HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman)
Subject: Re: Christians & Homosexuality (Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
XXXDate: Fri, 22 Jan 93 22:09:41 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A785BEB58A030614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 22 Jan 93 22:10:06 GMT

In article <C186py.1os@news.cso.uiuc.edu> Michael D. Adams, StarOwl@uiuc.edu
writes:
>Well, I'll crawl out of the woodwork, and fan the flames a bit....
>(And please be sure that you *read* the article before you start
>criticizing it too much....)
>
>It does seem, at one level at least, that Christianity has been getting
>a bit of bad rap.  Of course, that's because of a nifty little human habit
>of overlooking peoples' specific messages, and attempting to simplify them
>down to the level of "all Christians are fagbashers" or "all homosexuals
>are damned to hell."
>
>At least the first point is not true, and I'm almost positive that the
>second one isn't.
>
>When it comes down to Christians' views about homosexuality, I think you
>can safely classify Christians of various flavors, colors, etc. into
>the folowing categories.

<rest of lengthy and well written post omitted>

Splendidly put, Michael.  Having come from a Christian upbringing (Southern
Baptist with some fundamentalist leanings), I know quite well that there is
a great deal of good to be said about Christians.

We must remember not to see all Christians as antigay, just as all
homosexuals are not drag queens.  In fact, I prefer to believe that the
"true" Christians are those that are comfortable to simply follow the tenets
of their religion and to be tolerant of those who do not.  I also take some
comfort in the belief that these make up the "silent majority" of Christians.

While the "vocal minority" (such as Colorado for Family Values) still have
to be dealt with, it good that someone like yourself reminds us from time to
time not to stereotype all Christians with such hateful traits.

Just one more thing to keep in mind, Michael...  There are two kinds of
people in the world, those who put people into categories, and those who
don't.  ;)

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | Freedom means sometimes
Genie: G.BRADT                    | having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             | things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                | piss you off.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: ckmerril@athena.mit.edu (Christopher K Merrill)
Subject: White-Bashing
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:14:40 GMT

  This is RIDICULOUS.  What is it with you people?  Why can't you just accept that
white-bashing exists, just as gay-bashing exists?  Both are wrong, so both should
be dealt with.  This isn't even a question of severity.  One attack is all it 
takes to make it an issue.  What is your point, Ed Simmonds, if you are reading,
about white bashing? I have yet to see it.  Yes, it happens. Yes, its wrong. 
SO WHAT?  Legislation should be passed to deal with bashing, period, whether it
be because you're white or gay or black or Jewish or whatever.  I don't see why
we have to be so petty that we get down to the "my cause is more important than
yours, so nyaaaah!!!" level.  What is the point.  This is a newsgroup about
the politics of homosexuality and it should contain a discussion of just that.
What is it with this useless side issue? Does anyone actually think out there
that white bashing is OK?? No? Good. Fine, then. Why don't we talk about the issue
this newsgroup is for, then.
  No one is asking for special rights, if that is what this whole mess is about.
Everyone wants the same thing: to be protected from attacks based upon bias.
Can't we agree on this.  If you're Jewish, Black, Gay, White, Asian, whatever,
this is all you want on the issue of bias attack: a right to fight back within
the judicial system and get your attackers put away so they can't attack anyone 
else and are punished for what they have done.  What's so unreasonable about this?
I'd think that this would be intuitively obvious to just about anyone.  
-Chris Merrill
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
XXXDate: Wed, 27 Jan 93 22:45:07 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A78C5E83D3040614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 27 Jan 93 22:45:03 GMT

In article <1k43e1INNd65@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> Edward Symanzik,
symanzik@pigeon.egr.msu.edu writes:
>Race, gender and age are things we have no control over and, as such, 
>it is unfair to limit access to basic necesseties based on these
>attributes.  Matters of choice on the other hand, should not enjoy
>this protection.  If a potential landlord won't allow goldfish in the
>building, look elsewhere or give up the fish.  If the landlord doesn't
>want your business and is willing to accept the possible loss of income,
>that's his business (pun indended).  The apartment belongs to the landlord
>and, a his personal property, he can do with it as he sees fit.  
>
>The same applies to the job market.  If I wish to hire people who ride
Harleys,
>you either get a hog or look elsewhere.  If I think that what you ride is
>more important than your skills then my business may or may not suffer for
it,
>but it's *my* choice.  If riding a Honda is more important to you than
where 
>you work, then you may or may not suffer for it, but that's *your* choice.
>
>Both parties involved need options.  If I don't let people in their
thirties 
>live in my building, then those people don't have a choice.  If I am
required 
>to permit goldfish on the premises then I don't have a choice.

