From: "Vivek Vaidya" <phirebearer@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 02:32:54 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Democracy...
Message-ID: <19980916072612.3520.qmail@hotmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>At Tuesday, you wrote:
>>> 1)Love the Lord, with all your heart, with all you soul with all 
your 
>>> mind and all your strength
>>> 2)Love you neibour as yourself.
>>>
>>> Everything else hangs on these.
>>>
>>Ever heard of seperation of church and state? Democracy? the rights 
>>of the individual?  While you certainly have the right to practice 
>>your religion in what ever manner you so choose demanding that 
>>everyone else does, or that the president of the us of ais subject 
>>to you PERSONAL faith decisions is outragous
>
>I believe you are confusing church with religion.
>Religion has nothing to do with Churches and the dogmas they follow.
>Like Ethics have nothing to do with Law.
>
>The reference made is more related with ethics than with religion 
>(even if a reference to God is made) and certainly no related at all
>with any Church. 
>
>May I note also that crude atheism is more related with a Church
>with its dogmas. They all create a fixed mind and the reduction
>of human dignity that follows.
>
>To avoid equivokes:
>Religion has nothing to do with 'faith' or 'Churches'
>A man may be an atheist and be religious. It is a more intimate 
>characteristic than beliefs.
>A prist may not be religious at all... as often happens.
>
>(The equivoke will happen to those who have no insight on the word 
>'religion'... only of its use and misuse.)
>
>And it will always surprise me to see words used in the inverse 
>sense of themselves, like the use of the word 'freedom' in its 
>inverse sense.
>
>May be because of this that todays Big-tyrants and small ones all
>using words they do not understand and being elected or posting
>angry replies in the name of what they insidiously destroy.
>
>I'm not condemning, only noting. 
>And this because it is simply a question of understanding.
>After all... we all carry our private prisons with us.
>
>Regards, (yes, why not?)
>Dutra de Lacerda.
I agree with you completely when you state that religion, ethics, and 
law are distinct and different things.  Unfortunately in the United 
States they have a strong tendency to become intertwined.  The law as it 
stands is that impeachment is only to be used in cases of high crimes 
and misdemeanors.  Now I have not read the entire Starr report nor do I 
have a sophisticated background in law nevertheless nothing Bill has 
done seems to qualify as worthy of impeachment under the law.  However, 
the sexual acts and behaviour exhibited by him is deeply repugnant to 
many on ethical grounds and particularly repugnant to Christians 
specifically.  I do not have any problem at all with those who are 
disgusted by the presidents behaviour on ethical or religious grounds, I 
personally find it repulsive.  I do however feel, as I believe you are 
saying also,  that the law is law.  It should be executed in a fair and 
just manner and according to the letter ( which may or may not lead to 
impeachment ).  The previous poster to which I replied seemed to be very 
clearly stating that his personal religious code of ethics took 
precedence over american legal codes,  a viewpoint which I cannot agree 
with.  All debate on the precice origin and validity of 'seperation of 
church and state' aside I cannot recall any part of the constitution 
which invokes divine justice.  The impeachment issue is not one of 
ethics or religion, simply law and law alone.

Vivek Vaidya




______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com