HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Date: 19 Nov 1992 07:22:02 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) says:

>graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes:
>
[deleted]

>>In the case of the right to keep and bear arms, the two prevailing positions
>>are 1) that you have the right to keep and bear anything you damn well feel
>>like, or 2) the word militia is in the amendment for a reason, and you do
>>not have the unrestricted right to bear any arms, but rather those 
>>"reasonable" for militia service and hunting.
>
[deleted]

>The ACLU's position is not what you refer to as position 2. The ACLU's
>position is that individuals do NOT have the right to keep and bear
>arms PERIOD. I.E. the ACLU asserts (incorrectly) that the 2nd
>amendment is a *collective*, not an individual, right. 
>-- 
>Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
> 
I agree with Dave Feustel.  If the ACLU used the same logic in analyzing the
1st Amendment that they do the 2nd, they would have to hold that free speech
rights exist only for the citizenry as a whole, organized into 
gov't approved cadres, but that individuals had no such right.

-- 
******************************************************************************
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.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,talk.politics.theory
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:42:38 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.055358.25021@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.214624.15573@beaver.cs.washington.edu> graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes:

>>Evolution merely states that based on the evidence we've found and current
>>behavoir, this is the best explanantion of how man and other flora and fauna
>>reached their present form. 

>I'm afraid evolution, as they teach it in public schools, is quite
>a bit more absolute that that: It states that this is the correct 
>explanation of how life reached its present form (and if the teacher
>is unusually good) a few bits of evideince to demonstrate that
>this is clearly the correct explanation. I don't know of any
>teachers that risk confusing students with "we aren't sure, but 
>this seems to be a good explanation..." lectures. As presented,

All my teachers (and all my textbooks) explained that this theory best
fits the evidence we currently have, not that it was the Ultimate Answer
to Life,the Universe, and Everything.  (42)

>that seems to be in conflict with the First Amendment's
>"free exercise" clause: It disagrees with a widespread religious
>teaching, so it is, essentially, publicly-funded indoctronation
>that a specific religious view is wrong. If the schools simply

No; it says nothing about any religious views.  It just ignores myths 
that have no bearing on reality; just as it doesn't teach that the sun is 
driven across the sky in a chariot.  That doesn't mean that it is infringing 
on the free exercise of paganism, or whatever.

It doesn't teach "Creationism is wrong."  If it did that, you might have
a point.   It simply teaches what the scientific consensus is.

>offered the students the available evidence, and let them
>draw their own conclusions, this objection would not apply.
>However, such free thinking doesn't really fit into modern
>public schools...

That's true.  But you need to provide facts first.
-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1993 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,talk.politics.theory,talk.origins
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 04:05:33 GMT

>"Creationism" is a religious dogma that, unlike scientific theories, is
>not subject to scientific verification or revision based on new data.

However, these same means of "scientific verification or revision"
are based on unproveable assumptions about the nature of the 
universe (e.g. religious articles of faith.) It is therefore
not a valid means of applying the First Amendment.

>...the Supreme Court held that such "balanced treatment"
>mandates are really designed to promote particular religious doctrines
>and are, therefore, unconstitutional.

Specifically, the christian doctorine and the doctorine of the "cult
of science." Giving students the choice between two (of many) such
views in a violation of the First Amendment. Does that mean teaching
only one is any more constitutional?

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,soc.history,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] A History of the Bill of Rights
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 04:02:25 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.031826.17008@oclc.org> jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young) writes:
>: >:                                           (By the way, it is
>: >: also inaccurate for the ACLU to claim they defend the Bill of
>: >: Rights: They defend the parts of it which their members find
>: >: politically comfortable and make specious arguments to ignore 
>: >: other parts...)

>: >Could you give some examples of this?

>: How about the 2nd Amendment?

>Thanks, I'll check into this one.  Any others?

I think the Tenth Amendment, the "free exercise" [of religion] clasue
of the First Amendment, the property rights protections of the 
Fifth Amendment and the Seventh Amendment, are all underemphasized
by the ACLU.

                                                       Frank Crary
                                                       CU Boulder
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6667 soc.history:9644 alt.politics.usa.constitution:1172
From: BRYAN@wvnvm.wvnet.edu (Jerry Bryan)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,soc.history,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: [ACLU] A History of the Bill of Rights
Date: 21 Nov 92 22:59:01 GMT
 <1992Nov10.030602.15756@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> <1dtv9nINNp6b@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
 <BxqFMz.3rr@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>

In article <BxqFMz.3rr@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, weekslb@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
(Larry Weeks) says:
>
>And the 10th? All powers not explicitly given to the federal
>government are reserved to the states; all powers prohibited to the
>states are reserved to the people.
>

Not to be overly picky, but here is the text of the 10th amendment.

   The powers not delegated to the United States by the Consititution,
   nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
   respectively, or to the people.

I am not convinced that the paraphrase above means quite the same thing
as the amendment itself.
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6582 alt.activism:18883 alt.politics.usa.constitution:1084 soc.history:9444 talk.politics.theory:4940
From: rsd@sei.cmu.edu (Richard S D'Ippolito)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Date: 16 Nov 92 21:14:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: sei.1992Nov16.211433.19464
Organization: The Software Engineering Institute


In article <BxtFLA.6oD@cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:


|>      1987: Block Bork
|>        The ACLU, changing a 51-year-old policy of
|>        neutrality on Supreme Court candidates, mounted
|>        a national campaign to defeat the nomination of
|>        Judge Robert Bork.  Bork, the ACLU said, posed
|>        an extraordinary threat to fundamental liberties
|>        guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and to the role
|>        of the Supreme Court as the guardian of those
|>        rights.  A majority of Senators agreed and rejected
|>        his nomination.


This alone is enough to keep me from ever entertaining membership -- Bork
knows more Constitutional Law than the ACLU's 2000 attorneys put together.

Rich
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,talk.politics.theory
From: bobh@troy.cc.bellcore.com (hettmansperger,robert)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 14:35:55 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.035704.27701@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.003125.5150@beaver.cs.washington.edu> graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes:
>>>Indeed, the doctrine of evolution "states" this. But by what standard is it
>>>"best"? 
>
>>I, personally, find that is explains the available data fairly well and is
>>more believable than other theories. Many people agree with me.
> 
>However, this personal judgement is advocated and taught by government
>agents. The whole point of the First Amendment's religious protections
>is to keep what "many people agree..." from being imposed on religious
>minorities who disagree.
>

Science isn't religion.  By simple definition.

There is no supreme being.  There is no dogma.  There is, however, faith.
Faith that we can observe phenomena in the Universe, and understand it.  The
fact that a scientist has faith, does not mean he/she is dogmatic.

To say that teaching science violates the first amendment shows that you 
either don't understand the constitution or that you don't understand the
difference between scientific faith and religious faith.  The amendment 
does *not* read...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of faith, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

-Bob
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.theory
From: graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 19:40:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.060627.26882@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.192404.11248@beaver.cs.washington.edu> graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes:
>Your statement of the ACLU's position was incorrect (or, at least, 
>misleading) and you claimed there were no relevant Supreme Court
>rulings on the subject (which you apparently knew was not the case.)

I said "definitive", not "relevant". Miller, while relevant, does not
address the more recent spate of state gun control laws. I do not
believe there will be a definitive SC case until a recent gun control
law is brought before them. Since the NRA has dropped its challenge
to the California assault weapons ban, this doesn't look likely in the
near future.

This conversation has drifted away from the original intent, so I'm
redirecting follow-ups.
-- 
Stephen Graham
graham@cs.washington.edu	 uw-beaver!june!graham
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,soc.history,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Date: 20 Nov 1992 20:05:14 GMT
Organization: N.I.C.E.
Reply-To: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.128.60

Frank Crary writes:
>I'm afraid evolution, as they teach it in public schools, is quite
>a bit more absolute that that: It states that this is the correct 
>explanation of how life reached its present form (and if the teacher

 ...

>"free exercise" clause: It disagrees with a widespread religious
>teaching, so it is, essentially, publicly-funded indoctronation
>that a specific religious view is wrong. If the schools simply

This is a leap in your argument.  You would need to show that the
government has established a religion thereby, to persuade me that the
government is violating the restriction placed upon it by the 1st
Amendment.  You are going to find that various schools of science
have come to conclusions contrary to various things in the Bible,
to pick a particular family of religious tradition.  But it doesn't
necessarily mean they've raised up another church in its place.

>offered the students the available evidence, and let them
>draw their own conclusions, this objection would not apply.

At what age are you referring to here, & in your opening sentences?
It makes a difference:

Do you think "drawing conclusions", at least arriving at them
properly, is an innate skill that people have, or a learned skill?  If
the latter, how & when do people obtain it?  I doubt that it is innate
-- a short exposure to Usenet offers pretty good evidence to the
contrary.  What is the point of presenting material in that fashion,
to people who don't know what to do with it?

I am just old enuf to have gone thru the paradigm shift of the
continental drift.  When I was in elementary school, we discussed
the theories of Wegener as an example of discredited or humbug
theories about the origins (the "geologic evolution" I guess)
of the earth.  By the time I was in junior hi school, all the
old textbooks were being tossed out because the geologists had
come to the conclusion that the continental land masses had, in
fact, split, rejoined, & wandered over the globe.  Anyone such as
me, that has witnessed such a massive change in the thinking
of scientists, AND who grew up in a very traditional old fashioned
religion, has no trouble at all distinguishing between these 
two modes of thinking.
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6684 soc.history:9669 alt.politics.usa.constitution:1184
From: MIKEF@brownvm.brown.edu (Mike Fessler)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,soc.history,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: [ACLU] A History of the Bill of Rights
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 23:36:16 EST
Organization: Brown University - Providence, Rhode Island  USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: brownvm.brown.edu
News-Software: BNN via BNN_POST v1.0 beta

In article <1992Nov22.033852.26022@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU
(Frank Crary) said:
>
>In article <92326.175901BRYAN@wvnvm.wvnet.edu> BRYAN@wvnvm.wvnet.edu (Jerry
>Bryan) writes:
>>>And the 10th? All powers not explicitly given to the federal
>>>government are reserved to the states; all powers prohibited to the
>>>states are reserved to the people.
>
>From the debates over ratification (both of the Constitution and of
>the Tenth Amendment) the paraphrase is accurate, with the exception
>of the word "explicitly." The federal government has only those
>powers granted to it by the Constitution (explicitly or by implication).
>Actions in conflict with these (limited) powers are prohibited to States
>and individuals. All other powers are left to the States or to the local
>people, as specified by state Constitution.

The Supreme Court has also held, in McCulloch v. Maryland (Marshall for major.)
that "there is is no phrase in the instrument [Constitution] which, like the
articles of confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers; and which
requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described.
Even the 10th amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the
excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word "expressly," and
declares only that the poers "not delegated to the United States, nor
prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people;" thus
leaving the question, whether the particular power which may become the subject
of contest has been delegated to the one government, or prohibited to the
other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument. The men who
drew and adopted this amendment had experienced the embarrassments resulting
from the insertion of this word in the articles of confederation, and probably
omitted it to avoid those embarrassments.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Fessler                                   mikef@brownvm.brown.edu
   To light a candle is to cast a shadow.  -- Ursula K. LeGuin
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: A British attack on civil liberties
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:44:17 GMT

yee@mipg.upenn.edu (Conway Yee) writes:

>Here is an article from the Nov. 14, 1992 final edition of London's
>"The Daily Telegraph".
[...]
>	EVERY male's DNA profile should be logged in a national
>register to help combat the growing number of sexual attacks on women,
>Sir Peter Imbert, Metropolitan Police Commisioner, said yesterday.
[...]

The term "DNA profile" is misleading. They would almost
certainly keep DNA samples for two reasons.
  1) There is no standard "profile" now.
  2) The ability to extract information from DNA increases over time.
     They don't want to have to ask for additional samples.

This was discussed at the Conference on Computers, Freedom and Privacy
II in the "WHO'S IN YOUR GENES?" session.

- Carl

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

=================
cpfii.pointer
=================
* Pointer to on-line CFP II Proceedings

On-line Proceedings for "Computers, Freedom and Privacy II" are
available to those on the Internet via WAIS. The WAIS source is called
"computers-freedom-and-privacy". If you don't have wais, but do have
telnet, you can
    telnet quake.think.com
and sign on as "wais"

=================
=================

If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
   gopher gopher.eff.org

These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):

  pub/academic/cpfii.pointer

To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):

send acad-freedom cpfii.pointer
-- 
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,talk.politics.theory,talk.origins
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 02:26:41 GMT


Here are some short excerpts on this topics from another ACLU briefing
paper, "Church and State":

'Nevertheless, the principle of separation has been regularly tested. In
early America, even after church establishment ended, some state
legislators sought to revive the compulsory taxation of citizens to
support religious institutions. In this century, public schools were
once required to teach the biblical version of the earth's and
humanity's creation, while the scientific theory of evolution was
prohibited.[...]'
[...]
'---
Why can't schools be required by law to teach the biblical theory of
the earth's origins-- "creationism"--in addition to teaching
evolution?
---

"Creationism" is a religious dogma that, unlike scientific theories, is
not subject to scientific verification or revision based on new data.
In a 1987 decision striking down a Louisiana law that forbade the
teaching of evolution unless instruction in "creationism" was also
offered, the Supreme Court held that such "balanced treatment"
mandates are really designed to promote particular religious doctrines
and are, therefore, unconstitutional. Of course, nothing prevents a
school from teaching about various creation-of-the- world beliefs in a
comparative religion course, which would be constitutional as long as
the instruction imparts information about different religious
traditions without promoting any religion.'

- Carl

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)

=================
civil-liberty/church-and-state.aclu
=================
* Church and State -- ACLU Briefing Paper #3

=================
=================

If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
   gopher gopher.eff.org

These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):

  pub/academic/civil-liberty/church-and-state.aclu

To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):

send acad-freedom/civil-liberty church-and-state.aclu
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,talk.politics.theory
From: graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 21:46:24 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.070028.27622@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.192815.27567@beaver.cs.washington.edu> graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes:
>>No. It does not affect the right of the individual to hold such religious
>>beliefs as they wish. It does prohibit the state-run schools from 
>>incorporating a specifically religious (and only one religion, at that)
>>subject into the curriculum.
>
>However, the "scientific" view is _also_ a religion: It is based on
>unproven (and unproveable) articles of faith. That the universe
>and everything in it obeys physical laws; that these laws are
>logical and understandable; that these laws are the same everywhere
>in the universe; etc... While I accept and believe in these principles
>(which the Church used to refer to as the "cult of science"), I 
>also don't put them ahead of other people's faith. 

The scientific view claims that, as far as we can tell, the universe tends
to behave in such and such a fashion, which can be expressed in the 
following manner... It's merely observation, not faith.

Evolution merely states that based on the evidence we've found and current
behavoir, this is the best explanantion of how man and other flora and fauna
reached their present form. 


-- 
Stephen Graham
graham@cs.washington.edu	 uw-beaver!june!graham
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism