HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 23:39:21 -0500
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: homosexuality

I do not think that the positions I've advocated "abandon the morality of
common sense," to quote Missy. I believe in protecting children from harm,
whether that be drugs or homosexual acts, but I do not believe we have to
have such "moral standards" for "consenting adults." I think the "moral
standards" for adults are simple - no killing, no raping, no robbing, and
tough sanctions if you do. But, consensual behavior and "capital crimes"
are a wide world apart. My bitch with the would-be setters of standards is
THEIR narrow set of "morals" that deal with "common sense." The "aversions"
the conservative agendas allude to involve one hell of a lot of invasion into
yours and my private lives - which I do not think the state needs to do. We
would seem to agree that a "minimum standard" ought to be in place, what we
cannot agree upon is what is acceptable within the framework of law. An
example comes to mind. My father is a gun person, to him the most sacred
right one has is to be able to bear arms. I'm willing to accept SOME
restrictions on such - waiting periods and assault rifle bans - but *I* am
not willing to see First Amendment, or Fourth Amendment, rights abridged, at
the least. Yet, some would go so far as to "clutter" the Constitution with
specific attempts to impose a standard on when life begins, or on attempting
by legislation to impose an "instant" balanced budget. I still have not seen
an effective non-religious argument that states why all these "rules" are
necessary for us to have a "moral society." I suggest the Golden Rule,
actually practiced, and not legislated, would get a lot further towards a
"moral society" than all the proscriptions the anti-government would-be
morality legislators would enact. (An oxymoron? You bet! Conservatives want
less government when it comes to business and the making of money, but more
when it comes to standards we have for daily living! A contradiction? Since
when has that inconsistancy bothered a Reagan, Bush or Quayle, or any of that
ilk?) Less law, and less government "enactment" of a "moral standard" does
not mean that chaos, or a breakdown of society, would necessarily ensue. Why
is it necessary that layers and layers of "standards" be imposed? VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:34:00 EDT
From:         the valley of the fuzz-tone guitar <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      the Big-Endian heresy continues unabated

You know, the nice part about not having time to read mail on the weekdays
till the evening is that I'm forced to bypass whole chunks of incoherence
that I'd otherwise feel obligated to make snide comments about.  There are
isolated bits that warrent some comment, however...

Jason Z, responding to Carolyn:
>Regardless, it seems self-evident that children growing up in such an
>environment would find their moral health jeopardized.  And since most
>Americans agree that homosexuality IS immoral, then that definition of morality
>has to be used when the state protects the moral well-being of its wards.

"Most"?  Maybe you haven't read your new issue of Newsweek yet.  Scope some
of these numbers:

>Is homosexuality an acceptable alternative lifestyle?
>41% YES
>53% NO

If these numbers are to be accepted as accurate (always a hazardous thing to
do when dealing with Newsweek :)), they would seem to counteract your claim
that "most" Americans feel homosexuality is immoral.

Some more results for comparison:
>Should homosexuals have equal rights in job opportunities?
>78% YES
>17% NO
>Are Gay Rights a threat to the American family and its values?
>44% YES
>51% NO

Now the vaunted majority seems to be listing the other way.  Guess it depends
on how the question is put.  Go figure.

>Jason

immoral, liberal, unpatriotic,
and sexually permissive, but not
necessarily in that order,
Gary W. Olson               "That's tonight's 'Unsolved Mysteries.' Next
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU week we'll present wildly inconclusive evidence
55 days and counting down... on the Amelia Earhart disappearance, U.F.O.'s
                             and God. Be there!"-Evan Dorkin's "Milk & Cheese"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:57:26 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Where Carolyn left off

Hi, Jason.  I'm not trying to argue, exactly; I just want to be sure I
understand you.
>In the case of adoption, though, we're not dealing with adults.  We are dealing
>with children, and I feel that the state (as the child's "parent") has the
>responsibility to safeguard the child's moral development, which requires the
>state to adopt the moral position of the community.  As far as I'm concerned,
>Biblical "revealed" truth is good enough since it has some written, concrete
>basis.

