BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 03 - 06:38 PM

Right after you, dear.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: Mickey191
Date: 09 Oct 03 - 06:35 PM

Take a Hike!

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 03 - 06:26 PM

So Mickey191 posts sensationalized information that is obviously from a right wing fundie point of view, provides no links to anything to provide the background to the story, and expects...what exactly, in terms of a response from the peanut gallery?

Why does Mickey191 NEED katlaughing to rescue her from us dastardly posters who DARED to disagree with Mickey191's opinions? Especially the opinions she expressed regarding one of her fave Fox commentator/right wing columnist, and the lame way she put forth this non-newsworthy item for discussion?

What bullshit...

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: artbrooks
Date: 08 Oct 03 - 11:53 PM

Personally, as a nonbeliever, I have never had a Christian call me anything...but I don't wear my nonbelief on my sleeve, either.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: TIA
Date: 08 Oct 03 - 11:18 PM

Please don't take anything personally. Forgive anyone who is suspect of allegations made by a Limbaugh (yes, he is the brother). Any non-christian who lives in 95% (okay, I pulled that number out my arse) of the counties in the U.S. knows that the "persecution" of christians in America is pure bull hype crap caca pity me political strategy propaganda overblown never been in my shoes remove the mote from your own eye hypocritical double standard (oops isn't that redundant) pot calling the kettle black youre either with us or agin us love it or leave it non believers rot in hell if i can't pray in your face your stifling me SHIT.

Deep breaths. Time to make music.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: Burke
Date: 08 Oct 03 - 09:51 PM

I'm sorry, I was irritated with a bunch of things in this thread. No one made me go look the things up, I just wanted some solid information for forming an opinion and had an expection that others should want it is as well.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: katlaughing
Date: 08 Oct 03 - 06:42 PM

Besides which there are those among us who enjoy the odd search on the 'net and happy to provide links! Mickey made it clear she was just passing on info she thought was interesting. Sheesh, it's a fine welcome back she's getting!

luvyaMickey,

kat

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Oct 03 - 06:21 PM

Ah, she is a Fox news commentator. That explains everything.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: Mickey191
Date: 08 Oct 03 - 11:15 AM

Burke,
Number one- As far as making an effort to find an online link, I must say that I have webtv, ergo it is quite limited in abilities to search out material.

Number two - I did not "make" you do anything. You make your decisions as to how to allocate your time. You evidently have more time then I. It is not for you to tell me that I should have made an effort early on to provide you with more information.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: Burke
Date: 08 Oct 03 - 10:55 AM

You can find out about Michelle Malkin at Creators.

You can even send her your opinion
HERE

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: Burke
Date: 08 Oct 03 - 10:15 AM

If the article I linked to is the same as in your newspaper there is not need. I do think that when you want people to know about a column like this you should make the effort to find an online copy to link to, instead of making us do it & guess if we have found what you are referring to. Frankly, when people questioned the veracity of what you said I also think you should have made more effort early on the locate the supporting documentation from the Postal Service that I & others provided. Saying, "I read it in my newspaper," is just not good enough, as you can see from the way this whole discussion has gone.

But then, I'm a librarian and I believe in footnotes so people can look things up for themselves. I think Gannett should have left the reference in. They may have violated Michelle Malkin's copyright by editing it out.

Jim, thanks for tracking down the initial story. I makes clear what I was suspecting. Malkin's column is out of line & if she had done the research done by the people on this list, instead of reading just one book, she would have known it.

"But the U.S. Postal Service and U.S. Military Postal Service Agency, which handles all overseas military mail, say it's merely a case of an unclear rule that needs rewriting.

"The local post office should have let Moody ship the books, officials said. The restriction doesn't apply to religious materials sent to individuals overseas, the wording of the regulation has caused confusion, and the MPSA is reviewing the regulation to try to clarify it, postal officials said."

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: Mickey191
Date: 08 Oct 03 - 03:01 AM

And there's where Moody's case — which is included in the devastating new book Persecution (Click HERE to purchase. Sales help fund JWR. ), best-selling author David Limbaugh's searing indictment of anti-Christian intolerance — remains today.
_____________________________________________________
The above are the only words left out of the P.Journal. As far as I can see everything else is exactly the same-with one tiny exception. The JDF says the incident happened 5 mo.s ago. The journal says 6 months ago. Because it's a month later. (Don't want anyone attributing a nefarious tilt here.)
It's obvious they didn't want to plug the book.

I tried to get the column off the Journal site, but could not.

Burke, I can snail mail the actual column to you if you'd like!

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 07 Oct 03 - 11:46 PM

Here's the most complete article I can find, from The Charlotte Observer, April 9, 2003.

Now here's my opinion: The US Postal Service shouldn't be trying to enforce another country's customs regulations. The postal clerk should have simply warned the sender that the materials might not make it through customs, and then, if the sender still wanted to send it, the clerk should have accepted it.

On customs forms, it is customary to use general terms like "books," "printed matter" or "documents." It is not necessary to give titles of books or explain what they are about. Of course, any government has the right to open and inspect any items entering their country, but as a practical matter, it is extremely unlikely that any individual package will be opened, if it appears to contain only books or paper.

Furthermore, it is extremely impractical for any individual postal clerk to try to become familiar with every country's customs regulations. Yes, the US Postal Service compiles and publishes hundreds of pages of information about other countries' regulations, but, in my opinion, these should be considered as information only, to be looked up in case a sender wants to know "What are my chances of getting this through customs?"

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing originated with a misunderstanding. Maybe the postal clerk was trying to say, "I wouldn't try to mail this if I were you; you might be wasting your postage" and the customer misunderstood him to mean, "I won't accept this from you under any circumstances."

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 07 Oct 03 - 07:46 PM

Amos was engaged (way up there) in argumentum ad womanim, in the vernacular, or, as we intellectuals prefer, argumentum ad hysterium.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: Burke
Date: 07 Oct 03 - 07:22 PM

Mickey, I'd like to see a link to the text of the article you read. The one I found & liked to above includes this sentence:

And there's where Moody's case — which is included in the devastating new book Persecution, best-selling author David Limbaugh's searing indictment of anti-Christian intolerance — remains today.

I found at least 3 more sites that include this line. All provide links to be able to purchase the book as well. It's possible it was left out of your newspaper as I've found a Gannett source that edited the sentence down to: "That's where Moody's case remains."

This has the good effect of not plugging a book Gannett may not want to support. It has the bad effect of removing the only internal reference to the source of the information.

My summary. Effectively banning personal religious material was the policy in the cited Postal Service bulletin. It was a stupid policy & may have never been intended the way it was interpreted. The Government apparently realized the error of it's ways in April and changed the regulation to ban bulk materials. The incident reported occurred "5 months ago." Given the vagueness of the report, this was in April or May. If it happened in April or earlier it was before the change of regulations. If after the change, the Post Office clerk was behind on reading the latest rules.

I'd like to hear the rest of the story. By now the father should have been able to mail anything he wants. (Actual delivery may be questionable)

This subject line should have been U.S.P.S. regulation banned religious mail. It's not a law, it was a regulation easily & fairly quickly changed. It's old news, there's no real persecution going on so far as I can see. It look like old fashioned bureaucratic bungling.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Oct 03 - 06:51 PM

ebbie...face it, some people just don't think...or can't.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: Amos
Date: 07 Oct 03 - 06:46 PM

THey mus wonder because they have traveled so far up the map, you would think their elevation must have changed, right?? Dohhhh!! LOL!!!

A

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Oct 03 - 06:43 PM

Jim Dixon, I needed it to go by certified mail. Not only that, but I don't keep at the tip of my brain the amount of 'stampage' a foreign country requires.

artbrooks, the above incident took place in Oregon, but here in Juneau Alaska we've heard just about everything. American tourists have asked whether we accept 'American' money. We are also frequently asked what our elevation is. The classic answer is to say, Let's see- is the tide in or out? (The ocean is at our front door upon which most of the same tourists traveled via cruiseship.)

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: artbrooks
Date: 07 Oct 03 - 06:29 PM

Ebbie, sounds like the Ticketmasters telephone clerk who told someone here in Albuquerque that they couldn't sell him a ticket...on account of because they were only allowed to deal with customers in the US, and he was in New Mexico.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 07 Oct 03 - 06:11 PM

Ebbie: Instead of going to a different town, why didn't you just buy a stamp and drop your letter in the closest box?

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Oct 03 - 12:18 PM

Willie-O, speaking of postal clerks, I once had one in a small town tell me that she couldn't send a letter to Hong Kong, that the U.S. prohibited it. I couldn't convince her, #1: that it was a British colony and #2: that I had previously sent others. I had to take it to a different town.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: Willie-O
Date: 07 Oct 03 - 08:50 AM

Jesus! Who cares, already?
Ever encountered an uncooperative postal clerk in a very small town, inflating their own self-importance by restrictively interpreting a regulation from above? I have. Press-stopping news it is not.

Willie-O

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Oct 03 - 08:38 AM

What I suspected was either a gullibility factor, ie that Mickey191 really did believe the veracity of the article/source of information, or that Mickey191 was trying to push a "Christians are victims of Muslim domination" agenda. Or at the very least, that the US government/military was not allowing Christian reading materials to be sent to the troops. Which is utter bullshit, as any intelligent person knows.