Such freedom of choice =is= the general case.  It is only removed when a
widespread pattern of unfair discrimination is practiced, as it was for
blacks, and as it is for gays.  That is what makes this a situation that
needs to be addressed by law.  If enough fish owners or Harley riders were
being discriminated against, then they have the right to collectively
petition their government for a redress of grievance, and to make their case
for the unfairness of these forms of discrimination.

Judge the situation on it's merits.  Don't just say "discrimination (i.e.
racism, sexism, etc.) is a fact of life... live with it!"

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | The only thing
Genie: G.BRADT                    | we =dare= not tolerate
Compuserve: 70206,172             | is intolerance.
BBS: (303)290 9243                |
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands)
Subject: Re: Children of the Rainbow books
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:04:22 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1993Jan22.122654.5155@memstvx1.memst.edu> kebarnes@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
| In article <1993Jan21.233547.11972@microsoft.com>,
| fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:
| 
| > My 5 year old is being rote-taught the pledge of allegience, along with
| > all of the other 5 year olds in kindergarten.  This is contrary to my
| > value system and that of my wife.
| 
| How specifically?  If it's the part about "under God", that was Congress'
| doing. :)

1.  I do not believe that children should be rote-taught solemn promises.

2.  I do not believe that the US is "indivisible" -- I am in favor of the
right of secession.

3.  I personally choose to not pledge allegience to a government of a 
society.  If Sean wants to when he is older, that would be his business.

| > Would you call flag-allegience a value-indoctrination?  I do.  We have
| > told Sean that a "pledge" is a really important promise, and that he
| > should not promise anything like "allegience" until he knows what the
| > word means.
| 
| So you would prefer that the pledge be presented later, say during
| the Super Bowl, or an Inauguration?  "Deconstructed" by a federally funded
| professor of feminist literature as a tool of WASP oppression of the masses,
| perhaps?  Scrapped altogether because of its effect on "family values"?

That paragraph was a bit hard to parse.  As I said, a pledge should not be
drilled into kids, and children should not be expected to make committments
that they cannot understand.

   Fritz
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Party line
From: parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin)
Date: 25 Jan 93 05:06:44 GMT

esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes:

>In <1993Jan22.230029.11734@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> Ken Arromdee wrote:
>>                                                                      Even if
>> I support everything libertarian now, there might be some situation I haven't
>> yet thought of where I might conclude the NCP flunks.  What then?

>Then you'd have to either change other parts of your belief system or stop
>calling yourself a libertarian.  That isn't complicated, is it?

This is the most close-minded, extremist comment I've read in this group for
awhile.  Can one call one's self "liberal" without being a socialist?
Can one call one's self "conservative" without being a fascistic nativist.
Can one call one's self "libertarian" without categorically renouncing
initiation of force?  The word libertarian was around long before Rand
et al., and you have no right coopting it to fit your narrow conceptions.

The vast majority of the "libertarian-leaning" masses which
the LP claims to represent better than Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum do not
share all the views espoused by the LP.  And you will never attract the more
thoughtful, honorable ones by requiring them to sign a pledge in which they
do not believe.  It is a tiny minority that approaches politics with a single
over-riding first principle.  This is nice, in that there are no sometimes
contradictory "rights" to weigh.  But consistancy is not proof.  Something
can be inconsistent and still be "more correct" than something which is
consistent and wrong.  This is the view of many would-be LPers I've talked
to, who shy away in disgust at the pledge.

You can have your pure little party, safe from any internal strife... and safe
from making any kind of impact whatsoever.  You can require members to sign
a pledge which, however you twist it, calls for the elimination of taxation,
or something very close.  You can force the utilitarian-minded to defer all
future LP positions to categorical reasoning.  Enjoy your cute little club,
but don't be surprised when you don't make a difference.  It has nothing to
do with organization or enthusiansm.  You just will not represent a decent
number of Americans, and will have alienated many that you could have   
represented better than anyone else.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Parvin
parvin1@husc.harvard.edu                  "Homercles cares not for beans"
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Libertarian Social Darwinism
Date: 22 Jan 1993 19:03:31 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1993Jan21.035255.13609@genie.slhs.udel.edu> rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Rich Schwartzman) writes:
>I do not share your love it or leave it mentality, nor did I run away.  In
>1968 I raised my hand and swore to uphold the Constitution of the United
>States.  I put on those funny looking clothes and spent 16 months in
>Southeast Asia.  It was while I was in the service that I learned the only
>political morality is in liberty.  
>
>There were individuals who opposed the war and the draft but stayed in the
>US risking jail time for their beliefs.  I respect them.  But I have no
>respect for those who ran or would have runaway "if the draft had not been
>discontinued."  

It's funny to hear patriotism espoused by a libertarian: oh, you're a big-"L"
Libertarian, that explains it.  I'd like to hear from small-"l" libertarians
who think they should owe any more to a government than they do to the
provider of any other service.  Least of all a term of slavery in the armed
forces coercing others in the economic interests of the US.

There is a free market of governments from which to choose from, and ours
attaches no penalty clause for ceasing to be an American citizen and taking
up Canadian citizenship (as I would have: my mother was a Canadian citizen.)

I too respect people who objected to the draft and stayed: I just have a
different agenda of my own.  I don't give a fig for your respect if you say
I should have taken a course that violated my contract with the US government
when I could easily have done what I chose without violating any laws.

Mike Huben

"One cannot play chess if one becomes aware of the pieces as living souls
and of the fact that the Whites and the Blacks have more in common with
each other than with the players.  Suddenly one loses all interest in who will
be champion."  Anatol Rapoport in "Strategy and Conscience" 1964.
From: olsen@HING.LCS.MIT.EDU (James Olsen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Objections to the Pledge? (was: NatCom Endorses Facelift...)
Date: 27 Jan 1993 18:09:25 GMT
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
NNTP-Posting-Host: hing.ai.mit.edu

In article <1993Jan27.070516.6179@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:

>Ideology is our product.

That is the nub of the issue.  What is the goal of the Libertarian Party?
I see two alternatives:

 1. The goal of the Libertarian Party is to propagate the ideology of
    non-coercion.  Political activity is a means to that end.

 2. The goal of the Libertarian Party is to change the government toward
    a non-coercive state.  Political activity is a means to that end.

If the LP chooses option 1, it can keep the pledge and say goodbye to
me and most other pragmatists.  It sounds far too much like a
political religion, with non-coercion as a creed.

If the LP chooses option 2, it can welcome pragmatists who have
exactly the same goal, but see it as neither necessary nor desirable
to decide _a_priori_ that one must go all the way to a non-coercive
state, preferring instead to reserve judgement until we have gone some
distance down that road.

If the ultimate non-coercive state is so desirable, will that not
become obvious as we travel down the road toward it?  Why must the LP
demand a 'leap of faith' of prospective members now?
-- 
Jim Olsen   olsen@cag.lcs.mit.edu   "Tache d'etre heureux." -- St-Exupery
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer)
Subject: Re: Objections to the Pledge? (was: NatCom Endorses Facelift...)
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 10:10:49 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.073813.29279@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>}motivation, etc. Therefore, they pragmatically support a libertarian agenda  
>}and feel alienated by the categorical universality of the pledge.  They do
>}not hold to one shining guiding principle.
>
>Such people simply aren't libertarians, but conservatives.  There's no reason
>why we should make the LP a safe haven for conservatives.

Oh, so someone who supports the entire libertarian agenda but is
not an NCP absolutist is a conservative? Gimme a break.

[That said, I agree 100% that the LP shouldn't be made into a
safe haven for conservatives. Another reason to emphasize
re-legalization.]
--
Mike Linksvayer   mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu   "Bring it all back home"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: etbeteille@happy.colorado.edu
Subject: Pledge vs. Voter Registration
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: 28 Jan 93 11:13:54 MDT

I tried reading eveything on Opposition to the Pledge, really
I did, so if this $0.02 is already posted, please forgive and forget.

I'm in the LP, had no prob signing the pledge, and pay my dues every year.
But I consider myself an activist and an extremist.  That's what the
internal party organization should be for.  That's what the GOP "Inner
Circle" is all about and I'm sure the Dems have something similar.

But the vast majority of Reps and Dems are *not* technically affiliated
with their own party organization.  So how do they identify themselves
as Reps or Dems?  VOTER REGISTRATION.  No pledge to sign.  (Maybe a ver-
bal promise at the most, and that's a very general oath.)

