HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: So what's a religion ?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 23:05:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.182409.24510@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>In the process, they touch on another question which occured to me a
>week or so ago. Just what is a "religion" ?

I'd say any philosophy with fundamental assertions, accepted on faith, about
the nature of the nature of the universe, is a "religion", in some sense
of the word.

>Clearly, a group claiming to be a religion that also demanded to be
>able to slaughter a dozen blonde virgins each solstice would not find
>the courts particularly disposed to their beliefs, Constitution or or
>otherwise. However, the court could not legally claim to be
>discriminating against particular religious practices, and is much
>more likely to claim instead that this particular group is *not* a
>religion in any accepted sense.

I believe there was such a case, but the Court ruled on different grounds:

>So what is a religion ? And what practices can it follow under
>constitutional protection ?

The protections of the First Amendment (of any constitutionally protected
right, for that matter) do not extend to practices which violate the
rights of others. Therefore I'd say the sacrifice of animals (provided
it is done so as to avoid sanitation/general health problems) and
the use of peyote are protected; but clearly human sacrifice is not.

                                                      Frank Crary
                                                      CU Boulder

Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6593 alt.politics.usa.misc:594 alt.politics.usa.constitution:1094 talk.politics.misc:60484
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: [misc.legal] USA: War on Rights
Date: 17 Nov 1992 02:40:44 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) says:

>A repost from misc.legal:
>
>From: smith@ctron.com (Lawrence C Smith)
>Subject: Re: Title Insurance
>Keywords: Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers
>Message-ID: <5932@balrog.ctron.com>
>Date: 16 Nov 92 14:15:52 GMT
>Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.
>
>
>	
>In article <1992Nov13.202055.11894@cpqhou.compaq.com>, thomasr@cpqhou.compaq.com (Thomas Rush) writes:
>>...the Jones' are engaged in drug activity.  Property A is siezed
>>under forfeiture laws, leaving the Smiths with an uncollectable 
>>mortgage, and no income, and still owing on their note to the 
>>original owner.


     If y'all MUST know:


     Certain agents are now using the "Property Seizure" laws to
     persecute people that they THINK are drug dealers. Example:

     Seize House

     Owner tries to hire lawyer to defend him

     Seize money being used to hire lawyer

     Owner attempts to sell assets to raise money for legal defense

     Seize assets

     After all is said and done, if no evidence can be brought 
     against defendent, then cut a deal to give HALF of his stuff
     back, whereupon he signs a statement to not prosecute for 
     wrongful seizure.

     
     have a nice day.

>
>>Feh on the unjust takers of the right to life, liberty, and the
>>pursuit of happiness.
>
>Welcome to the war on Drugs, where the unbridled and unfettered power of
>a giant centralized democracy works for _you_!  Everything's okay as long
>as we can get a majority to vote for it!  Courts, Constitution and due
>process are an utter drag, a majority of our voters want _quick_ action
>in our Holy Jiha...I mean, war, yes, war...on Drugs, so we just deep-6 'em
>right out of the way!  Instant gratification and remember: as long as
>we're busy robbing the Smith's, we're not robbing you!
>
>If this is the _first_ "excess" you've encountered thanks to the War on Drugs,
>you haven't been paying attention.  God help you if carry more than twenty
>or thirty bucks cash, you might fit a "drug dealer" profile.  If the dog
>"reacts" to your money, kiss it all goodbye, Bunky.  And remember too: a dog
>can pick up 9 parts of cocaine in a billion of air.  Your money can pick up
>that much if it was ever placed in a drawer _next_ to a bill that was touched
>by someone with cocaine on their hands.
>
>Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
>-
>Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
>it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.
>

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: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:48:36 GMT

In article <722479037@sheol.UUCP> throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
>A problem with Frank's presentation above is that, while both
>"scientific" and "religious" models of the world involve "unproveable
>assumptions", under the scientific method these assumptions are allowed
>to change to meet new data or to better account for old data, while the
>same is not true of assumptions under the religious method of thought.

It isn't clear to me that religions don't modify their beliefs with
changing times or new information. The early history (or even the
origins) of the christian religion is an example of this, as was the
reformation. Certainly there is a strong, conservative tendency
to oppose extremely novel ideas, or those that challange basic
assumptions. However, this is also true of science: Einstein never
accepted the inherent randomness of quantum mechanics, despite having
been one of the founders of that field. That "Copenhagen interpertation"
was rejected for decades as "heretical" (I believe it was Heisenberg
who used exactly that term...) Almost everyone in the field rejected
the interpertation, but continued to use the related equations. The
justification was that the equations were a good model, but the
interpertation _had_ to be wrong (essentailly because it contradicted 
previous dogma.)

                                            Frank Crary
                                            CU Boulder
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,talk.politics.theory
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 11:28:51 GMT

I noticed that in the list of constitutionally protected rights, the ACLU
doesn't recognize the right to keep and bear arms, but that it DOES recognize
the right to privacy which is not listed in the constitution (not that I
disagree with the general idea of the government keeping out of private
affairs, but it would have to follow under the 9th amendment or something).

Isn't it a bit fraudulent to claim to support the bill of rights when you
choose to ignore certain parts of it?

--Brian
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6623 alt.activism:18965 alt.politics.usa.constitution:1129 soc.history:9532 talk.politics.theory:4982
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: Wed, 18 Nov 92 19:28:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.012018.28417@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>
>>     1981: Creationism in Arkansas
>>       In Arkansas, 56 years after Scopes, the ACLU
>>       challenged a statute that called for the teaching
>>       of the biblical story of creation as a ``scientific
>>       alternative'' to the theory of evolution.
>
>This seems to demonstrate a comittment to the "establishment" clause
>of the First Amendment at the expense of the "free exercise" clause
>of that same Amendment.

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.

You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between private individuals
and representatives of the government. As long as an individual is acting
in their role as a representative of the government, they must obey the
restrictions placed on the government as a whole. Furthermore, they
voluntarily accept these restrictions upon becoming goverment employees.
-- 
Stephen Graham
graham@cs.washington.edu	 uw-beaver!june!graham
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: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 07:20:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.010222.10042@beaver.cs.washington.edu> graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes:
>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.

The ACLU adopts neither position: They feel "the right of the
people to keep and bear arms" means the right of the National
Guard, the Army, and other agents of the federal government
exclusively. Since the Supreme Court, current federal law, and
all of the framers of the Constitution (or at least all of them
who wrote on the subject) defined the "militia" as "everyone
physically capable of acting in the common defense", the ACLU's
interpertation is in conflict with every scrap of evidence
available.

>You have adopted position 1. The ACLU has adopted position 2.

Your "position 2" is that the Second Amendment protects private
ownership of weapons "'reasonable' for militia service..." (By the
way, this is also the Supreme Court's opinion in the only case
that really discusses the topic, US v. Miller.) If the ACLU
had adopted this position, why haven't they opposed restrictions
on handgun ownership, and bans on "assault weapons"? 

>Either of you
>may be right, as a definitive Supreme Court decision has not been made.

US v. Miller, 307 US 174 (1934). The Second Amendment applies to
weapons have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency of a well-regulated militia", and that "militia" as used
in the Second Amendment includes everyone "physically capable of acting
in concert for the common defense..."

>The presence of various gun control laws in the statute books is an
>argument that the Supreme Court may decide in favor position 2. 

Why? The existance of unconstitutional laws does not make them
constitutional.

>The ACLU's support of position 2 does not necessarily mean that they are
>evil incarnate.

The ACLU doesn't support what you describe as "position 2", they support
a far more extreme and limited view. For a civil liberties union to 
adopt the most restrictive imaginable interpertation of a civil liberty
may not be "evil incarnate" but it is certainly extremely hypocritical
and (contrary to the ACLU's claims of political neutrality) extremely
political.

                                               Frank Crary
                                               CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,talk.politics.theory
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 04:18:46 GMT

In article <1ejpr7INNr84@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) 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
>>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.

>I don't know where (or when) you went to school.  I went to high school
>in rural Iowa in the late 70s...

Maryland, in the mid 80's.

>hardly a hardcore bastion of secular
>humanism...in fact, as late as 1972 (and maybe to this day, for all I
>know) certain grade school teachers led the students in morning prayer,
>in open defiance of the SupCt.

That is, perhaps, the reason for our different impressions of the
teaching of science: Where you went to school, there was (apparently)
substantial pressure from religious groups, and local opinion that
had to be satisfied. Without such pressure, the subject is not
presented the unbaised way you describe.

>[distinguishing between evolution and natural selection...]
>Natural selection...a description of a mechanism which may drive 
>evolution...is a theory, and is fundamentally unprovable, although the
>evidence for it is extremely strong.

As soon as you get into the details of a given natural selection 
mechanism, however, the evidence becomes weak.

>My opinion on the whole thing is that science should be taught in
>science classes, and religion should be reserved for theology
>or comparative religion classes. 

So where would you put unproven scientific theories that contradict
religious teachings? That concerns both religion and science.

                                       Frank Crary
                                       CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,talk.politics.theory
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 05:53:58 GMT

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,
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
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...

                                           Frank Crary
                                           CU Boulder
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,talk.politics.theory
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Reply-To: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:15:20 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.221458.4878@news.eng.convex.com> cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.214624.15573@beaver.cs.washington.edu> graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes:

>>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.
>
>But why do you trust in observation? Why do you think your observations are
>trustworthy? Indeed, what makes you think that there _is_ an observable
>universe, that there are beings other than you who observe it, and that the
>universe continues to exist when you are _not_ observing it?  How do you
>know that the world as you experience it is not a dream, an extended
>hallucination, or some kind of mental slide-show that has no enduring
>reality behind it? How can you prove that the universe continues to exist
>when you close your eyes?
>

I don't think scientists 'trust' their observations in the sense you are
implying; i.e., believe that these observations are somehow a revelation
of absolute fact. I would suggest that scientists tend to *doubt* their
observations. All observations are only *tentatively* accurate.

>
>-- 
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
>Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,talk.politics.theory
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 06:06:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.192404.11248@beaver.cs.washington.edu> graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes:
>>	I would contend, and the Supreme Court agrees, that militial
>>	weapons are the only ones protected. By the way, the ACLU position
>>	is the fraudulent ' the 2'nd protects the National Guard's right
>>	to arms' which is patently absurd, as well as explicitly addressed
>>	in another S.C. ruling. In other words you are full of shit, and
>>	haven't read 1) any of the relavent S.C. ruling, and 2) The
>>	ACLU position paper that addresses the question.

>Note that nowhere in my original posting did I state my opinion on
>the right to keep and bear arms. 

Nor did he say anything about your personal opinions on the subject:
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.)

>You might benefit from reading the precise definition of the militia
>contained in the Federal Code. The National Guard is the Organized
>Militia.

However, that exact same section (Title X, Section 311) also defines
the "militia" as being all males between the ages of 17 and 45, and
all women serving in the National Guard. Further, the Supreme
Court, in US v. Miller, defined that term, militia, as used in
the Second Amendment as meaning "all makes physically capable of
acting in concert for the common defense." If you are familiar
with the Federalist papers, the anti-Federalist works, or the
ratification contest in general, you will recognize the National
Guard as the "select militias" which were the topic of much
debate. These writings do not question the government's authority
or willingness to create "select militias", but do argue about
possible government action to weaken the _rest_ of the militia.
The Second Amendment was an outgrowth of this debate, and was
intended to preserve a militia "composed of the body of the
people" (e.g. all able-bodied citizens). The ACLU's position
is essentially that the Second Amendment only protects "select
militias", that is the chosen, if part-time, agents of the
government. It is absurd to claim the Amendment protects
the government's ability to arm it's own agents.

                                           Frank Crary
			                   CU Boulder


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: Thu, 19 Nov 92 14:48:34 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1992Nov19.070028.27622@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>
>However, the "scientific" view is _also_ a religion: It is based on
>unproven (and unproveable) articles of faith. 

What Bullshit flame-bait.  Science and religion may both require "faith" in
something, but that doesn't mean they are equivalent.  And it certainly 
doesn't make a scientific discipline such as biology a "religion."

>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... 

You may call this the central "dogma" of the "religion" of science, but science 
would adapt and respond, and perhaps even change fundamentally if you managed 
to seriously challenge it.  Try to get a follower of a real religion to 
admit to that.

>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. 
>

You don't necessarily have to rank them at all, becuase they are very 
different.

>                                          Frank Crary
>                                          CU Boulder

Follow ups to talk.religion.misc.

-Bob
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,talk.politics.theory