Um, on what basis do you say that the state has a responsibility to
safeguard a child's moral development?  Even the Republicans admit this is
the responsibility of the parents :)  Seriously -- I've heard of the state
safeguarding physical, mental, and emotional well-being, but never moral
development.

But let's say for a moment you're right, and the state will follow the
moral code (or whatever you call it) of the local community.  Correct me if
I'm wrong here, but you'd go along with separate laws for adoption,
marriage, etc., in different communities -- at least potentially, right?

Finally, *lots* of things have a "written, concrete basis."  Like the
Constitution.  Or _Animal Farm_.

>This is why we'll never agree on these issues.  I don't think that just any
>revealed truth should be used for political decision making.  But Christianity
>is not just any revealed truth.  At least 50% of the population considers
>itself some brand of Christian.  That alone is enough, in my books, for that
>pticular revealed truth to advance to a legitimate moral philosophy.  The
>same goes for any major religion.  I don't agree with Hinduism, but I don't
>question its legitimacy as a moral code (flawed as it may be).

Whew.  Bunch of ideas here :)  Am I reading you correctly when you say that
the only revealed truth that can be used for political decision making is
Christianity?  Because a majority of U.S. citizens claim to be Christians?
So if, for example, a majority of U.S. citizens were Muslim, we could use
the Koran for political decision making?

This is where I run into problems.  Sigh.  See, you can have whatever
legitimate moral code you want.  We probably even agree on some of its
elements.  But the way I was taught, the first amendment prohibits you (and
me, for that matter) from basing political decisions on religion.
Additionally, I was taught that our current political system is supposed to
protect the rights of minorities in the face of the potential tyranny of
the majority (I think I'm repeating myself here).  So the fact that 50+
percent of U.S. citizens call themselves Christians has no *legal* bearing
on the issue.

Kerry
who is maybe going to go off someplace and hunger and thirst for
righteousness' sake . . .

or maybe go find some of those Gideons so she can check her quotes :)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 09:46:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: ERA (not the detergent)

In article <tfilt320103@drew.edu>, Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET> writes
   :
> Joe:
>
> You quotation of the ERA is, indeed, correct.  But what the text
> *said* is not the same as the way in which it was to be *applied.*
> When asked, the Court indicated that such things as women in combat
> and segregation in public places of various sorts might well be on
> the table.  I am not saying that the ERA was a good idea or a bad
> idea.  That is not the point.  The point is that merely appealing to
> the text without reference to its implications does not demonstrate
> that it was unreasonable to discuss such potential effects.
>
> --Missy P 2 B
>
Potential effects are all well and good, but scare tactics to take
away the purpose of the amendment is a whole different ball game.
Segregation if it is based on valid reasons is valid, such as in the
case of public bathrooms by sex.  If you are saying the courts said
that the issue is not totally decided, so be it.  Have the courts
decide it, and based on the intent of the amendment, such things as
unisex bathrooms (unless women want them) will not come into play.
Women in combat situations -- and in fact they were in combat
situations already, in fact if not in name -- is open to debate, and
seems to be a time that has come.  The fact is that the ERA put forth
important ideals of equality that are valid, and shouldn't be
rejected because of scare tactics you noted Mrs. ---- said.  Talk of
unisex bathrooms, which doesn't seem to be on many lists of equal
rights for women besides this one, cheapens the ideal of equality.


    -Joe












n in public places (I presume you mean bathrooms and th





e
like), if they have a just reason that doesn't infringe of equality,
are valid.
From: CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Is homosexuality immoral?
Date: 13 Sep 92 16:46:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

Why did the Constitutional Convention in 1787 begin with a prayer?

They must have had some idea what they were starting.

Chris Morrison
Not that anybody else started anything better.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 6 Sep 1992 14:48:38 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Bosnia conflict
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              6 Sep 1992 10:38:00 +0200 from <HOUSSAH5@EGAUCACS>

On Sun, 6 Sep 1992 10:38:00 +0200 <HOUSSAH5@EGAUCACS> said:
>It's a big relief that somebody in this list is being objective and honest.