So let's keep the pledge for those of us on the frontier of Libertarian
activism, but let's encourage the countless masses who, to be honest,
have very little interest in politics anyway, to simply REGISTER Liber-
tarian. 

Eric 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: child labor and minimum wage.
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: mrh@centerline.com's message of 25 Jan 1993 17:26:46 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
	<1993Jan22.111431.16248@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
	<1k17smINN25d@armory.centerline.com>
Date: 27 Jan 93 09:51:47

In article <1k17smINN25d@armory.centerline.com>, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:

> Please name one case where the US government said "you must now
> own this slave" or "you've never been a slave before, but you
> are one now."

The US government made people slaves by denying them their full
rights as citizens under the Constitution.  

> Slavery has always been initiated by capitalists.

Mercantilists maybe, particularly in the ante bellum South, who
railed against the Yankee capitalists who were attempting to
destroy their way of life.  Perhaps you should take your own
advice and read a little history.

> I suspect that TJ [Thomas Jefferson] could have freed his
> slaves somehow; if only by selling them for a pittance to an
> abolitionist.  I suspect that he didn't to retain his
> credibility while attempting to legislate their freedom.
> Howvere these are mere guesses.  I'd like to see the actual
> covenant.

Why don't you try reading what Jefferson wrote on the subject,
as I have already recommended, instead of parading your uninformed
suspicions about.  He has answers for all your questions, and some
you probably haven't had a glimmer of yet.

=Mark
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: Objections to the Pledge? (was: NatCom Endorses Facelift...)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 09:49:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.073813.29279@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <parvin1.727909950@husc.harvard.edu> parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin) writes:
>}6) It goes against the principles of a large number of libertarians who
>}support the down-sizing of government because it is by nature wasteful,
>}unimaginative, corrupt, etc.  These libertarians might not have a beef with a
>}theoretical utopian government that didn't exhibit these traits, but believe
>}that it is impossible in practice due to human nature, lack of individual
>}motivation, etc. Therefore, they pragmatically support a libertarian agenda  
>}and feel alienated by the categorical universality of the pledge.  They do
>}not hold to one shining guiding principle.

Many of us are subtlely different than you describe above.  My girlfriend
and I support working towards the princicples espoused by the LP.  For
example, start cutting taxes with the goal of eliminating them.  This will
make life better.  Is it 'impossible' to eliminate them?  I don't know.
It won't happen soon, I don't think.  But what a wonderful goal!

A government based on principles.  Constantly striving to reach goals
consistent with those principles.  A framework for thinking about 
problems.  I'm not saying it's impossible to get to libertopia, I'm
saying we won't get there tomorrow or in a decade.  Maybe not even in
my lifetime.  But I want to start the trip!

>
>Such people simply aren't libertarians, but conservatives.  There's no reason
>why we should make the LP a safe haven for conservatives.

It looks to me like a lot of the membership thinks it should be a place for
*true* conservatives, or minarchists.  That's why I pay my dues.

Sorry, Tim.  I guess we're 100% opposit on this.  I hope we win, what can
I say?  I hope you'll stay, but I don't guess you will.

   Thanks awfully,
              Patrick
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Objections to the Pledge?  (was: NatCom Endorses Facelift...)
Date: 27 Jan 1993 17:31:34 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, brown@pollux (Daniel Brown) says:

>In article <1kFl77#1yYYGs75m1Hd1OcQv36qM6B6=esr@snark.thyrsus.com> esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes:
>>In <1jt6a7INNk8m@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Brandon D. Ray wrote:
>>> 4.)  If taken literally (as it often is) it cannot be signed in good 
>>> conscience by minarchists, since *any* gov't involves at least the 
>>> possibility of the initiation of the use of force...for one thing, you have
>>> to oppose all taxation, for any reason, in order to be true to the oath...
>>> yet a person could be willing to accept limited taxation as a necessary
>>> evil, still accept *every* other plank in the platform, and not be
>>> able to sign the pledge.
>>
>>Minarchists should take this is a big, neon-lit *clue* that there is a
>>dangerous contradiction in their belief system.
>
>Not all minarchists are willing to accept limited taxation.
>
You quibble, sir.  *SIGH*  All right.  Please insert the word "many" before
the word "minarchists".
>
>-- 
>Daniel W. Brown (brown@pollux.cs.uga.edu, dbrown@ai.uga.edu)
>
>

-- 
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian