HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey)
Subject: Re: using the bible to advance bigotry
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:05:28 GMT

In article <casivils.726175165@node_508ba> casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) writes:

>( I'm not interested in hearing about some other religious book, the argument
>is -can a moral system exist with out religion and where would it lead-.
>

Of course it can.  For a start, you might want to try reading some St.
Thomas Aquinas, starting with his refutation of divine command theory.
He is about as christian as it gets, and he has a lot of interesting
things to say.  After that, there are a lot of philosophies based on a
secular moral or ethical code that you can look at. As to where it
would lead:

*One doesn't adopt ethics to achieve a goal.  One adopts a
moral code as a guideline for living.  Christians who follow the bible
because of where it will lead are essentially brown-nosing God.*

-- 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Howard "Pasty-faced" Berkey                       	   howard@netcom.com
		    I just don't want to know, anymore.
... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...    ... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:31:18 GMT

In <1993Jan11.064028.16567@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:

>In article <1993Jan6.201444.17666@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>
>>There is no question that our founders were extremely Christian.

Several varieties, Quakers, Catholics, Methodists, Episcopalians (if they
called themselves that back then, just about any church you could want,
and a few you probably wouldn't)

So that's probably why they made the wise decision Tom points out below.

>>
>>Ted

>Yup.  And yet they were wise enough not to try to force their religion
>on everybody else.

REB
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:55:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1i7g9rINNosd@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>> In article <1i003kINNf0j@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>> >I have sex with my neighbor's wife; we've both consented to it with 
>> >each other, no one's twisting my arm or hers; immoral? 
>> 
>>     No, according to the morals of the involved people.  In fact, I'd be
>> interested in a logical argument that it is immoral, without resort to the
>> biblebook or other religious dicta.
>
>Because they have committed themselves to their spouses.  (I didn't spell that 
>out in the original statement, I should have) 

    Right.  If they both had committed to a monogamous relationship, then
to violate that commitment would be immoral, imho.

>>     Why do they need to be married?  Again, please no religion-based
>> arguments, just a logical assertion of what harm is done to the consenting
>> adults or others.
>
>Because if their birth control fails, (assuming they use it) they could 
>end up with a baby, that they are not prepared for.  

    1.  Why do they need to be married to have a child?
    2.  If they used redundant birth control such that the chances of
conception were virtually zero (just for the sake of this discussion),
would that be OK?
-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,a
From: snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning 
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 14:33:18 GMT

In article <B74VwB1w165w@unkaphaed.gbdata.com> popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell) writes:
>entropy@world.std.com (The Entropic one) writes:
>
>> In article <C0Ax5F.9K6@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer
>> >howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey) writes:
>> >
>> >>Because not everyone gives a damn about religion.  The majority of the
>> >>world population isn't Christian.  (Although Catholicism is the
>> >>largest single religion).

Sorry but Catholicism is a denomination of Christianity.  It isn't a seperate
religion.....



>> -- 
>> ------  Linux, Religion, and electronic shopping all in one place!
>> \    / Repent of Bean eating, MS-DOS, OS/2, and windows NT, no sales man
>>  \  / will hassle you, no priest will sacrifice you. Free 9600 baud download.
>>   \/ Call the Virtual World Information Systems BBS at 508-793-9568        
>
>


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: More Fascism....
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 08:03:47 GMT

I posted the Funk & Wagnalls definition of fascism a while back and
a few of the responders scoffed because I claimed the Democratic
Fascist Party uses "secret" police to maintain their power.

Well, William Christopher, Clinocchio cabinet designee, was a member
of the LBJ administration.  According to UPI, he will be grilled by
the senate rubberstamp committee on allegations that he was involved or
knew of the Fascists' use of the Army to spy on war and draft protesters.
The use of the Army in this fascist policy is unquestioned.


Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13393 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11984 alt.politics.clinton:19907 alt.politics.bush:15719 alt.politics.homosexuality:9214
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Why the "argument from Nature" matters
Date: 8 Jan 1993 20:50:01 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
> Maybe if you find the answers to these questions you'll be able to answer
> the following:
> 
> "why is this Robert Johnston guy being such a pain to me? why can't he
> just leave me alone?"
> 
> Robert Johnston

Don't worry, Robert, you're not really being such a pain.  And I'm 
not worrying if you'll leave me alone or not.  

