HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella)
Subject: Re: Laws of man and God
Reply-To: marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]
Distribution: co
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:58:23 GMT

Vince Dugar (v042517@stortek.com) wrote:
: 
: Understood.  But in my case, life got a lot simpler the "day" I realized
: I'd never figure it all out on my own (or with the help of other men).
: I suppose this is where non-Christians have a lot of trouble, possibly
: calling simple faith a crutch, etc.  But my response to that is those
: who don't have a (traditional) religious faith, must have *some* form
: of faith, unless they honestly believe they "know it all."

Not at all.  I simply admit there are some things I don't know and will
probably never know.  It's not really that bad.

: I don't separate my religious beliefs from my interactions with public 
: life.  I guess this heads us toward that separation discussion.  For
: me to separate the two, is like tearing a person in two and trying to
: make sense of it.

This is fine so long as this interaction does not interfere with other people's
rights.  Clearly, if someone believed in a religion that encouraged ritual
human sacrifice of unwilling subjects, you would oppose their "right" to
practice that belief, since it interferes with the subject's right to life.

Here, discrimination violates one's civil rights, which are admittedly nebulous
and poorly spelled out.  But to the extent that civil rights protections can
and do exist, I must oppose your right to violate them in the name of your
religious beliefs.

--
Marc Sabatella
marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
--
Amendment 2 Is Legalized Discrimination - Shame On You, Colorado
--
"Neither the State of Colorado ... nor any of its municipalities ... shall ...
 enforce any ... ordinance ... whereby homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual
 orientation ... shall ... be the basis of ... any ... claim of discrimination"
--
All opinions expressed herein are my personal ones
and do not necessarily reflect those of HP or anyone else.
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: The "Hate" Problem -- Amendment 2
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 04:19:30 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.165923.1412@ncar.ucar.edu> kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
>> I'm curious what laws you are talking about.   There currently no laws in
>> the Colorado that give homosexuals special rights.  If you use those words,
>> I expect you to qualify them.

>I'll second the motion: please justify the reference to "special *rights*".
>The use of the phrase appears to be to create & perpetuate dis-information.

Perhaps standing to sue, which anti-discrimination laws often grant 
automatically? In general, one must provide evidence of real harm done
and/or laws violated, before you can sue in court (i.e. you must have
some plausable evidence to back up your claim.) For example, consider
someone who is refused a job by one company, for reasons of sexual
preferance, but is hired by another company in the same town for the
same pay. In general, this person could not sue on the basis of
discrimination (having suffered no tangable harm). However, if there
was a specific law against such discrimination, the law's language would 
generally allow a suit, despite the lack of real harm. 

>The only law I'm aware of that singles out gays (not straights) for 
>special *treatment* of any kind is the new Amendment 2, which 
>explicitly *forbids* certain rights to gays, but not straights.

The point is slightly moot: Gays are far more likely to suffer 
from this from of discrimination, so they benefit preferentially
from such laws.
                          
                                                    Frank Crary
                                                    CU Boulder
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: v042517@stortek.com (Vince Dugar)
Subject: Re: Laws of man and God
Keywords: Amendment 2, hate
Organization: Storage Technology Corp.  Louisville, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 20:01:57 GMT

In article <1992Dec1.205533.20593@ncar.ucar.edu> pack@acd.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) writes:
>This concept is fine as long as it is confined to your personal
>religious beliefs.  Many other religions also admit absolute right and
>wrong but put more emphasis on life as the constant striving to under-
>stand this.

Understood.  But in my case, life got a lot simpler the "day" I realized
I'd never figure it all out on my own (or with the help of other men).
I suppose this is where non-Christians have a lot of trouble, possibly
calling simple faith a crutch, etc.  But my response to that is those
who don't have a (traditional) religious faith, must have *some* form
of faith, unless they honestly believe they "know it all."

>
>In Judaism, the Law is divided quite clearly between the Law of God and
>the Law of Man.  The former is a private matter between you and God.  The
>latter is clearly written down.  

Isn't the former also clearly written down in the Old Testatment?  There
also, the Jewish law is written.  The problem with the laws of man were
that no one could possibly ever keep them!  So Christ came to rewrite the
law -- He put it in terms of faith.  Acceptance of Christ makes the
individual justified to God the Father -- the hope of perfection through
man's laws is a dead issue.


>So, if you commit a wrong, you must
>satisfy the requirements of the Law of Man independently of any private
>action you do with God.  This fits in well with the concept of separation
>of Church and State.

Huh?  Regarding the first sentence here, see my previous comment.  Re
the 2nd, well that's a whole other discussion.


>So, within this structure, the absolute right/wrong that you personally
>know is vital in your private religious acts.  Your interaction with
>society is more straightforwardly defined by what is legal and what is
>illegal.