>But when Moral or Human factors were involved, things did not go that way.
>At first, people had no reaction. Then we started saying that we are
>angry, and that what the Serbs are doing is not the right thing to do. And
>that these Serbs have to stop being naughty etc.. We also said that if they
>persist on being naughty, the international community might well consider
>doing something. Then we said that if the required troops and equipment

While you seem to have taken a side on this conflict already, I wasn't aware
the US had.  While it's a bit of an oversimplification, I still don't see
how a fight of succession vs. unification is the same as the Iraq/Kuwait
situation.  Both sides in the current situation make nearly the same claims
against each other, not unlike two children standing before their parents,
each claiming the other was at fault and started the conflict.

/S getting into the "who did what to whom first" pettiness (as you've alread
taken a side, so the sales speech could be made in a separate post), perhaps
you could enlighten us as to what the situation really is?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:04:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: New York Senate Race

I forgot about it and listened to McNeil-Lehrer to hear what they had to
say about the Bush economic speech.  I'll read the text of the one and
the excerpts from the other tomorrow in the NYT, and then I'll maybe write
something about both here.

                              Chris Morrison
                              CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet

I'm getting behind in my reading already.  The Fall Foreign Affairs,
Foreign Policy, Orbis, and Washington Quarterly all came in this week,
plus The Economist, and I haven't read much of any of them 'cause I've
been on here chattering away like a slightly mad hyena.

                                   Chris Morrison
                                   CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
Ah well, I guess this all does beat work.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 13:01:23 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: KAT is bad if and only if Jimbo is harmful

>From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

>> There are two possible responses to the claim that criminal trespass
>> is a harm. (I put that claim in Jimbo's mouth. I'm sure he will
>> correct me if my oral surgery was unwarranted. By the way, I'm
>> letting him out on probation.)
>> One is ridicule. How could it possibly harm me if someone
>> swims in my pool when I am not home, leaving no trace? The other
>> is to admit that "harm" is value-laden. We (or anyway some of us)
>> think that trespass is a harm because we think it is wrong.
>
>How about a third option.  If you trespass, you have put me in
>danger of harm, kinda like shooting at me and missing it.  And now
>as a result of your trespassing I don't feel as secure any more
>and therefore a harm is done.

There are two different possible interpretations of KAT's suggestion.
One is that trespass puts the owner of the property in danger,
objective danger. The other is that trespass harms the owner
by making him or her feel less secure.

To the first:
It is not at all obvious that trespass on my property puts
me in danger. Suppose the trespasser has no intention whatever
of harming me further (that is, beyond whatever harm might
be constituted by trespass). Suppose that the trespass is a one-shot
deal, that the trespasser will never return. Then, objectively speaking,
trespass does not put me in any danger.

To the second:
My example was supposed to be an example of a trespass that the owner
never discovers. The trespasser leaves no trace. The owner never finds
out about it. Is the owner harmed?

>> If the latter response is correct, then KAT's claim about
>> explanatory priority is wrong.
>
>Thank you your Czarness.  So my "argument" is either "ridiculous"
>or wrong.       :-)?

Er, no. I think the disjunction was this:
either the claim that trespass harms the owner of property is ridiculous,
or KAT's claim about explanatory priority is wrong.

>> I'm trying not to take sides, you'll notice.
>
>Sure!

You'll know if I take sides. :-)

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:00:00 EST
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Is homosexuality immoral?

>From: "Patrick W. Hamlett" <PWHMDS@NCSUVM.BITNET>

>This is true *only* if a reasonable case that homosexuality is immoral can
>be made, a feat *no one* on this list has yet achieved...
>Hamlett

I think I missed something.  Do the pro-gay people out there not believe that
the Bible is a "reasonable" guide to morality?  Or are you expecting us to make
attempt to show that homosexuality is immoral without reference to Christianity
or any other religion?