Walter
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: bush should be impeached,for the pardon of the good old boys!!!
Date: 11 Jan 93 15:32:10 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <1993Jan8.220309.11813@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu sez:
>
>And, while it may be illegal to lie to congress, there is no legal 
>punishment for doing so.  If you wanted to lie to congress, and they 
>wanted to find you guilty of it, you can thumb your nose at them, 
>they have no authority to punish you for lying.  

Before Mr. Krueger makes his next appearance before a congressional
committee, he should perhaps consult 18 U.S.C. sec. 1001.  Doing so
may save him the inconvenience of a 5-year prison term and a $10,000
fine. 


-- 
		   Shut up and wave yer flag, boy.

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality
From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:47:51 GMT
Keywords: Colorado, Amendment 2

In article <Jan06.154510.4425@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> greenidd@CS.ColoState.EDU (danielle greenidge) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.181813.27865@anasazi.com> briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
>>
>>>Colorado (no anti-discrimination laws for homosexuals)
>>
>>Tourism is reported up by 10% in Colorado since the call for Boycotts.
>>
>
>Perhaps, but since the passage of this stoneheaded piece of tripe by 54% of
>the more benighted citizens of my fair state (read: El Paso County, et al)
>potential convention business and large-scale job prospects (read: Ziff-Davis
>Publishing in particular) are down big time, possibly as much as 30%.  It's
>gonna take quite a few Texans careening down the slopes to make up the 
>deficit.

Don't forget Celebrity types, or Cultural Elite as other's prefer.  Don't
expect them to jump back into the fray until AFTER the ski season.  In the
meantime, they don't seem to have a problem with bringing their money into 
Aspen and passing it on to the State's coffers through taxes.

Oh well, so much for moral fortitude.  At least we can depend on Barbara
Striesand, Martina Navritalova and a few other harty souls to stand behind
their moral conscience.

Doesn't the bible say something about it is better to be either hot or cold, 
but to be lukewarm is the path to damnation?

At least this keeps Arizona out of the spot light, for a while.

8-)8-)8-)8-)8-)8-)8-)8-)8-)8-) 8-)8-)8-)8-)8-)8-)8-)8-)8-)8-)

>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Mark Spence (in exile at): greenidd@handel.cs.colostate.edu
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>


-- 
"The best government of all is that government which governs the least."
	Jefferson
Brian Douglass		briand@anasazi.com 	602-870-3330 X657
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: kellyj@leland.Stanford.EDU (Kelly Johnson)
Subject: Re: Social (in)Security (was: Re: Chelsea's school ...)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 18:00:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.185408.5547@afit.af.mil> wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) writes:
>
>I would phase in a replacement for social security that would be a true
>annuity and would represent real property for the future social security 
>recipient.  I guess that I would maintain mandatory participation in the
>program, otherwise those who pull out today might well be back in 40
>years with their palms up and a demand for their ``fair share.''
>

I guess saying "Sorry, you made your decision years ago...Accept
responsibility for your actions is just tooooo politically incorrect"????


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:39:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1993Jan8.155238.7975@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.092845.2048@hobbes.kzoo.edu> k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy) writes:
>>If you are the NRA, then you will fight tooth and nail (and gun) to
>>preserve your right to legally shoot and kill an intruder in your home.
>>(If you don't subscribe to this, then you _ipso_facto_, Q.E.D., are not
>>the NRA, and should stop misrepresenting yourself as such, or you will
>>hear from their lawyers first thing in the morning.)  I believe, in this
>>state at least, you don't even have to prove self-defense.  A Man's Home
>>Is His Castle, and Men have to have to have the Right to Defend their
>>Castles against Intruders with Very Big Guns, eh?
>>
>>Yet a woman can't kill an intruder in her own _body_!?
>
>The woman hung out a sign that said "baby welcome" when she had sex.

