HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: entropy@world.std.com (The Entropic one)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning 
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 01:49:00 GMT

In article <C0Ax5F.9K6@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey) writes:
>
>>Because not everyone gives a damn about religion.  The majority of the
>>world population isn't Christian.  (Although Catholicism is the
>>largest single religion).  Besides, 'religious reasoning' sounds like
>>an oxymoron.  
>
>Not everyone gives a damn about secularism either, but it appears to
>be forced on the great majority of the population whether they will it
>or no.  Furthermore, anyone who has spent any amount of time studying
>the history of science would find your last statement to be absolutely
>absurd.  The entire concept of a university was founded around advancing
>theological study.  Indeed, the term "professor" began as a reference to
>one who was a "professor of the faith" and who studied it regularly.

Learning technics are learning technics even if used to learn falsehoods.

>Historians agree that western science was defined and structured by
>Christian concepts, beliefs, and attitudes.  Without Christianity, western
>science, as such, would simply not exist.  

No it would have advanced for 2000 years instead of stagnating under the
weight of the church. The church has a history of fighting scientific
discovery, all the way from Galileo to the present.

>It is only in the last
>100 years that science has developed this peculiar aversion to religion.

To bad it took so long :)

>Certainly, one can point to instances in which religious authority 
>fought certain concepts and ideas that later turned out to be correct.
>However, they performed no better or worse than did (or does) the established
>scientific community today in terms of accepting radically new, correct,
>ideas.  

Scientists can be closed minded at times, but they generally don't torture
and condemn you to hell when your expermental results disagree with there
theories.. 

>To say that religous reasoning is an oxymoron, or that secular
>reasoning is somehow superior, is to profess an ignorance so profound that
>it boggles the mind.

So what is religious reasoning? 
Basically it is squabling over the meanings of passages in a 2000 year old
book. 

-- 
------  Linux, Religion, and electronic shopping all in one place!
\    / Repent of Bean eating, MS-DOS, OS/2, and windows NT, no sales man
 \  / will hassle you, no priest will sacrifice you. Free 9600 baud download.
  \/ Call the Virtual World Information Systems BBS at 508-793-9568
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Columbus vs Indians (was Re: PC lives)
Date: 24 Dec 1992 18:38:09 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com

Nathan writes:

>>>       Then it would seem that the surviving Indians today arose from
>>>       that 5%.  What was the birthrate following the devastation, and
>>>       how quickly did the population figure grow?

>    Unfortunately those numbers are very difficult to determine. The best 
>surviving records from that time period are the diaries of Spanish 
>missionaries, and they understandably concentrated on their own activities 
>rather than those of the Indians.

Actually, the reports I've read indicate that the missionairies were very
concerned with the Indians, at least those who converted and were under
their charge.  There are constant reports of their complaints to the king
regarding ill-treatment of Indians by the civil authorities & armies.  Like
missionaries- medical, spritual, teaching- everywhere, they seem to have taken
the welfare of their people very seriously.

	Dave


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:10:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1hvghvINN9dl@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>> 
>>     Because sexuality is not a judgement call, while morality is.  There is
>> no reason to intermingle the two.
>
>Obviously you have done as little to understand or respect others' 
>views on this as people complain straights have about gay issues. 
>You cannot seperate morality and sex in the minds of a lot of 
>people.  

    Thanks largely to the pope et al.  Just because they don't want to do
it (separate them) doesn't make it right.

-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,a
From: dlhanson@nap.amoco.com (David L. Hanson)
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Be
Summary: Ye MUST be born again
Organization: These are my opinions.
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 12:31:34 GMT

In article <7BoBwB3w165w@unkaphaed.gbdata.com> popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell) writes:

>dlhanson@nap.amoco.com (David L. Hanson) writes:

>> I saw this posted on USENET today.  Since my kids are homeschooled, they
>> are NOT subjected to sodomites, socialists, and other liberals but for those
>> who children are incarcerated in the public socialist system, this
>> information will help you to protect them.
>> 
>> Astute readers will notice on my previous post that I forgot the all
>> important NOT.  Be assured that there are no sodomites, socialists, or
>> any species of liberal in our home. Only fundamental Christian parents
>> teaching the children to love their enemies and to hate their enemies'
>> wretched sins.
>> 
>> 
>> =========================================================================
>> David L. Hanson       Internet --> dlhanson@nap.amoco.com
>> Amoco Corporation     X.400    --> A=attmail,P=amoco,S=Hanson,G=David,I=L
>> Any opinions expressed are my own!

