Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 09/19/07 19:44

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> I'm not trying to ram my religion down your throat. But you are
>> trying to stop me from practicing my religion. It's zealots like you
>> that the Bill of Rights was designed to protect us against.
>> Unfortunately, that original intent has been lost over the years.
>>
>
> Wrong: all that is being said is that religion, is - like homosexuality
> - something that is a private and individual matter. Its support
> opposition is simply not a function of the government, and indeed to use
> the government to do either is unconstitutional and probably against
> some statute somewhere.
>
> And intensely and deeply unwise. A lesson learnt by many societies over
> history, and one the Muslim theocracies will also learn to their cost.
>
> Good governance should be on deliberately atheistic lines, in the sense
> that *nothing* it does, should be done, for reasons of religious belief.
>

No. Goog governance should be build on religion-neutral lines. It
should neither promote nor deny any religious beliefs or practices which
are not harmful to others (i.e. human sacrifice).

> Because once you start, then every religion in the book and a good many
> that aren't, is going to be lobbying the government for 'tax relief on
> sacrificial chickens' 'a right to have Voudoun taught in our public
> schools' and so on.
>

I never said religion should be taught in public schools. I don't think
it should.

> Its very simple. From Monday to Friday the schools teach everything
> *except* religion. Discussions about religion are confined to
> anthropology, or dismissed with 'that's something to ask your
> Pastor/shaman/high priest/bishop/guru/ about'. It isn't the schools job
> to go there, period.
>
> If you want to declare 'god hours' where people can flop down in a
> meccawards direction, or bugger off to a chapel, or simply score some
> crack on the street corner, that's up to you and your politicians.
>
> On Sundays and Saturdays the churches, chapels sects and whatever are
> free to teach anything they like that is not subversive to the State, or
> criminal, to anyone who wants to listen.
>
> But that is EXPLICITLY and COMPLETELY outside what the State provides.
>

I never said anything different.

> In short the State must never ever, despite the dictates of its
> officials, ever meddle or be seen to meddle in affairs of a spiritual
> nature: It is there to reflect the center of gravity of public opinion
> in the most tolerant way possible, into the statute books, with the aim
> of providing the highest common factor of law abiding citizens, and a
> force to restrain those that choose not to abide. It does this ot from
> principle, but from pragmatism. Its primary aim is to provide a stable
> society in which people themselves can make choices. Not dictate any
> morality to them.
>

But when they refuse to allow someone to place a cheche or menorah on
city property (at no government expense), that's exactly what they are
doing - interfering with someone's right to practice their religion.
And such a display does *such great harm* to believers in other
religions. It's public property and should be available to all, as long
as it is in good taste (i.e. no displays from "The Honorable Church of
the Naturalists".

> In short its best hope is to act as if it were completely a-theistic.
> Not to deny or affirm God, but simply to keep its mucky paws out of that
> area altogether. Almost any other course is a recipe for dissent and
> ultimately revolution.
>

They should act such that religions can have the same access to public
facilities as any non-religious group.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[Back to original message]