM 10/5/97 0500, you wrote:

My perception is that (religious) Jews KNOW the OT (or the Jewish version of it), and that this would constitute common ground on which both Jew and Christian would agree.

Religious Jews, by definition, would. The five books of Moses are read as part of the services, enough each service so that the whole Bible is read annually.

I'm not sure "agree" about what, but certainly as a starting point of general events that were described, yes. The thing is, the question of translation, and therefore definition. D'you know your version of the Ten Commandments differs from the Jews'?

When we say "God," are not we both talking about "Jehovah" or "Yahweh?" I think the answer to that is "yes."

Again, it's a matter of definition. I think the answer may be "no." Ours is not a three part god, and that's a critical distinction. I think part of the “Christian right leads to anti-Semitism” (more later) issue/problem, is that they ASSUME we have the same view of God, so they say, "what's the diff?" The difference is that the assumption doesn't have a foundation in fact, and if we haven't defined our terms to recognize that there ARE distinctions, miscommunication is the inevitable result.

Being invited is a hollow gesture.

Again: "Hey," they say, "we don't intentionally exclude anyone, everyone's invited to attend. But you're a little bit *more* invited and welcomed if you already share our religious beliefs."

This sounds like a "no win" situation! I can identify with what you say. Being an officer in the Army and a Christian caused many similar conflicts with me.

It *is* a "no win" situation. That's why the first amendment is couched in terms of absolutes. That's a VERY good analogy with the drinking. And I know exactly what you mean. The comparison is very apt. Remember it.

I suppose anyone from another country, culture, or religious convictions will find themselves in an awkward situation at times.

True, but don't limit it to "at times." It may be more times than others, but it's not just "at times."

It is a historical fact that (for the most part) Christians colonized America.

A number of Jews helped finance the revolution, and many worked behind the scenes in the states and at the constitutional convention. You may want to investigate and re-visit just how "Christian" the nation was in the late 18th century. I think it's a common (and convenient) mis- conception. Even if true, it's such a broad generalization of "Christian" as to render it meaningless. The puritans came here to escape the Anglicans in England. There were Catholics and Baptists represented at the convention and different colonies had different religious majorities and sentiments than one another. Nobody had the same universal definition of what it meant to be a "good Christian." For that reason, I've always found it misleading and self- deceptive for the "right" to make the argument that we were founded on Christian principles.

The majority of our society is made up of Protestants whose national roots go back to Europe.

And if you read the writings of Jefferson and Madison, the "majority rules" argument is exactly why the first amendment and its precursors in the states were such a high priority.

If feeling like you (or anyone) are not part of a given group is considered racism, I don't believe that racism will ever be eliminated. Another basic question: Is anti-Semitism directed toward one because of his heritage or his religion?

Well, it won't be as long as one identifiable group claims moral superiority over another, or as long as man is resentful, covetous and jealous of his neighbor.

As to your question, both. It is the *perception* of a distinctive heritage or religion. It can be on the basis of either, at least, that's how the law construes it.

You said, “I'd have an easier time walking into a black juke-joint with my guitar than you would...”

Because you are Jewish? How would they know you are Jewish? Would you announce the fact? Wouldn't that be a form of racism?

No, I wasn't clear. Only because I can blend easier. I've worked on being able to blend into different situations all my life, part out of necessity, part out of desire. I'm sure you're much the same way in many respects, I just suspect I could pull it off a little easier.

This may sound like a testimonial, but it is true. I was not brought up to hate people because of their race. A black pilot became a good friend of …We were very close after that. He was nearly killed in Korea four years later in a crash that left him permanently disabled (and mentally not all there). He taught me much about the evils of racism.

Just be careful not to assume you know all there is to know about the relationships between the races because of that one friendship. Hypothetical: Don't intellectualize. What's your first, instinctive, gut reaction to the idea that your daughter is going to marry a black man? What if you'd learned that your wife had been married to a black man before she married you?

“I've had the same problem myself. There's a Jewish couple my wife and I have gotten friendly with. I'd like to invite them over, but they keep kosher in their home.”

How would you feel if they called you anti-Semitic because you treat them differently? The point is that like a charge of sexual harassment, the charge of racism (or anti-Semitism) is based on the perception of the one making the claim, not the intent in the heart of the one doing the act. Very awkward situation. Do these friends invite you over for a meal?

You lost me here. Yes, they invite us. But I think I might have the answer for you. Within the Jewish religion, there are a number of sects. It's illustrated quite well in the movie "The Chosen," in fact, it's pretty much the centerpiece of the movie. I recommend the book to you as well. It's by Chaim Potok. And if you like it, I'll recommend others.

