HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu (Gadson Sandor)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Date: 5 Jan 1993 12:15 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <C0D8MH.6yu@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes...
|rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
| 
|I'd say religiously based reasoning is reasoning which is posited upon
|a belief in a Supreme Being and which assumes the existence of Platonic
|moral principles (i.e. moral principles which are absolute and independent
|of reference).  The simple violation of those principles is enough for
|an action to be wrong - independent of the amount of putative good or
|non-harm they appear to cause.

	Actually, that's more in line with what I'd call religion.  Okay.


|Alright.  Just remember that anachronism in an historical debate can
|do fatal things to discussions.

	That depends on whether one is willing to let it do so.
But if the argument comes down to a simple disagreement in definitions,
I am usually satisfied.



|>|>said, 'God is always on the side with the biggest guns'.
|>|Napolean was hardly a churchman :)
|> But he was correct in his assertion about God.
|Don't know about that.  Haven't talked with the Big Guy about it.

	I think that no one ever has.  G-d simply winds up being on the 
side of whomever wins and writes the books.


|>	But one might also argue that the religious "many" define the 
|>"Church" just as much as the potentates that run the institution.
| 
|I will agree that it don't all run one way.  The extent to which it was
|two-way before the 20th century is open to very big question marks.
|I simply don't know, and I doubt that anyone does.

	Alls I'm saying is that I define the church by what its members
believe and do, even when beliefs and actions seem contradictory.


|Indeed.  But our society's favorite whipping boy chose to make that
|judgement based on "even a drop" of Jewish blood.  Stalin, of course,
|made one a kulak, and kulak's (rich peasants) couldn't simply repent
|their riches - they were hunted down and killed no matter where they
|went or what they gave away.  Pol Pot showed similar attitudes towards
|the educated.  Secular killing tends to be done with a blade whose
|keenness does not dull.

	I don't know if it never dulls.  I mean, there are now plenty of
people who will at least tell you that such killing is wrong, even when it 
continues.  We have this increased /sense/ of awareness about genocidal
practises, even when we fail to recognise them very quickly.  

on Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson G 
Gasdon Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gads 
on Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson G
From: Mark.Perew@p201.f208.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Rape/Incest and Abortion
X-Sender: newtout 0.06 Jan  3 1993
Date: 11 Jan 93  11:54:48

In a message of <Jan 07 07:39>, Laurel Schippers (1:103/208) writes: 
 >Hm. 1-2% of 1.5 million is 10-20,000 abortions. So even taking
 >the low number, we can assume that there are 10,000 pregnant
 >victims of rape or incest each year who actually have abortions.
 >Sounds like a lot more human misery when you give the real
 >numbers instead of percentages, doesn't it?

Yes, 1.4 million senseless abortions is alot of unnecessay human misery.

And 10,000 victims turning in rage and slaughtering those who are not
responsible just makes the situation even that more nauseating. 

--- Mark Perew  Mark.Perew@ofa123.fidonet.org
--- Mark's Information Repository and Funtime Emporium (1:103/208.201)

 

--- Squish v1.00
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
XXXDate: Fri, 8 Jan 93 16:12:06 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A772F5E673020614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 08 Jan 93 16:12:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.222856.27434@anasazi.com> Brian Douglass,
briand@anasazi.com writes:
>In article <C0FsE6.1Bz@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jake
Rose) writes:
>>This is entirely correct.  However, people do discriminate against
>>people solely for their sexual behavior  witness the upsurge of
>>"GayBashing" as a national pastime in recent years.  Protection from
>>this kind of discrimination is prohibited by Amendment 2.
>
>Funny, I didn't read that Amendment 2 abolished Assault & Battery laws
>in Colorado?

For one thing, "bashing" takes more forms than just assault and battery. 
For another, the upsurge in crimes against gays is not a result of those
crimes becoming any less legal, by rather because of a perception that they
have become more socially acceptable.

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | Freedom means sometimes
Genie: G.BRADT                    | having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             | things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                | piss you off.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning 
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 21:42:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC

In article <1993Jan10.102906.520@leland.Stanford.EDU> vanya@leland.Stanford.EDU (john tillinghast) writes:
>In article <C0Ax5F.9K6@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>> ...  Genocide is much simpler to reason away to your 
>>fellow man than it is to the unwinking eye of God, as Hitler, Stalin,
>>Hussein, and Pol Pot have already shown.
>>...
>>Steve Kellmeyer
>
>God never laid a finger on any of those men. Hitler's genocide was ended only by the crude instruments of
>man (and at great expense and human cost); Pol Pot's and Saddam Hussein's have been stopped for now by
>similar means. Stalin's ended when he died at age sevety-four from a stroke. In other words, your poetic
>summary is completely meaningless, as well as insulting to all of the people who died trying to stop 
>the monsters listed above.

Only if you assume that death in this world is the end of life and, therefore, the
ultimate evil.  If, on the other hand, your real life only begins after you die,
then  the "poetic summary" is very meaningful.

>
>John
>
>



===============================================================================
William Crosmun
crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com

===============================================================================
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of 
 thinking we were at when we created them."

                                      Albert Einstein
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: gsmith@polyhymnia.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Why the "argument from Nature" matters
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 15:51:02 GMT

In article <1iekciINNkqj@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter
Smith) writes:
>glen@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Glen Sonnenberg) writes:

>> I saw a show on PBS that showed an example of gang rape in a certain species
>> of whales.  Three whales trap a female and each take turns having sex with
>> her.  Does this mean that we should accept gang rape "because it is seen
>> in nature"?

>Yeah, ever see ducks?  Go to your local duck pond in the spring...the males 
>tend to gang up on and nearly drown the females...

People are constantly bringing this up, which I think shows that they
don't know the history of ideas here, and what the real point of
references to what is found in nature is.

The most fundamental and pervasive *intellectual* reason why Western
civilization regarded homosexuality as evil in the first place stemmed
from the idea that it was unnatural, and the reason it was thought to
be unnatural was that animals were thought to seldom or never engage
in homosexual behavior.  This line of thinking goes back to the Greek
philosophers, and when combined with the idea that God created nature
in a certain way, and that God had explicitly prohibited homosexuality
because of its unnaturalness (as Paul apparently thought), we find the
intellectual basis for the wide-spread aversion to homosexuality.

It is, therefore, of fundamental importance to note that the factual
underpinning of this basis is false.  If you believe that
homosexuality is bad because it is (in the sense that animals don't do
it) unnatural, your belief is as scientifically valid as the notion
that the world is flat.  If you believe it is unnatural because Paul
thought it was unnatural, then you are neglecting to notice that the
basis for Paul's belief was this self-same fallacy.  Rather than being
an unimportant or invalid argument, it is crucial to think this
through if you are going to claim to have an actual reason to dislike
or disparage homosexuality other than personal taste or gut feeling.



-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Colorado boycott
Date: 11 Jan 93 13:05:55 GMT
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com

Laurel Schippers writes:

>So we have an unsourced rumor that proves causation? Sure. There is
>a rumor that business is up, so therefore 1) it must be 100% true
>and 2) it must be people supporting the Amendment.

Don't rely on rumor... call the Vail and Aspen Chambers of Commerce for
yourself.  I doubt that people are flocking in in a negative response
to the boycott... I think they just don't care.

>Most of the boycott hasn't even taken effect yet, since it's just
>started. Events planned in Colorado that are cancelled won't be
>noticed until whenever they were supposed to have happened, which
>may be months from now.

The boycott started 2 months ago, and in the last two months tourism is up.
Period.  Interpret it as you will.  How long will the boycott last- forever?
From: laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: SECULARISM
Date: 4 Jan 93 10:13:00 GMT
Reply-To: laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers)
Organization: HAL 9000 BBS, W-NET HQ, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

-> Newsgroups:
-> alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.po
-> From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
-> Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
-> Message-ID: <C0Ax5F.9K6@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
-> Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
-> References: <1992Dec30.162502.6756@asl.dl.nec.com>
-> <1992Dec30.185545.26789@cbne Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 23:27:01 GMT
-> Not everyone gives a damn about secularism either, but it appears to
-> be forced on the great majority of the population whether they will
-> it or no.  Furthermore, anyone who has spent any amount of time
-> studying the history of science would find your last statement to be
-> absolutely absurd.  The entire concept of a university was founded
-> around advancing theological study.  Indeed, the term "professor"
-> began as a reference to one who was a "professor of the faith" and
-> who studied it regularly.

Secularism is not forced on the population. The First Amendment
protects both your right to privately practice your religion and
my right to be free of your religious practices. You can go to any
church, temple, or shrine you wish. You can teach your children to
believe in any god you wish. How are you being "forced" into
secularism?

If you're talking about schools, it's a violation of the
Establishment Clause to teach kids "God does not exist," just as
it is a violation to teach them "God exists." Unless you'd be
just as happy having your kids in one class taught atheism, in
another fundamental Baptist theology, and in a third Goddess-
worship, why do you object to the First Amendment?
                                
----
+------------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 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 |
+------------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: kellyj@leland.Stanford.EDU (Kelly Johnson)
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 02:39:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.164929.12459@b30.ingr.com> dash@skyy.b30.ingr.com writes:
>As a product of a private "religious" school myself, I am not at all
>opposed to it. As was implicit in my previous post, I am opposed to 
>taxpayer financed "religious" high schools.
>
>And as far as a "religious schools training young people for life",
>I personally as a parent would not rely on anyone else to do that job. 
>That is my responsibility. I would instill my beliefs from birth, and
>if for some reason I could not afford to send my child to the school
>of my choice, WITH MY OWN MONEY, I would send her to public school,
>but you can be sure I wouldn't wait until she was high school age 
>to start training her for "life in the real world". Has it occurred 
>to you that after school hours, your child does exist in a "secular" 
>world? If beliefs are not instilled at home, no amount of vouchers 
>to this or that school is going to help. 
>
>                                   O.P.P

When I said "training for life" I was talking about academics as well
as social skills.  I agree that children learn their values/morals/beliefs
at home.  I also agree that they exist in a "secular" world outside of
school.  In fact, for a long time I was opposed to the idea of sending
my students to a private school because I WANTED them to learn to 
stand their ground and think for themselves in the "secular" world
because if they don't they will sure be confronted with it when the
leave home.  I do not advocate sheltering them.  My problem is that
the public schools are not providing the education (and more importantly
the education atmosphere) in which to do their best.  I fail to see
why we must continually ask motivated students to put up with the crud
they have to put up with just because someone thinks it is socially
responsible to use them to help the unmotivated students.  What would
happen if we removed all the motivated students?  You probably wouldn't
have much of a school left.  Many of the arguments for not allowing
school choice to include private schools include the idea that we cannot
abandon these unmotivated students.  I would love to come up with a
way of motivating everyone (just like I'd like to motivate everyone do
work hard and be productive citizens), but there are those that just choose
not to do it.  Why should the rest suffer or be guinea pigs in this
grand social experiment.  


Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13246 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11842 alt.politics.clinton:19808 alt.politics.bush:15670 alt.politics.homosexuality:9144
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
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: 7 Jan 93 19:05:32 GMT
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1ihlbiINNcq1@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>
>I didn't think of it as "unnatural" because "animals don't do it".  
>Animals do lots of things that would be 'inappropriate' for people; 
>if a male co-worker started humping my leg, for example...;-).
>It's more a matter of how the cycle of life works in nature; sex 
>is the veichle that keeps the cycle of life going.  It is an instinctive, 
>"natural" part of nature.  
>

Wally, would you get a clue already!

What makes you think that the only natural sex act is one aimed at 
propagation of the species? Extra points if you don't mention the
Bible, or your hero, Rush Limbaugh. Extra points if you can explain
why "natural" matters.

Even more extra points if you show why your opinion should be law
of the land:

Walter Smith's Amendment to the United States' Constitution

The only natural sex act for human beings is one aimed at the 
propagation of the species. As such, all the following are to
be banned:

oral sex,
anal sex,
homosex,
masturbation,
birth control,
group sex,
coitus interuptus,
sex not during a woman's fertile period, 
sex with an infertile partner,
and sex in any position the woman might find more than sevicably
comfortable.


If you do not believe this, then explain how homosex differs from
other elements of the list.

>Walter
> 
>

Robert Johnston
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: LLNL
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 05:28:04 GMT

In article <1ivelnINNada@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM> dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM writes:
>In article 5KE@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu, albrigh@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas g albright) writes:
: In article <1993Jan7.230322.914@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
: >
: >Please, state the name of one Christian who has killed a homosexual.
: >
: >Ted
: 
: Adolph Hitler!


>I've never heard of Hitler being a Christian.  The Nazis & SS followed a  sort of
>weird, half-baked, pseudo-Teutonic, quasi-runic, set of rituals that owed more to
>Wagner's conception of pagan "Wodenism" than to any Christian sect I've ever heard
>of.  What sect of Christianity did Hitler belong to, by the way, and at what
>church did he worship?

	I've never heard of Hitler being a Teutonic neo-pagan. But he
had been raised a Catholic, and he had never renounced the Church for
as long as he lived. In _Mein Kampf_, he showed no evidence of being a
neo-pagan, and he seemed to deplore disrespect for organized religion.
He even made the standard apologist's line that the behavior of some
does not discredit the whoe thing.

	He probably thought of the Church as an institution to be
respected, even if he wasn't a practicing Catholic. He certainly
didn't believe in turning the other cheek toward those he considered
his enemies, however :-)

	If one wants to Hitler-bait, I may note that all sorts of
people who couldn't care less about the things Jesus Christ taught
seem to have a similar attitude toward organized religion, including
(dare I say so?) a certain corpulent right-wing radio talk-show host.
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 01:13:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.213624.17285@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.211232.15876@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan4.194233.8290@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec30.210630.19156@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>Since homosexuality is found in *every* mammalian species, 
>>>>
>>>>Source please.
>>>>
>>>>Ted
>>>
>>>When I was in junior high school debating class I found that trick to be
>>>very useful, especially when I didn't have a good rational arguement
>>>with which to respond.
>>
>>
>>It would be interesting to point out that we can find incest in *every*
>>mammalian species other than human biengs.
>>And, also, that there is no age of consent among all
>>other mammalian species.
>
>
>	Not to mention cannibalism.

Sources please. 8-)  I'm not sure.  Though not a mammalian, I remember
alligators were long thought to eat their own young, as a mother alligators
were always observed doing this.  In actuality, the mother carries the first
few born in her mouth back to the water and releases them.  Other
hatchlings must fend for themselves in trying to get to the.  A journey
during which many die.  So, becareful about "observed" animal behavior.

>-- 
>      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
> ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
>	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
>		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
From: laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers) 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Fornication?!
Date: 9 Jan 93 05:13:00 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) 

DLH>|I too have read studies (I don't have the sources, sorry) that show that
DLH>|drug education programs (such as DARE) increase drug use, and sex educatio
DLH>|programs increases fornication. IF parents taught their children
DLH>|moral values instead of heathen relativism AND IF the parents shelter thei
DLH>|children, there wouldn't be a problem to talk about.  It is just that a
DLH>|large number of people don't get the connection between sin and its
DLH>|consequences.  Adult examples of the kind of seared consciences this kind
DLH>|child rearing produces are becoming more and more common it seems.

DLH>|Signature follows:
DLH>|"Thy Word is TRUTH"


DLH>|=========================================================================
DLH>|David L. Hanson       Internet --> dlhanson@nap.amoco.com
DLH>|Amoco Corporation     X.400    --> A=attmail,P=amoco,S=Hanson,G=David,I=L
DLH>|Any opinions expressed are my own!

If parents teach their children 'moral values' but none of the facts,
when are they supposed to learn them? Do you expect them to pull
a crash course on their wedding nights to learn all those things
about sex their parents never knew and couldn't/wouldn't teach
them? "Sheltering" your children from any knowledge of sex
will only hurt them; when it is "okay" for them to be sexual
beings (i.e. after marriage) they will still believe that
sex is wrong and dirty.

Teach your moral values, but don't lie to your kids.
---
 . 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:13228 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11829 alt.politics.clinton:19792 alt.politics.bush:15664 alt.politics.homosexuality:9130