|
Tell Us What You Think
name: Mark Spencer
email: cavebear@ero9ls.com
Monday, 02-Mar-1998 12:15 PST
The wording of this proposal offers a carte blanche to every religious
fanatic in the nation to invade their local public schools and proselytize
to their hearts' delight. The Religious Right will be able to disrupt
biology and sex ed classes by praying in vociferous groups. What would
stop some church from setting up a prayer hall in my government office?
And what would stop one of them from standing by my desk all day reading
their nonsense out loud?
I can't wait for it to occur to the christians pushing this law that their
children will be at the mercy of the ravings of "other" religions.
What, their children subjected to that comet-cult, new-age, heathenistic
nonsense? Well, that's what the proposal would allow!
name: Andrew Lancashire
email: llysfaen@bellatlantic.net
Monday, 02-Mar-1998 14:38 PST
This RFA is just another example of someone in government wasting time and
(our) money just trying to make a name for themself. If you consider what
State is started in you can see the plan behind the sham.
name: CF Sabourin
email: CFSabourin@rationalresources.org
Monday, 02-Mar-1998 16:10 PST
The US already has a religious freedom amendment.
It's called the First Ammendment.
name: Aulfin Star
email: gitom1@swlink.net
Monday, 02-Mar-1998 17:15 PST
There should be no special treatment given to people who believe in or
practice any particular religion. This would be the same if we passed
laws that gave anyone who lives an alternative lifestyle special or
guaranteed privileges just because of their sexual preference.
name: Kevin Grishkot
email: kjgrish@us.net
Monday, 02-Mar-1998 20:40 PST
This measure is not needed and is illeagal. If theists want to live in a
country where the church is the government, then why isn't there a mass
migration to places like Iran? Theocracies are bad, all of them.
name: Jason Tippitt
email: scarcrest@hotmail.com
Monday, 02-Mar-1998 23:19 PST
This Amendment is just like a school-prayer law in
that it guarantees every atheist -- indeed, every
person whose opinion deviates from the majority's
party line -- the right to be degraded by the
government. The right to watch their kids get beat
up at school for stepping out of the classroom
while someone drones on and on to his or her
imaginary friend. That's a right I could just as
well live without...
name: Margie Wait
email: mdwait@mindspring.com
Monday, 02-Mar-1998 23:48 PST
The so-called "Religious Freedom Amendment" is only about
religious freedom for Christians, at the expense of all
others, believers and non-believers alike. A friend
recently told me that this piece of legislation just
indicates who has the power in Congress at the present
time. However, I say that HJR78, or any similar piece of
legislation crafted by the religious right should never
be passed. The US Constitution isn't about supporting the
ideals of the "majority," or those who happen to have
more clout with the politicians at any given time.
Rather, our constitution is about preventing a
tyranny of the majority upon the minority. The
Religious Freedom Amendment, if passed, would
subvert the Constitution, imposing a tyranny upon
all non-Christian Americans, whether they are
believers, freethinkers or Atheists. We need only
look to the countries of Iran, Afghanistan and Israel
to realize that Rep. Istook's piece of legislation
is a very bad idea for America. Indeed, the so-called
"Religious Freedom Amendment" is Un-American.
name: Robert I. Scherago
email: scheragor@compuserve.com
Tuesday, 03-Mar-1998 07:06 PST
It seems to me that this bill actually affords
rights to atheists:
"Neither the United States nor any State
shall require any person to join in prayer or
other religious activity, prescribe school
prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny
equal access to a benefit on account of religion.
If this assesment is correct, we should all vote
for it!
--- an atheist and proud of it!
name: guppy
email: guppy_x@hotmail.com
Tuesday, 03-Mar-1998 09:59 PST
This proposed amendment shouldn't be necessary because we already have the
first amendment, which is quite strong. 1st amendment is better because it
doesn't specifically mention "God" thereby making it a universal
amendment. The RFA seems biased toward theistic religions.
PS. You can pray in schools & other public places. You always could.
You just can't force other people to participate or make prayer an officially
sanctioned act of the school. Otherwise, the state is de facto endorsing
a particular religion, which violates separation of church and state.
name: Nathan O. White
email: NateWhite9@aol.com
Tuesday, 03-Mar-1998 16:45 PST
I thought that religion taught people to live an upright, moral life and they
would get their reward in the after-life. It seems that, now, they do not
put much stock in the after-life; they want all their rewards, NOW. They
haven't even been judged, yet, by their god. They are playing god and making
judgements about themselves. It is nothing but a run-away ego trip. Jesus
didn't teach about ego trips; he taught about superego values, (concern for
others). Religion,today, is politics, not religion. They are all concerned
about temporal things, not spiritual things as Jesus taught. So they are
not really Christians; they are politicians.
name: RicH Weinstein
email: mmyn30a@prodigy.com
Wednesday, 04-Mar-1998 07:20 PST
I think that this would change the nature of
the consititution and how atheists on all cases
are treated. I think that if this becomes part
of the consititution that people would be
interested in moving to such countries as Findland (they have a president)
Australia & or
Jamaica so that some of us have an outside
perspective and that these places report what
the difference is.
RicH Weinstein Boynton
Beach FLA.
name: Bill Purcell
email: purcellj@erols.com
Wednesday, 04-Mar-1998 18:04 PST
The wording of the RFA assumes the existence of god by using the word
acknowledge, and by capitalizing the word "god." The amendment
even assumes that there is only one choice in gods. I do not think that
such an amendment would ever be ratified, but it is frightening to think
that such a proposal could ever garner a majority vote in the House
Judiciary Committee.
name: matt wolejko
email: mawF95@hamp.hampshire.edu
Wednesday, 04-Mar-1998 18:21 PST
I find it troubling that a country which would not pass an amendment to ensure
equal rights for both sexes (the ERA) feels it necessary to create an
amendment that is both redundant and detrimental to our most fundamental
amendment. Unfortunately, it is not out of character. The RFA would also
ensure inequality, only this time under the guise of "religious
freedom." If I cannot, or will not, back up my own code of ethics with
references to a mystical creature, then i lose the right to live by this
code. However, no doubt to rescue me from immorality, those with deities
can impose their beliefs on me all they wish.
This is what they're calling freedom?
name: Ron Barrier
email: rbargodnow@aol.com
Wednesday, 04-Mar-1998 19:11 PST
The RFA would establish three major ideas:
1) It would legally establish the existence of an invisible, non-human
lifeform (with a recommendation to subservience) and fortify it with
constitutional protection;
2)Monotheism would be the governmentally preferred "faith."
3)Tax-breaks and other benefits would be more accessible to citizens and/or
organizations proclaiming to communicate with this constitutionally protected,
government recommended non-earthly lifeform.
GIVE ME A BREAK!
name: Joel Walsh
email: joelwalsh@usa.net
Thursday, 05-Mar-1998 07:36 PST
I am a Catholic and a "believer" who is appalled by this proposed
amendment, this assault on non-believers, minority religions, the
Constitution, and our time-honored rights.
I am equally appaled that I have only just heard of it today, the very day it
is going before Congress. Where is our pluralistic, ever-vigilant, free
press now? Camping out on Monica Lewinsky's front lawn.
Don't waste time! Call the House Judiciary Committee via the Capitol Hill
switchboard at (202) 225-3121 and tell them what you think.
name: BC Taylor
email: bctrog@csranet.com
Friday, 06-Mar-1998 09:03 PST
The words, "To secure the people's right to acknowledge God..."
re-Constitutes the government of the United States as a theocracy;
the penultimate tyranny. Let us hope they remember in time that, "death
to tyrants is obedience to God."
BC Taylor
name: Fox T. FiZZ
email: ftfizz@yahoo.com
Friday, 06-Mar-1998 15:22 PST
The Christian Coalition will not rest until this country becomes some kind
of strange cross between Fahrenheit 451 and The Handmaid's Tale. I'm willing
to bet that after the RFA they're going to try and pass mandatory
"Supreme Being" worship laws.
name: Carol Faulkenberry
email: alncarol@internetpro.net
Friday, 06-Mar-1998 16:35 PST
All of us should start studying religions and
select one that has really far-out beliefs and
practices. Then, if the Religious Reich succeeds
in getting this stupid amendment ratified, we
could go into public places and demand the right
to practice our religions. I rather like an
ancient Greek rite my daughter told me about. It
requires women to dress in diaphonous garments,
sling leopard skins over their shoulders, drink
copious quantities of wine, and then run around
in public, shouting wildly while swatting men on
their rumps with palm leaf fans. I understand
there's even a statue to the proper deity in
Birmingham, AL so I could "worship" right in front
of my "god." After all, how is the RR to
determine what religious beliefs I hold? And
why should I not offend people if they insist on
using the law to force their beliefs on me?
Let's fight this amendment in any reasonable way
we can, but let's be prepared to fight fire with
fire if need by.
name: Mary Jeanne Graham
email: graham911@juno.com
Friday, 06-Mar-1998 16:57 PST
This ammendment is nothing more than an attempt to increase the power of
religionists,(particularly the Christian majority), to infringe their beliefs.
name: Mary Jeanne Graham
email: graham911@juno.com
Friday, 06-Mar-1998 16:57 PST
This ammendment is nothing more than an attempt to increase the powere of religionists,(particularly the Christian majority), to infringe their beliefs
name: Ian Brown
email: ibrown@willamette.edu
Sunday, 08-Mar-1998 15:46 PST
I wonder how the Baptists who vote for it will feel when teachers have
their kids bowing to Mecca.
name: Bob Haynes
email: bob@scs.unr.edu
Monday, 09-Mar-1998 20:07 PST
I thought that minority rights were protected and
that everybody understood that. This is a very
transparent attempt by the RR to ensure inequality,
........ in THEIR favor. The RFA blatantly
acknowledges a "God". All I can do is shake my
head in wonder.
I'm still resentful about the "under god" being
added to the POA. This RFA gives me a sick
feeling in my stomach.
name: Aaron
email: cadre@postoffice.ptd.net
Monday, 09-Mar-1998 20:30 PST
Looking at the results, it seems to be that we aren't getting a very
random poll. Get your friends/coworkers to vote on this also!
Moderator's note: Don't forget to get them
to read the background material too.
name: Peter B. Steiger
email: pbs001@hotmail.com
Tuesday, 10-Mar-1998 10:13 PST
Here's a dissenting opinion from the minority (in this forum,
at any rate):
Is the First Amendment sufficient protection for religious freedom?
It should be, but historically it has been misinterpreted, misapplied,
and misquoted by extremists on both sides of the fence. The RFA is an
effort to clear up any ambiguity in the First Amendment.
"But", critics of the RFA cry, "There's nothing ambiguous about the
statement 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'!" If you'll pardon
my ironic use of the phrase, you're preaching to the choir. It seems
perfectly clear to anyone who can read more than two syllables that
there should be no laws requiring you to pray and no laws preventing me
from praying - to Jesus, Buddha, or L. Ron Hubbard if that's my choice.
There is no condition to that statement restricting it to silent prayer,
private property, or off-campus prayers only. So why do we keep hearing
about students being penalized for expressing their religious convictions
in public?
If the First Amendment were honored fairly, equally, and consistently for
all practitioners of religion or lack thereof, there would be no need for
the RFA; I agree wholeheartedly that it is redundant. But as it stands,
I'm willing to accept that redundancy in the hopes that it will reduce
instances of both enforced prayer and enforced NON-prayer.
OK, I'll conclude my editorial with a quick prayer. Anyone who is not
interested is free to leave... Hey, where did everyone go?
pax,
PBS
name: Bob Neifert
email: BobNeifert@aol.com
Tuesday, 10-Mar-1998 11:09 PST
For decades the courts have been refining religous freedom; there's more
work to do, but RFA is designed to undo those decades of progress.
RFA would guarantee to majority religionists the freedom to exploit public
resources and positions of authority to impose their own values and beliefs
on atheists and other minorities. This is the _antithesis_ of religious
freedom and it is exactly the type of tyrany what the Bill of Rights is
supposed to prevent.
As such I opine that RFA is illegal until the First Amendment is repealed.
name: Mike "Bishop"
email: Godspank@aol.com
Wednesday, 11-Mar-1998 16:34 PST
It never ceases to amaze me how far the religious right of this country will
go to simultaneously play the roles of both savior and martyr.
I truly wonder what the reaction of these zealots for an imaginary diety
will be when a Wiccan shows up to school with an athame and insisting on
using the gymnasium to perform a ritual...
Or what side they will take should a Christian, "following the dictates
of conscience" and the biblical admonition: Suffer not a witch to
live, kill that same wiccan?
The RFA is a powder keg waiting to be set off by the superiority of one man's
diety over anothers, or the "moral right" of the castigating
of such "marginal" interest groups as us atheists...
I can only hope our lawmakers use common sense when considering this measure,
voting with their eyes firmly upon reason and not upon votes for upcoming
elections...
name: M.A. Piper
email: mpiper@indiana.edu
Saturday, 14-Mar-1998 07:16 PST
I'm not sure how this legislation really differs from what is already stated in the Bill of Rights. It is, if anything, redundant, and actually regressive.
name: Eric
email: erickex@msn.com
Monday, 16-Mar-1998 16:15 PST
Oh, the theists are getting so clever after all the martyrdom they've endured.
This is a thinly veiled attempt by the Christian fundies to get the govt to
acknoledge them constitutionally. As has been said, anybody and everybody
can pray all day long anywhere they want, so long as they aren't doing it
into a microphone or disrupting what everyone else is doing. Of course,
you can state your religious affiliation proudly already. Christian fundies
just want to be able to spout off all the time and to "share"
their beliefs with me every waking hour of the day. This amendent might
lead us to that place.
name: Kevin Ault
email: ault@mci2000.com
Wednesday, 18-Mar-1998 20:41 PST
It seems that Christians have been so thoroughly desensitized to
contradiction by their own Bible that they can't see the contradiction
they are trying to put in our Constitution:
1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion"
RFA: "...secure the people's right to acknowledge God"
The RFA is a LAW (the supreme law of the land, mind you) respecting the
establishment of RELIGION! I for one don't want to see our Constitution
convoluted by this acceptance of contradiction. Those who have eyes,
let him see!
name: Jason Williams
email: Dandin765@aol.com
Wednesday, 18-Mar-1998 20:53 PST
this is terrible the bill discriminates and violates separation of church
and state.
name: Matthew Rupert
email: hoagy@atheist.com
Thursday, 19-Mar-1998 19:55 PST
I was shocked when I visited Ishtook's page
dedicated to this proposal. The absolute
fundamentalist slant on the so-called "facts"
section of his page made me shudder with fear.
I wasn't surprised that all of the sponsors
of this bill are religious groups - I was surprised
at how many different ones support this measure.
Why not, after all? Granting special favors
to those who are "with God" and not mentioning
us "horrible, evil, communist devil-worshipping
athiests" reeks of pure prejudice.
Ishtook and his ilk make me sick to my stomach.
They claim the religious folk are in trouble
because they can't freely express themselves
in schools or on public tax-supported parks.
They claim we non-religious folk are forcing them
to stop praying.
Yet if an atheist group wished to meet or a
Pro-Choice group decided to convene, they'd be
drummed out of the building and possibly hanged
by fundamentalist "American Christians". . .
all in the name of "God" and "love".
I'm sick, now. Time to vomit on Pat Robertson's
picture again.
name: Terry Tremaine
email: trem@cableregina.com
Saturday, 21-Mar-1998 19:16 PST
The essence of the first amendment is that it established the US
on the principle of secular government AND secular citizenship.
Americas freedoms are rooted in this concept. America has set
an example of freedom and democracy throughout the world
for many years. To start down the road to the establishment of
two kinds of citizenship, one for believers and one for non-believers,
will be the beginning of the end for America's great experiment in democracy.
name: Lynette Warren
email: ares@surfari.net
Sunday, 22-Mar-1998 00:18 PST
I oppose the Religious Freedom Amendment. I'm a religious person and
I don't think it was the intent of the founders of this country to
exclude worship or religious symbols on public property, even so I
don't believe we should seek to amend the Constitution every time the
current prevailing rulings in our judicial branch are in error.
In other words, I don't like religion bans on public property, but I
don't like the amendment either.
name: Jan Hauger
email: hauger@vt.edu
Sunday, 22-Mar-1998 07:44 PST
I am disgusted with the proposed Religious Freedom
amendment. It is totally unnecessary and an
insult to the adequate U.S. Constitution.
The mention of the word God in there is wrong as
well, already in its very wording being extremely
buyist toward monotheistic religions.
I think this would be a step in the wrong
direction for the United States!
name: Russell Easy
email: rdeasy@sympatico.ca
Sunday, 22-Mar-1998 13:15 PST
Once again I am appalled at the backwards progress of American Society
in regards to so-called religious democracy.
I see similiar sentiments surfacing in Canadian culture as well.
I dread the day when I see teachings on evolution completely removed from
our public school system and Darwin labelled the anti-christ.
Is human-kind so addicted to intellectual degradation?
View Poll Results.
![[back]](../backarrow.gif) Back
to Top of Forum.
![[top]](/uparrow.gif)
Copyright
© 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 by American Atheists.
|
