[Vision2020] Fantasy vs. Reality

Wed Feb 14 09:25:48 PST 2007

David, et al,

The number of and complexity of court case relating to the conflict between 
the right of religious belief and practice and other constitutionally 
protected rights prevent a short response.  In my case, I have not kept up 
with the latest rulings, hence cannot even offer a summary.

However, a closely related but perhaps more fundamental issue is the issue 
of personal liberty and constitutional protections.

I am a nonbeliever, and thus do not determine my views based on any 
particular set of religious/superstitious beliefs but rather on my 
experiences and a critical examination of the experiences and perspectives 
based on experience of others.  Nor do I wish to have my behavior proscribed 
by others on the basis of their particular superstitious/religious beliefs. 
Therefore, my view will not be persuasive to those that wish to impose their 
particular religious/superstitious views (of which their many, many 
different, very conflicting versions) on others.

Briefly, perhaps the following will offer a way to think about the issue of 
the denial of personal liberty based superstitious/religious (and/or other 
irrational) reasons.

I start with the premise that in an open society personal liberty/choice in 
deciding what to become ought be granted to all mentally capable of 
exercising it.

Without going into detail, there are some obvious qualifications.  We ought 
discourage those would become dope dealers, thieves, assassins, etc from 
doing so.  We need to recognize that there are those so mentally challenged 
that they cannot make such choices for their own good.

A person's right to choose what to become also needs to be reconciled with 
the rights of others to choose what to become and reconciled with the 
constitutional rights of others.

Hence:

When any person is constrained by religious/superstitious strictures, for 
example, from becoming what they would choose to attempt to become, then 
such strictures are an unwarranted, restrictive intrusion on personal 
liberty without rational justification.

There are natural constraints on becoming:  talent, background, economic 
status, lack of opportunity, etc.  Sometimes/many times these constraints 
can be overcome.  There is no way for a person to overcome irrational 
constraints such as religious/superstitious strictures on becoming except to 
recognize them as such, and thus free themselves from such constraints.  The 
very instructive post by Sue Hovey (below) provides an example how this may 
come about.

Thus telling a person based on superstitious/religious or other irrational 
basis that they cannot do or become X because they are a woman, black, 
Aleut, gay and/or etc because some egomaniac(s) have declared that some 
alleged god says so is thus robbing them of perhaps one of the most 
important pars of being alive -- personal liberty.  Such thievery is willful 
personal abuse, and in the case of a child whose aspirations are 
irrationally clipped during their formative years, severe child abuse, not 
unlike castration or clitoridectomy.

But there is more.

Not only is robbing a child/person because of religious/superstitious and/or 
other irrational beliefs of the right to freely aspire a denial of their 
personal liberty and personhood -- the right to life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness -- a personal theft, but such robbery also steals from 
the rest of society:

This latter theft is the theft of what any person might be able to 
contribute to society if their aspirations were not fettered by 
religious/superstitious or other irrational beliefs.  One only needs to look 
at the present day contributions to society that many minorities of various 
kinds make which in the past they would be denied the opportunity to make 
because of irrational beliefs, almost all of them based on and/or supported 
by particular religious/superstitious dicta.

Hence, I view those parents who knowingly place their children in 
institutions with aspiration limiting religious/superstitious doctrines like 
Logos School as willful child abusers:

1.    The female child is abused by having her aspirations constrained and 
her role in future relationships emasculated.

2.     The male child who is indoctrinated to believe that women are to be 
constrained because some egomaniac(s) has declared that some alleged god 
demands such also have their future relationships emasculated, and are 
encouraged to continue the same chain of abuse of denying the attempted 
fulfillment of the aspirations of women.  The male child's future 
relationships are also emasculated.

3.    Both female and male students are abused and society is being 
negatively impacted and lessened by the encouragement to follow practices 
that steal opportunities from themselves and thus lessen what they could 
become, and also steal the fruits of their irrational dicta-fettered 
personal aspirations from society.

Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
deco at moscow.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sue Hovey" <suehovey at moscow.com>
To: "Vision 2020" <Vision2020 at moscow.com>; "Ralph Nielsen" 
<nielsen at uidaho.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Fantasy vs. Reality

> Ralph,
>
> If personal experience is any indicator, this change which took place a 
> few
> years ago, might have had some unexpected consequences.  I was in a church
> which preaches and practices male authority in matters of doctrine,
> governance, and church activity.  However, because of the relationships 
> that
> had been established in the church the women had considerable 
> "unauthorized"
> power.  I personally felt a lot of dissonance, but I also enjoyed, loved,
> and appreciated the congregational community, and I was, in turn, loved 
> and
> respected.    Then it was decided we would write by-laws--seemed like a 
> good
> idea.  I was on the committee as a full fledged voting committee member.
> The document we designed really didn't change much.  Over my objections
> deacons were defined as male, (not that there were any female deacons)
> voting members were those, both male and female, who were 21 or over.  (To
> make sure radical college members were disenfranchised. Not that there 
> were
> any radical college members.)  And specifically, all positions of 
> authority
> in the church beaucracy were defined as positions for male members.  That
> limit changed nothing.  No female had ever held a position of authority. 
> So
> in a sense we did what Christ Church did.  We formalized the current
> practice.  But for me that was a turning point.  To see in writing those
> actions which heretofore had been practice meant I could no longer 
> pretend.
> I had grown up in the denominatuion.  All my family belonged. My college
> degree was from the premier denominational university.   I had a brother 
> in
> law who was a pastor, and a nephew who was an associate minister.  But I
> left and have never regretted it.  For myself and my family, there can no
> longer be legitimacy where there is no parity.  I did not, and never will,
> try to convince anyone else to do what I did.  This is not intended to
> persuade anyone to my way of thinking.  And it is rather long.  For that I
> apologize.  I will end by repeating my theme.  Sometimes it takes a highly
> overt act to convince one to have the courage of their convictions.
>
> Sue Hovey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "david sarff" <davesway at hotmail.com>
To: <news.of.christ.cult at gmail.com>; <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 12:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Fantasy vs. Reality

>
> Do individual rights to equality trump freedom of organized religion 
> rights?
> I don't understand how a corporate education body practicing with the
> express permission of  U.S. charter law can write by-laws that openly
> support inequality. Regardless of religious belief.
> Dave
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>From:                           *Scholasterix*
>>
>>                                    *Notes, Memos, and Moments from Logos
>>School*
>>
>>                                    January/February/March 2003, Volume 
>> 13,
>>Number 3
>>
>>                                    Page 3, right hand column
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>*Changes in the By-Laws*
>>
>>
>>
>>            As the Logos School Board considers an amendment to our 
>> by-laws
>>that would limit board membership to men, the board thought it would be
>>helpful to state a few principles that the board is taking into account:
>>
>    First, we are *not* considering this amendment because
>>we
>>believe that the scriptural requirement of men only in the eldership of a
>>church applies to the board of a school.  Thus in our view, it is not a
>>question of whether it is a "sin" to have a woman on the board, but rather
>>a
>>question of wisdom and prudence in our current cultural circumstances.
>>
>    Second, in regard to those circumstances, we believe it
>>is
>>necessary to resist egalitarian feminism, which has spread through our
>>culture and has even affected many parts of the church.  As a classical,
>>Christian school committed to the Scriptures as our ultimate rule of faith
>>and practice, we believe we have an obligation to set a positive example.
>>Sad
>>to say, frequently in the current climate, women seeking positions of
>>authority (e.g. on a school board) subscribe to some form of feminist
>>philosophy.  Rather than vetoing a nomination (which would appear to be
>>personal instead of principled), we would rather address the issue this
>>way,
>>without involving personalities.
>>
>      Third, we want to positively encourage the involvement
>>of the
>>fathers and husbands in the God-ordained oversight of their children's
>>education (Eph. 6:4).  As we do this, it creates a "de facto" presence of
>>men only on the board (as it has been for the last fourteen years), and
>>leaves the school in a legally unprotected position.  Courts have
>>consistently found that discrimination can be "proved" from nothing more
>>than the "results," and so it would be only prudent to have our practice
>>outlined as a principle within our by-laws.
>>
> By law changes:
>>
>>Approved January 20, 2003
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Laugh, share and connect with Windows Live Messenger
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline
>
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> ======================================================= 