is what happened in the examples I gave. There are many others.
Here's a hypothetical for you - lets say there is a village in New York
state that is mostly orthodox. They following the area's chief rabbi decide
to ban internet access for all.
Its an extreme case, but similar things have happened, I've heard of several
cases involving places that are majority Mennonite enacting similar bans.
Only a few years ago books were being banned from libraries and bookstores
in towns and villages throughout the country on the basis of what the local
religious leaders ordered.
I guess its my contention that there should be an extremely strong wall that
separates the dictates of religion from the rest of life. I disagree with
catholic bishops saying it's a sin to vote Democrat as much as I disagree
with Unitarian ministers who disapprove of Republican candidates for office.
And I really dislike groups like the Christian Coalition, the immoral
majority or FLA distributing voters guides in churches before elections.
Mind you I'm also very much in favour of removing all tax exempt status from
purely religious institutions.
larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 2:09 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Newspaper article
>
>
> Actually, the answer is yes. It's not the right but the
> responsibility of a learned religious leader to do just that
> - lead. People can choose to follow the ban or not.
>
> As for it impinging on others, I totally disagree. This is a
> matter that only impinges on the Jewish community and only on
> the orthodox segment. It's not telling non-Jews what to do.
> It's not forcing anyone to go along. It's saying that there's
> a problem and a solution.
>
> The point of my article is that the solution is extreme and
> should be re-examined and reworked.
>
>
> > At the same time, is it right for a religious representative (be
> > he/she the CFO, chief thug, imam, priest, minister, rabbi, etc) to
> > dictate what others who may not follow your religious
> beliefs should
> > or should not see?
> >
> > The problem with having religiously based bans is that it always
> > impinges on others who may not share your religious views. Very
> > shortly we end up with situations like in Salt Lake City (where the
> > Mormons were able to enforce a ban on speaking against
> their church on
> > certain parts of the city's main street), Afghanistan under the
> > Taliban or Iran.
> >
> > larry
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Thursday, May
> 20, 2004 1:53 PM
> > > To: CF-Community
> > > Subject: Re: Newspaper article
> > >
> > >
> > > Just because it's everywhere doesn't mean it's right or
> that people
> > > of a religious nature should be forced to view it. We've had this
> > > discussion before about when and how to expose children
> to material
> > > of this sort and it always runs down to personal choice. I don't
> > > want my kids seeing a naked chick on a billboard while
> others feel
> > > it's ok.
> > >
> > >
> > > > And life. I mean really... That crap (porn, etc) is everywhere,
> > > > not just the internet.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
