| |
G4EBT > PANTO 10.12.05 01:12l 131 Lines 5721 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 591523G4EBT
Read: GUEST
Subj: The "Bob 'n David Show", Act 1
Path: ON0AR<ON0AR<GB7FCR
Sent: 051210/0010Z @:GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU #:16598 [Blackpool] FBB-7.03a $:591523G4
From: G4EBT@GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU
To : PANTO@WW
More of Bob's religious output:-
>In Australia, prayers for a part of daily routine in hundreds of state
>schools and those who do not wish their children to take part are
>permitted to withdraw them for that part of the daily routine.
G4EBT responded thus:
>That would be forbidden in America as it links one religion to the state,
>only tolerating others or atheists by having to "sit out" morning
prayers.
>The Charter of Rhodes Island granted in 1633 was the first to include a
>declaration of the right to religious liberty. That doctrine gradually
>spread to other colonies, and at the time of the American Revolution
>the principle of religious liberty was explicitly adopted in various
state
>constitutions.
>This culminated in Article VI which forbids the establishment of any
>religious test as a qualification for federal office, and the First
>Amendment, which forbids the passage of laws "respecting the
>establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
>It does of course get the US into all sorts of contradictory tangles.
>Students in public schools may not pray in public, yet sessions in the
>US Congress regularly start with a prayer by a minister.
>Cities may not display a Christmas nativity scene baby Jesus in a crib)
on >public property yet the slogan "In God we Trust" appears on US
currency, >and money given to religious institutions can be deducted from
one's >income for tax purposes.
>Students who attend church-affiliated colleges - of which there are many,
>may receive federal loans just like other students, but their younger
>siblings may not receive federal funding specifically to attend religious
>elementary or secondary schools.
All of that information was accurate.
I wasn't expressing my own views on religion, just the facts. Frankly,
were I to re-publish the subsequent religious comments that Bob made,
they'd be embarrassing, so I won't, but here are just a few headers -
17k's worth, several on one day - a man after my own heart:
12-Nov B$ 1711 TENCOM @WW VK6BE Re: US Ten Commandment Monuments
12-Nov B$ 3017 PONDER @WW VK6BE Re: US Constitution God and school
12-Nov B$ 1969 WORDS @WW VK6BE Re: US Constitution God and school
15-Nov B$ 1784 WORDS @WW VK6BE Re: US Constitution God and school
16-Nov B$ 1086 WORDS @WW VK6BE Re: US Constitution God and schoo.
16-Nov B$ 1049 SCHOOL @WW VK6BE Re: US Schools and God
19-Nov B$ 2401 PONDER @WW VK6BE Re: Christianity on trial in Oz
19-Nov B$ 3575 PONDER @WW VK6BE Re: Walking with God
Then there's this, on the same theme:
From: VK6BE@VK6JY.#ALY.#WA.AUS.OC
To : WORDS@WW
>Have you talked to any Americans about their restrictive anti-religion
>laws in schools? We are told that America has a majority of people who
>profess to belong to a religious denomination be it Jewish, Catholic or
>any of a number of other denominations, and I am told that about 70% of
>Americans attend church on a fairly regular basis, yet the use of any
>religious observance in schools is forbidden under the Constitution.
>Yet my friends in the US COMPLAIN LOUDLY about this restriction which
>seems only to appease a minority group of atheists, but they seem
>powerless to do anything about it.
It wasn't to "appease a minority group of atheists - it was set down by
the Pilgrim Fathers. (I think we can agree that they aren't atheists).
>IN Australia the number of professed Christians would be much lower than
>the US, probably less than 30% being church goers. However our Parliament
>commences its sessions with prayer, and our schools are free to use Bible
>readings, prayers, whatever, in our schools state and public, and church
>groups have access to take scripture lessons. One state school in my city
>takes the whole school to a local church for a Christmas service in
school
>time.
>Those who object to this may withdraw their children. Very few, if
>any, withdraw. That seems to me to be a more democratic way of doing
>things rather than ban all religious observance at the whim of a minority
>group as happens in the US.
I presume although you're unfamiliar with the US Constitution, you are
are least familiar with Australia's, but maybe I'm assuming too much.
Australian secularism's most formal expression is in s.116 of the
Constitution, which prevents the Commonwealth establishing any religion,
preventing the free exercise of any religion or imposing any religious
test for office.
But let's not talk about it. I'm here - Bob's there.
Bob:
>By the way, a TV clip from a news item from Russia showed a service in a
>Cathedral in Russia. One of the congregation was the Russian President.
>How times have changed in a country where an attempt was made to turn the
>country into 100% atheist over about 80 years. It didn't work!
>Well I'll sit here and just wait for the flames to surround me!!!
>Bob VK6BE
No flames from me Bob - you're quite entitled to expound your religious
and political views on packet, and I'm pleased to see that you do it so
often.
I'm just bewildered that you think it's ok for you, but not for others.
Maybe I'm missing something, but for now, it's just going whooooosah,
right over my head. Can anyone explain this odd phenomenon of say one
thing, do another?
Keep the bulls coming Bob on any topic - you're a national treasure,
and you haven't got a bad bone in your body. Just don't take on so.
(And for goodness sake stop taking Warren's troll-bait).
73 - David, G4EBT @ GB7FCR
Confused of Cottingham.
Message timed: 23:53 on 2005-Dec-09
Message sent using WinPack-Telnet V6.70
(Registered).
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
