[Fists] Re: on-air/online religious stuff.

[David Ring]

Ralph and Dave,


I also found offense with Hyram's words and posting. He objected to
the post by a FISTS member (Mr. Tomas Hood) wishing everyone God's
blessings. He told me so via a private email.
Regarding Merry Christmas and politically correct:
MERRY CHRISTMAS. May God, the Creator, and the Father of Love and
Peace, bring you GREAT joy. As we turn our hearts toward God, the
reason for this Season of Christmas, He will turn His love toward us,
in return.

I hope also, that our Father bring great signals to your radio, and
help your signal reach out to the DX.

I'm sure Tomas meant to have a blend of well wishing and a bit of a
joke - but I protest greatly his censoring of his words. I take no
offense of a person wishing me "Sabbath Shalom", or "Mir" - or any
good wish. I want those. I want to be able to receive these good words
- I don't want to have someone impoverish this list or any other from
good will.

Here in the United States we fought two wars - The Revolutionary War
and the War of 1812 to secure freedom of religious expression - which
was exactly what the author of that email did.

We also fought to see that the United States did not have a dictated
national religion as England had which was part of our freedom of
religious expression.


Our Constitution was written to forbid a "national enforced religion"
while giving the States the right to have a "state religion". In a
private email to Hyram, I mentioned that especially in the Northeast
USA it was only last century that our Town Halls (seats of government)
were moved from their original building - which was the downtown
church. Even today in every adjoining town to mine, the Town Hall is
adjacent to the downtown church (now they are usually Congregational
Churches), but EACH of them have an underground tunnel connecting both
buildings.

Those in England and here in Massachusetts are well aware of the
Pilgrims making their 1620 voyage from Plymouth, England. They were
called "Separatists" because they wished to establish the choice and
expression of religion to the person rather than to the state as was
the law in England at the time. They and their legacy established the
"Anti Establishment clause of our Bill of Rights" - no where does it
say there is a "separation of Church and State" but rather that the
FEDERAL government shall not be able to establish a religion. Our
people fought (and won!) for this!

In Massachusetts our Constitution required each member of the General
Court and the Governor to be a Christian, our school system (first in
the nation) was established to teach our children how to read the
Bible and be able to access the wonderful teachings contained therein.
We also established "Harvard College" to train people for the Ministry
to educate in God's word.

We also gave equal standing to "All Christians" and gave them equal
protection and citizenship. Over the years this changed -
non-Christians were given citizenship and the requirement to be a
Christian to be an elected official was removed.

It should be noted that the Massachusetts Constitution predates the
USA Constitution but the Massachusetts Constitution was used as a
model of the USA Constitution.

It WAS allowed for a state to establish a religion requirement - as
Massachusetts had for eligibility for being a citizen and for holding
elected office. A state can STILL do this if it wishes. Utah can have
a mandated religion if it wishes to, but the United States cannot
mandate this from the federal level. There are many who believe that
our courts have been hijacked by those who would redefine words - like
recently: What do we need a marriage license for? What is illegal
without having one! At one time there were activities that we could
NOT do without such a license, now in the past five years this has
been stricken down and the words "marriage" redefined - just as our
religious freedoms have been. Some want "Freedom from Religion"!

Just hoping to inform you of our rights and privileges here in the USA!



On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 1:42 PM, kc9brz <kc9brz at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> From: Ralph Sutton zl2aoh at ihug.co.nz
>> Dave,
>> I don't think Hyram was objecting to religion being discussed on air
>> among a special interest group. What is an issue, however
>> is bringing up religious material in the FISTS Mailman Group that
>> should be entirely secular.
>
> Ralph,
>
> That makes more sense. What pushed my button was Hyram's statement
> that someone/something "suggests" that religion not be "used"
> (discussed?) on the ham frequencies. Granted, I don't know
> all the "generally accepted conventions" about ham operations.
> And it's been a while since I took my license exam, so I'm a bit
> rusty on official US's FCC Part 97 stuff, or ITU stuff.
>
> But I get my feathers ruffled when people make up stuff about
> either official FCC/ITU rules or put forth their own personal
> preferences as "generally accepted conventions" or "good
> operating principles."
>
> -Dave, kc9brz.