The woman hung out a sign that said "No babies allowed" when she
used contraception.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:09:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla, Rolla, MO

In article <1993Jan5.004659.7673@anasazi.com> briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
>In article <1993Jan3.075724.27802@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec30.234500.21163@anasazi.com> briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
>>
>>>Tell that to a smoker.  Clearly this is a lifestyle choice, and yet
>>>non-smokers have persecuted them out of most public places.  Why?  Because
>>>non-smokers find smoking offensive, smelly, and possibly dangerous to their
>>>health.
>>
>>Yes.  I object violently to people smoking in such a fashion so as to force
>>me to partake of their habit.  But:
>>
>>1) I don't mind if you do it in your home
>>2) I don't mind if you exhibit "smokers behavior" in public
>>3) I wouldn't mind you smoking in public if I had to watch you doing it BUT
>>	as long as you keep your smoke off of my body.
>>
>>Using your analogy for homosexuals;
>>
>>1) I don't mind what they do in their homes
>>2) I don't mind them exhibiting "gay traits" in public
>>3) I wouldn't mind them kissing, etc., in public, as long as they don't
>>	grab my tushy.
>>
>>(My rule of thumb is;  if I wouldn't mind seeing a male/female couple doing 
>>this in public, why should I care if two females or two males do it?)
>
>Truly a most tolerant attitude.  And while some will decry "tolerant"
>attitudes, they clearly leave both sides in a live and let live proposition,
>due to the lack of DISTINCTION between the sides.

I think I agree with you.  Must we all choose to actively support
homosexuals or face the alternative:  the LABEL of HOMOPHOBIA!!  *gasp*

I think not.  On the contrary, I think it's quite admirable to accept
something that you do not understand and have no desire to understand.

True, it might be better for your soul to understand it.  But why
must we understand *everything* now now now now now fucking NOW?

I got priorities, you know.  Understanding differences in sexuality
is not high on my list.  As soon as I get that far down on the list,
maybe I'll work to understand why some people are attracted to others
of the same sex.

But in the meantime, I'll live and let live.  I'll even say that 
homosexual people are "reg'lur kinda folks."  :) 

cpk
-- 
"The WHITE ZONE is for loading and unloading only.  If you gotta load or un-
load, go to the WHITE ZONE.  You'll love it.  It's a way of life!" --Zappa

Technology always seems to keep one step ahead of human wisdom.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: root@june.cmp.rpi.edu (J.R. Ordon)
Subject: Re: Rush and the Clinton Inauguration
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 14:32:10 GMT

In article <nate.1022@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>    Anybody got any good theories about why Rush is being so coy about 
>his invitation to the Clinton Inauguration? I realize that the idea of 
>the Clinton presidency sort of galls him, but I would have thought that 
>the experience would provide him with hours of anecdotes for his radio 
>show. He could probably deduct his travel as a business expense, and I 
>doubt that it could be any more difficult for him to cope with than the 
>Donahue show. I have a couple of ideas about possible motivations for 
>him playing "hard-to-get", but I'm curious to hear what people around 
>here think.
>

I think Rush is torn between going to the inauguration as the only
representative of the "loyal opposition", and not going to sort of protest
the Clinton victory.

He clearly enjoys the fact that he was invited, but the mispelling of his
name Rush Lumbaugh, probably makes him suspect of the Clinton's intentions.
He probably is afraid of being used by Clinton as an example of the Clinton
administration's new policy of "inclusion".

In the end I think he will go, he would lose credibility if he didn't,
he always says that liberals don't like to socialize with Conservatives and
he would look a little silly if he chose not to go.

He'll use some ploy like, "I going for you" (his listeners), and he'll probably
have funny news to report when he gets back.

-------------------------------
J.R. Ordon

...11 weeks till spring!!!
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.correct
From: mcgead@operators.its.rpi.edu (Darren McGeary)
Subject: Re: Talking bout Rush and the Great Conspiracy
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 04:44:01 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.225749.12390@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.160850.18112@nwnexus.WA.COM> pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. H
>ampe) writes:
>>
>>Oh well - as the old cliche has it, Conservatives think
>>that Liberals are wrong; Liberals think that Conservatives
>>are stupid.
>
>     Better: Conservatives think Liberals are fools; Liberals think 
>Conservatives are evil.
>
    Libertarians think they are both right.
 
>                                  Steve
>                                  One of the "evil" ones :-)
>|
>-- 
>    Steve Casburn (scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
>    They gave me differential calculus, and I said "Hit me again"
>    So they gave me integral calculus, and I said "Hit me again"
>    Now I have vector calculus, and...I'm starting to lose consciousness...


-- 
Darren McGeary -  mcgead@rpi.edu          Freedom of religion means freedom 
PRO-CHOICE - THE AMERICAN WAY             FROM religion!!
Banish religion from government!          -These are my opinions. They just
Atheists Unite!!                           happen to also be the right ones.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13146 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11718 alt.politics.clinton:19707 alt.politics.bush:15617 alt.politics.homosexuality:9043
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:00:30 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1993Jan5.215419.18243@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.181623.11348@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>>>>Incorrect, as well as irrelevant.

>>>In your opinion.

>>Wrong.  

>	NO, right.  He's 100% on target.  You think he's wrong, he think's
>	he's right.  What is your basis?  Some pathetic argument on animals.

It's incorrect because all the scientific evidence points to homosexuality
arising either from a genetic trait or from early-childhood experiences.  As
I understand it, the weight of evidence seems to be tilting towards genetics,
though it may not be a settled issue.  Either way, it's not a choice.  The
only choice is, do gays continue to torture themselves by pretending not to
be gay, or do they come out of the closet and live the way they are meant to
live?

It's irrelevant, because it really doesn't matter whether or not gays choose
to be gay.  It's entirely an individual's decision, and any attempt to judge
a person for choosing a lifestyle that doesn't infringe on the rights of
others is irrational, bigoted, and just plain small-minded.  I'll forgive
some people, maybe, for genuinely not having the mental capacity to distinguish
between reasoning and prejudice, but I won't condone it.

   - Dave Borden
     borden@m5.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: TOURISM UP?
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:12:15 GMT

>>>>> On 6 Jan 93 12:04:00 GMT, laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers)  said:

-> From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
-> Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
-> Tourism is reported up by 10% in Colorado since the call for
-> Boycotts.

Laurel> Really? Who reported this? (And are you suggesting a causal
Laurel> relationship?)  Last I heard, everybody and its sibling was
Laurel> cancelling conventions and events held in Colorado.  Maybe the
Laurel> effects haven't taken place yet.

More like a causal relationship with the weather! 135 inches of powder
snow tends to affect Colorado tourism for some reason.

L.
"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
 I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
 Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
 (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
O Fair New Mexico! Landfill of Enchantment. And home of THEM (Atomic Ants)..
From: laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers) 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Q
Date: 9 Jan 93 05:24:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: HAL 9000 BBS, W-NET HQ, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
Reply-To: laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers) 

MF>|Anyway, you make a good point by separating out the violation of a person's
MF>|rights from the reason for that violation. If someone is fired from their
MF>|job for being bisexual you seem to imply that they can still claim that
MF>|they were unfairly dismissed without reference to the fact that they are
MF>|bisexual. This would make the claimant's case exceedingly difficult. If
MF>|your boss were to walk in the room and say "You're fired because you are
MF>|gay" you would be able to claim an unfair dismissal but would not be able
MF>|to state the alleged reason for that dismissal. I'm not sure how such
MF>|cases are actually tried but I find it difficult to imagine that it is
MF>|easy to prosecute a charge of unfair treatment without providing a
MF>|basis for that claim.

MF>|Martin Fox

Excuse me, but what's "unfair dismissal"? No such animal, unless
Colorado has some nouveau law the rest of the country hasn't
heard yet. You can fire somebody for ANY REASON unless:
1) that reason is specifically prohibited by law, or
2) you would be breaching an employment contract by doing so.

i.e., your boss can fire you for wearing a funny tie, as long
as you do not have an employment contract that (say) states
you can't be fired for anything without a grievance hearing
first.

It amazes me how many people think they CAN'T be fired because, well,
it wouldn't be fair. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
---
 . SLMR 2.0 . "God created Michigan to train the faithful."
 * KMail 2.94e W-NET HQ, hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us, 313-663-4173 or 3959
                                                                                                                  
----
+------------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| HAL 9000 BBS +1 313 663 4173 or 663 3959 | Four 14.4k v.32bis dial-ins |
| Public Access QWK-to-Usenet gateway      | With PCBoard 14.5aM & uuPCB |
+------------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13306 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11907 alt.politics.clinton:19853 alt.politics.bush:15695 alt.politics.homosexuality:9185