I don't separate my religious beliefs from my interactions with public 
life.  I guess this heads us toward that separation discussion.  For
me to separate the two, is like tearing a person in two and trying to
make sense of it.

- vince -



-- 
Vince Dugar                 | CIS: 71011,2657
Boulder, Colorado           | Opinions expressed are my own.
Vince_Dugar@stortek.com     | "Politically Incorrect, And Proud of it."
Newsgroups: co.politics,boulder.general,co.general
From: kdlin@advtech.uswest.com (David Lin)
Subject: Re: Overpopulation: where did it go?
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 21:40:47 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.141602.15246@sernews.raleigh.ibm.com> murray@bullwinkle.raleigh.ibm.com (Charlie Murray) writes:
>...
>Excuse my personal feelings, but having been born and raised in Colorado
>(along with my parents and grandparents), I sometimes feel that the
>character of the state, and towns like Boulder are being destroyed. ...

May I ask what is/was the character of Colorado? What was Boulder like?
In my relocation package, it says something like that Boulder county
has %95 white population. Won't that explain why the Boulder city is
"too white"?

My impression of Colorado, according to the movies that I've seen ;-), 
is that it is the wild west and lots of cowboys around. When was that last
time you saw a non-white cowboy in the movies? ;-) ;-)

Seriously, IMHO, it is fine here.

David
-- 
 K. David Lin, Ph.D.              | IEEE Member, NRA Member, HAM Operator
 Communication Services Research  | U S WEST Life Safety Team
 U S WEST Advanced Technologies   | Defend your life in STEREO - Beretta & SIG 
 E-mail: kdlin@advtech.uswest.com | Disclaimer: Only personal opinions
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: imp@boulder.parcplace.com (Warner Losh)
Subject: Amendment 2 anecdote
Organization: ParcPlace Boulder
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:31:38 GMT

I was on the phone the other day with a friend out in California.  He
had earlier told me that he and a bunch of his friends were going to
come out here to do some skiing (this was in October or so).  I was
all excited about seeing my friend again.  However, in this phone
conversation, he told me "Yah, we're going to Utah instead of
Colorado.  Seems that Colorado is turning into a fascist state, and we
don't want to support that."

When it comes to our image accross the nation, it doesn't matter what
amendment 2 says.  It is people's perceptions that count.  And people
are perceiving Colorado very negatively right now....

Warner
-- 
Warner Losh		imp@boulder.parcplace.COM	ParcPlace Boulder
I've almost finished my brute force solution to subtlety.
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: The "Hate" Problem -- Amendment 2
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 19:33:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.185349.15584@claven.ucar.edu> woods@claven.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) writes:
>>It seems to me that the liberal side of our society has been forcing 
>>their beliefs for a long time now.  The political right is merely waking
>>up.

>You're joking, right? The erosion of basic civil liberties has never been
>worse in this country than under the last 12 years of CONSERVATIVE
>administrations! What planet have you been living on for the past decade??

You seem to be adopting an extremely narrow view of "forcing thier beliefs"
on someone. Specifically, you seem to think this is limited to the
"prefered freedoms" given special status by the Warren and Burger
courts (I.e. most of the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment and parts of
the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the federal Constitution.)
If you look at other rights, you would see a very different picture:
Economic and contract rights have been almost completely eliminated to
make room for liberal, progressive regulations. A similar thing, for
similar reasons, has happened to the autonomy of state governments (a
principle instituted to prevent a national majority from forcing thier
beliefs on states that disagree.) Further, if you don't limit
yourself to the direct violation of rights, just about all of the
federal government's regulations and laws are directed at forcing one
belief or another on someone, and in general these beliefs are what 
would be called "liberal" by today's standards.

                                                      Frank Crary
                                                      CU Boulder

Newsgroups: co.politics
From: altinbay@netcom.com (John Altinbay)
Subject: Re: The "Hate" Problem -- Amendment 2
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: co
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 01:52:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.195901.22469@stortek.com> v042517@stortek.com (Vince Dugar) writes:
>
>So does this bring us to an impasse?  Aren't laws that support special
>rights (don't get hung on those words) for gays *forcing beliefs*?  I
>think so.  So we either legislate not at all, or we allow "both sides"
>to give it their best shot -- lobby for support and vote their conscience.
>

We *are* still talking about Amendment 2, aren't we?  As has been pointed
out again and again, Amendment 2 goes beyond the special rights, and
allows no possibility of certain people recourse against wrongs.  So your
argument of fariness doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.

>The fact that one group happens to use the Bible as a reference should
>cause no problem to anyone in a free society.
>

No, but people bearing intolerance and hatred scare me a lot.

>It seems to me that the liberal side of our society has been forcing 
>their beliefs for a long time now.  The political right is merely waking
>up.
>

There might be a "nice" political right, but all *I've* seen is 
bigotry under the guise of Christianity; and rich people wrecking
the economy to feed their wallets.  


-- 
John Altinbay   -   altinbay@netcom.com
===============================================================
There's a spirit that guides me, a light that shines for me
My life is worth the living, I don't need to see the end.
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: woods@claven.ucar.edu (Greg Woods)
Subject: Re: The "Hate" Problem -- Amendment 2
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR Boulder, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:53:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.195901.22469@stortek.com> v042517@stortek.com (Vince Dugar) writes:
>So does this bring us to an impasse?  Aren't laws that support special
>rights (don't get hung on those words) for gays *forcing beliefs*?

As has been stated many times, the city ordinances that would be overturned
by Amendment 2 do not grant special rights to anyone. They protect ANYONE
from discrimination based on sexual orientation, not just gays. One of
the founding principles of this country is that everyone is entitled to
equal protection under the law; you're right that this is a "belief",
but this particular belief is written into our Constitution.

>The fact that one group happens to use the Bible as a reference should
>cause no problem to anyone in a free society.

It causes no problem, but it does not by itself make a convincing argument,
either.

>It seems to me that the liberal side of our society has been forcing 
>their beliefs for a long time now.  The political right is merely waking
>up.

You're joking, right? The erosion of basic civil liberties has never been
worse in this country than under the last 12 years of CONSERVATIVE
administrations! What planet have you been living on for the past decade??

--Greg
Newsgroups: co.politics,boulder.general,co.general
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Overpopulation: where did it go?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:06:56 GMT

In article <thomasd.27.724024951@tps.COM> thomasd@tps.COM (Thomas W. Day) writes:
>Last week there was the beginning of a dialog on overpopulation.  This week, 
>it's gone.  Where did it go?  

It faded out of existance... That's the nature of discussions on *.general
newsgroups. I'm sure it's still alive on, say, talk.politics.environment
or some similar group.

>At the risk of setting off a flame war, I am unable to imagine how Amendment 
>2, snow traction, traffic tickets, or any other topic could approach 
>the importance of rising population and diminishing resources.  What am I 
>missing?

Well, the core of the whole discussion was how rapidly population was
rising, how rapidly currently needed resources were diminishing and
how soon technological advances would change which resources are
needed (i.e. to more available ones, fusion power would shift our
primary energy resource from oil to water...) That is, the discussion
was about how important the issue really is.

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder

Newsgroups: co.politics
From: ryanr@beethoven.CS.ColoState.EDU (richard ryan)
Subject: Re: Overpopulation: where did it go?
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 14:29:05 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Colorado State University

>>>>> "Charlie" == Charlie Murray <murray@bullwinkle.raleigh.ibm.com> writes:
Charlie> Nntp-Posting-Host: bullwinkle.raleigh.ibm.com

Charlie> What ever the papers say, the "Me" decade of the Eighties is NOT over.

No offense intended, but the 70's was the "Me" decade, the eighties
was the "Al Franken" decade.

Richard.
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: bernstei@ophelia.cs.colorado.edu (Michael Bernstein)
Subject: Re: The "Hate" Problem -- Amendment 2
Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 17:23:44 GMT

In article <Bz2IwI.K46@csn.org> perrier@teal.csn.org (Perry A. Branch) writes:

PB>I'm curious what laws you are talking about.   There currently no laws in
PB>the Colorado that give homosexuals special rights.  If you use those words,
PB>I expect you to qualify them.

In article <1992Dec11.194235.13720@stortek.com> v042517@stortek.com 
(Vince Dugar) writes:

VD>I was referring to the potential laws that could be passed -- hence the
VD>reason for amendment 2 support.

I don't think that worthy codifying in the constitution.  Nor does amendment
2 only address "affirmative action" (something I find repellant and 
condescending) but claims of discrimination.  I'm sorry, I don't think
sexual orientation -- whether perceived or actual, whether homosexual,
bisexual, or heterosexual -- should be acceptable basis for hiring, firing,
refusing or accepting renters (yes, of course, I only mean in >3-unit housing). 

Perhaps a constitutional amendment prohibiting affirmative action in any
form would be appropriate, but again, that's another kettle of fish.

Aside from affirmative action, what are you afraid of? 

Michael 

(bernstei@cs.colorado.edu) 

I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and
democracy - but that could change.
                -- Vice President Dan Quayle
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: The "Hate" Problem -- Amendment 2
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:19:06 GMT

In article <Bz9Iw7.9Iy@fc.sde.hp.com> marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com writes:
>The way I see it, though, even without the "claim of discrimination" clause,
>I still don't see why anyone would have voted for an amendment that denies
>"special rights" to homosexuals.

