|
|
| Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User
|
|
| Support uws |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: gadfly on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 08:53 AM CST |
However, based on the discussion on UWS from last fall and during this election from both sides of the conflict, it seems reasonable to me to believe (provisionally, anyway) that many ESA supporters did state or otherwise communicate their opinion that the Feds action was religious suppression.
Okay, after having skimmed briefly over the UWS threads again, reread the two related Imprint articles, and browsed the Embassy forums (for the first time ever) I don't see any clear reason to believe that ESA supporters frequently or openly described the conflict in religious terms.
Sorry for having suggested this before. I'm not sure what particular evidence led me to that provisional conclusion previously. (I should also say that I'm not claiming now that this view wasn't expressed; I really don't know.)
There are isolated occurrences. A post on the Embassy forum by 'Father_Jacob' describes having an initial reaction of "call[ing] down fire on Feds because they were persecuting Christians" but then opting to relax and wait for more information before drawing a conclusion.
Certainly Jin Choi is right that ESA/Embassy did not officially present it in these terms. A quote from Catherine Scott, associate provost, in Imprint on 8 October 2004:
"I had several people [from the Embassy] meet with me about the issue. This is not a religious issue but rather an issue of inappropriate use," said Scott.
As another poster has stated, it seems there wasn't any public prayer at the sit-in.[ Parent ]
|
| |
|
