HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Re: Is the Roman Catholic Church APolitical?
Date: 21 Jan 1993 13:07:09 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com

In article 105120053@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM, patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy) writes:
> (Randall Tinkess) writes:
>
>> (Dave Bernard) writes:
>> 
>> >The round-up and incineration of Jews was the law of the land in
>> >Nazi Germany.  The Catholic Church ushered thousands of Jews out
>> >of Europe by means of an "underground railroad."  Thus, the Catholic
>> >Church defied the "LAW OF THE LAND" in favor of what it perceived to be
>> >a higher LAW, and helped the innocent.  I can see no difference in
>> >its position to save, in this case, the unborn innocent.
>                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> 
>> Are you saying that a woman's right to control her own body
>                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>	randall & dave--  do either of you think that these
>	two items are mutually exclusive??  it is just this 
>	sort of problem with the current abortion debate that
>	will prevent any helpful discussion...   one side
>	always refers to unborn children while the other refers
>	to a woman's right over her body...  both postures 
>	defeat any chance of discussion and this is what 
>	saddens me about this issue.
>
>	let's TALK first and make policy later...
>
>
>peace out,
>pjm.


Pat,

Unfortunately, I do see these positions as mutually exclusive.  The Church,
citing its tradition from its God, says that abortion is evil since it involves
the taking of an innocent life.  The prochoice position says that the fetus is
a mass of irrelevant tissue, and not a human being... although I do not know
upon what authority this pronouncement is made.

	Dave

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15313 alt.politics.clinton:21388 alt.politics.homosexuality:10382
From: fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 27 Jan 1993 00:21:33 GMT
Organization: JPL, Space Imaging Radar Software Group
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov


In article <1k43e1INNd65@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, symanzik@pigeon.egr.msu.edu (Edward Symanzik) writes:

|>In article <1jkrr3INNdh7@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:
|>|> What equal rights are gays and lesbians looking for ?
|>|> To be able to get a job, promotion or raise based on your abillities,
|>|> without reguards to your sexuality.
|>|> To be able to live where one chooses to live, limited only by ones
|>|> ability to pay for such housing.
|>
|>Race, gender and age are things we have no control over and, as such, 
|>it is unfair to limit access to basic necesseties based on these
|>attributes.  Matters of choice on the other hand, should not enjoy
|>this protection.  If a potential landlord won't allow goldfish in the
|>building, look elsewhere or give up the fish.  If the landlord doesn't
|>want your business and is willing to accept the possible loss of income,
|>that's his business (pun indended).  The apartment belongs to the landlord
|>and, a his personal property, he can do with it as he sees fit.  
|>
|>The same applies to the job market.  If I wish to hire people who ride Harleys,
|>you either get a hog or look elsewhere.  If I think that what you ride is
|>more important than your skills then my business may or may not suffer for it,
|>but it's *my* choice.  If riding a Honda is more important to you than 
|>where you work, then you may or may not suffer for it, but that's *your* 
|>choice.

Again, it comes down to one side arguing sexual behavior and the other
side arguing sexual orientation.

Homosexuality is an orientation.  Homosexual behavior is in the act of having
sex.  I did not choose my sexual orientation.  For as long as I can remember,
I have had feelings that I now know to be expressions of my sexual orientation.
I have control over my homosexual behavior.  I can choose whether to have
sex or not.  But even if I am celibate, I am still a homosexual.

Standard response to those who say that homosexuality is chosen:
Do you believe it is possible to be a homosexual and still be a virgin ?  Or
are all virgins heterosexual ?  When did you choose to be heterosexual ?

Also, with regards to housing and job protection, civil rights laws do protect
things that are matters of choice.  In California, religion and marital status
cannot be used in determining whether you will rent out your appartment or
hire an employee.  A landlord cannot refuse to rent an apartment to an 
unmarried man and woman, event if an unmarried man and woman living together
is a sin in the religion of the landlord.