If so, this discussion is already over.  My moral code is certainly no worse
than yours just because mine is based in religion.  In fact, mine is infinitely
better, since it is based upon eternal truths as opposed to mere human whims.
By excluding Christianity as a "reasonable" moral code, you've constructed a
playing field that allows only you to win.  Quit hiding behind your atheism and
grant that not everyone shares your peculiar view of morality.  If you want to
seriously debate this topic, you have to grant enough to arive at SOME common
ground.

Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 13 Sep 1992 19:37:52 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: read my lips: I have family values

Andy, it is Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee.

Rhodes is a four-year liberal arts college associated with
the Presbyterian Church.  This results in everyone being
required to take four semesters of Bible or Western Thought(actually
the reason is that some rich Christian gave money to the school
on this condition).

Rhodes was originally Southwestern at Memphis.  The name was
changed about ten years ago, because of the image.  It was
named after Peyton Nalle Rhodes, one of the school's past
presidents.

Rhodes I might add has been on the _US News and World Report_
"Up and Coming" list for at the past three years.  Three
years ago, it was number one on this list(big whoop to us
students.  We want to know when we will have made it and
get on the list of the top 25 liberal arts colleges in
the country, but. . . . ).

j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 17:24:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: read my lips: I have family values

I think that math and science are fetishes (by which I mean symbols for
which the original meaning has largely vanished), in the same way that
computers are fetishes.  They are part, but by no means the most important
part of a balanced curriculum.  This has got to include basic skills for
literacy in all areas, language, science and math, musical and artistic,
physical, and moral (not brainwashing and not the idea that all value
systems are alike, but something different from both).  Most important
the skill of independent thought, and the curiosity to direct it, with
the personal self-discipline to do the work involved.  Also the sense
of whatever personal quality it takes to look at life as an enjoyable
exploration rather than a sentence of hard labor.  Plus a sense of
identification with other people, a kind of sympathy balanced by
independence.

If our kids were raised and educated in ways that developed these qualities,
there is nobody on earth who could pass them by.

Chris Morrison
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 6 Sep 1992 14:28:01 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Rights, and other comments ...
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Sat, 5 Sep 1992 19:21:00 EDT <GRACZ1@ITHACA> said:
>
>      Yes, you're right (I was being a bit flippant in that post).
>   So, how do we get people to want to vote?  Better candidates, of
>   course!  Ah, that makes the question, How do we get better candidates?
>   So that leads to the question, Why are the candidates so bad now?
>   Or are they really?  Were they bad before and people just didn't realize
>   it?  Or did they just recently become bad?  If so, why?  Eagerly awaiting
>   some responses....
>

I would guess most candidates aren't interested in having their lives
scrutized to the degree and depth which has become all the rage as
each member of the Fourth Estate works diligently to find some
loose thread in a canididate's life which unravels their campaign and
creates their Warholian Fifteen Minutes.

JFK's reputation as a walking sex machine seems common knowledge now
and Eisenhower's dalliances only a little less so...would they survive
the lengthy and arduous campaign season which seems to extend longer
and longer each cycle?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:23:04 EDT
From:         Janet Perry <JPERRY@ERS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: what to do in a world that trivializes intelligence
              14 Sep 1992 11:23:20 EST from <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUP UI.EDU>

>Unfortunately, classes only move as fast as the slowest student(s)...

My story:I grew up in a very poorly funded (public) school, with very dedicated
teachers.  Their objective was to teach us how to learn and I think they
did very well.  The teachers worked hard at keeping the slower students
motivated and the brighter students interested... and it worked, without
field trips, without videos, without new books (my second grade reader
was 10 years old), without cutesy bulletin boards, etc.  We did not have
discipline problems because we were expected to act socially acceptable and
we all knew that the principal and our parents would devise something
awfull to get back at us if we didn't.  Now that my child is in school and
I see what is taken as "the bare esentials to teaching" I am amazed that I
learned anything!!  Out of the 35 kids in my class, every one of us graduated
from high school, 35% went to college or technical training, several of the
guys were in the service (VietNam) and 2 became career servicemen.  We weren't
exceptional in any way but our teachers were.  We were mostly minority
students and they gave us hope, mainly because when we left there we could
read and do mathematics.  Is that too much to ask of the current teachers?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU