Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.prettyboy:20586
Path: news.nzbot.com!spool1.sonic-news.com!pull-news.sonic-news.com!news.astraweb.com!border5.newsrouter.astraweb.com!not-for-mail
Subject: +*+*+*+ Solomon's Private File #54 "CNN Religion and Politics 1" +*+*+*+
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2015 02:16:21 -0400
From: " +Grant. " <+Grant@grant.grant>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.prettyboy
Reply-To: +Grant.
Organization: .
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
X-No-Archive: yes
Lines: 342
Message-ID: <55977a36$0$19979$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d3b61e16.news.astraweb.com
X-Trace: DXC=^ONR^fV@RBa]`e1HJ8=:?`L?0kYOcDh@jUFLS=GhFE4mNUD]k];EK]n3XAHGeab1Xi^bMg:0hjj]eCmFa49Dhd:aP[TTXRSWPCj7Z\mK2b^_2l
Solomon's Private File #54
These stories about Stephen and Solomon take place starting in
1950's. Stephen wrote about his life in letters to a penpal, and then
in a secure blog, in case he lost his memory again, in the master
computer in his school for gifted students, which he started attending
in 2016 in a new incarnation, until his death. Now his son Solomon is
attending the same school, and is writing in his own secure blog for
his future incarnations.
All characters are fictitious, even if some of them might have names
that belong to some actual people, or act like people we know.
Solomon is 15 in this story, in the Summer of 2041.
Solomon's Private File #54 "CNN Religion and Politics 1"
START Page
There was a live program on CNN. There were the religious leaders I
had asked to be there, the constitutional lawyer, and some politicians.
Don was there, too. They were just about to start, after all had been
named. Don said, "We have one more guest scheduled. Solomon?" I ported
in, in my museum disguise. I said, "Hi Don. Hi everybody. Hmm, where do
I sit?" Don said, "We seem to have miscounted the chairs." I said,
"That's alright, I'll sit on your desk. If I get in your way, well,
your chair has wheels." Some chuckled. Don said, "Have you met these
people?" I said, "Before? Some yes, and some no. I think we're fixing
the no part now. I recognize them. To a few, you would look better if
you didn't chew on lemons." Chuckles. I said, "I hope you don't mind my
informality." Don said, "If some did mind it, would you change?" I
said, "A discussion on religion and government. I hear you know
something about those things." I said, "Well, I saved a few
politician's lives, and they said some very religious things about
that." They all laughed, including Don.
I said, "So, what does religion have to do with government?" Silence.
I said, "If any of you have cats, ask them for your tongues back." Some
chuckles, but the lawyer laughed. I said, "Mic, please answer my
question. I know you can, because you have talked a lot about this
before." I had my Ki flowing strongly. He said, "I believe government
shouldn't force religions to do what is against their principles." I
said, "Sounds reasonable on the face of it. But what principles? Most
people don't follow even half of the major principles of their own
religions that governments might want to make laws about. How about
giving us an example of government doing what you describe?" He said,
"Abortion should be against the law." I said, "That does not answer my
question. This is not the proper forum for pushing a political
platform. Please answer my question." He said, "But I did." I said to
the lawyer, "Isn't it true you are taught how to think and debate in
law school?" Jeff said, "Yes, it's true. I take it you want me to help
him." I said, "Right. Thanks." He said, "Solomon asked you to give an
example of a government law that is interfering with religion, and you
answered with something the government is NOT doing, namely making a
law for something. So, you haven't answered his question." Silence. I
said to Jeff, "Maybe he's just not smart enough to understand my
question, or your good explanation. If he disagrees with that, maybe he
should show our audience something to convince them he knows what he's
er, not talking about."
Mic said, "Are you saying I'm stupid?" I said, "I haven't, but if you
want me to, I could, if you want to risk a lot of people agreeing with
me." That drew some chuckles, and some loud laughter, mostly from the
Rabbi. The Mormon Apostle said, "I advise you to just answer his
questions honestly and plainly. We don't have much experience with the
son, but we have with his father. Solomon is significantly less
predictable in his approach, but one thing we all should know about him
is his superior intelligence. Fool with him, and he WILL show you to be
a fool. We wouldn't like that." Mic bowed and said, "Thank you
Apostle." Mic said to me, "I apologize. An example is prohibiting the
Ten Commandments on government property." I smiled and said, "Even if
it is a gift of a movie mogul?" He smiled, and said, "Yes. Some were
promotional gifts." I said, "My personal opinion is that it should be
allowed, but only in houses of the law, because much of our law has
evolved from that er, set. Jeff, why not?" He said, "A lot of people in
the law agree with you, on an historical basis. The Supreme Court has
ruled in reference to the First Amendment of the Constitution, that
allowing that would show preference to some religions, which is not
allowed." I said, "So, if they put the rules of every religion all
together there, it would be allowed?" He said, "Theoretically, that's
possible. It would depend on the Court. Some members would be in favor
of not allowing any of it." I said, "Applying logical extrapolation, I
can see one of the reasons. Who decides what is and is not a religion?
