From AJROSE93@aol.com Fri Jun 8 02:48:02 2001 Received: from mxu1.u.washington.edu (mxu1.u.washington.edu [140.142.32.8]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.11.2+UW01.01/8.11.2+UW01.04) with ESMTP id f589m10106106 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 02:48:02 -0700 Received: from imo-r02.mx.aol.com (imo-r02.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.98]) by mxu1.u.washington.edu (8.11.2+UW01.01/8.11.2+UW01.04) with ESMTP id f589m1F06819 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 02:48:01 -0700 Received: from AJROSE93@aol.com by imo-r02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id d.11d.bd700 (4541) for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 05:47:57 -0400 (EDT) From: AJROSE93@aol.com Message-ID: <11d.bd700.2851f94d@aol.com> Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 05:47:57 EDT Subject: Re: Greco Roman religious background to the NT To: classics@u.washington.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 47 Slightly TAN, but (I hope) of interest: << Gabriel Bodard writes: >But there are those who would indeed interpret the constitution as >providing no protection for Greco-Roman paganism. Certainly there >are those who argue that modern "(Neo-)Pagans" (I think I have >enough brackets, capitalisation, scare-quotes and hyphens in that >expression) are not protected by the constitution. They do so by >saying that Paganism (in what ever form) is not religion but >witchcraft or devil-worship (for example). ....and DL notes: << While this is certainly true, it is only fair to note that the U.S. Army officially recognizes neopaganism as a legitimate religion. See the entry on "Wicca" in the Army's "Religious Requirements and Practices of Certain Selected Groups: A Handbook For Chaplains," pp. 231-6. >> One is led to believe that GB[*]'s concern continues to be warranted, though -- the "Neopagan" community is currently abuzz with rumors that members of Congress are trying to get that very recognition officially withdrawn, particularly in light of the current administration's "faith-based initiatives." -- AJ [*] -odard, not -ush. ;) .