Subway incident

[Will Linden]

  It was the occasion for an inane cover headline about "interfaith action" 
in one of the tabloids. I still don't see what it has to do with 
congressional resolutions (or vice versa).



On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, Douglas Laycock wrote:

>
>
> In the same vein, is the subway incident true? Certainly could be
> true, but I don't recall seeing any news coverage, and the facts are
> awfully neat for propaganda purposes, including the Muslim rescuer.
> True? Real incident modified to make it better?  Entirely made up? 
> Does anyone know?
>
> Quoting Susan Freiman <susan.freiman.law.65 at aya.yale.edu>:
>
>> This just came to me from an atheists' list.  Is it true?
>> 
>> Susan
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
>> 
>> *PRESS RELEASE*
>> *FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE* *The Council for Secular Humanism Chides
>> Congress for Disrespecting Religions
>> *
>> (December 14, 2007) -- Experts from the Council for Secular
> Humanism
>> noted with alarm the passage of H. Res. 847 in the House of
>> Representatives. This unnecessary, unwarranted, and bigoted law,
>> under the misleading title "Recognizing the Importance of Christm
> as
>> and the Christian Faith" passed the House with overwhelming
>> bipartisan support It effectively undermines the sort of religious
>> tolerance necessary in these changing times.
>> 
>> Just days ago in the midst of the Jewish Festival of Lights, four
>> Jewish men in New York City  were attacked on the subway for
> replying
>> to a group of ten people who wished them a "Merry Christmas" with a
>
>> similar greeting: "Happy Hanukkah.  For this, these men were first
>> insulted, then beaten. It was a Muslim man who came to their
> physical
>> defense.  The actions of the Congress, by passing the resolution
> and
>> thus expressing preference to the Christian faith over all the
> others
>> represented by the diverse population of these United States ,
>> encourages this sort of behavior.
>> 
>> The First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty, and of the
>> nonestablishment of religion, was devised to create a secular state
>
>> in which all religions would be equally tolerated and none given
>> preference. The language of the House resolution effectively
>> undermines the design of the Founders, and creates an atmosphere
>> where non-Christians will continue to be targeted, treated like
>> second-class citizens, and even become victims of violence like
> those
>> four Jewish subway riders in New York .
>> 
>> Paul Kurtz , CSH chair, stated, "It is deplorable that in this day
>> and age and in light of violence against religious minorities here
> in
>> the United States that the Congress would stoke those flames with
>> preferential language in support of a single religion."  David
>> Koepsell , CSH's executive director, noted,  "Te First Amendment
>> Guarantee was designed to prevent the sort of religious intolerance
>
>> that resulted in violence in Europe, and our Congress should
> respect
>> the intent of the Founders."
>> 
>> We call on the Congress to reject this resolution, to stand up for
>> religious freedom, secularism, and pluralism, and to foster a
> climate
>> in which all believers and nonbelievers alike are treated equally.
>> __._,_.___
>> 
>
> Douglas Laycock
> Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law
> University of Michigan Law School
> 625 S. State St.
> Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1215
>   734-647-9713
>

Will Linden  wlinden at panix.com
http://www.ecben.net/
Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A-> a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y