--
Tim Fogarty (FOGARTY@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV)
Sys Man and Sys Admin for the EGSE in the POCC at JSC for SRL-1 and SRL-2
SRL-1:  STS-59, launch date April 14, 1994
SRL-2:  STS-68, launch date December 1, 1994
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Perfect Birth Control? (was Re: rights and responsibi)
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 01:58:44 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
> In article <cpma9u7@Unify.Com> tsv@Unify.com (Tim Vannaman) writes:
> >> But actually, your missing the point.  If two consenting adults want to
> >> engage in acts which give them pleasure, why should they have to modify
> >> their behavior in order to not have kids if they don't have to?
> >
> >Everything you do has consequences.  *Everything*!  Everything has a price.
> >If you want to have great sex  then the price may be getting pregnant, having to
> >stop and use birth control or doing something else.
> 
> People *ARE* stopping to using birth control, *AND* getting
> vasectomies, *AND* getting their tubes tied, ...  Women STILL get
> pregnant.
> 
> >If you want to have sex, there is no 100% way to guarentee a pregnancy free
> >romp in the hay. (except for not doing it)
> >
> >It sounds like you want something for nothing.
> 
> It sounds like you want to make sure that the price is always there
> to act as a deterent.
> 
> Brendan

Brendan, the price is there whether you want it to be or not. EVERYTHING
has a price, even if only as an "opportunity cost"; i.e., you were busy
doing one thing and passed up the opportunity to do something else.
Remaining celibate has a price, too; you pay for it in lost opportunities
to have sex. ( And, for men, celibacy is linked to a slight increase in
the risk of prostate cancer.) 


Saying that everything has a price is absolutely true, and anybody who
complains about the prices is an unrealistic fool. We don't have famines
in the U.S because when one area of the nation is hard-hit by drought or
disaster, other areas send in food and supplies; this is only possible
because of our excellent transportation network. We pay for that
transportation network in money and blood; every auto accident death is
part of the cost of eliminating famine. So is every smoggy day.  To
eliminate smog and traffic accidents by eliminating the transportation
network of roads and rails would be to bring back the fact of frequent
mass starvation due to famine.  Is it worth the price we pay? I think so. 

Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14745 alt.politics.homosexuality:9983
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 21 Jan 1993 23:21:47 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
> I find the theory that these passages are mistranslated from the Greek
> most plausible.

This is something volumes have been written on, but do you have 
a brief statement as to what makes you think so?  And the OT 
references are also mistranslations, or is that a seperate matter? 

Walter
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton break tax (and other) promise(s)
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:11:07 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1993Jan21.045248.13281@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:

>As your quote indicates, it is a TEMPORARY situation so he can transition
>in his policy without causing a mass exodus of refugees. And the policy he
>is keeping is that where ships at sea are turned back. I seriously doubt
>that he will continue efforts to return emigrees already in this country.

The 400 people who died are not temporarilly dead.

Ted

-- 
So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15238 talk.abortion:58089
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Christianity cares about lives--other religions = hypocrites!
Date: 26 Jan 1993 08:02:50 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <C1G1tt.Gus.1@cs.cmu.edu> tsmith+@cs.cmu.edu (Tom Smith) writes:
>The role of state law is to protect people
>from the acts of other people.  (Incidently, this does not preclude the 
>outlawing of abortion, if you start from an assumption that the fetus is a
>human being.  Then you are protecting what you feel is a person from 
>destruction by another person).

Uh, it also covers allowing women to *have* abortions, since the fetus
isn't just some little dot that remains a little dot for the course of
9 months.  A fetus can and does create all kinds of stresses upon a woman's
body, and a sensible government would recognise that, if another person
did what a fetus does to a woman, she'd have grounds for a self defense
killing.  Thus....

>				Tom the non hacker
>				An imperfect Christian trying to reach a
>				compromise between his principles and his
>				senses.


OK, so it's a tangent.  You were doing a very good job of discussing moderate
christianity, and only let your agenda slip in there once.

Adrienne Regard
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Judicial nominations (was: Clarence Thomas)
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:25:22 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <105120044@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>, patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM sez:
>
>	OhBTW, maybe i missed my civics class in grade school, but 
>	isn't a supreme court justice [or any other federal appellate
>	judgeship] a *political appointee*??!

More or less.  Of course, this observation could prove problematic for
the dittoheads who just can't get over the fact that Bork (and his
estimable sponsor) *lost* a political battle.

Boo hoo hoo.

-- 
			Sold by weight, not by volume.
  Some settling of contents may have occurred during shipment and handling.

