HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau)
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 16:28:43 GMT

In article <AULTJ.92Sep1165812@caleb.rpi.edu>, aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault) writes:

|> How is it that the author of phrase "separation between church and
|> state" (which is NOT found in the Constitution or the Declaration),
|> Thomas Jefferson, who, when he served as a schoolmaster, saw fit to
|> approve and heartily recommend the Bible for use in all public schools?  
|> 
|> Could it be that the understanding of that phrase, which is so
|> commonly used today, is not really what Jefferson meant?

Here's some more insight into Jefferson (standard out-of-context
warnings apply).  Pay attention to the last one.  

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

"They [preachers] dread the advance of science as witches do the approach
 of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions
 of the duperies on which they live."

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world,
 and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming
 feature.  They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."

"Do not be frightened from this enquiry by any fear of its consequences.
 If it ends in a belief that there is no god, you will find incitements to
 virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its' exercise, and the
 love of others which it will procure you.  If you find reason to believe
 that there is a god, a consciousness that you are acting under his eye, and
 that he approves of you, will be a vast additional incitement."
       [advising a nephew on a critical examination of the Bible]

How would Jefferson react to your vision of the "proper" use of the
Bible in public schools?  Jefferson seems to view the Bible as a
good source of wisdom, but, it is not to be taken as absolute
(and certainly not the only) truth.

BTW, since you are mentioning words not in the Constitution, Bush
should have looked there before criticizing the Democrats for
leaving those three letters out of their platform (i.e. G-O-D).
But, I don't think Bush has looked at the Constitution lately. :^)

Have a day.

--
Dan Yergeau                         He's dead Jim.  Take his phaser
yergeau@gloworm.Stanford.EDU        and I'll get his wallet.
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,syr.general,syr.cis
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:36:10 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <AULTJ.92Aug25131548@caleb.rpi.edu>, aultj@rpi.edu sez:
>
>A school teacher in Denver was silently reading his Bible to himself
>during quiet time in class.  He never read the Bible to his students,
>or even told them what he was reading.  The Supreme Court recently let
>stand, without comment, a ruling by a District Court that upheld the
>following actions:
>
>1. The teacher was forbidden to read his own Bible silently to himself
>in class, or to leave it lying on his desk.
>
>2. Two books (related to children's Bible stories) were ordered
>removed from the bookshelf of the classroom.  Books on Greek mythology
>and other religions were allowed to remain on the shelf.

For those who want to read the relevant opinions, Mr. Ault is
referring to _Roberts v. Madigan_, 702 F. Supp. 1505 (D. Colo. 1989),
and the Tenth Circuit's affirmance on appeal, 921 F.2d 1047 (10th Cir.
1990). 

Having read the appellate opinion, I am inclined to agree with Mr.
Ault about this particular case.  The court goes out of its way to
muddy the distinction between the actual free exercise/establishment
clause tension and the school principal's *state of mind* (read: fear)
about whether or not Roberts should be allowed to read scripture
quietly during the class reading period.

If anything, I am something of a church-state separation zealot.  Last
fall, I very nearly filed a federal suit here in NYC to enjoin the
erection of a menorah on city property directly in front of the Kings
County State Supreme Court.  (I may have to do it this year, and the
already drafted section 1983 complaint and photographs will
undoubtedly be useful.)  That said, I think the Tenth Circuit went too
far. 


>My hope is that Usenet is not a representative sample of the people of
>the world: The fact that a large proportion of people on Usenet (or
>even in academia) seem to hold radical liberal values may not be
>indicative of the rest of the world.

Leaving aside for the time being the definition of "radical liberal
values" -- one might argue that the framers of the Constitution and
the Bill of Rights were themselves "radical liberals" -- I think you
may want to re-evaluate your assumptions about us "liberals".  While
you and I may not agree on the proper role of religion in American
public and political life, we may not be so far apart on issues like
the ones implicated in _Roberts_.


-- 
Morally and artistically, Henry Miller had MORE right to free speech than
Walt Disney and [Father] Coughlin because Miller was an honest man whereas
Disney and Coughlin were liars.   - Ed Nilges
	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
From: mhollowa@csws4.ic.sunysb.edu (Michael Holloway)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: HELP! Small Claims judge scared of computers!
Date: 29 Aug 92 02:11:23 GMT
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook

Does anyone know if something called a Bill of Particulars can be used in 
small claims court?  Can a motion be filed in small claims court?  Does 
anyone know how it works in New York State.  My information is that there are
no bills of particulars or motions to be made in small claims.

I'm trying to recover my money from the seller of a nonfunctional motherboard 
who isn't going to honor the terms of his warranty.  The defendant brought a 
lawyer to court with him (I'm a graduate student, can't afford one).  When the
case was called the lawyer quickly gets up there first, tells the judge that 
the case involves computers and is very complex and that it should be put in 
civil court.  Then the judge and the lawyer had a little discussion that 
resulted in the case being set back a month and the judge telling me that I 
have to compile with the lawyer's bill of particulars.  At no time am I 
allowed to even begin to argue my case.  I did not agree to any of the 
decisions.  

This bill is a LONG list of frivilous demands, some of which I 
either can not, or will not compile with, even if I felt it necessary to 
respond to it at all.  Some of the demands are obvious attempts to confuse the
issue further and make the case even more "complicated" (such as "What virus
detection software did you have running?" and "What bulletin board systems do 
you have access to?").  The case is really 
just a very simple nonfunctional product/breach of warranty situatio.  The 
lawyer seems to have been very successful at scaring the judge away by 
uttering the word "computer".

Any help is greatly needed.

Thanks
Mike
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: ADL Dismayed by Ohio Court Decision Striking Down Hate Crimes Law
Followup-To: alt.censorship,soc.culture.african.american,alt.activism,misc.legal,soc.culture.usa,oh.general
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:52:26 GMT

[A repost from alt.activism, et. al.]

Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen) writes:

>Here is a press release from the Anti-Defamation League.
>
> ADL Dismayed by Ohio Court Decision Striking Down Hate Crimes Law
> To: National Desk
> Contact: Myrna Shinbaum, 212-490-2525, ext. 145, or
>          Steve Freeman, 212-490-2525, ext. 113
>          both of the Anti-Defamation League
>
>   NEW YORK, Aug. 26 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Anti-Defamation League
>(ADL) today expressed dismay at the Ohio Supreme Court decision
>striking down that state's hate crimes law as unconstitutional.  The
>league had filed an amicus brief urging that the law be upheld.
>   "Contrary to the reasoning of the Ohio Supreme Court, we do not
>believe that Ohio's hate crimes law punishes bad ideas," said Melvin
>Salberg, ADL national chairman, and Abraham H. Foxman, the league's
>national director.  "The law enhances the penalty for crimes
>motivated by bias, and only comes into play after a crime is
>committed," they added.  "Citizens of Ohio are entitled to think and
>believe as they choose without state interference, but if their
>bigotry prompts them to engage in criminal conduct, the state should
>be able to punish that conduct as it sees fit."
>   Ohio is one of many states which have enacted penalty enhancement
>hate crimes laws based on or similar to an ADL model statute.  It is
>likely that the Supreme Court will agree to review this approach in
>its next term, and the ADL remains confident of its constitutional
>soundness.  Certainly at a time when bias-motiviated crimes are on
>the rise and many communities are tinderboxes of hate waiting to
>explode, the need for special laws to combat such crimes could not be
>greater, said the ADL.
>-30-
>
>--
>   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
>     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
>        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
>           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.african.american,alt.activism,misc.legal,soc.culture.usa,oh.general
From: david@gdstech.grumman.com (David Nettles)
Subject: Re: [UPI] High court strikes down ethnic intimidation law
Reply-To: david@gdstech.UUCP (David Nettles)
Organization: Grumman Data Systems-Woodbury
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:13:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.194232.18207@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Copyright 1992 by UPI.  Reposted with permission from the ClariNet
>Electronic Newspaper newsgroup clari.clari.local.ohio and
>clari.news.groups.jews.  For more info on ClariNet, write to
>info@clarinet.com or phone 1-800-USE-NETS.
>
>	COLUMBUS, Ohio (UPI) -- The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled the state's
>ethnic intimidation law is unconstitutional because it is an
>infringement of the right of free speech.
>	The ethnic-intimidation statute is a type of statute that enhances a
>charge such as menancing or criminal damaging to a felony level, says
>Hamilton County prosecutor Joe Deters.
>	He pointed out that felony charges carry heavier fines and jail
>sentences.
>	``The Legislature thought racially motivated crimes deserved a
>stiffer penalty,'' said Deters.
>	The Ohio Supreme Court, in its decision, apparently disagreed.
>	``Enhancing a penalty because of the motive ... punishes a person's
>thought, rather than the person's act or criminal intent,'' the court
>said in an opinion written by sssociate justice Herbert Brown.

Someone here at my job made the same assertion, and therefore
concluded that burning a cross on a Black person's lawn should not be
considered a hate crime, but an act of free speech protected by the
constitution and further the perpetrators should not be charged with
anything more than property damage.

So I asked him, "Do you see a difference between property damage and
this expression of free speech."

"No."

"What is the difference between manslaughter and murder?", I asked.

"I don't know?"

"Intent.  It is the intent that decides whether or not the accused
will spend ten years in prison or fifty or even further receive the
death penalty.  It is the intent that makes all the difference.  There
is a difference between scrawling ''Joanie loves Chachi'' on a
deli-owners wall and scrawling ''Niggers Go Home!''."


I sincerely wish that these poor fools would at least pick a book,
read it, understand it, and feel its content before they go out there
picking up opinions.

I think that its that last requirement that is always missing, 'feeling
the content', that people just don't do.  They get the words into
their heads, but never think of the consequences expressed by those
words.


Enough said.

David    -- Love      | My parents gave me the nane.
Edward   -- Protector | It's my job to live up to it.
Nettles  -- Tenacity  | ------------------------------

--

-- 
****************************************************************************
   David E. Nettles
   Internet: david@gdstech.grumman.com
   Grumman Data Systems
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,talk.religion.misc
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Limiting Government's religious speech
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 14:53:38 GMT

[Reply to a thread in alt.censorship.]

If the U.S. government has the legal authority to put "In God We
Trust" on our money, then it also has the legal authority to put
"There is no 'God'" on our money.

I would prefer to live under a government without such authority.

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: grant@bluemoon.rn.com (Grant DeLorean)
Subject: Re: [UPI] High court strikes down ethnic intimidation law
Organization: Blue Moon
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 00:22:36 GMT

nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:

>kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>	COLUMBUS, Ohio (UPI) -- The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled the state's
>>ethnic intimidation law is unconstitutional because it is an
>>infringement of the right of free speech.
>>	``Enhancing a penalty because of the motive ... punishes a person's
>>thought, rather than the person's act or criminal intent,'' the court
>>said in an opinion written by sssociate justice Herbert Brown.

>        The Court is right.  The legislature has the power to make
>intimidation illegal (that's what "assault" without "battery" is),

 Watch the definitions, they are different between civil and criminal
proceedings. Civil assault (as much as that sounds like an oxymoron)
is threatening with apparent ability to carry out the threat, and
you sue the person for it. If they carry it through to civil battery
where they actually attack you you also sue them for it.

 If you choose to take it to the authorities, the (civil) assault becomes
(criminal) menacing and the (civil) battery becomes (criminal) assault...

(the above proves that I spent way too much time in the presence of
Willie Brown...)

>and it should be prosecuted that way.  Intimidation by threat is already
>illegal; a special "ethnic intimidation law" is superfluous.

 I agree 100%.

-- 
\   Grant DeLorean  - IHMSA & NRA Life Member -  (grant@bluemoon.rn.com)   /

   Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.  -- Euripides

Xref: sparky alt.censorship:7243 rec.humor:27310 soc.culture.polish:2194
From: ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Omar Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,rec.humor,soc.culture.polish
Subject: Re: Polack joke
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:58:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.gebiTAe00WC001aUUC
	<1992Aug28.160731.18103@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>
Organization: Senior, Mathematics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Mario Smarduch writes:
>The problem with these polack jokes is stereotyping, I dont want to 
>be associated with some negative perceptions that people might have
>about Polish people because of idiots like Brett or this Andrew Ford
>guy. How would you like me talking negativly behind your back ruining your
>personality and spreading false perceptions where people have a completely
>negative opinion of you. I understand ethnic jokes because I lived in
>Europe, but there these jokes were said to laugh along with not to laugh
>at someone or make fun of someone.

Mario, you needn't worry on that account.  We won't assume you're stupid
because of stereotyping about Polish people.  We will assume you're
stupid because of your complete inability to behave in a civilized
manner on the net.  We assume that this stupidity stems from your low
IQ, not your ethnic background.

					Tom the non hacker
					Kemp in 96!
					"If patriotism is the last refuge
					of scoundrels,  Then environmentalism
					is the current refuge of totalitarians."
					Bob Jackson
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Public posting of private e-mail.
    <12_n+cb.adamsr@netcom.com> <1992Aug21.234511.13662@scic.intel.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 13:23:53 GMT
Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky

sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth Bradley) writes:
>I agree that one should be able to stop offending e-mail.  

