Dear Tom,

IMHO, we're living in a free land. That has several consequences :

1) The rules of this list have been proposed and accepted long ago, with the
OT: tag in the subject line. That means everyone is free to subscribe or
unsubscribe to that OT:-tagged part of the list.

2) I do not think one earns the "right" to post OT: stuff. Who are we to
pretend we can safely and adequately determine that this person can post OT:
and that person can't ? No way. As long as rule #1 is respected, IMHO (again
...) everyone can post OT: stuff.

3) Some, if not most, of the OT: stuff posted here has provided great
debates of ideas, with confrontation, and a general tendency to understand
the other person's point of view. this is good. If we can accept other
people's points of view in OT: discussion, it may not be too far-fetched to
imagine we could also accept other people's points of view in on-topic,
technical discussion, and hence have a betetr understanding of our core
activity : MPE and the 3000.

In a nutshell, I agree that you post OT: stuff. You and everyone else. As
long as the post if properly tagged (OT:) and respects what is generally
expected from a civilized discussion, like a fair treatment of dissenting
opinions and a gen eral respect of other people.

Now to the core subject, Christianity in public offices .... I reckon I may
not have a US-acceptable view. What does that mean ? Simple and easy. Here
in France, we've had a law that provides for a strict separation of Church
and State, and it has been effective since 1905. That means, e.g., that
State resources can't be used to fund churches, that prayers can't be said
within state official buildings or by state officials during their duty. Of
course, as France is, too, a free land, public officials are free to adhere
to whatever faith they believe in. France has had no law to disciminate
against Jews, for instance, since 1791, except the brief hiatus of the
infamous Vichy regime during the Nazi occupation, 1940-1944. As a
consequence, a debate like you are having these days in the States about
posting or not posting the 10 Commendments (or any other Holy Scripture,
FWIW) in public buildings is unthinkable here. Much the same way, it is
quite hard to imagine a phrase like "In God we trust" could ever be posted
on banknotes in France. That does not mean we do not believe in God. That
just means it is in no way the State's duty to tell what to believe.

For almost the same reasons, there is a great debate here in France at this
moment about obvious religious signs worn (or not worn) in public schools.
There are various laws regulating that public, state-run schools are
religion-free, period. The basic laws are the 1881 law providing that state
schools are free, lay and mandatory, and the already mentioned 1905
Separation of Church and State law. Another bill will be introduced in the
National Assembly (our House of Representatives, if you like) to regulate
the religious signs at public schools. It is going to be a very simple law,
with only one important article, prohibiting the exposure to public view of
obvious religions signs. What does that mean ? As a Christian, I could wear
a small cross hidden under my sweater (religion is a private matter, OK ?),
but not a large cross OVER my sweater (an obvious religious sign). If I were
a jew, I could wear a 6-branch star under my seater, but not a kippa
(spelling, please ? I'm not an expert in anything jewish). If I were a
muslim, I could wear a small crescent (or any other privately worn small
sign) under my sweater, but not a headscarf. In fact, all the current
inflamatory debate we are having right now started about 15 years ago with
muslim girls wearing headscarves at public schools. This is soon going to be
outlawed.

Now, we are not saying (and I am not saying) that wearing headscarves is a
bad thing. it may or may not be, I don't now, and I do not pretend I can
tell. The only thing that the new law will regulate is separation of Church
and State. That's all. In other words, the mountain of the huge debate will
lay down a mouse. Of course, like in all good democracies, the opposition is
taking advantage of the debate, and tries to throw gasoline on the fire ...
Sigh ... well, that's what an opposition is there for, I guess ... It does
not further any understanding of other relogions (which I regret), it is
just a purely political exploitation of a debate that should have occurred a
long time ago anyway.

Now, Tom, to get back to your unsubscribing the OT: stuff, I regret your
decision. I understand it, but I regret it. For the sake of my core
activity's schedule, I rarely participate in OT: discussions, the present
message being an exception. I occasionally read OT: posts, and I admit I
take some minutes every morning to check what I'm going to read later, and
discard the rest. I'm trying to limit the time I devote to message
screening. If it's 5 minutes a day, that's OK with me. OT: stuff is one of
the sheer joys of this list. Hey, people, let's not hide our head in the
sand ... With the gradual demise of the 3000, we are going to have less and
less on-topic discussion. So, either we gradually unsub from this list (may
the last one who leaves please shut out the lights and close the door
...sigh ...), or accept a more and more OT:-oriented signal-to-noise ratio.

Now, Tom, I don't see why anyone would insult you. Or me. Or anyone else on
this list. So, no, I'm not going to recommend you put your flame suit on,
and I'm not going to put on my own flame suit.

AFAIK, you've not offended anyone.

Take care,

Christian Lheureux


> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]De la
> part de Gerken, Tom
> Envoyé : vendredi 16 janvier 2004 18:18
> À : [log in to unmask]
> Objet : [HP3000-L] Christianity in the U.S.A.
>
>
> 3000-L Participants:
>
>
>
> I hesitated to post this for a few reasons.  I rarely get to
> contribute to
> the technical discussions because someone else always gets
> there first, and
> that person tends to have much more MPE knowledge than I
> anyway.  Because of
> this, I feel I haven't earned the "right" to go off-topic
> very much, if at
> all.  Also, I don't relish the idea of people insulting me,
> either by e-mail
> or in person.  Considering the recent tone of the list,
> especially on OT
> posts, I have some reluctance to stick my neck out.
>
>
>
> Having said that, I must also say that I will be
> unsubscribing from the OT
> posts at the end of next week.  I want to say that I very
> much enjoy the OT
> posts.  I love a great debate.  Unfortunately, I love them
> too much.  I find
> it difficult to break away when I should.  I therefore have
> decided I must
> stop them altogether, at least temporarily.
>
>
>
> Why am I telling you all this?  Because there is something I
> have wanted to
> say for a while now.  I want to get it in and give you a
> chance to comment
> before I cut myself off from OT posts.  So, in a fit of
> irony, I contribute
> to the OT glut I will soon shun.  Here goes.
>
>
>
>
>
> I think the Christians in this country should stop fighting
> for the Ten
> Commandments in public buildings or for prayer at public events.  Why?
> Several reasons.
>
>
>
>  I don't think it really is defensible.  Yes, it used to
> happen all the time
> and nobody ever objected.  That was when we lived in a
> country that was
> largely Christian.  I don't believe that is really the case
> any longer.  If
> the country was majority Muslim, and city officials wanted to
> start meetings
> with a prayer facing toward Mecca, the Christians in the
> audience would be
> really upset.  Someday, if America is majority Muslim, they
> may try that.
> If we were to object, they could say "you did it when you
> were the majority
> and fought for it when we objected".  What defense would we
> have then?  I
> hear people say that we don't have to stop doing things
> because a small
> minority objects, but is that truly a Christian attitude?  In
> this case,
> shouldn't we take more of a "turn the other cheek attitude"?
>
>
>
>  Second, is it really that important, anyway?  Why do we
> fight for having
> Christian prayers at the start of city council meetings or
> other events?  If
> we want your leaders to make godly decisions, we should pray
> for them before
> the meeting.  If we want football players protected during a
> game, we should
> individually pray for them before it starts.  What good is a
> group prayer if
> half the people "praying" aren't believers?  "The effectual
> fervent prayer
> of a righteous man availeth much."  James 5:16b.  One of my
> friends believes
> God wants him to spend the entire church service off in a
> room praying for
> the congregation.  Just him by himself.
>
>
>
> Third and last, is all of that public Christianity really
> best in the first
> place.  I know the first impulse is to say "Of course it is!"
>  but I wonder.
> It is so easy and even desirable for people to say they are Christian
> because it is so prevalent in our society.  What really makes
> me angry isn't
> the Ten Commandments being removed from courthouses.  What
> makes me angry is
> people like Britney Spears and Bill Clinton calling
> themselves Baptists when
> they so obviously care nothing about the things of God.  I
> think this hurts
> Christianity so much more than not allowing community prayer
> before a high
> school football game.  I remember when Bill was first running
> for president.
> A reporter asked him about religious beliefs and Bill said he
> was Baptist.
> The next day a Baptist minister, IIRC, it was the pastor of
> Bill's church,
> went to the press and basically said, "Wait a minute.  I want
> to make sure
> everyone understands that the Baptist church does not approve
> of abortion,
> etc, even if Bill says he supports it."    Bill wasn't
> embarrassed, but I
> sure would have been.
>
>
>
> I think there is soon coming a day when it will hurt to be a
> Christian in
> America.  You can see the seeds of future persecution being
> sown today.
> People have posted on this listserver examples of schools that allow
> after-school clubs for other religion-oriented groups but
> forbid the same
> privileges for Christian groups.  I believe this kind of
> discrimination will
> only get worse, especially for denominations that refuse to accept
> homosexuality as allowable.  We will be labeled hate-mongers
> soon enough.
>
> See http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36602
> <http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36602>
> This took place in
> Britain, but could easily happen here.  It seems to me we are
> freaking out
> because we are trying to plug a few holes in the dam with our
> fingers, but
> we don't see the barrels of dynamite that are about ready to
> blow the whole
> dam sky-high very soon.  Rather than fight these little
> fights we can't win
> anyway, we should seek God and try to reach our neighbors individually
> through neighborly love and compassion.  These fights just
> make us appear
> combative and petty.  They don't really demonstrate God's love for
> individual people.  God isn't going to save entire
> communities because they
> pray before a city council meeting.  He is going to save
> individual people
> because they individually committed their lives to him.  That
> should be our
> focus.
>
>
>
> I think I have said enough.  Just the ramblings of a man
> trying to see the
> big picture.  Feel free to comment, just keep the
> flame-throwers set on
> stun.   (Thankfully, Brian Donaldson won't even see this.)
>
>
>
> Respectfully yours,
>
>
>
> Thomas L Gerken
>
> Systems Administrator
>
> Paramount Health Care
>
> 419-887-2112
>
>
>
>
>
> EMAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> This Email message, and any attachments, may contain confidential
> patient health information that is legally protected.  This
> information
> is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.
> The authorized recipient of this information is prohibited
> from disclosing
> this information to any other party unless required to do so by law
> or regulation and is required to destroy the information
> after its stated
> need has been fulfilled.  If you are not the intended
> recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or action
> taken in reliance on the contents of this message is strictly
> prohibited.
> If you have received this information in error, please notify
> the sender immediately by replying to this message and delete the
> message from your system.
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *