Perm
September 12, 2006, 04:46 PM
I have been at odds with my parents regarding religion and politics since before I moved out to attend University. Recently when my relationship with a girl they really liked was on the rocks (and eventually ended) my Mom put on a full assault in terms of religious spam, political ideas, etc.
I usually would hit "reply all" and link a Snopes article, but usually wouldn't say much. While I don't agree with their values, I never wanted to "pick a fight" with them either. That changed a little bit last Sunday.
Basically I'll just copy/paste what I sent to her. Any feedback is welcome, of course, and maybe this will serve as inspiration for others who see similar propaganda in their inboxes. If you see any errors, let me know also. Most of the links provided are just basic searches from google, wikipedia, and/or aclu.org, nothing elaborate.
copy/paste (Towards the bottom you can see the spam she forwarded me, towards which this response was directed):
On 9/10/06, Me wrote:
Mom,
I was satisfied in leaving the ACLU topic alone after your last reply. I suspected that a productive conversation was not to be had, and I believe it better to be respectful to you, than to be right. You admitted that you had not even read the data I forwarded before you responded, so I didn't see an amicable foundation upon which to have a discussion. With your reply today however, it is quite obvious that you do want to have a conversation about it, thus I feel more justified in responding. Please keep this in mind as you read.
Your reply below is what is known as confirmation bias. You can find the definition and examples of this particular logical fallacy here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
If you do not wish to read the entire page of information regarding this fallacy I can summarize for you. It's when one searches for and interprets data that confirms a preconception that is already held. Thus, your preconception is that the ACLU is actively fighting against Christianity and/or religion, and the article you forwarded confirms that notion for you, regardless of the other data availalble. However, there (fortunately) is a wealth of data available that would and should lead one to believe that not only is this particular case balanced in regards to freedom of religion, but that the ACLU as an entity also provides equal opportunity for all (and no) religions to have their voices heard.
The case you referenced below is Hinrichs vs Bosma and was not conceived by the ACLU, rather, the ACLU's lawyer's took up the case on behalf of four Indiana residents that protested that the opening prayer sessions in Indiana's House of Representatives: "repeatedly and consistently advance the beliefs that define the Christian religion: the resurrection and divinity of Jesus of Nazareth." You can find the full text of the court's findings regarding the lawsuit at the Indiana section of the government's US courts website here: http://www.insd.uscourts.gov/News/1-05-cv-0813%20Opinion.pdf#search=%22Hinrichs%20v.%20Bosma%22
The linked document is 60 pages, and I certainly wouldn't expect you (nor did I) read the entirety, if for no other reason than having to sift through legal jargon. I think reading at least the first 15 pages is worth the effort, however. The case and its objectives are very clearly stated in the first 6-8 pages of the document, while the latter 6-8 pages give a more thorough description of the nature of the violations and of the parties objecting to the practice in the House. Interestingly enough, as I previously mentioned, you'll find that the case was taken up by the ACLU on behalf of four people. One is a retired United Methodist minister (the church to which you still belong, I believe), one is a lobbyist for a statewide Quaker group, and the last two are both members of the Roman Catholic church . This certainly doesn't appear to be the doing of the ACLU. In fact, the case was brought by the ACLU on behalf of these four people from three various mainstream religious backgrounds. The ACLU is the easy target here because they are the ones with the means, the backing, and the experience to represent four citizens who are otherwise laymen. Once again, the ACLU's name is plastered on the suit, and could lead someone with certain preconceptions that the organization only brings suits regarding the removal of prayer, but the case and its components were all originated from everyday people like you and I, not the ACLU.
Another component of the case is the careful wording by our friends at the Indiana Republican Caucus committee. While they don't explicitly state that the ACLU is looking to eradicate prayer from the House, nearly every statement from Mr. Bosma would lead one to believe that is the case. The "summary of the case" events (linked in the email you sent me here: http://www.state.in.us/legislative/house_republicans/video/newsletter/Volume4/09_08/summaryofprayerlawsuit.htm) goes so far as to use the Indiana government's website as a means to make their party-specific summary appear to be the official position of the Indiana Government (nowhere does the summary mention that it was compiled by the Republican Caucus). If you read the text in the URL however, it is clear that this was posted by the same Republican party that feels that the Federal court has overstepped their boundaries. A very subtle tactic, but a disingenuous one at best. Thus, this is no "summary" of the case, it is simply a highlight of the points that Mr. Bosma would have us acknowledge.
To me, it is clear that this case is certainly balanced in favor of freedom of religion. The plaintiffs and the ACLU are asking that prayers simply be inclusive to all sects and never force any denomination to feel excluded in a government building that guarantees that all religions are equal. In fact, I would go a step further and say that from my perspective, I would want that the ACLU would go a step further and push for the removal of prayer from the opening ceremonies altogether. The four citizens that brought this case forward are all of various Abrahamic religious sects, and thus, their wish is simply to ensure that their particular denomination does not feel excluded. If you read the court opinion in the second link I provided above, they listed the data from the 2005 opening ceremonies regarding the denominations of the clerics that year. One was Jewish, one was Muslim and yet another was a lay person of no religious affiliation at all. The obvious question for those of us with no religious affiliation is: "Why must this be public at all?" From my perspective, religion, prayer, and spiritual identity are all deepy personal issues. Opening a public ceremony with religious rituals is a recipe for conflict. If I were any of the above mentioned religions and I wished to induce the guidance and instruction of a particular deity, I would do so in a private location to myself before the start of the session, not wish to have it watered down on the floor of the House in a vain attempt to include every religion conceivable.
The results of attempting to include every denomination are self-evident. Even in the court findings link above on page 10 you can find this excerpt here: "...the prayer for February 21st was generally inclusive but contained a feature especially offensive to Jews. The prayer used the Hebrew name for God, known as the Tetragrammaton, which Jews do not mention aloud." At that point I have to ask myself why anyone would want their religion paraded in public, and not try to protect the sanctity and personal nature of that spirituality. By not doing so we risk (and have already) offended the foundation of the Abrahamic religion (Judaism) which served as the platform for the particular denomination of which you are now a member. Regardless, as I mentioned in the paragraph above, the ACLU isn't even representing everyone's beliefs in this case, but rather the beliefs of those from a primarily Abrahamic religion's viewpoint. One could conclude that there are many people that would and are offended by the fact that our government endorses calling on any deity at all before opening for official business.
At this point, I have digressed from my main point, which is that the ACLU is not an organization which you should fear, but in fact may want to study and respect, lest your civil rights are ever violated. Even a cursory glance around the web will net literally hundreds and thousands of pages of reading material that show quite clearly that the organization stands for religious freedom for all, to the exclusion on none.
Below are some various links. Reading any one or all of them should empirically suggest that the ACLU has no interest in removing or excluding religion from anywhere inappropriate.
First, some links from one of my favorite sites, Snopes. Snopes is easy to read and I have found very few, if any, factual errors in their articles. The entire purpose of the site is to confirm or disprove rumors. Their site would be in jeopardy if they compromised their integrity to push a particular agenda. Most of these links are direct rebuttals to well circulated "rumors" that I'm sure you've seen (I've seen them all numerous times) that attempt to demonize the ACLU.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/garbage.asp
As Snopes points out, this is a complete fabrication. Cemetery didn't have American troops buried in it and the French government apologized immediately to England on behalf of the country and the vandals.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/cemetery.asp
An overt attempt to demonize the ACLU. This was a complete fabrication. As this article aptly states (quote from this Snopes link): "The implication in the message quoted above — that the ACLU's opposition to religious displays on state property extends to their advocating the removal of headstones and burial markers from federal cemeteries in the U.S. — is another example of one group's exaggerating their opponent's position in order to mobilize support through political outrage." In more succinct words: the people who circulated this, lied. Not a very Christian thing to do, as far as I'm aware.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/marines.asp
Another complete fabrication. The people in this supposed event don't even exist, and no ACLU official made any such comment.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/atheist.asp
Another complete fabrication. No such court case ever existed.
If you have read the articles above, it should be (once again) completely clear that the ACLU is being demonized and that many of the attacks against it are total lies in order to sway opinion regarding the organization. I also wanted to find out what the ACLU has been doing on behalf of religion. The Hinrichs vs. Bosma case (the one you forwarded) is essentially an endorsement to continue religious ceremonies in a government building, albeit in a slightly altered manner. However, it seems you interpreted it as an attack on religion, whereas I see it in support of religion. I did some more quick searches and came up with a lot of data showing that the ACLU not only has no agenda against religion, but in many cases advances religion when civil religious freedom has been violated.
Here is a compiled list of cases where the ACLU has fought for Christian rights.
http://home.comcast.net/~aasch/ACLUFightsForChristians.htm
I counted over two-dozen cases in which the ACLU represented Christians and their right to religious freedom, including the support of (surprisingly enough) Jerry Falwell here: http://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/16040prs20020417.html
I'm not sure it's reasonable that the ACLU be painted as an organization that is against religious freedom if it supports Jerry Falwell in any fashion.
Here are some other cases I found that explicity support religious freedom. Here was a case where the ACLU defended candy canes with religious messages:
http://www.aclu.org//studentsrights/expression/12828prs20030221.html
Here is a case where a church felt that Santa and the supporting stories about reindeer and elves were all "lies" that churches should never support. They ran ads in the Boston Transit system (busses, subways, etc). The Transit Authority removed the signs, alleging that they were inappropriate and offensive (after all, who hates Santa?). However, the ACLU supported this particular church's right to place the ads, which were privately funded, and won the case so that the church could continue running their anti-Santa ads, ads that even went so far as to claim: "There is only one true religion. All the rest are false." This certainly doesn't seem consistent of an organization that supposedly is actively seeking to eradicate religion, does it?
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/10925prs20020108.html
Lastly (I promise, I know this is a novel by now) here is a post that shows even more court cases brought by the ACLU on behalf of religious organizations, including a link to the ACLU religious liberty news site, which keeps current all cases involving religious freedom.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=3066281&postcount=9
I'm sure by now you're wondering how much longer I'm going to go on... while I don't expect that you will read every article I presented here, I do expect that this shows the tip of the iceberg of evidence that the ACLU is not an organization that this country should shelve or take for granted. There is a very real and sincere message here as well, in that some people would prefer that their particular brand of religion be advanced in exclusion of others, and history has shown this trend to be devastating in terms of violence and war among other issues. I wouldn't feel comfortable asking that others adhere to my religion, knowing fully that at some point in time my religion may not be the majority. Currently in the United States, the fastest growing religions are Hindi, Islam and Buddhism. Each of their growth rates (starting from the 1990 census) are in the triple digits, and dwarf the growth rates of maintstream Abrahamic religions. It is safe to assume that the world is getting closer together in terms of communication, information and travel, I don't believe we can expect our society to get less diverse anytime soon. The growth rates of each religion can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
If we assume that the diversity of the world will grow and not shrink, we can logically conclude that one day (maybe in 10 years, maybe in 50 years, or maybe not for 1,000 years, doesn't matter really) that a religion other than some flavor of Christianity will be in the majority. Currently (worldwide) Christians enjoy only a marginal lead on Islam in terms of numbers, and much of that due to missionary work to assimilate African and Asian nations which forego their traditional native religions. This is (to me) a very clear case of being careful what we wish for, as someday we may get it. Would you have felt comfortable if [my twin brother] and I had been forced to listen to Muslim prayer inductions during school? What about Buddhist or Hindu inductions? I am a very firm believer in equality and privacy in religion. I'd rather each person decide their own spiritual path, with no implied or explicit endorsement of any particular one from the government. If you agree with this notion, then it follows that you would also perhaps at least start to consider that the ACLU maybe isn't as bad as some people believe.
With love, as always,
Me
>From: Mom
>To: Me
>Subject: Fw: 9/8/06 - The Indiana House Majority Caucus Update
>Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 13:35:21 -0400
>
>House Republican NewsletterYep, the ACLU helping all of us experience freedom of religion once again.