It takes just one person to make a religion, by just saying so. Who
would try to disprove it, leaving their own religion open to disproof?
Religion is faith based, and can't be proved or disproved. Three
hundred million possible sets of rules would be a LITTLE too much." He
said, "I would like to believe I would have thought of that." I said,
"Er, Oops?" Chuckles.
I said, "I've heard an argument in favor of allowing religion in
government based on that all the founding fathers were, at least
officially, Christian, which isn't actually true. But those arguing
that want to limit it to what they say are Christian values, only. Is
this a useful argument?" The Rabbi said, "It sounds reasonable, if it's
what you want. If it's not what you want, even if you are a Christian,
it's not reasonable because it goes against the principles the founding
fathers have enumerated on the subject in the Constitution, and in
their own published writings." I said, "There is another issue. Legal
theory. Due process and equality under the law. If the government
favors one religion over another, doesn't that conflict with those
things?" The Catholic politician said, "In what way?" I said, "What if
one religion allows an activity that is not allowed in another. Should
the applicable law go one way or the other?" He said, "Can you give me
an example?" I said, "Islam prohibits the consuming of alcohol. Judaism
does not, and actually requires it in worship. If religions are equal,
but one is favored, that would have to be decided in favor of one or
the other." He said, "Didn't that happen, with the Prohibition?" I
said, "Not exactly. That was against the SALE of it, and production and
transportation. There are similar laws now in some communities. How
about a Biblical law. Adultery was against the law in this country. So
was Sodomy. The last one is still on the books in some places. It used
to be enforced, but strangely, only against homosexuals. As if heteros
never did that. Do you want to know why that changed? I'll tell you
anyway." Chuckles. I said, "Public opinion, and the courts, became
reluctant to enforce laws against non harmful private social behavior.
That coincided with more respect for the right to privacy, when people
were becoming aware that it was becoming less for all."
Jeff said, "I hadn't made the connection just that way, but I see
it." I said to the Catholic, "Do you want the government to comply with
your religious values?" He said, "Yes." I said, "Honest answer. Now
this. Why?" We all looked very expectantly at him. He really didn't
feel comfortable. Finally he said, "Because it would be best for
America." I said, "And why is that?" He said, really sweating, "Because
it would make other countries respect us more." I said, "Anybody want
to burst his bubble?" Grins. The Liberal politician said, "America has
been promoting secular governments in the countries that were and are
ruled by despotic religious fanatics. If we become the same as what we
oppose, we will lose what little respect we have left." The Catholic
said, "We wouldn't be the same! We would be Christian!"
I said, "Despotism using religion, is the same, no matter which
religion it uses. Power hunger, is power hunger. Tyranny is tyranny.
Want the world to fear another and larger Crusade? Inquisition? And for
us, an oil embargo? Even if we ignore all that, there is another
problem. WHICH Christianity shall rule? The version that forces people
to commit pretend cannibalism, and forces you to tell all your secrets
to a stranger, and is ruled by a supposedly infallible man in a
different country? Or one that is completely ruled by one person in
America, and makes you wear strange underwear, and thinks Native
Americans are Jewish? Or one which is not sure Jesus was holy? Or one
which makes people play with poisonous snakes? One which makes people
fall down in a fit, and make strange noises that people claim are
unknown languages? One in which people quake? One which forbids sex for
everybody? Oh, that one didn't last long. WHICH Christianity shall
rule? Who wants to disagree that you want YOURS to rule? Why yours
above others? What makes you better, but self serving arrogance?"
Silence. The Rabbi, said, "Oy vey! I am very glad WE don't have that
many kinds! You are very right, though. In Israel, there are serious
conflicts over which of our denominations should have the most say in
how the laws are written. But seriously, a Christian religion that
thinks Native Americans are Jewish? This I have to know about!" I
grinned and nodded at the Mormon, who said, "Er, we believe they are
one of the lost Tribes of Israel." I said, "In the subject of religion,
it's very helpful to know about all of them. If you need motivation for
that, how about, 'Know Thine Enemy'?" The Rabbi said, "Truer words I
have not heard. Tell me, is their belief correct?" I said, "Out of
respect for the beliefs of others, even though I listed them a little
er, forthrightly, I think it's best we don't actually challenge them
here." Paolo said, "You are absolutely NOT your father!" I grinned to
their chuckles.
