Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    I find this to be quite true and I agree with it.
    
    Yet how do we justify it when ones religion crosses the line of
    breaking civil law, i.e. smoking marajuana as part of religious
    services, animal sacrifice, etc.
    
    -Jack

    .1  Those questions crossed my mind, also, Jack.  I'm still chewing
    on them.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    I am reminded of the times of Nero.  On the Roman coin was the
    image of Caeser with the inscription "Long live Caeser, our savior and
    our God."  The Jews absolutely abhorred the use of this coin, yet they
    were required to pay taxes to Rome using this coin.  To carry it on
    their person was like being forced into idol worship.
    
    Amazingly, Jesus looked at it and said, "Render to Ceaser what is
    Ceasers and render to God what is Gods"   
    
    Point being that politics and religion definitely mixed for the worse,
    yet Jesus affirmed that the coin was the property of Rome and was to be
    honored as such.  
    
    Richard, you brought up a very good point a few weeks ago about
    honoring those in authority.  You mentioned how Paul wrote in Romans
    about respecting and submitting to authority.  Here's Paul, a Hebrew of
    all Hebrews, probably despised the Roman system like his countrymen,
    yet would say something as profound as that.
    
    Peace,
    
    -Jack

    Historical correction:  Nero came some time after Jesus.
    
    A Jew in Jesus' time would have surely smarted by Jesus' response to
    the question.  For like so many other times, Jesus turned the question
    back on his inquisitors.  In essence, Jesus was saying, "Look how
    you've compromised your faith."
    
    Of course, it wouldn't appear that way to non-Jews, just like it doesn't
    appear that way to us with only a superficial reading.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

re: .3 YIELD::GRIFFIS

So do you advocate placing the 'inerrant' bible into secular law, he asked,
lowering his eyebrows and scowling dangerously.

Steve

Therefore, the one who knows the right thing to do, and doesn't do it, is
guilty of sin.  - James 4.17

    re: .1
    
      Hi Jack,
    
        Are you implying that (hypothetically) were the U.S. to
        be around say between the time of Moses and the cross,
        that the U.S. would be doing the right thing by denying
        Israel to perform its sacrificial services?
    
        Is not what Madison said something that is relevent
        no matter the time?
    
                                              Tony

    Tony:
    
    Another good point.  To be honest, I don't have an answer.  I do know
    that Satanists today are into animal sacrifice.  One has to ask whether
    or not this should be an unalienable right!!
    
    -Jack

    .9  Most Satanists are not into animal (or human) sacrifice.  You've
    bought the tabloid stereotype if you believe they are.
    
    Richard
    

    As far as human sacrifice, I agree with you.  Animal sacrifice I
    believe is more acceptable.  
    
    We in Massachusetts had a real problem on Cape Cod a few years ago. 
    Local Satanists were sacrificing horses, dogs, cats, etc.  It is not an
    unused practice.  But you may be coorect that it is quite uncommon
    amongst the masses.  So the question is still unresolved.  Do 
    Conservative or Orthodox Satanists have the right to animal sacrifice
    if they so choose to do so?
    
    -Jack

    .11  I do not approve of animal sacrifice, as I suspect you may have
    guessed about me.  But neither do I approve of the Ku Klux Klan, which
    is an organization I have found listed in the Yellow Pages of at least
    one American city under "Church Organizations."
    
    The last animal sacrifices I remember hearing about took place in
    Matamoros, not far from the Texas-Mexico border.  Drugs were being
    used and merchandised, and people were being murdered.
    
    Richard
    

      Hi Jack,
    
        I don't have an answer either!
    
        One other thing is the balance between recognition of a
        Creator AND separation of church and state.  It seems
        complicated for me and perhaps subjective, but the framers
        of the Constitution's intent of meaning of the separation
        of church and state would seem to be far different than
        the ACLU's.  They spoke of a Creator and in fact I am sure
        I have seen their own writings which attest to the inclusion
        of a Creator God in the formation of the U.S. government.
    
        I don't know where the correct balance is regarding separation
        of church and state and yet inclusion of an Almighty Creator,
        but I do believe the ACLU's posture is a gross bastardization
        of anything remotely close to what the framers meant.
    
        And yes, I know the framers had problems in other areas, i.e.
        only landowners could vote, women not equal rights, slavery.
        And yet, I happen to believe that to bring this up and to link
        it to the separation of church and state issue with their inclusion
        of an Almighty Creator (logical flow: "they were wrong in these
        areas, they are wrong here") would be an incorrect thing to do.
    
        I think they had it right with this and the atheistic tendencies
        which are our interpretation of what church state separation
        means are incorrect.
    
                                                     Tony

Just about two or three years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court voided the Florida
law which had outlawed animal sacrifice saying it was directly aimed at the
Santeria cult, common in Florida among Caribbean immigrants.  This cult
sacrifices chickens.

The Congress then passed the Religious Freedom Restoration act, to further
protect religious practices.

/john

Note 971.15

>	THere is
>   	one minor problem, however.  First  we have to get everyone to 
>   	believe that it _is_ indeed inerrant!!!  

What bizarre, twisted highway led you to this off-ramp?  %*}

Richard

PS  Don't call him Stevey.

re Note 971.13 by STRATA::BARBIERI:

>         I don't know where the correct balance is regarding separation
>         of church and state and yet inclusion of an Almighty Creator,
>         but I do believe the ACLU's posture is a gross bastardization
>         of anything remotely close to what the framers meant.

        I don't believe that the framers of the Constitution were
        inerrant.  They were extremely wise, but even their work
        could be improved upon.

        The reason I believe that the ACLU's posture is the only
        practical position in our pluralistic society is well
        expressed by your first sentence:  I don't know where the
        correct balance is, you don't know, and I do not believe that
        our society could actually achieve this "balance" without
        offending the sincere beliefs of some significant portions of
        society.

        Remember, we're not talking about secularization of everything
        in society, only government.  Religion goes on; churches,
        synagogues, and meeting halls go on; personal beliefs are
        untouched.  However, because we can't fairly determine what
        religious posture or inclination government activity should
        take, it should take none.

        Bob

re: .13 Title:  Another Can of Worms...

        One other thing is the balance between recognition of a
        Creator AND separation of church and state.  It seems
        complicated for me and perhaps subjective, but the framers
        of the Constitution's intent of meaning of the separation
        of church and state would seem to be far different than
        the ACLU's.  They spoke of a Creator and in fact I am sure
        I have seen their own writings which attest to the inclusion
        of a Creator God in the formation of the U.S. government.

Tony, the only place that I am aware of (official documentation) in which our
founders referred to a creator was in the Declaration of Independence. This
document served to notify England that we were 'dissolving the political bands'
with them, it had nothing to do with the formation of our system of government.
Further, the reference was to a creator. I can even interpret that such that I
am OK with the meaning. The only reference to God was to 'Nature's God', which
sounds sort of new-ageish to me.

The actual blueprint for our government is, of course, the Constitution. Nowhere
in that document does it reference God or a creator. Where do you find support
for your last sentence in the quoted paragraph? 

I agree that many of the founding fathers were theists, and the debate about the
impact of religion on the government they were forming was, uh, spirited.
However, in the end, they chose their wording very carefully. If they had wanted
to include a creator in the document they would have done so. Certainly they had
no reason to make it so hard to find if this were their intention. But they
wisely chose not to subject the new land to the religious tyranny that many were
here to escape from, and established a secular goverment on purpose, after much
debate. There are several documents that attest to what they meant. Simply put,
it is that each has the right to worship as they please, and the government has
no place in it.

        I think they had it right with this and the atheistic tendencies
        which are our interpretation of what church state separation
        means are incorrect.

The secular tendencies are absolutely correct. I would maintain that our
government is far from atheistic (one needs only to pull out some money to see
this). I guess I will never understand why being free to worship as you please
is not enough, and why many religious type folks feel so compelled to attempt to
force me to comply with their beliefs through laws, school teachings, school
prayer, etc.

Steve

re: .15 YIELD::GRIFFIS

    	Wow...  Stevey!~!!!!!!!!!!~~~
    
    			Exellent SCOWL!!  Yes!!  I like that.  Place the
    	inerrant Bible into secular law...   Yes.  ABSOLUTELY.  THere is
    	one minor problem, however.  First  we have to get everyone to 
    	believe that it _is_ indeed inerrant!!!  

Thanks Greggy, I kind of liked it. Another problem is that we have to convince
some folks that it is not a book of myths. 

Seriously, my concern is that by using the force of government and law, you
don't have to convince anyone to believe in it, only to obey it or else. It has
happened that way far too often throughout history (current day Iran is a good
example) for it not to concern me greatly.
================================================================================
re: .17 Title:  practical considerations

Bob, excellent note, well said.