>I think your opening remarks, either with or without the not mark you as 
>more of a hater than you wanted to admit.  Such harsh, shrill, overbroad 
>generalizations make me hope that your kids can rise above the views and 
>outlook on life you hold.  How sad.

I stand for my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, unashamedly as He gives me
grace. God has told mankind how to live and how to be saved in His Holy
Word, the Bible. Man may obey Him and become His children or they are
His enemies.

"Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of
evil against you falsely for My sake.  Rejoice and be glad, for great is
your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before
you."  Matthew 5:11-12	
============================================================================
David L. Hanson
Naperville, IL

"He that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God
 abideth on him." John 3:36
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu (A.P.K.)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Date: 23 Dec 92 20:10:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.


 
In an article, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
 
[ .. discussion of shower room incident omitted .. ]
 
>So why should we take this seriously in considering whether Gays
>should be allowed in the Armed Forces?
>
>I'm not being flippant.   Why should we?
 
I'm not about to say that gays _shouldn't_ be allowed in the military.
I was merely pointing out that such incidents DO occur (while some
people try to argue that such things _never_ occur.)  Personally,
I don't feel that this society is ready to accept open homosexualism
into the military to the extent that many people are arguing for.
["Re: Gays in the military, what on one is talking about" as originally
posted on alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton.]  Nor do I beleive
the scope of the arguments presented by the extreme AGAINST homosexuals
in the military.  It should be taken seriously on the grounds that
such instances DO occur, and that there are problems with that
particular aspect of the argument which need to be considered, on the
narrow scope of allowing open homosexuality into the military.  Please
refer to the aforementioned article for my full feelings on the
subject.  If you can't find it, let me know and I'll mail it to you.
It's rather long, so I'd prefer not to repost it.
 
Jim
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.space,sci.space
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Be
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 07:02:02 GMT
Distribution: add
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:

> David L. Hanson (dlhanson@nap.amoco.com) wrote:
> : "Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of
> : evil against you falsely for My sake.  Rejoice and be glad, for great is
> : your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before
> : you."  Matthew 5:11-12
> :
> : Thank you for all the blessing, Mr. Barwell; you alone have greatly
> : increased my rewards in heaven.
> :
> :
> :
> :
> : ===========================================================================
> : David L. Hanson
> : Naperville, IL
> :
> : "He that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God
> :  abideth on him." John 3:36
> 
> Hey everyone, be a jerk.  Since no-one likes a jerk, you'll be sure to get to
> heaven.
> 
> (how do people get all those cross posts to take.  Am I the only one using 
> tin?)
> -- 
> Mike McAngus 			 | As if I needed Another time consuming hobby.
> (mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org)		 | 
> The Truth is still the Truth	 | This Post exploits illiterates.
> Even if you choose to ignore it. | 


A new way to get to Heaven.  Be crude and obnoxious and slander people 
with groundless accusations.  When somebody complains, assume the martyr 
position, and claim your brownie martyrdom points.  Start again.

Buying your way into heaven with nastiness.  Everytime you pass go, 
collect 200 points.


This could do for Evangelical Christianity what indulgences did for the 
Papacy.

Pope Charles   SubGenius pope Of Houston     Slack!

--
popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 943-2728
After December 31, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 04:17:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.013059.16474@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>
     fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:

>How about that its not a 0,1 type of thing, but instead a spectrum.
>People are born with a sexual orientation.  This orientation can not
>be changed.  It is a biological orientation.  When a person is exposed
>to certain stimulus, such as visual images, etc., the body reacts.
>Hormones are released into the body.

   I challenge that second sentence, "People are born with a sexual
orientation," because I was not born with the sexual orientation I
currently possess.  And I chose to be this way; I chose to be bisexual
because I found heterosexuality too limiting.

>Kinsey-1 to 5 react to varying degrees to members of both sexes...
>K-1 to 5 can choose to be gay, straight, or bi.

   You know, there are easier ways of saying this.  Besides, you're
once again taking two terms, "Kinsey-X," and "X-sexual," and trying to
equate the two.  One is useful in describing the other only on the
mutal agreement of both parties communicating.  

>The right answer is that all people deserve equal protection under the law.

   No argument there.

         Elf !!!

--
elf@halcyon.com  (Elf Sternberg)

Then, I was inspired.               God, thy will is hard
Now, I'm sad and tired.             But you hold every card.
Listen, surely I've exceeded        I will drink your cup of poison.
Expectations.                       Nail me to your cross and break me.
Tried for three years,              Bleed me, beat me.
Seems like thirty.                  Kill me.
Could you ask as much               Take me now.
From any other man?                 Before I change my mind.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Taxing medical benefits ... NOT
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:19:51 GMT

Clifford McKeithan (cmckeith@galsci.uucp) wrote:
: In <1992Dec24.184603.16096@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. Mc
Angus) writes:
: >John Switzer (jrs@netcom.com) wrote:
:
:   ( some stuff deleted )
:
: >: Another example of Clinton talking out of both sides of his mouth, because
: >: Friday's Wall Street Journal quotes Clinton as saying he is considering en
din
: >g
: >: the tax exemption on at least part of a company's health care costs. End o
f
: >: exemption translates into more taxes being paid and thus higher taxes. Thi
s
: >: translates into a defacto tax on a person's benefits that are above the
: >: basic minimum which Clinton and his advisers have yet to settle on.
:
: >Another example of a consevative putting the worst spin possible on what
: >Clinton says.  Removing tax exemptions for health care costs is a tax increa
se
: >on businesses not an increase on middle class tax payers.  Thus, the stateme
nt
: >by Clinton and the statement by Judy Feder do not contradict each other.
:
: Another example of a liberal who does not understand that when you put a
: tax on my benifits at my company, that translates into lower profits for my
: company, and thus lower pay for the employees of my company (read ME).  I
: think that is why John used the word "defacto" above.

All I am arguing with is the charactarization of the elimination of a business 
tax exemption as a middle class tax increase.
Higher costs of doing business are spread among employees and customers, and 
do not translate as a direct tax on the middle class workers.  I was pointing 
out that a couple of conservatives were carping about Clinton breaking his no 
middle class tax increase promise when the evidence does not support such a 
conclusion.
-- 
Mike McAngus 			 | You are a fluke of the Universe.  You have no 
(mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org)		 | right to be here, and whether you can hear it
The Truth is still the Truth	 | or not the Universe is laughing behind your 
Even if you choose to ignore it. | back.  -- National Lampoon, Deteriorata
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12688 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11102 alt.politics.clinton:19389 alt.politics.bush:15260 alt.politics.homosexuality:8719
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Date: 30 Dec 92 19:59:11 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Dec30.160631.17308@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.150608.28353@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>
>>... the sexual preference displayed by parents in the home has an 
>>enormous effect on the sexual preference of children in the home...to the 
>>extent that, children raised in a homosexual-parent home will be extremely 
>>likely to be homosexual.  Anyone have any stats?  Any examples of straight 
>
>    As another poster said, and I must have missed your response:  why,
>then, are 10% of children raised virtually exclusively in het homes gay?
>
>>children coming from a home where the parent(s) had exhibited homosexual 
>>behavior since the child was very young?
>
>    Sure.  As reported in the Advocate, a study from the Univ. of Virginia
>looked at a large number of same-sex-parents families and determined that
>there was no correlation between kids raised in lesbigay vs. het homes with
>regard to sexual orientation or social skill development.
>
>    So...you can rest easy now.

Yes, I have heard of that study, but the researcher was a gay with an 
admitted bias.

You'll have to try harder.

Ted


-- 
So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: alight@rock.concert.net (Alan R Light -- Personal Account)
Subject: Re: using the bible to advance bigotry
Organization: CONCERT-CONNECT -- Public Access UNIX
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 23:31:24 GMT

In article <C06IBs.9Br@math.uwaterloo.ca> shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.150908.2994@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> wgb3@pyuxf.uucp (25336-buoni) writes:
>>My guess is that what is being sought is acceptance, not tolerance.  The 
>>problem is that living a gay lifestyle is not OK (my values).  That is not
>>to say that homosexuals are inherently evil, but that God did not intend us 
>>to function this way.  Nor did he intend for us to be sexually active 
>>outside of marriage, indulge in "immoral" behavior, ....  
>
>Oh, so you are the authority on what "God" [whose existence is in doubt] said?
>Pardon me if I feel reluctant to base decisions on a school curriculum
>on YOUR indefensible revelations from "God".  The US is not a theocracy,
>the last time I checked, although there are many who would have it so.