I said, "But there is still something that needs to be defined. What
values are unique to Christianity?" Don said, "Your father asked me
that on air. I could think of only one, and that was belief in Jesus,
but you say not all denominations have that belief?" I said, "Some
Unitarian congregations aren't positive about Jesus being an actual son
of God. Any arguments about unique beliefs?" None. I said, "So it's a
particular Denomination's beliefs you want America to follow. So, what
are those?" Rick said, "Marriage should be between a man and a woman."
I said, "Let's work on that one first. You know we aren't alone in the
universe. Get where I'm going?" He gulped loudly. He said, looking
sick, "I didn't think of that. If they come to Earth, they wouldn't
come to America?" I said, "You know YOU wouldn't, if you were them, so
why do you even ask? Oh, by the way, Posintans have three sexes. No, I
don't want know how they do it. And I don't want to talk to anybody who
needs to know." Chuckles. I said, "One of the reasons we are Restricted
is because of YOU. Yes, YOU, who want to push your religion on people.
All the people who do that, and kill other people because of their
religion, that is THE major reason they don't want anything to do with
Earth. In their view, if your religion is so worthwhile, WHY do you
have to force people to join it? And they extend that with, and if it's
so absolute, why do most in your religion not obey almost all of your
rules? You are against contraception, yet most Catholics are for it.
There is something SERIOUSLY wrong there."
I said, "I'm curious. The Bible is your source of what you believe.
Where is it in there that marriage has to be between just one man and
one woman?" Paolo said, "I'll comment on that. It's not in there. In
fact, many men in the Bible had more than one wife. And not a word was
said against that. In fact, it's just a social and civil custom that
Christianity has adopted." I said, "So part of your laws and what you
believe, is not in the Bible?" He said, "That is correct." I said,
"Then you have no right to deny the Mormons their extra Bible beliefs,
based on that?" He said with a rueful grin, "I refuse to acknowledge
the trap you have caught me in." I said with a grin, "Such traps are
easy to construct, when the target establishes beliefs out of whim, and
not reason." We bowed to each other.
I said, "In actual fact, it was the ROMAN marriage law Christianity
copied, that was forced on Judea and all the other Roman colonies, or
the new religion would never have prospered. Even though the Roman male
aristocracy actually spent more time with their younger boyfriends they
had adopted into their families. Which the Church hierarchy copied well
into the 18th century, in private. People forget that the Roman
Catholic Church was created by the Roman State to help rule its
people." Paolo said, "But we are different now." I said, "A little,
yes. That's a good thing." He nodded.
I said, "There was a case where federal law required health insurance
companies to pay for contraception for women. You know the issue." The
Catholic said, "Yes. A Catholic institution asked for an exemption, and
it was granted." I said, "Jeff, what would the Supreme Court have said
about it?" He said, "There is a lot of precedent. In a suit, the
government would win. They won't allow favoring a religion, which is
what a special exception to the law does." I said to the Catholic, "You
were singularly ungrateful for that gift." He nodded. I said, "He
shouldn't have granted it. Bad precedent. Any religion could then
expect to get an exemption for practically anything they wanted, after
they claim it's against their brand new principles. Think about that!
Didn't it happen?I see you actually are. Right. A principle of a rule
or law that favors a religion can and will be applied to ALL religions,
even organizations that just say they should be treated like that.
That's how the law operates. Equality under the law. Be careful what
you ask for in the name of religion, or you will really regret it. It's
like any form of combat. The weapons you bring to a fight, WILL be used
by everybody, and against you, and probably more effectively. A
Conservative President was given unprecedented power during a war. Then
they complained when a Liberal President used that very power that
still existed. Be not the first to use an exclusive weapon that can be
made inclusive, and you will achieve a moral victory when you turn it
against it's originator. Political greed always turns to regret,
eventually. Do you understand me?"
They showed a lot of different emotions. Some were angry that a kid
was telling them off. Some were embarrassed. Most eventually became
thoughtful, when they realized I was the most powerful and experienced
person in the room. Don took that, and said, "In your lives, have you
experienced that?" I said, "Yes. Hundreds of times. Some of my lives I
now use to know how NOT to be. In some I was wise. One important thing
I learned is, 'That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow
man.'" I said it in Hebrew, and then in English. The Rabbi reacted as
expected. Startlement and reverence. I nodded to him.
I said, "Jeff, a question. Can a State enact a law that has been
ruled unconstitutional for the federal government?" He said, "Yes and
no. There is both precedent for and against that." I said, "The federal
requirement for health insurance. If that had been ruled against, well,
states require car insurance." He said, "The same principle, so in
theory it would hold that it's constitutional. But in practice, it's
different. The federal mandate requires it, without making it a
condition of licensing. If you don't want to have car insurance, you
don't have to buy a car." I said, "But the mandate isn't punished by
prison, but by a fine when you need medical care, which goes to pay for
that care. If you have a car and don't have insurance where it's
required, you are arrested, having broken a criminal law." He said,
"The two systems aren't the same. I can't argue it, but you could be
right." I said, "If a State enacts laws that favors a religion, what
then?" He said, "In theory, the Court could rule against it.
Interestingly, some laws that do that are still on the books in some
States. Do you know of them?" I said, "I know all the laws in all the
States and Territories of America, and I memorized applicable Law
Libraries, and I have read all the Supreme Court decisions. I update
once a week, or sooner as needed." There were some wows. I said, "Like
at the museum, I don't do these events unprepared."
I said to Mic, "As a governor, you approved of a law that has worked
very well for that State, yet you opposed a very similar law which was
modeled on that one, from the federal government. Why?" He said, "The
States should decide that, not the federal government." I said, "I knew
of your position on that, which is a party platform. What isn't really
clear is, why? What difference does it make, WHICH government makes it
law?" He said, "We believe the states should have that right." I said,
"Repeating an answer doesn't provide much clarification. WHY do you
believe that?" He said, "It is a philosophical position." I said, "That
is evident by your use of the word 'belief'. You might as well answer
my question honestly, because most here know I'm going to drag it out
of you, eventually." He looked really nervous. The Mormon Apostle was
actually amused, and was trying to hide it. Paolo, too.
I said to the Catholic, "You have the same view, expressed more
strongly. Want to gain some credibility by answering that question
before he does?" He really didn't. I stabbed Paolo and the Apostle with
my eyes. They looked to each other, and nodded. The Apostle said, "This
has gone on long enough. We oppose the use of our religion in
manipulative politics." Paolo said, "It is the same with us. I require
honesty here." The Apostle said, "Yes. We agree on that. Answer the
He sighed, and said, "We feel we have more political success in some
states than in others. States were a majority can be persuaded to go
along with our platform, if they believe, falsely, they could do a
better job than the federal government. We feel they can be made more
religious if we could make more laws to that effect that the federal
Courts would oppose if done by Congress. More Christian." I said to the
Catholic, "You promote laws that are close to being ruled
unconstitutional, federally, and some that actually are. You hope to
succeed so you can gain political power by positioning yourself as more
religious to those who care about that more than good government, than
those who promote the separation of Church and State. Is that correct?"
said, "Keep your butt out of this! Tell me why you are pushing hard for
laws that comply with the rules of your SPECIFIC Church, that 95% of
your Catholic constituents do not agree with." He looked really odd. He
tried to say something, and failed. I said, "Who do you really
represent, but just yourself?" He still couldn't speak.
I said, "Do any of you see another serious issue here?" Jeff said,
"The Kennedy problem." The Rabbi said, "I don't know what that is, but
I do see a little something. With apologies to my learned clergy
associates, what I have just witnessed here causes in me some
disturbance. To whom do elected officials owe their primary allegiance;
their constituents, or the leaders of their Church? Are not those we
elect, the leaders of ALL of us, of ALL faiths in the land?" Jeff said,
"That's what concerned people when Kennedy ran for election." They
nodded to each other. I looked at the heretofore silent Unitarian. She
said, "We oppose ALL use of religion in politics. But our voices are
small." I said with a smile, "And too polite to be er, news." She
grinned. Paolo said, "We too, oppose the use of religion to manipulate
people. We have done it in our past, which we now regret. In the recent
past we have seen a lot of horrors justified that way. If we have any
influence at all with those who profess to be Catholics, we strongly
urge that they do not abuse the Church this way!" The Apostle said, "We
agree. Much as we would like to extend our missionary objectives, we
appose our religion being used, misused, for political gain. All of us
would like to see our religions be ascendant. But if that happens, how
can we know it will be ours, and not another? Therefore, we all should
oppose what will favor any one religion over another, as a principle of
survival for all of us." I said, "Well said."
END Page
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Grant
|
|