Sure!  There are several "mail filtering" programs available; one of the
best of these is "procmail", which is availabel from many FTP sites.  Get
procmail and install it; you can then filter your mail to your heart's 
content.

>However, before
>one posts private e-mail, there is another step that can be taken, namely
>mailing to the offender's sysadmin.  From (second hand) personal experience,
>this is often effective.  
> [ ... ]
>The main point is, talking to a sysadmin is likely to be far more
>effective than posting e-mail.  

The effectiveness of "talking to a sysadmin" varies greatly.  If the site
is commercial, you may very well succeed.  If, however, the site is aca-
demic, your chances are "not so good".

I'm the sysadmin for the UK College of Engineering (engr.uky.edu, NOT
ms.uky.edu (from which this posting originates)), and I routinely receive
messages such as "your user XXXX called me a YYYYY on the mailing list!
Terminate his email NOW!".  I usually get a chuckle from this.  I've never
rescinded a user's email privileges; with the exception of illegal activi-
ties (emailing pirate software after repeated warnings, for example), I 
doubt that I ever will.

One must accept the good with the bad.  If you enjoy full communications
privileges (and wish them extended to others), you WILL, eventually, be
offended.  It's part of the virtual territory.  

--Wes

-- 
MORGAN@UKCC         |       Wes Morgan       |        ...!ukma!ukecc!morgan 
morgan@ms.uky.edu   | Engineering  Computing |   morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
morgan@engr.uky.edu | University of Kentucky | JWMorgan@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
  Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E  - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.african.american,alt.activism,misc.legal,soc.culture.
From: loel@bluemoon.rn.com (Loel Larzelere)
Subject: Re: [UPI] High court strikes down ethnic intimidation law
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 07:06:27 EDT

orson@bluemoon.rn.com (Craig Smith) writes:

> > >	COLUMBUS, Ohio (UPI) -- The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled the state's
> > >ethnic intimidation law is unconstitutional because it is an
> > >infringement of the right of free speech.

<Lots deleted ...>

> Okay, but then the question comes down to, "what is the intent of
> a cross burner?" To intimidate, yes? Are their laws against intimidation?
> Yes, there are. Existing laws will suffice.
> 
> It seems extremely odd to me that those who write and support these
> "hate crime" laws are the same people who say that you cannot 
> legislate morality.  Is not racism a moral question?
> 
> Double standard, is it not?

You miss part of the point.  The same people who write these "thought
crime laws", along with being the same people who say you can't
legislate morality (or at least not traditional morality) are also
the same folks who wish to ban firearms at any cost.

Part of what they wish to accomplish with laws of this nature is to
make it extremely easy to 'slip up' and inadvertantly perform
a felony, and thereby lose your right to keep and bear arms for
your _personal_ defense.

It makes them quake in their paranoid boots that somebody who
doesn't agree with them should have _any_ power over them, whether 
it be the power to enforce the peaceful enjoyment of thier home,
the power to keep another from looting their household, or the
power to change the legislature at the voting booth.

Probably makes them paranoid that someone should hold an opinion that
is different from theirs.  But heck, this is what this Republic is 
all about ...

Remember ... bigots vote, and probably with greater frequency than
the peace and harmony crowd.


Loel H. Larzelere -- loel@bluemoon.rn.com

"I just want to be remembered for two simple words --
        -- Any two as long as they are simple."
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Polack joke
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 00:48:00 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Aug29.212423.7244@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>This is getting stupid!

>1) There is an abstract right to publish whatever you chose so long as it does
>not directly incite someone to injure another person's rights, ie it is
>perferctly moral to have a law that bans people from publishing posters saying
>"Kill all black people".

What about

"Phone so and so corporation's 800 number and jam their lines."

Or

"Overthrow the government!!"

Or 

"Take back Tompkins Square Park!!"

Or

"Vote in a socialist government"

Or 

"Vote in a government that will kill all the Blacks!!"


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:07:17 GMT

>My hope is that Usenet is not a representative sample of the people of
>the world: The fact that a large proportion of people on Usenet (or
>even in academia) seem to hold radical liberal values may not be
>indicative of the rest of the world.

Perhaps you should first tell us what you mean by "liberal", not to
talk about "radical liberal".  I've never really figured out what the
concept means (along with "conservative", "right" or "left") - then
again, that's perhaps because they have no real meaning whatsoever but
to divide and conquer and act as a smokescreen to confuse the real
issues.

//Jyrki