From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Chaney's sig
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 12:17:32 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.004317.17482@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

Like the captive ruler of a conquered country, Chaqney declares
victory prior to making an ass of himself - 
> Okay, folks, this is where Susan Garvin gets laid totally to waste.
> Type 'n' now, if you don't want to see what happens when I catch a
> pro-abort drowning in their own Sludge. 
> 
> In article <BuAoD7.FM4.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> >
> >#[misc. quotes deleted for brevity]
> >
> >Chaney seems not to recognize that the anti-Semitism he displays
> >contradicts his claims in the next part of his .sig.  Of course,
> >he doesn't seem to realize that his repeated references to "feminazis"
> >and bra burning contradict his "feminist" self-description.
> 
> Okay, Susan Garvin, I'll challenge you directly and show you once and
> for all how 100% WRONG you are. 
> 
> Of course it's always been well known that I could beat you in a
> debate hands-down, but seeing as that you want to press it, I'll show
> the newbies again.  
Uh, yeah, right.  If that's the case, why do you go on to
completely fail in your attempt?
> 
> >##       "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
> >##  that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
> >##  we want to be precise)..."
> >##    -- Gloria Feldt,
> >##       chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona
> 
> >##   "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
> >##     -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
Note that nowhere in Ms Feldt's statement is there any indication
that she would make her personal religious viewpoint the law
of the land.
> 
> Okay, Susan Garvin: Point out the anti-semitism in my .sig. 
The anti-Semitism is inherent in criticizing her religious
beliefs, especially as she nowhere seeks to impose them on
anyone else via legislation.

> 
> 1) Did Gloria Feldt or did she not base her LOGIC on a religious
> perspective? 
yes
> 2) Is there or is there not religious freedom in the First Amendment?
No, there is not.  There is a prohibition on Congress from
making any law establishing religion.  I am not sure what your
strange and garbled sentence is supposed to mean.  "Religous
freedom in the First Amendment?"  There are words in the first
amendment.
> 3) Does the 1st Am or does it not prohibit laws based on religion? 
No, it prohibits Congress from making laws that establish a religion.
If a law, for example, were both religious and made sense as a
secular law, then the first amendment would not stand in its
way.  Had you said "based solely on religion" I might have
agreed with you, but then you aren't quite bright enough to
see that distinction.
> 
> 4) Yes or no: Is it or is it not unconstitutional to base legal action
> on religious principles? 
No, that's not right at all.  To base legislation solely on
religious principles might be viewed as unconstitutional.  But
a term like legal action is very vague, so that you fail again,
with your rudimentary understanding of the English language,
to win your point.  I could, for instance, sue my neighbor
for a reason that is religious.  Whether I win the suit or
not I would hav etaken a legal action based on my religious
principles.
> 5) Yes or no: Does Gloria Feldt or does she not base her legal action
> on her religious principles? 
No, she most certainly does not.  This is the point at which you
fail most completely and utterly.  She bases, according to her,
her "logic" on her religion.  It is not clear at all from the
quotation that she is interested in having legislation passed
that would establish her religious views in law, and judging
from her position with Planned Parenthood it is not logical
to infer that she would.  Here you have managed to make a complete
fool of yourself for the umpteenth time, Dennis.

Congratulations.  Please follow up your foolishness by declaring
victory.

> Now, don't delete too much: Quiz: What did Gloria Feldt say her logic
> is based on? 
> 
> Quiz: How would you respond to: 
> "My logic is based on... a religious perspective that life begins at
> conception." - Catholic priest. 

The same way, that there is nothing wrong with that.  But then
Ms Feldt nowhere says that she wishes to see her religious
perspective declared the law of the land, a not at all subtle
point that escapes the notice of the little feller with the
airplane beanie.

> Eh? Squirming enough, Susan Garvin? 

Possibly from laughter.

> Class over. 
> This is how you put a complete and total end to a complete and total
> asshole like Susan Garvin. 

Never one to disappoint, after managing to fail completely,
Chahallney declares victory.

By the way, for those who don't know Susan Garvin, she's a
terrific person.

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.abortion