I agree with Pam to the extent that to be a person of faith in today's
culture is not politically correct, and is often not well received here, and
at many other universities--it won't get you fed to the lions, but you can
usually expect a certain amount of ridicule.
What I consider to be a more interesting issue is the politically correct
view that all religions are "equally valid." I have never personally met a
person of strong faith (regardless of what that faith is) who regarded
other viewpoints as "equally valid." If that is the case, shouldn't we just
pick the religion (or world view or lifestyle) that's easiest?
Claire McCullough
-----Original Message-----
From: UTC Staff E-Mail List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
Harry Hays
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 2:22 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [UTCSTAFF]
pam, you create a "straw man" and then proceed to knock him down. no one
that i know favors stifling your religious voice. i, and the others who
have participated in this discussion, most of whom are undoubtedly
christians themselves, will defend your right, as an individual, to express
you religious beliefs anywhere, anytime. we will not support attempts to
legislate such ideas or to make the state a sponsor of them. proclaim your
piety and pray when and where you wish, but don't force me, or my kids, to
do it at school or in public venues.
what we really object to is the self righteous sanctimony of many so-called
christians who arrogantly assume that they are right and that all other
viewpoints are wrong, or even evil. they think that the state should openly
endorse, not just christianity, but their narrow interpretation of it. they
even claim that this country was founded on christian principles, and that
the ten commandments form the basis of our legal system. as an historian, i
must state emphatically, that this is not so. our nation was founded on
secular, enlightenment principles by a group of individuals who were
profoundly agnostic. the basis of our legal system comes from a combination
of roman and english common law. one might as well assert that our legal
system is based on the code of hammurabi as on the commandments, for the
legal precepts found in the ten were anticipated by much earlier codes,
hammurabi's included. the founding fathers stressed the importance of the
separation of church and state, not so much to protect the state as to
protect religion from being manipulated by the state as the
psuedo-christians i refer to are attempting today. they also stressed that
in matters of conscience, the government should remain strictly neutral. i
find it interesting that the one religious group that originally supported
the separation idea more than any other were the baptists, who were viewed
by mainstream christians then much the same way that mormons are by
mainstream christians today. yet, now, the sbc is in the forefront of
attempts to enforce religious conformity upon us.
personally, i find the creed of a group of people who call themselves
"militant agnostics" attractive. Their motto: I DON'T KNOW AND NEITHER DO
YOU!
Harry M. Hays
History Dept.
At 12:48 PM 8/21/2003 -0400, Pam Carlisle wrote:
>I have been reading the e-mails bounced back and forth about religion this
>morning and have to put my 2 cents in. I am a christian but I do not judge
>others for their choice but I do get angry when I am told that I have the
>freedom to choose to be a christian as long as I do not speak of Jesus out
>in public....which seems to be what is happening now. It seems to me if a
>christian says something about Jesus there is always someone around that
>thinks they are a Bible thumper. It just seems like you can be a christian
>today....as long as you don't tell anyone and I think that is sad.
>
>
>Mrs. Pamela Carlisle
>Graduation Specialist
>Veteran's Affairs Certifying Official
>Office of Records and Registration
>University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
>(423)425-4418
>email [log in to unmask]
|
