|
Tell Us What You Think
name: Chris Lindstrom
email: st.sam@internetarena.com
Tuesday, 06-Oct-1998 10:11 PST
It's a sad day when violence is used to silence
any voice, however, US intervention doesn't
usually help matters in the long run. For one
thing, US intervention lends credence to the
fundamentalist movements who would brand us the
"Great Satan". Second, economic sanctions usually
hurt us. Third, foreign intervention inhibits
the countries involved from solving the problem
themselves, in their own way, and time. Foreign
intervention prevents the moderate locals from
having to choose a side.
name: Eric Busch
email: EBusch2048@aol.com
Tuesday, 06-Oct-1998 12:17 PST
We should always be wary of those who would shroud a proposed law in
pleasing retoric. I was lead to beleive that the RFRA was favorable to all,
untill I heard various religous groups voicing thier concerns about it
(as well as atheists) and wondered why they would object.
It wasn't till I looked further into it and read the fine print (as well as
in group comments from the religious riech) that I understood how this was
so cloaked.
name: Jen Roth
email: j-roth@uiuc.edu
Tuesday, 06-Oct-1998 15:42 PST
I actually think that seeing the horrible results of
"blasphemy" laws in other countries might make even
the Theocratic Right think twice about trying it here.
But then, I've always been an optimist.
name: Robert Livingston II
email: MansonMan3@aol.com
Tuesday, 06-Oct-1998 16:24 PST
I think Christians are pushing for this law as just another way to try and
punish Atheists. They think that we are always saying bad things about us.
We are not I would bet my right arm that they say more unjust things about us
then we say about them.
name: Robert Gilmer
email: rsgilmer@unity.ncsu.edu
Tuesday, 06-Oct-1998 16:28 PST
I think that if a particular country decides to
use religious persecution, then that is the business of that particular
country. The US should
not get involved. These are internal matters and
should be solved by that own country's method of
resolving disputes. If you don't like it, move!
Fortunately, the US has the first amendment rights
to prevent such abuses.
name: Katrina Rose
email: TexKatrina@aol.com
Tuesday, 06-Oct-1998 16:49 PST
There is no doubt in my mind - and there should be no doubt in the mind of
anyone with an objective view - that a law allegedly designed to protect
those being persecuted because of religion will NEVER be used to protect
agnostics and athiests who are persecuted by officially and/or de facto
Christian governments.
Moreover, the blatantly unconstitutional refusalof Trent Lott to schedule
a confirmation hearing for James Hormel - ostensibly because his being gay
would offend the Catholic nation of Luxembourg - should be a warning sign
that the religionists in Congress are ready, willing and able to use
so-called freedom of religion as the new weapon du jour against sexual and
gender minorities. IRFA will no doubt will be used against any nation who
grants equality to homosexuals and transsexuals as such equality will be
viewed by theorcats such as Trent Lott as oppressing Christians in such
nations.
name: Dale Marshall
email: dasha@stc.net
Tuesday, 06-Oct-1998 17:52 PST
Current 'human rights' concerns amply cover persecution for religious
reasons, as well as secular ones. The US should continue to make strong
statements of support for tolerance, free exchange of ideas, and liberty,
seeking to perpetuate its reputation as an open, freedom-loving society.
This legislation is unneeded.
name: Lawrence Louis
email: llouis@bayou.uh.edu
Tuesday, 06-Oct-1998 18:47 PST
It is a little odd that religious sects
-whether they be Islamic, Christian, Jew, or other
-seem compelled to coerce secular goverments to
supress speech that they feel demeans their beliefs.
Neither Mohammad, Jesus, nor Abraham asked for aid,
from secular authority, when others antagonized them.
It seems the very act of relying on secular support
to further religious causes is the greatest indication
that even these so called "believers" have more faith
in the temporal institutions of the human world, than
their fabricated spiritual ones.
name: Mark Thibodeau
email: tak@passport.ca
Tuesday, 06-Oct-1998 18:55 PST
The United States (and other developped nations)
should refrain from giving aid to, or doing
business with, any nation who's government is
based on a fundamentalist interpretation of
religious dogma, and which actively engages in
forceful, governmentally sanctioned discrimination
against a group (or groups) for no other reason
than said dogma. Therefore, no trade with China
(an atheist nation actively supressing religion)
or Iran (a religious nation actively supressing
atheism). Special, preferential status should
be given to nations which develop a constitution
and cultivate a constitutional democracy (the very
same institution that the present-day theocrats
would like to tear down in order to implement some
sort of ersatz mob-rule version of democracy).
name: Chris Poole
email: ganam@gte.net
Tuesday, 06-Oct-1998 20:20 PST
Blasphemy basically comes down to ones point of view. You should not be
offended by anyones point of view.
name: Doug Ittner
email: qwenzo@hotmail.com
Tuesday, 06-Oct-1998 22:49 PST
I am curious to know how many Congresspeople
would actually vote for the anti-blasphemy, er
Freedom for Christians against persecution act.
Would they actually put their religious
preference over economic gain, jobs, foreign
oil, international security? Saudi Arabia
still persecutes Christians and Atheists, so
will the U.S. government pick and choose their
persecution?
name: CF Sabourin
email: CFSabourin@rationalresources.org
Tuesday, 06-Oct-1998 23:31 PST
Questions 2, 3, and 4, are so slanted that I could only reply with a NO OPINION.
I'm a member of AA, and such tactics as displayed by these questions are the
reason so many people view AA as a pejorative organization.
Regards,
CFS
name: Temy R. Beal
email: temyb@gte.net
Tuesday, 06-Oct-1998 23:49 PST
Our government should take all reasonable measures to protect "secular
dissidents," howver, they should not attempt to protect religious groups
that are being harassed because of their beliefs. Because all religion is
simply wrong, and it is misguided to equate protection of "secular"
(almost certainly more rational) people with protection of religious groups,
all of which are mentally unhealthy.
name: Michael
email: yes.no.maybe@juno.com
Wednesday, 07-Oct-1998 02:23 PST
I wonder, if a bill were drafted along the same lines as the FFRPA, but
substituting persecution of lesbians, gay men or bisexuals for religious
persecution, would religious groups support it? It would be most telling
(and amusing) to see the reactions of the same figures and organisations
that are outspoken on what we should do to protect religious freedoms overseas,
to the suggestion that the same concern for, and protection of, homo- and
bisexuals. Are they interested in all human rights, or just religious rights?
Michael
name: Monty Gaither
email: MLGATHEIST@aol.com
Wednesday, 07-Oct-1998 08:24 PST
The "religious persecution and the International religious freedowm
act" makes it clear that those supporting it concider this more important
that any other form of Human Rights violation.
Governments should be allow to restrict the actions of over zealous religious
groups. They should be able to prevent teachers from using their position to
preach to their students. But, they should not be able to arrest someone for
belonging to a religious group. Freedom of religion should not be anymore
absolute than the freedom of expression(speech).
name: Wade Giles
email: st4006@student-mail.jsu.edu
Wednesday, 07-Oct-1998 09:21 PST
To call on freedom in the quest to homogenize
incompatible views would require the worst sort of
hypocracy. Using a republican government's
legalized use of force to control the intellectual
atmosphere of the populace it supposedly protects
reveals a deeply rooted animosity toward man as
a noble and admirable being. Presuming to limit
the scope of any man's mind is the worst sort of
tyranny ever instituted. No one has the right to
not ever be offended or to never be rejected or to
not be judged by one's fellows according to
whatever foolish actions one takes. Thoughts and
ideas expressed through any medium do not impose
a forced order on anyone as long as the audience
is voluntary.
name: Linda
email: linda@pccoffeeshop.com
Wednesday, 07-Oct-1998 10:28 PST
I stand on the Prime Directive that we should not interfere with other cultures.
name: Jason Tippitt
email: scarcrest@yahoo.com
Wednesday, 07-Oct-1998 10:39 PST
America's government allegedly guarantees a
separation of church and state. It also allegedly
guarantees that government will not infringe on
the free speech of its citzens. ("Allegedly" is,
sadly, the key word here.)
"Blasphemy" is a term with no legal or secular
meaning -- only a religious one. Therefore, it is
a simple matter of checking the First Amendment
and seeing that, since a blasphemy law would be a
law religious in nature, it's unconstitutional.
But that's not how things are done today. Too
many groups are trying to dig under, climb over,
or drive a tank through the wall of separation
our founding fathers were wise enough to erect.
Should we have sanctions against countries that
persecute religious minorities? Sure. Should we
have sanctions against countries that persecute
freethinkers? Yes, for the same reason -- human
rights violations are human rights violations, no
matter whether the person in the cell believes in
Wotan or The Almighty Doorknob or No Gods At All,
Thank You Very Much.
Do I trust the motivations behind Pat Robertson
and his fellows who are pushing this legislation?
Not as far as I could throw a refrigerator. These
people are pushing a good and decent idea -- the
promotion of civil rights -- as a trojan horse to
sneak in their own anti-freedom agenda. Just
another case of Pat Robertson being the king of
all hypocrites.
name: John Quinley
email: jquinley@aros.net
Wednesday, 07-Oct-1998 10:42 PST
For years, China has been granted Favored Nation status
for trading purposes, in spite of the fact that they
persecute relentlessly the Buddhist communities in
Tibet, destroying thousands of Buddhist temples.
Are we now going to see the error of our ways
because of some law we are passing? I can think of
no better example of religious persecution in the
modern world, yet this doesn't even seem to be the
target of the legislation.
name: Cary Pincus
email: pincus@aracor.com
Wednesday, 07-Oct-1998 10:53 PST
Blasphemy and insults may or may not be a result of hatred.
The concept of "hate crimes" is a can of worms unto itself.
The determination of whether a particular act is a crime
should not be seen as dependent on the motivation.
A finding that a person was motivated by hate should only
be used in deciding appropriate sentencing and rehabilitation.
In any event, free speech is no crime.
name: Mendel Cohen
email: mendel@davis.uswest.net
Wednesday, 07-Oct-1998 11:50 PST
The last question asks whether Islam is unique in its use of violence
against those who disagree with its teachings. The correct answer would
seem to be that it is not unique but is more capable of using violence because
it is the dominant religions in many countries that lack the Western tradition
of pluralism and tolerance. I'm sure that the ultra-orthodox Jews of Isreal
and fundamtntalist Christians in many nations would be delighted to have the
ability to act as Islamic fundamentalists do in many parts of the world.
name: Blue Future
email: BlueFuture@aol.com
Wednesday, 07-Oct-1998 14:45 PST
Read Ayn Rand
name: anonymous
email: declined to provide
Wednesday, 07-Oct-1998 16:14 PST
No government has any business interferring with free speach and a pluralistic
society should not use economic sanctions against other societies by legally
compelling people to refran from business with others. economic sanctions
should be individual decisions (persons or institutions) not legal mandates.
name: Alex
email: anatheist@netscape.net
Wednesday, 07-Oct-1998 19:48 PST
Any attempt by the U.S. or any individual or
organization to limit freedoms of any kind that
prevent man from realizing his own potential and
the right of self-determination, such as those
limiting speech or the act of U.S. intervention
on a culture is, go againt the inherent nature of
freedom. In this reguard, blasphemy is not above
the constitution, or international law, and the
U.S. should keep thier grubby mits out of other
peoples business at all times.
name: George Christ
email: gchrist@indiana.edu
Thursday, 08-Oct-1998 16:05 PST
Persecution on the part of the state regarding its dissidents is nothing out
of the ordinary. For hundreds of years governments have utilized this
"opiate of the masses" in an attempt to constrain its citizens
motivation in the way of any thought process which would conflict with those
dictated to them by legislative "gurus". Those attacking Rushdie,
and the like, are doing it unknowingly on behalf of the government and are
simply perpetuating the absence of what could be considered truly human
liberties, for the sake of red, white and blue nylon.
name: Phillip
email: pposey@airnet.net
Friday, 09-Oct-1998 03:34 PST
Atheists should want rights for everybody. Not discrimation
against religion.
name: Morgan Allspach
email: MsWubble@aol.com
Saturday, 10-Oct-1998 03:47 PST
I think the problem is freedom FROM religion for those who choose not to
accept any religion. The religious should leave us alone. Stop
prosetylizing, preaching, whatever. Why should any non-believer be
obliged to condescent to any religious group. Religion is all fantasy based,
anyway.
name: Bob Francis
email: Blunko@hotmail.com
Saturday, 10-Oct-1998 05:57 PST
Is not Blasphemy the act of expressing lack of reverence for a god.
Well is not expressing reverence for a god go againest the very meaning of
Atheism.
Moderator: This one is close to being
off topic. The topic generally revolves around freedom from persecution.
name: Kathy
email: Callista68@aol.com
Saturday, 10-Oct-1998 13:54 PST
Blasphemy is a victimless crime. I think it is ludicrous that anyone would even consider making it a crime. It's time for this country to grow up and put aside childish beliefs. Only then will we achieve a more fair, moral society.
name: John Franson
email: jef4219@ksu.edu
Sunday, 11-Oct-1998 00:45 PST
The US and other democratic nations should attempt to peacefully intervene
and use economic sanctions whenever and wherever any human rights are being
denied--not just in cases of religious persecution.
name: John
email: swampjohn@yahoo.com
Sunday, 11-Oct-1998 01:58 PST
I feel we should, as a nation, act in some way against any country violating
human rights. These, however should extend to all rights and not just to
religious ones. The rights to free movement and association should be
encouraged with more vigor than religious freedom. Theocratic states should
not be considered as "friends" under any circumstance.
name: Paul E. Koehler
email: koehls@thegrid.net
Sunday, 11-Oct-1998 17:18 PST
I consider all belief in gods to be blasphemy of the natural universe.
Aside from that, religions that feel the need to persecute so-called
blasphemists impress me as being timid: afraid that a few mispoken words
uttered by a believer or a few well chosen words uttered by an infidel will
harm them or invite potentially damaging clear, skeptical thinking. Such
weakness in the face of perceived slights is laughable, but does not need
to be actionable by my government.
name: Matt Walter
email: peanutbuddha@hotmail.com
Monday, 12-Oct-1998 00:33 PST
religious persecution has been around since the dawn of time, and as long as
each group believes that have the only ticket to Heaven, the fanatics in those
groups will not concern themselves with such petty concerns as "human
rights" when they obviously know everyone but themselves are wrong.
name: R. Vincent Tuite
email: rvtnet@westol.com
Monday, 12-Oct-1998 12:33 PST
The major issue to me isn't so much which policies and laws are enacted but
whether or not they are EQUALLY applied to all groups. Secular groups should
receive as much protection from discrimination as do religous groups.
Also it never fails to amaze me how some religious leaders can speak out
against "hate speach" when in terms of "hate speach" the
bible and koran make Mein Kampf look like Dr. Seuss. If we actually ever got
rid of hate literature, most of the world's religious texts would be the
first to go.
name: Jeff Lewis
email: jklewis@televar.com
Tuesday, 13-Oct-1998 11:25 PST
Our government should not be pre-occupied with
religion at all. Human rights violations should
be dealt with using secular guidelines. If
someone offends another's religious beliefs and
is imprisoned or otherwise harmed, the issue is
free speech, not blasphemy. If the U.S.
government bases foreign policy on religious
issues of any kind, we are opening the door to
global religious wars.
name: venus morgan
email: venus.morgan@murraystate.edu
Tuesday, 13-Oct-1998 11:27 PST
I think people should be allowed to express their religous views in anyway
they want. Last April I was arrested at the Benton Kentucky Tator Dats
festival for wearing a Marilyn Manson shirt. I was actually found guilty and
fined $322. There is no religous freedom any more. At least not in a small
town like Benton. Every thing is run by Christians and that will never
change unless we do something about it. I am appealing my case and will
continue to until I win.
name: Steve Guilliot
email: s.guilliot@vanderbilt.edu
Tuesday, 13-Oct-1998 11:32 PST
There are many topics on which foreign countries disagree with the US.
It's nice to think we can pick conflicts based on any/all of these, but
practicality considered, our battles must be chosen. While religious freedom
is foremost in our minds, it is only one of these many points of contention.
If we, the Amercan People, allow too many things to become reasons for
sanction and isolation, then soon we will be doing ourselves more disservice
than good.
Look at the slow wave of progress and you will see that passively opening our
culture to the people of opressed nations can have westernization effects.
Restricting this will only dogmatize and entrench them in the currently
established.
name: Chet Twarog
email: ctwarog@hotmail.com
Tuesday, 13-Oct-1998 14:20 PST
If people or institutions were "secure" in their religious beliefs,
then any scientific findings or other criticism would not be perceived as a
"threat" to them. However, we are continuing to witness the
"religious" banning, censoring, murdering, and threatening because
their "faiths and beliefs" are not secure.
name: Liz Waddle
email: wiiiowtear@aol.com
Tuesday, 13-Oct-1998 17:53 PST
Religious Freedom definitely does not include making things like blasphemy
(the freedom of which should be PART of religious freedom) against the law.
It is silly and blatantly discriminating against those who have the opinion
that any certain god should not be taken seriously and wishes to say so.
Blasphemy, I think, is protected clearly by the first amendment's guarantee
of freedom of speech.
name: D. Grindle
email: humorously declined to provide
Wednesday, 14-Oct-1998 11:42 PST
It was curious to me that this poll should serve as a platform for people
to endorse the use of sanctions or "peaceful intervention" to
protect authors such as Rushdie. The US and the UK have an obligation to
protect their citizens and to promote the freedom of ideas, but those
obligations should not serve as a crutch for people with an axe to grind
against militant fundamentalist countries like Iran. Facism comes in all
colors, shapes and religions and the selective approach to protecting the
darlings of faddish media causes using the power of government should be
repugnant to atheists who use logic as the guide to life. These authors are
no different from the millions of other political prisoners and refugees
around the world. Should the US and the UK cut themselves off from every
oppressive regime in the world? What then is the influence we will carry
world wide? What then of our vaunted constitution and the freedom of
expression (even for zealots and assholes)? We also should be wary of being
caught up in the same types of hysteria our fundamentalist christian friends
do-worrying about religious persecution abroad and how it will impact the
freedom of ideas here in the US. Come now, are we really going to get so
paranoid as to stoop to the level of these people. America is the country
of the first amendment - which has only recently come into its full fruition.
America, as usual, needs only to be protected from the scourge of narrow
minded, religion infected americans.
name: Byron Taylor
email: bctaylor@bellsouth.net
Wednesday, 14-Oct-1998 11:52 PST
Sir:
As it happens, I was today re-reading Durants'
"The Age of Faith" and was minded by your forum
of his comment that, "We cannot interest
ourselves in the many winds of doctrine that
agitated the Church...we can only mourn over
the absurdities for which men have died,
and will."
BC Taylor
name: John Smith
email: smith.johnc@bld.bls.com
Wednesday, 14-Oct-1998 12:37 PST
I don't think that pointing out the atrosities and religious persecutions
in the middle east will help squelch the opinions and agendas of the religious
right in the US. Most Christians merely think that their religion is far
more sensible than those of the middle east. Also, most Christians would be
hard pressed to admit any unfairness abroad with similar circumstances that
Athiests now face in the U.S.. Christianity, like most religions is a
"blind" faith and blasphemy against another faith is generally okay
in their mind because they think they're ultimately right. Simply put, you
can't win an arguement with someone who won't "reason" or
"listen".
In response to your survey though, the U.S. can not be responsible for the
religious policies of other nation's governments unless they also violate the
principles of basic human rights. If religious governments implement policies
that clearly violate human rights, than we should definitely hammer 'em.
name: Matthias Weiss
email: mmshiro@math.lsa.umich.edu
Wednesday, 14-Oct-1998 15:16 PST
I think there should be a clear distinction between
criticizing, insulting or ridiculing an individual
on the basis of their, say, physical features,
and on the basis of what that person CHOOSES to
believe. A person's opinion on a certain subject,
no matter how dear that opinion might be to them,
should always be allowed to be questioned without
punity. There is naturally a boundary of good
taste, but that boundary should be flexible.
Religious believers should tolerate expressions of
dissent - humorous, artistic or otherwise -
at least as severe as political, professional or
other secular groups who share a common framework
of thought.
The Old Testament story of the Golden Calf sets
a dangerous precedent for dealing with religious
"dissidents." On the other hand, it is always
interesting to see how religious groups which are
eager to persecute "non-believers" react to the
same kind of treatment when they form a minority.
However, one must equally recognize that this
kind of oppression is not restricted to religions,
but applies to any kind of ideological framework
which serves to uphold a certain power structure.
From first-hand experience I can say that
communism is manifestly atheist, however, there
were very well punishable or sanctionable offences
analogous to "blasphemy." Take also a close look
at the McCarthy era in the US to observe similar
patterns. The question is therefore not, "How
should we deal with RELIGIOUS persecution?" but
"How should we deal with the persecution of
dissidents in general?"
name: MAX ROBERT
email: misrael@earthlink.net
Friday, 16-Oct-1998 00:51 PST
I think criminalizing blasphemy would collide with the First Amendment
freedom of speech and put the government on the side of religion thus
eroding the separation of church and state. It would also give religionists
a special protection that cannot be extended to atheists, who by definition,
cannot have their beliefs violated to a comparable degree. Another issue
here is to someone who is not a follower of a certain religion, what
constitutes blasphemy is not clearly defined.
name: Diana Newman
email: diana@n1.net
Saturday, 17-Oct-1998 15:07 PST
Your poll seems a bit slanted, but I had to answer as I did given the form.
For one thing, I believe that the 'act' addresses, not comments or statements
or books, but physical acts against people because of their religious beliefs.
THIS should, in my opinion, very definately be against the law, since violence
against people because of their beliefs is a direct violation of their first
amendment rights. As for other countries, if we feel justified in interfering,
peacefully or otherwise, to ensure the rights of the people to have differing
political opinions, then we MUST do the same thing to ensure the right to
differing religious or other opinions.
As to blasphemous statements, as difficult as it is for some people to hear
their own personal faith demonized or denigrated, that comes with the territory.
If one is free to believe what one wishes, then one must ALSO respect the
rights of others to believe as they wish, even if that belief is diametrically
opposed to ones' own.
On the other hand, if someone mocks and denigrates MY religious beliefs,
then I, having the same freedom as he, can call him an unredeemable, bigoted
boor, devoid of all human decency, whose mother would be shamed to own, and
whose father faked the marriage vows.
name: Kenneth F. Flaherty
email: sirecho@msn.com
Saturday, 17-Oct-1998 19:34 PST
Being concerned about religious rights as opposed to human rights; puts
religious rights before human rights, and indeed means that there are no other
rights or they are not as important as religious rights. Human rights would
include religious rights; religious rights diminish human rights.
Being concerned about religious rights as opposed to human rights; puts
religious rights before human rightso and indeed means that there are no
other rights or they are not as important as religious rights.
Human rights would include religious rights; religious rights diminish human
rights.
name: Michael Alexander
email: kestrel9@idt.net
Saturday, 17-Oct-1998 21:20 PST
If you believe that the Koran is correct and you read it, you must become
Muslim. If you believe that it is wrong, you can't state your opinion in
some countries. This brainwashing based on threats of violence. Some
countries are 99.7% Muslim and you don't get percentages like that without
oppression.
I am apostate (former Christian) and I feel an affinity for other apostates
leaving other religions. Enough Muslims want to kill apostates that the
whole religion is tainted by their bloodlust. I was afraid of my father at
one point, so I know that fear is an effective form or religious brainwashing.
name: Brian Blaha
email: i_am_chaos_theory@yahoo.com
Sunday, 18-Oct-1998 00:48 PST
This kind of persecution has been going on for
decades. What caused Congress to bring it up now?
