-Caveat Lector- From >From http://www.infidels.org/index.html >> Thirteen different right-wing religious groups ... << Interesting number: I think this makes a 'coven' ... or a baker's dozen ... (I won't address # of attendees at the Final Meal ...). They have "SatAn" devotees in Germany: I saw this emblazoned on a satellite dish on one of our buildings (it's short for SATellite ANtenna) ... wouldn't that have raised the Barr ... and as for the military: no one has to swear to defend anything other than the Constitution ... the suggestion that > "The official approval of Satanism and witchcraft by the Army is a > direct assault on the Christian faith that generations of American > soldiers have fought and died for," Weyrich said.[14] is bogus. If were actually valid, EVERYONE would have to attend some spiritual event (at least weekly). It's the RIGHT to be a Christian or whatever over which blood was spilled. If I research my recollection for the specificity of historical information, they ahd the Salem affair about eighty years afore the writing of the Constitution and attendant amendments; so, perhaps THAT was WHY it was written the way it was. A<>E<>R > <Picture: PHILO> <Picture: Products forFreethinkers> > > Secular Web: Features: 1999: Hypocrisy Reigns Supreme > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > > Hypocrisy Reigns Supreme > > 13 Religious Groups Command "About Face" On Religious Freedom > > June 15, 1999 > > By Bill Schultz > > > > In the insanity that sometimes rules debates about the separation of > church and state, I've long noted the "teeter-totter" effect of this > issue. There are two parts to the religious portion of the First > Amendment.[1] One, referred to as the "establishment clause," commands > that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of > religion." The other, referred to as the "free exercise clause," > continues on from that point and commands that Congress shall make no > law "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Those two clauses were > intended by our founding fathers to do as Thomas Jefferson described, > to erect a "wall of separation between church and state."[2] Those > restrictions on Congress have been made applicable to all levels of > government through the Fourteenth Amendment.[3] > > The difficulty is that modern US Supreme Court jurisprudence > frequently finds those two clauses to be in conflict with each other. > In some cases, the Supreme Court finds it cannot do complete justice > to the "free exercise clause" without doing violence to the > "establishment clause," or vice versa. I'm probably one of the few > freethinkers who believes that the current state of the law as defined > by our Supreme Court is "just about right," as far as balancing those > two conflicting concepts can reasonably be done. The fact that both > freethinkers and religionists feel their rights are being violated by > the current state of the law is probably a good indication that a > relatively fair balance exists between the interpretations of those > two clauses. > > Nonetheless, the so-called Radical Religious Right has attempted to > restore recognition of an older balance point that they perceive as > more favorable to their own "religious liberties." They have attempted > to increase the amount of "free exercise" at the expense of some > "establishment" (or at least, special recognition) of religion. They > have pursued this goal in the name of "religious freedom," calling > their legislative efforts in this regard by various high sounding > names. One example is the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 > (RFRA), 107 Stat. 1488, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq.,"[4] a law that was > held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Boerne v. Flores, > (95-2074)[5] (the issue in this case was whether religiously neutral > zoning laws could be enforced against a church building). Freethinkers > are lucky in that many theists also recognize the "wall of separation" > to be in their own best interests. Organizations run by theists, such > as Americans United for Separation of Church and State,[6] were very > active in opposing legislation like the Religious Freedom Restoration > Act in the Congress and in the courts. > > The older balance point,[7] sought by RFRA supporters, would have > required a "compelling interest" by the government before it could > enforce an otherwise neutral law of general applicability against any > religious practice. Furthermore, the government could only use the > "least restrictive means" for enforcing its "compelling interest" with > an otherwise religiously neutral law. In essence, this test would have > required all governments to allow virtually any activity called a > "religious practice" so long as the government could not justify some > sort of "compelling interest" why the government must interfere with > that "religious practice." Many who opposed this expansion of the > concept of "free exercise" noted that passing such a law amounted to > the virtual "establishment" of a very special religious privilege, > thereby offending the "establishment clause" of the First amendment. > On the other hand, a failure for this "establishment" of a religious > privilege would supposedly offend the "free exercise clause" of the > First Amendment (see what I said about the teeter-totter, above?). > > So far, the Supreme Court has refused to allow the "establishment" of > this special religious privilege. So, this is pretty much where things > stand today between the various groups arguing for more favorable > treatment for their particular point of view. The "teeter-totter" sits > right where it was put by the Supreme Court decision in Oregon v. > Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990),[8] with the government allowed to enforce > otherwise neutral laws of general applicability against religious > organizations and interests. This is, I would argue, the "correct" > place for the "teeter-totter" to sit. > > However, in the middle of pressing for an amendment to the > Constitution to overrule the Supreme Court in Boerne, above, and while > trying to pass H.R. 1691 (or an equivalent), the Religious Liberty > Protection Act of 1999 ("RLPA"),[9] the Radical Religious Right has > suddenly found itself on the exact opposite side of this whole issue. > It seems that religious liberty is OK so long as it is an acceptable > form of the Christian religion. Or perhaps even some "related" > religion (like Judaism or Islam, both of which claim to worship the > God of Abraham, along with the Christians). But if it is an > "unrecognized" "fringe religion," the Radical Religious Right wants > the government to prohibit it. Now, isn't that the soul of hypocrisy? > > James A. Haught recently wrote about Rep. Barr's attempt to outlaw the > practice of the Wiccan religion on military bases.[10] It seems that > this ardent Christian is upset that the supposedly religiously neutral > Pentagon is supporting a religion that Rep. Barr finds to be > offensive. Once again one of our political leaders can't seem to > understand that the concept of religious pluralism requires equal > treatment of all religious groups no matter how silly each of us might > think any particular group or its practices might be. > > But this controversy has expanded far beyond one Congressman who can't > seem to understand the Constitution. Now, it seems that most of the > key players from the Radical Religious Right have joined forces to > attempt to force the Pentagon to ban the Wiccan religion. Thirteen > different right-wing religious groups have called for a boycott of the > US Army.[11] It seems these groups can't stand the thought that > volunteers in the US Army might actually engage in the "free exercise" > of some religion the Christians don't like. > > > > "Until the Army withdraws all official support and approval from > witchcraft, no Christian should enlist or re-enlist in the Army, and > Christian parents should not allow their children to join the Army," > said Paul M. Weyrich, president of the Free Congress Association, one > of the organizations calling for the boycott. "An Army that sponsors > satanic rituals is unworthy of representing the United States of > America."[12] > > > > It seems that the Wiccan religion isn't the only issue. Apparently the > Army has officially recognized the Church of Satan[13] by including it > in its Chaplain's Handbook as one of the religions that may be > authorized to utilize base facilities. I have to wonder just where > these groups would draw the line if they knew all of the different > religious groups the US Army officially recognizes in this way. Would > they exclude Buddhists? How about Mormons? Would they even object to > Jews practicing their religion on an Army base? > > Its pretty much a given that Christians should feel Satan to be about > the most polar opposite of an enemy they could have. But the United > States of America is supposed to be a land of religious freedom, > right? So, what is the government of the US supposed to do with > members of two religious groups that are declared "enemies" of each > other? I would think the government should teach religious tolerance > of each other, along with respect for the First Amendment of our > Constitution. That would seem to be exactly what's called for here. > But that is not what these groups are willing to accept. > > > > "The official approval of Satanism and witchcraft by the Army is a > direct assault on the Christian faith that generations of American > soldiers have fought and died for," Weyrich said.[14] > > > > Excuse me, but didn't those "generations of American soldiers" fight > and die to preserve the United States of America and the Constitution > that defines exactly what "the United States of America" actually > means? I took a military oath when I joined the US Navy, and I don't > recall swearing to defend the Christian faith! As one of those > "American soldiers" who has fought for this country, I resent those > like Weyrich who distort what the real issues have been when we took > to the battlefield. > > And doesn't it strike you as the height of hypocrisy for the Radical > Religious Right, who is still involved in a fight to expand their own > religious freedoms at the expense of secular government, to call for > the outlawing of somebody else's religious practices? That's surely > the way I see this fight. > > Personally, I can't think of a better demonstration of how silly the > whole Radical Religious Right actually is. They don't understand the > very freedoms they are supposedly seeking. Each incident of this type > only reinforces my view of how wise it was for our founding fathers to > erect a "wall of separation between church and state."