The reason for the rule for not allowing bulk materials from being sent, is to keep the Christian missionaries (or US personnel from acting as such by distributing bulk Christian materials in the Middle East without formal permission) out. A Good Thing, under the current circumstances. An even better idea that the missionaries weren't able to do it during wartime. As others have pointed out, it is easy to see and figure out that the story was based on information that was only applicable during the conquering combat phase of the war in Iraq, and that once the conquering combat phase was over, the rules were changed back to what I'm guessing is the more usual rules for mail to Muslim countries.

As to the suggestion that people were intimating it was made up of whole cloth, the story does sound suspiciously like the stuff of urban legend to begin with. When you add the right wing distortion of the facts to the equation, it doesn't sound like anything but right wing fundie hand wringing and breast beating.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 11:23 PM

Mickey191, I didn't take it that anyone suspected you of making it up, but that the source from which you quoted seemed less than credible.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: GUEST,Mickey191
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 09:53 PM

Michelle Malkin never mentioned in the column what her source material was. Limbaugh's book was not mentioned.
The footnote says she is a columnist for Creators Syndicate, Inc. Her column runs once a week.

I take exception to those who intimated I made this up from whole cloth.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: LadyJean
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 08:44 PM

According to a woman I met, whose son is serving in Iraq, all mail sent to our troops religious or secular, is sitting in warehouses.   The United States Government employs a private contractor to deliver the mail. They aren't doing the job, and letters, packages etc. are being warehoused, OR RETURNED TO THE LOVED ONES WHO SENT THEM! for the sakd of the company's bottom line.

We did something similar in the Civil War, and wound up with uniforms that fell apart in the rain. You'd think someone at the Pentagon would know that!

By the way, if you will read Katherine Briggs "British Folktales", you'll find the "Pack of Cards" set in the English Civil Wars.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: Burke
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 08:33 PM

Lurker, unless you're referring to my links to USPS, I'm linking to it so that other people can read the article that is the basis for this whole thread. I just gave the first one I actually looked at, it seems to have been picked up by many publications over the weekend. It's not a news article, it's an opinion piece. That's been clear for a long time in this thread. Anone who wants to know who else carried it, my Google search was: "michelle malkin" Lenoir.

The real catalyst for this article is that Malkin seems to have been reading (or at least skimming) a book called Persecution by David Limbaugh's.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 08:18 PM

Burke-I hope you're not putting forth that site as a reliable or unbiased source of news.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 08:10 PM

Greg F. has no point.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: Burke
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 08:02 PM

OK, I found a copy of the column through a Google Search. Here's one copy. It happened 5 months ago, right about the time the rules were changed. It does appear that some of the people the dad contacted for help should have done a better job.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: Burke
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 07:53 PM

Mickey's article cites Postal Bulletin 22097, which is from March. That is now out of date.

I found this on another Page from May on Oversas Miliary Mail FAQ.

Note: Beginning with Postal Bulletin 22100, we have changed the following two restrictions listed on the Restrictions page following the table:

E2. Any matter depicting nude or seminude persons, pornographic or sexual items, or nonauthorized political materials is prohibited. Although religious materials contrary to the Islamic faith are prohibited in bulk quantities, items for the personal use of the addressee are permissible.

Here's a link to all the bulletins from 2003. 22100 which announced the change is dated April 17. The same text is in the most recent bulletin. I appears that the government did find the limitation overly restrictive.

I wanted to see what the article actually said, especially in terms of when the incident happened. I can't find it on the Poughkeepsie Journal web site.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 07:53 PM

This page (http://www.usps.com/supportingourtroops/mailingrestrictions.htm) says that only "bulk quantities of religious materials contrary to the Islamic faith" are prohibited; and that "items for the personal use of the addressee are permissible."

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: Mickey191
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 05:08 PM

Greg F., I'm packing now--What's a good city? I don't live in Poughkeepsie - maybe I'm too close to it ?
The Journal is a Gannett Paper. I didn't get this ina flyer during Sunday services.

When you mention the great Paul Robeson, are you in fact referring to a boycott by the KKK of his appearance in the 40"s? I may be wrong--But I think that was Peekskill, N.Y. That is a little town south of here, and the townsfolk at the time, were painted with the bloody wide brush of bigotry. The KKK appeared in cars with non N.Y plates

What's your point anyway?

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: Wesley S
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 04:30 PM

Are we all sure this isn't one of those internet rumors ? Like needles on gas pumps and LSD sprayed on telephone keypads ? I'm dubious - call me Thomas.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: Jeri
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 04:17 PM

What I said earlier about judgement calls: the postal clerk in the US may very well have interpreted the restriction to mean NO religious material.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 03:50 PM

McGrath, thanks for reminding us that Islamic countries also exist in the far East and in Africa. In many of them too, laws selectively support one particular faith.

The particular incident leading to this thread seems like an invention to me: "Bulk quantities of religious material contrary to the Islamic faith. Items for personal use...are permissible" seems to me to cover a father sending his daughter or son a bible and some additional material. Some overly zealous Christians misrepresent the facts.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: artbrooks
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 03:47 PM

My brother used to work in Saudi Arabia, as a civilian teacher. Every package was opened by the censors.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: katlaughing
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 03:41 PM

McGRath, I think if you backtrack from that page of the pdf file, you'll find specific countries listed for various APO addys to which that restriction would apply.

We send out a lot packages. I got short with Rog one day when he asked me what was in each of them. I told him they were domestic and just books, etc. to friends. Then I asked why he was being so persistent about content. He told me our local PO asks what is in every package these days, domestic or otherwise! I am sure it's all part of the so-called Patriot Act.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 03:28 PM

The restriction cited, E3, from page 33 of the postal bulletin also prohibits "nonauthorized political materials." I wonder what that means, and if it's related to restriction H1, which prohibits pork and pork products.

Page 33 of PB22097 merely lists the possible restrictions. To know which ones apply to a given piece of mail, you have to go back to the preceding 3-page list of APO numbers. These restictions also apply ONLY to mail sent under the FREE MAILING privilege to/from military personnel through the MILITARY APO sytem.

The items "prohibited" on this list are almost certainly there because the destination country has its own postal, or other, restrictions on such material. If you really want to send it, you can pay the postage and you won't be asked (in as much detail, at least) what's in the package; but you could get a recipient murdered by some radical in the destination country who takes local laws very seriously. If you send by some other method, the USPS certainly can tell you what restrictions the destination country applies, and international agreements do prohibit the USPS from sending anything that violates the law at the destination. But then you can lie about what's in your package if you want to subject the recipient to any associated risks.

John

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 02:50 PM

Good old salt-of-the-earth Poughkeepsie, New York.

Ask Paul Robeson et. al. about the Poughkeepsie point of view.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 02:27 PM

As NH Dave said, why would the US post office even know the books' subject? When you mail something, you specify 'toys', 'cookies', 'perishables', or 'books'. You don't say 'toys for a 3-year old', or 'chocolate chip cookies', 'cabbage' or 'Comic Books' or 'Cookbooks' or 'Religious Books'. Why would you?

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 12:23 PM

Oh I don't mind her emotions -- just that she blows the facts out of proportion.

A

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 12:09 PM

Those regulations specifically picking out "contrary to Islamic faith" don't appear to be meant to apply only to the Middle East so far as I can see.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: Mickey191
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 11:55 AM

Amos, what you say may be true, but that doesn't change the facts as stated. Does it? I enjoy reading her columns, and yes, perhaps on occasion she may get a bit emotional. On the whole though I think she's pretty damn good on addressing issues which other writers deem unimportant.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: NH Dave
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 11:44 AM

Of course there is nothing prohibiting the young soldier from visiting the chaplain of his faith and getting all the religious material he wants. Guard units DO deploy with chaplains of the major faiths, although Protestant religious services are always plain vanilla, regardless of the faith in which the chaplain delivering the service was ordained. Military units typically have chaplains of the Catholic and Protestant faiths, and may have a rabbi, if one shows an interest in being a chaplain.   

Additionally, unless the father specifically declares that the contents of the parcel are Christian religious materials and tracts, there is no reason for the PO to inspect the package, unless it gurgles when moved about - alcohol is prohibited from being mailed through the US Postal Service, regardless of its destination.

   Dave
Retired AF Senior NCO

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 11:29 AM

I would say, Mickey, that Michelle's style is overheated and not supportive of clear understanding. IMHO she needs some maturing as a "journalist".

A

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 11:27 AM

McGrath brings it exactly to the point:
Only contrary to Islamic faith material is forbidden in many countries in the Middle East.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: Mickey191
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 11:08 AM

Thanks Kat. Guest, I did not specify Which country the article used the generic "Middle East", so therefore your P.O. code # is not applicable here.

I have not changed the substance of the story, written by columnist Michelle Malkin, which can be found on The Poughkeepsie Journal Editorial Page. Sat. 10/4.   Ten Four - over and out.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 10:18 AM

So "religious material which is contrary to Islamic faith" is firbidden. But if it's contrary to Christian, or Jewish, or Hindu etc faith it's no problem?

And what does "contrary to" mean? That it's directly attacking Islam? Which would be very right and proper. Or that the doctrinal position implied in the material is inconsistent with Islamic theology? Which would be bloody cheek.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Law Banning Religous Mail
From: Jeri
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 09:54 AM

Cause only private citizens can be wankers? Nah...