That tends to corroborate an earlier statement about fewer people than you think are (in their hearts) anti-Semitic. If you were sensitive or even paranoid about such things, you may have then had "grounds" for making that claim. Right?

I think you may have been generalizing on some of the things I said. Anti-Semitism takes many forms. That we make assumptions about other people or races can lead to ant-Semitism or racism, but I don't know how broadly I intended to make that assertion. (Methinks, you're quoting me out of context.)

“I think our gods share much in common, but I'm not sure yours is the same as that of the Jews.”

That is a disappointing thought! My God is the God of the Torah.

AS YOU UNDERSTAND IT. That is a critical, critical distinction.

Perhaps we can explore this further later, okay?

Sure, but I'm no theologian either. Nor can what I say be considered representative of what Jews, generally, think.

“I think this is one of those topics we'd have to "agree to disagree" about. Obviously, a fundamental distinction between our religions is that Jews don't believe that Jesus was the messiah.”

Yes, I know. But I've never heard a Jew say why. As I said, it seems so clear to me. Personally, I wonder why. Here is your opportunity to educate me some more.

Oooohhh, I don't think I can speak for the Jews on that one.

“Doesn't this passage contradict the idea that Jews are the chosen people?”

The relevance was in that what I seemed to be hearing was that Christianity, by its very nature, was anti-Semitic.

No, no, no. Not Christianity itself. It's just another path to spiritual enlightenment, and it is clearly working for you. I was referring to much of the politics of the "Christian right" as being essentially intolerant of those that disagree or differ, claiming moral superiority, thus leading to, or justifying, ant-Semitism in the minds of the weak.

There are far more like me than you probably think. Yet, we are all labeled with the whackos.

Whackos are those who grasp an idea that's articulated by someone else to justify their own prejudices without self examination of the merits of the concept. You don't do that. People who are able to separate their politics from their religion don't do that.

Sometimes hasty litigation over racial (or religious) issues may worsen the problem. It would be a tough call, were I in the shoes of their parents.

I agree that jumping into litigation at the drop of a hat is bad, and that as lawyers we should counsel our clients to make litigation a last resort. It's difficult to have a court compel racial or ethnic sensitivity, but sometimes, where else are they gonna' go?

Talk to you soon. Rob

XIX

Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 23:19:56 0500
To: Rob Weinberg
From: Frank Grose
Subject: Re: Happy Rosh Hashana

Rob,

Just finished reading your welcomed reply. Actually, I had been worried that I'd been too aggressive and bold. I am glad that neither of us object to hearing hard things presented in a non-threatening, non-accusatory, non-condemning way by a friend.

I am still trying to evaluate where you are in your knowledge of the Bible. Some things you say reflects more knowledge of the NT than I expect. Some questions and comments cause me to wonder about your basic knowledge of the OT. My perception is that (religious) Jews KNOW the OT (or the Jewish version of it), and that this would constitute common ground on which both Jew and Christian would agree. Christians do not venerate the Talmud as "the inspired word of God." When we say "God," are not we both talking about "Jehovah" or "Yahweh?" I think the answer to that is "yes."

I knew you'd ask that. Let's try it this way. In order to be a part of the group I'd need to participate. Otherwise, I'm an outsider. Outsiders may get in, but they're not really welcomed to participate unless they leave their own beliefs at the door. If, and I say if, deals are made or alliances formed on the basis of religious preference, or in the context of religious meetings, then I'm not "in." Being invited is a hollow gesture. "Hey," they say, "we don't intentionally exclude anyone, everyone's invited to attend. But you're a little bit *more* invited and welcomed if you already share our religious beliefs."

This sounds like a "no win" situation! I can identify with what you say. Being an officer in the Army and a Christian caused many similar conflicts with me. I don't drink (because of religious reasons). It is better in the Army now, but at (mandatory) officers calls (a.k.a. happy hour), I was the odd ball because I didn't drink. I've felt the pressure to "participate" to be in the "in crowd." It has been practically forced on me. I didn't go to bars, and I didn't go to the O club otherwise on my own (although I had to pay club dues). I guess I learned to expect it, to muster courage to hold to my convictions during those times when I felt I had to go, and to accept it as a inevitable part of being and officer and being a Christian. I didn't consider their actions as anti-Christian. They just didn't know any better. Thankfully, it got better before I retired, and non alcoholic beverages were then always available, and the pressure was practically all gone.

I suppose anyone from another country, culture, or religious convictions will find themselves in an awkward situation at times. I enjoyed being in Korea, and made some really good friends. It is a beautiful culture, and they are beautiful people. I think I could have lived the rest of my life there and enjoyed it, yet had I stayed, I would have never totally fitted in, and wouldn't have expected to. Neither would I have expected the Koreans to change their ways to accommodate me. It would have never been Korean. It is a historical fact that (for the most part) Christians colonized America. Yes, I know the counter, "But look how they treated the Indians and the slaves." I'm not proud of that part, but the government of America was formed by Christians and those who (at least) respected the teachings of Jesus Christ. The majority of our society is made up of Protestants whose national roots go back to Europe. If feeling like you (or anyone) are not part of a given group is considered racism, I don't believe that racism will ever be eliminated. Another basic question. Is anti-Semitism directed toward one because of his heritage or his religion?

"I'd have an easier time walking into a black juke-joint with my guitar than you would...."

Because you are Jewish? How would they know you are Jewish? Would you announce the fact? Wouldn't that be a form of racism?

This may sound like a testimonial, but it is true. I was not brought up to hate people because of their race. A black pilot became a good friend of mine in Vietnam. He was several years older than I. We could talk about sensitive subjects like you and I do. He asked me one night, "How would you explain to your kids why you can't stop (at a particular place) to get them ice cream?" I've never forgot that. A few months later, he literally saved my life on a mission one night when I got blinded by a flare and nearly flew us into the ground. Without him, my name would be on "The Wall" in Washington. We were very close after that. He was nearly killed in Korea four years later in a crash that left him permanently disabled (and mentally not all there). He taught me much about the evils of racism.

I've had the same problem myself. There's a Jewish couple my wife and I have gotten friendly with. I'd like to invite them over, but they keep kosher in their home.

It must be a sign of the times. I take it for granted that everyone assumes or knows Weinberg is a Jewish name, but the last 1/2 dozen conversations about religion I've had with people, they've plead ignorance. Frankly, that's a good thing, that people aren't looking for labels.

I've hesitated to describe you as being a part of it (Christian right). We disagree on a number of political issues, but you ain't a whacko.

Thanks.

I think our gods share much in common, but I'm not sure yours is the same as that of the Jews.

That is a disappointing thought! My God is the God of the Torah.

It's safe to say that I'm not sure you and I share the same view of God though.

Perhaps we can explore this further later, okay?

I think this is one of those topics we'd have to "agree to disagree" about. Obviously, a fundamental distinction between our religions is that Jews don't believe that Jesus was the messiah.

Yes, I know. But I've never heard a Jew say why. As I said, it seems so clear to me. Personally, I wonder why. Here is your opportunity to educate me some more.

Consider Romans 11:25 (that blindness in part is happened to Israel). Doesn't this passage contradict the idea that Jews are the chosen people?

No, it doesn't contradict. It is another chapter in the history of Israel. Being "chosen" doesn't speak to obedience. My children were not always obedient. That is when they were punished. Israel has been victim of God's punishment for disobedience. The good news is that God will give the nation of Israel another opportunity to accept the Messiah. The bad news is the nation will have to endure "the time of Jacob's trouble" during which 2/3 of them will be killed. As to the eternal destiny of those that don't make it through, a just God will decide that.

No, not at all. But it strays somewhat from we were discussing, namely:how prevalent is anti-Semitism, and what to do about it.

The relevance was in that what I seemed to be hearing was that Christianity, by its very nature, was anti-Semitic. Speaking only for myself, it isn't. Trying to get you to consider other points of view (in this case, having to do with understanding of the Bible) is just part of our mutual exchange of ideas.

And let me add that it's Christians like you that give Christianity a GOOD name.

There are far more like me than you probably think. Yet, we are all labeled with the whackos.

And "kids will be kids," is not the answer.

Agreed. Neither is it an excuse. I am not condoning what went on in Pike County in any way. I'm just saying that kids are going to be mean to each other over differences. Sometimes hasty litigation over racial (or religious) issues may worsen the problem. It would be a tough call, were I in the shoes of their parents.

Come Let Us Reason Together

XXIX

XXVIII ~ Memo ~ Original Intent & the First Amendment

XXVII ~ Memo ~ Prayer in Public Schools and Institutions

XXVI

XXV

XXIV

XXIII

XXII

XXI

XX

XIX

Subscribe Via Email

Blog Archive

United States Supreme Court Decisions

Rob's Links

Frank's Links

A Comment on Comments

About the Author