Re: Witch Stands up for Her Rights 
Infiniti

Wed Oct 21 19:56:52 1998
Searles, I think I should make something perfectly clear.  I am not saying to "bow down" to the Christian way, or anything like that.  i am saying that a bit of reality needs to be brought to light.*p*We ARE a minority, and we are owed no special treatment because of it.  Anytime you pick a fight, you should expect the other side to fight back.  Doesn't matter if what they originally did was wrong.  Doesn't matter if we are a minority.*p*Making change happen does not require a fight.  This is a mind set I have seen growing over the last few years, and one I used to have.  I grew out of it, but some don't.  This lady picked a fight, and she is getting her arse kicked.  This is human nature.  If she had acted responcibly and in understanding to THEIR religious belief and rights, she could have had the "fight" fought before a "swing" was taken.  I shouldn't have to tell you that local town governments "report to a county or district, who repost to the State government, who then report to that federal mess.  I am pretty sure neither the ACLU or Mrs. Webb went through any of these channals.  And by the way she handled her job at the paper, I'm sure she was less than polite about the symbol in any town meetings she has been to.  Fact of the matter, whether I think the symbol should go or not, I _do_ think she aproached and handled the entire setuation wrongly.  i know from experience that the ACLU did.  The ACLU has a nack for screwing things up decause they refuse to follow the very thing they are out to protect.  Also, I have met a few ACLU EMPLOYEES (yes, it is a political business, don't ever forget that), and they knew about as much about the Constitution as a freshmen high school student in NYC.  That being, they knew it existed.  This is evident since they take everything to the Legislative Branch for loddy, and then to the Judical Branch for prosicution, no matter what it is.*p*Searles, pagan's can be prejudice and just as wrong as anyone else.  I think that the driving force behind this town fight is that there is a fight.  It takes two to fight - or, in this case, 1/6,000.*p*I don't, and never have bowed down to the Christian way.  I also don't try to butt heads with it.  I would surely lose every time.  What I do is select which fights are important, and which are just for the fight.  the important ones I _deal_ with, and have not lost yet, because I do not allow the fight to wage long, I try my best not to let the fight start.  The unimportant ones I wage too, and they go one for a loooong time, and I do it for the fight - for the fun.  And, to date, I have not sufferd a casualty, nor has my opponents.*p*Blind devotion to someone in a newspaper article because she is pagan fighting Christian, is not a wise thing.  One news paper article can only show one side, and that is not likely to be the whole truth.  And based on this one article, I am more worried that this lady might bring bad ramifications for me, than that a small town off the beaten trail has a fish symbol on the town seal.  She has the ACLU to stand behind her, until the fight is no longer worth fighting, I do not nor do I want them.  I dislike and distrust all political groups and persons, until they show me reason not to.  The ACLU has done some good work, but it also doesn't care whose toes it steps on to do it.*p*Yes, religious presecution is something I worry about, and I do not advocate it, for ourselves or Christians, but a fish on a town seal is a bit far from Church burnings or people being dragged behind cars or the burning of homes or the sever beating of others.  Remember, the article did say that she lived a perfectly good life until she disregarded her editor's orders and started a litigation against the town.  Never once did it say she was presecuted for her religious beliefs, before the event, or now.  I have read the article over a few times now, and I still have yet to see that.*p*I know if someone not of my faith started a lawsuit against me about my religious displays, whether I was in the wrong or not, I, as surely as you having a beard, would fight back, and hard.  It is human nature.  This town wants her gone, and I can fully understand it.  It has moved beyond a fish on a seal to a press article, and pagans around the nation are outraged by things they _think_ this means.  The problem is not what everyone reads into this, but a fish on a town seal, and a woman's reaction to it.*p*Ignorance brings ignorance.  Hostility brings about hostility.  Anger brings anger.  It does not take an educated man to see or understand this, for I understand this, and I was kicked out of high school.  I learned it first hand.*p*Whether it is right or wrong to have the fish there is not in question.  It is not apropriate, and should, in due course be removed time and money permitting.*p*This, however, is not about a fish on a seal.  Somewhere along the way, someone decided, consciously or subconsciously, that it was about religious freedom.  however you may come about to that conclusion, and whatever roads you must take to get there, I can't find them.  A post you wrote to me I took to heart a few weeks back.  I try my best not to read things in between the lines.  And I saw not a single bit of evidence of religious presecution.  I did see that a quiet Missouri town is unhappy and reacting badly to another woman who is unhappy and reacting badly.*p*I also see that, if Mrs. Webb was Jewish, and it was, say, June, this wouldn't have even been reported.*p*But, let me ask a question, Searles.  If someone picked a fight with you, or decided to sue you, whould you be nice to them?  And, be honest with youreslf on the answer.  Furthermore, do you thing you'd be compelled to change what they wanted you to, or fight them over it?*p*Michael*p*Searles wrote,*br*:  I've read all of your posts and what Isee is that you are *br*: saying we live in a Christian society and thus should *br*: notprotest when things are run the Christian way to the *br*: exclusion and detriment of other ways, even our own.  If *br*: this were a Christian country, your arguments might have *br*: some validity, but the facts are that this is a country *br*: where the original rules (as given in the Constitution and *br*: modified bythe Bill of Rights) are set up to insure that no *br*: one group can force their religious views upon another.  *br*: This is as true for passively or actively supporting such *br*: support and is especially pertinent to all areas of the *br*: government which are supposed to be for the benefit of *br*: *ALL*.*br*:*br*: When the government of any public group (town, county, *br*: state, country) violates the separation of church and state *br*: rules that are inherently our own to choose for ourselves, *br*: it is the duty of the governed to support thatreligious *br*: freedom, not to limit it.  If even one person is *br*: discriminated against then all persons have the *br*: *POSSIBILITY* of being discriminated against in their *br*: inherent rights as a human being.  Going with the flow is *br*: not an act that  protects one's rights.  Protecting one's *br*: rights is called standing upto 6000 people who are running *br*: over your own rights with a steamroller because they don't *br*: perceive that you have a right.  If we were to go with the *br*: flow, then we'd still be British subjects.*br*:*br*: No one here advocates keeping people from expressing their *br*: religious views so long as this expression is not done at *br*: the expense and violation of the rights of others.  When the *br*: government supports one religion to the exclusion of others, *br*: that is *EXACTLY* whatis being done.  The government is *br*: basically taking away the right of a person to have a *br*: separate religion by supporting any religion, because the *br*: government draws from the power of *ALL* of its people.  *br*: That is why the government is expressly forbidden to be *br*: involved in religion by our constitution.*br*:*br*: Searles*br*
Re: Witch Stands up for Her Rights 
Searles
89
Wed Oct 21 15:05:58 1998