NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/or/politics/821

Text File | 1993-01-28 | 3.4 KB | 76 lines

Newsgroups: or.politics
Path: sparky!uunet!news.tek.com!tvnews!crosstalk.tv.tek.com!stever
From: [e-mail] (Steven E. Rice  P.E.)
Subject: Re: Religion is belief, not behavior (was Re: new initiative)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (news user)
Organization: Tektronix TV Products
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:17:51 GMT
Lines: 64

In article <[e-mail]>, Leonard
Erickson ([e-mail]) chose to include
60% of my previous article at the beginning of his posting.  It would
have been better to quote only a few lines.

Unfortunately, Leonard followed me until one sentence before the
punch line!  Here are the last few lines he quoted from my posting,
followed by his comment:

>>                                                           . . .  The
>> United States Supreme Court ruled in 1985 that the Georgia statute
>> was constitutional, concluding that there was no indication the
>> framers of the Constitution had intended to protect such actions.
>
> But Oregon (and many other states) does *not* have such laws. And
> further, such laws are frequently enforced in an *extremely* biased
> manner. On of the silliest examples was . . .

Leonard's comments are irrelevant to the question that was being
addressed -- the difference between belief and behavior.  If he had
read the next few lines carefully, he would have discovered that I was
emphasising that difference, and that difference alone:

>> The difference is not in the beliefs.  The difference is in the
>> behaviors which result from the beliefs.
>>
>> Unfortunately, some extreme cases have come to light recently which
>> provide very clear delineation of the difference between belief and
>> behavior:    . . .

Clearly, the point was that beliefs and behaviors are entirely
different.  The Constitution of the United States gives almost total
protection to beliefs of any kind.  (The only exception I am aware
of is delusional beliefs caused by mental illness which make the
individual a "clear and present danger" to himself or the community
at large.)

After additional irrelevant comments, Leonard continued:

> In states like Oregon, where there are no such laws, the "behavior"
> you refer to is not illegal. So why allow discrimination based on it?
> And *not* allow discrimination based on religion?

One of the prices of living in a free society is that it is sometimes
necessary to enter the political arena to protect your beliefs.  If
you feel you are the victim of illegal discrimination, you should
seek appropriate remedies.  Some possible arenas for such action are
the courts, the legislature, and the ballot box.

Don't be surprised if you find others who have views that clash with
yours.  This is the essence of democracy.

> Also, the prime symptom of being a "minority" is that if people *think*
> you belong to the group in question they will discriminate against you.
> Without feeling that they *need* any evidence.

So if people *think* I'm an engineer, they'll discriminate against me?
I'm gonna sue!!!

                    Steve Rice

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord! *
[e-mail]                                   [phone [phone]]