>
>Love, Mom
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Me
>To: Mom
>Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2006 9:29 PM
>Subject: Fw: 9/8/06 - The Indiana House Majority Caucus Update
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Tony Samuel
>To: Tony Samuel
>Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 5:09 PM
>Subject: 9/8/06 - The Indiana House Majority Caucus Update
>
>
>If you do not have the ability to view this email newsletter, please visit: http://www.in.gov/house_republicans/thisweek
>
>
>
>
> September 8, 2006
>
>
> Statehouse Prayer Defense has Broad Implication at 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
>
>
> Yesterday, Speaker of the Indiana House Brian C. Bosma made remarks regarding the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals hearing on legislative prayer at the Indiana House of Representatives. Both sides in the Hinrichs v. Bosma case presented their arguments to a three judge panel regarding the appeal. The trial court ruling places restrictive limits on the type of prayer allowed in the Indiana House of Representatives.
>
> Statement from Speaker
> of the Indiana House Brian C. Bosma
>
>
> "I am hopeful that today we took a step towards reinstating the freedom of speech and the open acceptance of all religions in the Indiana House of Representatives. We have and will continue to view each faith as equal under the law. Our 189 year tradition of inviting clergy of all faiths to open each day's legislative session has been one that is respectful of the diversity in our ever increasing pluralistic society.
>
> "For the first time in this nation's history, legislators and invited clergy have been prohibited from praying in accordance with their own beliefs. This case not only affects
>
>
> Speaker Bosma in the lobby of the Federal Dirksen building in Chicago answering questions from the media after the hearing.
>
>
> the Indiana General Assembly but has broader implications for all units of federal, state and local government. I am encouraged that the Court of Appeals seemed to recognize these implications.
>
> "Our case was presented extremely well by our legal team with assistance from the U.S. Department of Justice. We will continue our efforts to defend the right of every citizen and every person of faith to come before the Indiana House of Representatives and offer a prayer without censorship and without government review. "
>
> --------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Click Here for Summary of the Prayer Lawsuit
>
>
>
>
>This email is distributed to you because you have indicated a willingness to be contacted,
>via email, by a member of the House Republican Caucus. If you have received this email
>in error or if you no longer wish to receive this newsletter, please email Tony Samuel
>and please type the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line. Thank you.
>
><< image001.jpg >>
><< image002.jpg >>
><< image003.jpg >>
><< image004.jpg >>
I usually would hit "reply all" and link a Snopes article, but usually wouldn't say much. While I don't agree with their values, I never wanted to "pick a fight" with them either. That changed a little bit last Sunday.
Basically I'll just copy/paste what I sent to her. Any feedback is welcome, of course, and maybe this will serve as inspiration for others who see similar propaganda in their inboxes. If you see any errors, let me know also. Most of the links provided are just basic searches from google, wikipedia, and/or aclu.org, nothing elaborate.
copy/paste (Towards the bottom you can see the spam she forwarded me, towards which this response was directed):
On 9/10/06, Me wrote:
Mom,
I was satisfied in leaving the ACLU topic alone after your last reply. I suspected that a productive conversation was not to be had, and I believe it better to be respectful to you, than to be right. You admitted that you had not even read the data I forwarded before you responded, so I didn't see an amicable foundation upon which to have a discussion. With your reply today however, it is quite obvious that you do want to have a conversation about it, thus I feel more justified in responding. Please keep this in mind as you read.
Your reply below is what is known as confirmation bias. You can find the definition and examples of this particular logical fallacy here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
If you do not wish to read the entire page of information regarding this fallacy I can summarize for you. It's when one searches for and interprets data that confirms a preconception that is already held. Thus, your preconception is that the ACLU is actively fighting against Christianity and/or religion, and the article you forwarded confirms that notion for you, regardless of the other data availalble. However, there (fortunately) is a wealth of data available that would and should lead one to believe that not only is this particular case balanced in regards to freedom of religion, but that the ACLU as an entity also provides equal opportunity for all (and no) religions to have their voices heard.
The case you referenced below is Hinrichs vs Bosma and was not conceived by the ACLU, rather, the ACLU's lawyer's took up the case on behalf of four Indiana residents that protested that the opening prayer sessions in Indiana's House of Representatives: "repeatedly and consistently advance the beliefs that define the Christian religion: the resurrection and divinity of Jesus of Nazareth." You can find the full text of the court's findings regarding the lawsuit at the Indiana section of the government's US courts website here: http://www.insd.uscourts.gov/News/1-05-cv-0813%20Opinion.pdf#search=%22Hinrichs%20v.%20Bosma%22
The linked document is 60 pages, and I certainly wouldn't expect you (nor did I) read the entirety, if for no other reason than having to sift through legal jargon. I think reading at least the first 15 pages is worth the effort, however. The case and its objectives are very clearly stated in the first 6-8 pages of the document, while the latter 6-8 pages give a more thorough description of the nature of the violations and of the parties objecting to the practice in the House. Interestingly enough, as I previously mentioned, you'll find that the case was taken up by the ACLU on behalf of four people. One is a retired United Methodist minister (the church to which you still belong, I believe), one is a lobbyist for a statewide Quaker group, and the last two are both members of the Roman Catholic church . This certainly doesn't appear to be the doing of the ACLU. In fact, the case was brought by the ACLU on behalf of these four people from three various mainstream religious backgrounds. The ACLU is the easy target here because they are the ones with the means, the backing, and the experience to represent four citizens who are otherwise laymen. Once again, the ACLU's name is plastered on the suit, and could lead someone with certain preconceptions that the organization only brings suits regarding the removal of prayer, but the case and its components were all originated from everyday people like you and I, not the ACLU.
Another component of the case is the careful wording by our friends at the Indiana Republican Caucus committee. While they don't explicitly state that the ACLU is looking to eradicate prayer from the House, nearly every statement from Mr. Bosma would lead one to believe that is the case. The "summary of the case" events (linked in the email you sent me here: http://www.state.in.us/legislative/house_republicans/video/newsletter/Volume4/09_08/summaryofprayerlawsuit.htm) goes so far as to use the Indiana government's website as a means to make their party-specific summary appear to be the official position of the Indiana Government (nowhere does the summary mention that it was compiled by the Republican Caucus). If you read the text in the URL however, it is clear that this was posted by the same Republican party that feels that the Federal court has overstepped their boundaries. A very subtle tactic, but a disingenuous one at best. Thus, this is no "summary" of the case, it is simply a highlight of the points that Mr. Bosma would have us acknowledge.
To me, it is clear that this case is certainly balanced in favor of freedom of religion. The plaintiffs and the ACLU are asking that prayers simply be inclusive to all sects and never force any denomination to feel excluded in a government building that guarantees that all religions are equal. In fact, I would go a step further and say that from my perspective, I would want that the ACLU would go a step further and push for the removal of prayer from the opening ceremonies altogether. The four citizens that brought this case forward are all of various Abrahamic religious sects, and thus, their wish is simply to ensure that their particular denomination does not feel excluded. If you read the court opinion in the second link I provided above, they listed the data from the 2005 opening ceremonies regarding the denominations of the clerics that year. One was Jewish, one was Muslim and yet another was a lay person of no religious affiliation at all. The obvious question for those of us with no religious affiliation is: "Why must this be public at all?" From my perspective, religion, prayer, and spiritual identity are all deepy personal issues. Opening a public ceremony with religious rituals is a recipe for conflict. If I were any of the above mentioned religions and I wished to induce the guidance and instruction of a particular deity, I would do so in a private location to myself before the start of the session, not wish to have it watered down on the floor of the House in a vain attempt to include every religion conceivable.
The results of attempting to include every denomination are self-evident. Even in the court findings link above on page 10 you can find this excerpt here: "...the prayer for February 21st was generally inclusive but contained a feature especially offensive to Jews. The prayer used the Hebrew name for God, known as the Tetragrammaton, which Jews do not mention aloud." At that point I have to ask myself why anyone would want their religion paraded in public, and not try to protect the sanctity and personal nature of that spirituality. By not doing so we risk (and have already) offended the foundation of the Abrahamic religion (Judaism) which served as the platform for the particular denomination of which you are now a member. Regardless, as I mentioned in the paragraph above, the ACLU isn't even representing everyone's beliefs in this case, but rather the beliefs of those from a primarily Abrahamic religion's viewpoint. One could conclude that there are many people that would and are offended by the fact that our government endorses calling on any deity at all before opening for official business.