Because we are supposed to be a society of equaly (at least that is the
theory and the goal). _No_one_ should be considered "special" in the eyes of
the law. Admittedly, achieving this on a group by groups basis is not the 
best approach...

>: I'm a little hesitant about this: If the discrimination is widespread,
>: then there is a large minority that sees nothing wrong with that
>: form of discrimination. A law on the subject would, essentially, impose
>: the moral judgement of the majority on a large, pro-discrimination
>: minority. In general, I think this sort of imposition of majoritarian
>: morals on a sizeable minority is something the government should
>: avoid (no matter how much I agree with the majority...)

>You've said this before, and this would seem to imply that you saw nothing
>wrong with slavery or public lynchings either - or at least that the goverment
>should not have done anything about either of these.  Am I correct?  If so, at
>least you are being consistent, although not, I think, within the mainstream
>of modern thinking.  If I am mistaken, you'd better explain how one form of
>"imposing morals" is acceptable but the other isn't.

Anti-discrimination laws differ from, say, laws against lynchings in
two respects: First, one requires an action while the other forbids one.
I see the role of government purely as preventing harmfull acts, as for
example, prohibiting lynching someone. If someone whats simply to be left
alone and have nothing to do with the issue, I don't see it as the
government's place to step in and _force_ him to do something (e.g. 
hiring someone) Therefore, I find laws requiring an action to be more
objectionable than those that prevent one (even if the former inaction is
as harmfull as the later action.) Second, laws such as those against
lyniching make no moral judgements about the relative worth of individual
rights: No one has a "right" to lynch others, so the only rights involved
are those of the victim. Clearly, the government has a place protecting
one person's rights when doing so does not infringe on anyone else's
rights. However, in the case of anti-discrimination laws, there are
other people's rights involved: The right of an employer to pay only
the people he wishes or to fire someone for what he considers suficient
cause, for example. Since society as a whole has no clear opinions
on who's rights are more important (and some people have very strong 
opinions on the subject), I don't think it is really the government's
place to step in and dictate one moral judgement over another.

                                               Frank Crary
                                               CU Boulder

Newsgroups: co.politics
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: The "Hate" Problem -- Amendment 2
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:53:53 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.191239.29540@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smorine@nyx.cs.du.edu (Suzanne Morine) writes:
>>...For example, if a landlord refused
>>to rent to a black man, he could be sued even if the refusal caused
>>no real harm or if there was no evidence that discrimination was the
>>cause of the refusal. (In this case, the landlord would probably
>>win in court, but he would still have to pay legal fees, etc...)

>In this case, wouldn't he be able to counter-sue for the time and money
>he had to go through for the case?

He could, but he would only win by proving that there was absolutely
no reason to think he discriminated (as opposed to there being no
serious evidence.) All in all, this shifts the burden of proof: Such
a person is punished (in the form of legal expenses) unless and until
he can prove not only that he is innocent, but that there was
no reason do suspect him.

>I'm inclined to say these aren't really morals in the sense of beliefs
>that can't be proven or disproven.  If something like skin color or
>sexual orientation can be proven to not affect job performance in and of
>themselves, then laws countering widespread discrimination by such
>factors seem fair to me.

Can yuo prove that such things have absolutely no effect on job 
performance? If a sizable fraction of the people are racists and 
avoided associating with blacks, wouldn't skin color then have
some effect on the job performance of a sales clerk? A decision
about hiring would, then, involve balancing the harm done
by discrimination against the harm done to the employeer. _That_
seems to be a question of morals. Also, you are discounting the
employeer's freedom of association: Doesn't he have a right to 
choose with whom he spends his time? (Even if his choice involves
criteria I would consider senseless.)

                                               Frank Crary
                                               CU Boulder
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: v042517@stortek.com (Vince Dugar)
Subject: Re: The "Hate" Problem -- Amendment 2
Organization: Storage Technology Corp.  Louisville, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:42:35 GMT

In article <Bz2IwI.K46@csn.org> perrier@teal.csn.org (Perry A. Branch) writes:
>In response to Greg Woods, Vince Dugar writes:
>>So does this bring us to an impasse?  Aren't laws that support special
>>rights (don't get hung on those words) for gays *forcing beliefs*?  I
>
>I'm curious what laws you are talking about.   There currently no laws in
>the Colorado that give homosexuals special rights.  If you use those words,
>I expect you to qualify them.

I was referring to the potential laws that could be passed -- hence the
reason for amendment 2 support.

- vince -

-- 
Vince Dugar                 | CIS: 71011,2657
Boulder, Colorado           | Opinions expressed are my own.
Vince_Dugar@stortek.com     | "Politically Incorrect, And Proud of it."