[15] Would you > want those who seek only their personal supremacy in charge of making > and interpreting our laws? I surely would not! > > There is only one ultimate answer, and that is we must maintain the > "wall of separation between church and state."[16] To do that, we must > support organizations that pursue that goal. Organizations like > Americans United for Separation of Church and State[17] are crucial > for any of us who value our own freedom to have our own views about > religion. This is true even if we feel that all religions, regardless > of their beliefs, are just plain silly. After all, its only a short > step from oppressing the adherents of one allegedly offensive belief > system to oppressing all who don't adhere to the majority point of > view.[18] And that is exactly what we freethinkers can't allow. > > Notes > > [1] For the text of the First Amendment, please see: > <URL:http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/Constitution/amendments.html#t2> > and pay particular attention to the beginning clauses, as they are > quoted below. > > [2] Please see > <URL:http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_jefferson/lette > r_to_baptists.html> for the text of Thomas Jefferson's famous letter > to the Danbury Baptists (written in 1802), which contains the quoted > phrase. > > [3] For the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, please see: > <URL:http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/Constitution/amendments.html#t6> > and note this clause: "No State shall make or enforce any law which > shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United > States." That language means, among other things, that the Bill of > Rights applies to all state laws. > > [4] See <http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/ch21B.html#PC21B> for > the complete text of this law. > > [5] See <URL:http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-2074.ZS.html> > for the text of all opinions and dissents in this case, plus an > introductory Syllabus (which is not in any way legally binding, mind > you). > > [6] See <URL:http://www.au.org/> for the internet Home Page of this > organization. > > [7] See note 4, above. > > [8] See > <http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol > =494&invol=872> for the full text of that Supreme Court decision. > > [9] Congressional action on most legislation can be tracked online > through <URL:http://thomas.loc.gov/>. In particular, you can read a > PDF copy of the new HR 1691 at > <URL:http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_con > g_bills&docid=f:h1691ih.txt.pdf>. It doesn't take a genius to note the > strong resemblance to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. > Is this what we pay our Congress to do? Re-pass laws that the Supreme > Court has already invalidated? It does make one wonder. > > [10] See <http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/feature/1999/wicca.html> > for the full text of that story. > > [11] See > <http://www.statesman.com/news/2state/1999/06/10wiccaboycott.html> for > the text of the story, by Kim Sue Lia Perkes of the Austin > American-Statesman newspaper. > > [12] Ibid. > > [13] See <http://www.churchofsatan.com/> for the Church of Satan home > page. > > [14] See note 11, above. > > [15] See note 2, above. > > [16] Ibid. > > [17] See note 6, above. > > [18] The main reason why organizations like the Nazi Party and the Ku > Klux Klan are still active in the United States is the fact we agreed, > in our Constitution, to tolerate abhorrent minorities as part of the > price we pay for our own freedoms. The same concept obviously applies > to religious groups. > > What Do You Think? > > > > •Post a comment on our interactive discussion forum •Submit feedback > for inclusion on our feedback page > > > > Related Articles > > > > •"Until Army rejects Wicca, 13 groups call for boycott" (Off Site) > •"Witch Hunt: Barr on a Rampage" (June 9, 1999) •"American Freedom > Institute - News Release: Wiccans Have a Right to Worship" (Off Site) > > > > Past Features > > Click here for an index of past features. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > > Search | Bookstore | What's new? | Send > Feedback | Disclaimer | Support the Secular Web > > <Picture: [Internet Infidels]><Picture: [Freethought Ring]><Picture: > [Church-State Ring]><Picture: [Free Speech Online]> > > Copyright © Internet Infidels 1995-1999. All rights reserved. > > Last updated: Tuesday, 15-Jun-99 09:39:44 MDT > A<>E<>R ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller, German Writer (1759-1805) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + "Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." Universal Declaration of Human Rights + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + "Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut." --- Ernest Hemingway + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