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15357 alt.politics.sex:651
From: elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott)
Subject: Re: GayKilling question
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:00:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.060221.18670@netcom.com> cjk@netcom.com writes:
>In article <20JAN199316224332@zeus.tamu.edu> rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
>>In article <1993Jan20.002350.17373@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes...
>>|vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>|] elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott) writes:
>>|] 
>>|] >The man was brutally beaten beyond recognition until he died because he was gay.
>>|] >Gay killing" is an appropriate term.  So are "murder," "hate crime," and 
>>|] >"terrorism."  To make less of this man's murder than it was is to say
>>|] >that he was less important because he was gay.
>>
>>	True.  But wouldn't making /more/ of this man's murder imply that
>>he was more important because he was Gay?  Murder should be treated as 
>>murder.  Hate crimes laws tend to ensure that it is not treated as such,
>>but as more.
>>
>	It should be handled like a murder.  All murders are *hate* crimes.
>The fact that he was gay should not make any more important or any less
>important.  When sentencing time comes for the culprits, the sentence
>should reflect what they did, not who they did it to..
>
>cjk@netcom.com
>

After President Clinton made his promise to do away with the military
ban, there was a flurry of threats by individual sailors to kill
fellow sailors who were perceived as gay.  These threats were made
to force Clinton to back off.  If the murderer in this case had made
such a threat, then this murder was an act of political terrorism.
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: Lesbians are INVISIBLE!!!!
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 22:22:38 GMT

In article <C1Bs2B.CpE@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:

>>>I am a human.  
>>
>>Let's assume, without proof that this is right.
>
>Thanks.
>
>>So, if you are a human, then, we can assume that you eat, and do other 
>>things that humans do, and that distinguishe humans from other things in
>>nature.
>>Then, we can assume that YOU eat, not what you eat in particular.
>
>Really?  But your original statement said:
>
>] If you suggest to others that you are X, then, it is
>] logic that the other would assume that you also do all
>] the things that X's do. 
>
>All of the things, eh?  So you eat spicy foods, read trashy science
>fiction, and bear a strong affinity for old Joni Mitchell albums?
>
>After all, I am a human and you are a human.  Logic suggests that you
>do all the things that humans do.

You confusse general and particular things people do.
We eat, read, listen to music. We are human.
Then, there is diversity in how we do each one of those things.
SO, in principle, we do all things human do (IN GENERAL), then, 
each one of us do each one of those things in a particular way.


>
>>In the same way, we can assume that homosexuals have sex with people
>>of the same sex.
>
>Can we assume that heterosexuals have sex with people of the opposite
>sex?  I know quite a few people who haven't had sex with anyone,
>regardless of their gender.

Yes, we can assume that heterosexuals have sex with people of the 
opposite sex. It does not mean that A PARTICULAR person does it. 
It just means that HETEROSEXUALS in General, do it.

>
>-- 
>____ Tim Pierce                / 
>\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
> \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 

Say bye to Rock from me.

AAP
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc
From: snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:06:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.210021.25472@Princeton.EDU> elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott) writes:
>In article <1993Jan27.195014.6911@lclark.edu> daniel@lclark.edu (Daniel Snodgrass) writes:
>>
>>So despite the fact that movements like the Quakers and the Puritans, who built
>>this country, were more strident in the sexual absolutes than we are today,
>>they didn't have to deal with the issue.
>
>Interesting.  I've read that the Society of Friends (Quakers) is one of the
>most gay-positive Christian groups in the U.S. and that Quakers were
>among the first Christian people to support equal rights for lesbians
>and gays. 
>


And in Dan's little statement he forgot to say that the African Americans,
Chinese Americans and the Catholics had a lot to do with building this
country too.

>--Frank


Bil Snodgrass III
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Clarence Thomas
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 06:03:36 GMT

Mark Eckenwiler (eck@panix.com) wrote:
: In <C14qBv.8z5@unix.portal.com>, mykes@shell.portal.com sez:
: >
: >Thomas had great legal experience at EEOC, particularly in labor law
: >and civil rights law.  His experience in these fields are of great
: >use to the Supreme Court.
: 
: Good for him.  What can this possibly have to do with the fact that
: you and paul@hsh.com have both offered unalloyed lies about Thurgood
: Marshall's prior judicial experience and qualifications?  This, after
: all, was the subject of the post to which you responded.
: 

Look at the subject line again...

Marshall was an outstanding civil rights attorney, wherever he served.

: 
: 
: 
: -- 
: 			   797 F. Supp. 186
: 
: 	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14739 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13382 alt.politics.clinton:20837 alt.politics.bush:16223 alt.politics.homosexuality:9978
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Clarence Thomas
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:16:39 GMT

In <1993Jan21.123130.533@hsh.com>, paul@hsh.com sez:
>
>Speaking of "ignorance", you're halfway there yourself.  After all, YOU
>are wrong on Earl Warren.