I generally try to stay out of arguments like this, but Mr Shallit has made
25336-buoni's point so clear, I can't help but comment.  Mr. Shallit's
comments make it very clear that he is looking for acceptance, not
toleration.  And he shows himself to be quite intolerant himself.  He speaks
of "indefensible revelations from God".  I've studied a little epistemology,
and nothing, no statement at all, is entirely defensible.  Still, revelation
from God is more defensible that Mr. Shallit's intolerance of people who
believe them.  As for the homosexual lifestyle, I would have to agree that I
find it morally wrong.  Still, I will tolerate it.  I tolerate a lot of bad
things -- can't help but do that in this world.  Since I and buoni (according
to what I have seen written by buoni) both tolerate Mr. Shallit's views, even
if we don't agree with them, why does Mr. Shallit, champion of tolerance in
his own mind, not wish to tolerate those who think like us?  It seems pretty
hypocritical to me.

Well, I suppose I should get down from my stump now.

-- Alan


-- 
Alan Light | "Fearlessness is better than a faint heart for any man
Waxhaw, NC | who puts his nose out of doors.  The length of my life
           | and the day of my death were fated long ago."  Skirner
alight@rock.concert.net -or- alight@wheaton.edu (not checked often)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct
From: robart@agora.rain.com (Joe Bob)
Subject: Re: "My Cabinet" by Clinton (was Re: Affirmative action is dead)
Organization: a gora
Distribution: usa 
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 20:38:14 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.203407.14578@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
>
>>(krueger)
>>Anyone remember Clinton saying "My cabinet will more accurately reflect 
>>the public?"
>
>What Clinton said was that his cabinet would "look like America".  
>
>It was a comment designed to convey Clinton's desire to include women and 
>ethnic minorities.


  What is the final total of homosexuals in Clinton's cabinet?

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12510 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10932 alt.politics.clinton:19251 alt.politics.bush:15087 alt.politics.homosexuality:8578
From: snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 30 Dec 92 21:01:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR

In article <1ht1l6INN4hu@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
>>.Now are you willing to allow a class on sexuality that
>> shows homosexuality and heterosexuality in the same unbiased light, a
>> class that would be optional????
>
>In which grade? 
>
>Walter
>

Pre-school.... I mean they are optional... Some parents with one way
of value system might believe it is best to start their children at
an early age...so they will send their kids to the pre-school class.
They have that option.  Those who want to send their kids at a later
age will send their children when they see fit or they may even opted
out of sending their children period.......

Now...are yo willing to allow a class on sexuality that shows
homosexuality and heterosexuality in the same unbiased light, a
class that would be optional....?
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12156 alt.politics.clinton:19037 alt.politics.bush:14871 alt.politics.homosexuality:8368 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10624
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Date: 22 Dec 1992 20:08:18 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <Bzn89s.87y@andy.bgsu.edu>, jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu (A.P.K.) writes:
|> rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
|> > 
|> > There is NO reason, other than bigotry, to keep homosexuals out of
|> > the military. The question of showering and rooming together is 
|> > quite irrelevant. Do you think that there aren't gays in the military 
|> > now? How many soldiers do you think have been approached  sexually,
|> > in a harassing manner, by another man in the shower? I'll bet you can't 
|> > think of even one case.
|> 
|> While I'm not in on this discussion directly, I was a non-com in
|> the army, and I COULD cite a few cases of such behavior, if you
|> REALLY wanted me to, from not-too-distant experience.  One of my
|> OWN privates once came to me with this very same problem once.
|> Infrequent?  Probably.  Doesn't happen?  Not on your life...

If you know of such a case, you must have reported it, otherwise you
would have been in deriliction of duty, no?

So what happened?   Was the person punished?

jon.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12531 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10952 alt.politics.clinton:19270 alt.politics.bush:15111 alt.politics.homosexuality:8601