Also, I wonder if they would count atheism as a
religion like they do in the 1st amendment. Would
the protection extend to atheists? If it turns out
not to, then Congress is screwing up. Besides all
of this, doesn't the US have laws concerning
persection of ANY group? Like political asylum?
What makes this any less redundant than hate crime
legislation?
name: Jon Northwood
email: jonathan@northwood.org
Sunday, 18-Oct-1998 03:56 PST
I think the current concern from the about Christian religious persecution is
hypocritical at best -- a two-faced mewling about the horrors of Christian
persecution, murmured by men and women doing their best to grind other
religions into the dust. Between the premises of Falwell, Roberts, Dobson
and the rest, we're seeing an increase in far-right rhetoric backed with
enormous amounts of money and no morality--no conscience--whatsoever.
Do we need to be concerned with religious issues in the U.S. and abroad? Yes,
but with a caveat -- we each need to be concerned with our own.
When Jefferson, speaking about America, wrote about the "wall of
separation between the Church and the State," he wasn't saying it
should be a "good-neighbor fence"; rather, that it should be a
complete and total separation, allowing each person their individual choices
in religious belief, or lack thereof, and not forcing someone to believe in a
specific pattern in order to enjoy the equal benefits of the union.
There was no quid-pro-quo relationship between religion and "the pursuit
of happiness" -- and, as has been noted repeatedly, freedom _of_ religion
of a necessity includes freedom _from_ religion.
In America, should spraying swastikas on a synagogue be classified as a hate
crime based upon religion? Personally, I'd say yes.
_However_
In America, should _talking_ about spraying the swastikas on the synagogue
be classified as a hate crime at all? No.
In Iran, should speaking out against Islam be a hate crime? That’s not our
call to make.
We are not the culture in question in that equation. We are the visitor, the
one who’s not living there, the one who will need to conform to his
surroundings, regardless of personal beliefs.
In America, though, while the intent behind the activity is perhaps the most
important consideration, we need to look to the actions of the people involved
and not just their words.
With the "Religious Persecution Red Herring" and the
"International Religious Freedom Red Herring", we see only too
clearly the agenda set by the Repugnicant party and its concomitant
bed-partner, the "Religious Right" -- Christianity is to be
protected at all costs, regardless of the religious patterns of the world
around it. Other religions, though, are apparently far less important.
I believe it was the Christ Jesus who said, "In my father's house there
are many mansions." In this particular case, these acts serve no
purpose other than to ensure that, while the Christians stay as guests, the
best that other religions can hope for is to be hired as the cleaning staff.
name: Dick Eney
email: dickeney@access.digex.net
Sunday, 18-Oct-1998 11:15 PST
Those who answered "no" are probably considering all the
past history of all major religious groups. I answered
"yes" -- Islam is uniquely violent _now_, whatever may
have been the case with Christians under the Inquisition
or Ku Klux Klan or Jews under the Hashmonean dynasts. No
current religion compares with Islam in the license it
gives to violence, from whipping to murder, in the name
of religion, or in the number of followers of Islam who
are willing to commit such violence.
name: Fokren Masters
email: fokren9@hotmail.com
Sunday, 18-Oct-1998 23:37 PST
There are many religions in this world and many followers with many different
forms of worship and belief. In my opinion it is not the responsibility of the
state to advocate one form of belief over another. This is the essence of the
separation of church and state, an idea concieved long ago by people who knew
what they were doing. I find this expecially important when considering
imposing our own belief systems and morals on other cultures. I believe it is
not the responsibility of the United States government to make decisions for
other people.
name: Michael Healy
email: phealy@flash.net
Sunday, 18-Oct-1998 17:30 PST
I just wanted to say that, in regards to question 4 (persecution of religious
groups), I believe that atheism is a type of religion and we are persecuted by
the american people all the time.
Go to Poll/Results.
![[back]](../backarrow.gif) Back
to Top of Forum.
![[top]](/uparrow.gif)
Copyright
© 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 by American Atheists.
|