At this point, I have digressed from my main point, which is that the ACLU is not an organization which you should fear, but in fact may want to study and respect, lest your civil rights are ever violated. Even a cursory glance around the web will net literally hundreds and thousands of pages of reading material that show quite clearly that the organization stands for religious freedom for all, to the exclusion on none.
Below are some various links. Reading any one or all of them should empirically suggest that the ACLU has no interest in removing or excluding religion from anywhere inappropriate.
First, some links from one of my favorite sites, Snopes. Snopes is easy to read and I have found very few, if any, factual errors in their articles. The entire purpose of the site is to confirm or disprove rumors. Their site would be in jeopardy if they compromised their integrity to push a particular agenda. Most of these links are direct rebuttals to well circulated "rumors" that I'm sure you've seen (I've seen them all numerous times) that attempt to demonize the ACLU.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/garbage.asp
As Snopes points out, this is a complete fabrication. Cemetery didn't have American troops buried in it and the French government apologized immediately to England on behalf of the country and the vandals.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/cemetery.asp
An overt attempt to demonize the ACLU. This was a complete fabrication. As this article aptly states (quote from this Snopes link): "The implication in the message quoted above — that the ACLU's opposition to religious displays on state property extends to their advocating the removal of headstones and burial markers from federal cemeteries in the U.S. — is another example of one group's exaggerating their opponent's position in order to mobilize support through political outrage." In more succinct words: the people who circulated this, lied. Not a very Christian thing to do, as far as I'm aware.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/marines.asp
Another complete fabrication. The people in this supposed event don't even exist, and no ACLU official made any such comment.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/atheist.asp
Another complete fabrication. No such court case ever existed.
If you have read the articles above, it should be (once again) completely clear that the ACLU is being demonized and that many of the attacks against it are total lies in order to sway opinion regarding the organization. I also wanted to find out what the ACLU has been doing on behalf of religion. The Hinrichs vs. Bosma case (the one you forwarded) is essentially an endorsement to continue religious ceremonies in a government building, albeit in a slightly altered manner. However, it seems you interpreted it as an attack on religion, whereas I see it in support of religion. I did some more quick searches and came up with a lot of data showing that the ACLU not only has no agenda against religion, but in many cases advances religion when civil religious freedom has been violated.
Here is a compiled list of cases where the ACLU has fought for Christian rights.
http://home.comcast.net/~aasch/ACLUFightsForChristians.htm
I counted over two-dozen cases in which the ACLU represented Christians and their right to religious freedom, including the support of (surprisingly enough) Jerry Falwell here: http://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/16040prs20020417.html
I'm not sure it's reasonable that the ACLU be painted as an organization that is against religious freedom if it supports Jerry Falwell in any fashion.
Here are some other cases I found that explicity support religious freedom. Here was a case where the ACLU defended candy canes with religious messages:
http://www.aclu.org//studentsrights/expression/12828prs20030221.html
Here is a case where a church felt that Santa and the supporting stories about reindeer and elves were all "lies" that churches should never support. They ran ads in the Boston Transit system (busses, subways, etc). The Transit Authority removed the signs, alleging that they were inappropriate and offensive (after all, who hates Santa?). However, the ACLU supported this particular church's right to place the ads, which were privately funded, and won the case so that the church could continue running their anti-Santa ads, ads that even went so far as to claim: "There is only one true religion. All the rest are false." This certainly doesn't seem consistent of an organization that supposedly is actively seeking to eradicate religion, does it?
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/10925prs20020108.html
Lastly (I promise, I know this is a novel by now) here is a post that shows even more court cases brought by the ACLU on behalf of religious organizations, including a link to the ACLU religious liberty news site, which keeps current all cases involving religious freedom.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=3066281&postcount=9
I'm sure by now you're wondering how much longer I'm going to go on... while I don't expect that you will read every article I presented here, I do expect that this shows the tip of the iceberg of evidence that the ACLU is not an organization that this country should shelve or take for granted. There is a very real and sincere message here as well, in that some people would prefer that their particular brand of religion be advanced in exclusion of others, and history has shown this trend to be devastating in terms of violence and war among other issues. I wouldn't feel comfortable asking that others adhere to my religion, knowing fully that at some point in time my religion may not be the majority. Currently in the United States, the fastest growing religions are Hindi, Islam and Buddhism. Each of their growth rates (starting from the 1990 census) are in the triple digits, and dwarf the growth rates of maintstream Abrahamic religions. It is safe to assume that the world is getting closer together in terms of communication, information and travel, I don't believe we can expect our society to get less diverse anytime soon. The growth rates of each religion can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
If we assume that the diversity of the world will grow and not shrink, we can logically conclude that one day (maybe in 10 years, maybe in 50 years, or maybe not for 1,000 years, doesn't matter really) that a religion other than some flavor of Christianity will be in the majority. Currently (worldwide) Christians enjoy only a marginal lead on Islam in terms of numbers, and much of that due to missionary work to assimilate African and Asian nations which forego their traditional native religions. This is (to me) a very clear case of being careful what we wish for, as someday we may get it. Would you have felt comfortable if [my twin brother] and I had been forced to listen to Muslim prayer inductions during school? What about Buddhist or Hindu inductions? I am a very firm believer in equality and privacy in religion. I'd rather each person decide their own spiritual path, with no implied or explicit endorsement of any particular one from the government. If you agree with this notion, then it follows that you would also perhaps at least start to consider that the ACLU maybe isn't as bad as some people believe.
With love, as always,
Me
>From: Mom
>To: Me
>Subject: Fw: 9/8/06 - The Indiana House Majority Caucus Update
>Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 13:35:21 -0400
>
>House Republican NewsletterYep, the ACLU helping all of us experience freedom of religion once again.
>
>Love, Mom
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Me
>To: Mom
>Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2006 9:29 PM
>Subject: Fw: 9/8/06 - The Indiana House Majority Caucus Update
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Tony Samuel
>To: Tony Samuel
>Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 5:09 PM
>Subject: 9/8/06 - The Indiana House Majority Caucus Update
>
>
>If you do not have the ability to view this email newsletter, please visit: http://www.in.gov/house_republicans/thisweek
>
>
>
>
> September 8, 2006
>
>
> Statehouse Prayer Defense has Broad Implication at 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
>
>
> Yesterday, Speaker of the Indiana House Brian C. Bosma made remarks regarding the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals hearing on legislative prayer at the Indiana House of Representatives. Both sides in the Hinrichs v. Bosma case presented their arguments to a three judge panel regarding the appeal. The trial court ruling places restrictive limits on the type of prayer allowed in the Indiana House of Representatives.
>
> Statement from Speaker
> of the Indiana House Brian C. Bosma
>
>
> "I am hopeful that today we took a step towards reinstating the freedom of speech and the open acceptance of all religions in the Indiana House of Representatives. We have and will continue to view each faith as equal under the law. Our 189 year tradition of inviting clergy of all faiths to open each day's legislative session has been one that is respectful of the diversity in our ever increasing pluralistic society.
>
> "For the first time in this nation's history, legislators and invited clergy have been prohibited from praying in accordance with their own beliefs. This case not only affects
>
>
> Speaker Bosma in the lobby of the Federal Dirksen building in Chicago answering questions from the media after the hearing.
>
>
> the Indiana General Assembly but has broader implications for all units of federal, state and local government. I am encouraged that the Court of Appeals seemed to recognize these implications.
>
> "Our case was presented extremely well by our legal team with assistance from the U.S. Department of Justice. We will continue our efforts to defend the right of every citizen and every person of faith to come before the Indiana House of Representatives and offer a prayer without censorship and without government review. "
>
> --------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Click Here for Summary of the Prayer Lawsuit
>
>
>
>
>This email is distributed to you because you have indicated a willingness to be contacted,
>via email, by a member of the House Republican Caucus. If you have received this email
>in error or if you no longer wish to receive this newsletter, please email Tony Samuel
>and please type the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line. Thank you.
>
><< image001.jpg >>
><< image002.jpg >>
><< image003.jpg >>
><< image004.jpg >>