Show me where I made *any* claim about Warren.  Surprise, Paul: you
can't.  This kind of lie just makes you look that much sillier.


>Thus your argument that "Thomas wasn't much of a
>judge, therefore was not qualified" falls apart; surely you've been apprised
>of this already?  

Again, please produce the article where I allegedly said this.

Don't hold your breath, folks.


>Talk about "display[ing] your ignorance prominently"...

Every time you try to dispute this, Paul, you just reinforce its
accuracy. 

-- 
			Sold by weight, not by volume.
  Some settling of contents may have occurred during shipment and handling.

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Date: 23 Jan 93 17:31:22 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
: In article <1877@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:
: >I'm curious; a lot of people on this list seem to be hold the 
: >very strange idea that Bill Clinton participated in anti-war
: >rallies in Moscow.  Does this just reflect a general lack of 
: >reading comprehension, or is this a lie that Mr. Limbaugh is
: >actually spreading on his show?
: >
: >Bill
: 
: Must I repost EVERYTHING in the entire world? Gees, let's give Bill a
: break. He needs as restful a honeymoon as he can get, even if it's 20
: minutes. :)
: 

[Long and irrelevant summary of Clinton's draft record deleted]

Since my post had nothing to do with draft-dodging, I have a hard
time understanding why you posted this, Emil.  Dornan's list of
factlets establishes that BC participated in anti-war
demonstrations in England, and that he went to Moscow; but I've
never seen a scintilla of evidence, or even serious speculation,
that he participated in demos in Moscow; yet several people on 
this list persist in dropping this groundless accusation as if 
it were an established fact.

Bill
  
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: C'mon, get it right! (Was Re: America Held Hostage: Day 1
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:08:59 GMT

In article <93021.161941KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <yLVoXB1w165w@missing.kludge.com>, pbowden@missing.kludge.com (Pete
>Bowden) says:
>
>>If President Slick-Willie Blythe (hey Jim, isn't that Step-Cousin? or was
>
>No, no, get his name right.
>
>It's Slick-Willie Thomas Jefferson Franklin Delano Fitzgerald Kennedy Roosevelt
>           Blythe-Clinton!

Actually I think his name is Slick-Willie-Blythe-Ullyanov-Clinton

:-)

Simon

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14818 alt.politics.homosexuality:10029 talk.religion.misc:27251
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 22 Jan 1993 15:34:03 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
> 
> The question is not whether you advocate doing these things, but
> whether what you do advocate can lead to them, and this question you
> have failed to address.

Maybe if you spell it out a little more clearly for me; 1) what is 
it you see me advocating, and 2) what results do you forsee following 
from these things? 

> Your claim that all Christians think homosexuality is wrong is false,
> and you should refrain from speaking for all Christians.

I don't, nor have I, claimed to speak for all Christians.  In general, 
Christians do think homosexuality is wrong, although churches for 
Christians who think otherwise are around.  If there _was_ someone 
who could come close to speaking for _all_ Christians, it wouldn't 
be me...

> why this is *not* a red herring has already been pointed out to you,
> and again you have failed to respond.  You have given no criterion for
> distinguishing the ceremonial from the moral in Leviticus.

I've yet to see anything close to a good reason why it isn't a red herring. 
Just repeats of "why don't you discriminate against people who wear polyster". 

> This is a typical example of the circularity we so often see in such
> arguments, in fact.  How do we know the prohibition belongs to the
> "moral" rather than the "ceremonial" law?  

"Most" Christians can look at a law that prohibits multi-fabric 
clothing and see that it is ceremonial, and laws about sexual relations 
and see that they are about morality.  

> The challenge to Walter and
> whoever else wants to attempt it is to make sense of using Leviticus
> here without resort to a circular argument.

What would constitute a non-circular argument to you on this subject? 
As for using Leviticus, that is really a secondary reference; the 
NT is also pretty clear about sexual immorality. 

> Which brings up my first point again--why is it OK for conservative
> Christians to worry about the atmosphere of anti-morality other 
> people create, but not for those other people to worry about
> the atmosphere conservative Christians create? 

Maybe you need to show how Christians create an atmosphere of 
anti-morality. 

Walter


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality