HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jb118@prism.gatech.EDU (Jeffrey N. Burch)
Newsgroups: ga.general
Subject: Re: Warning: Religion!
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:03:22 GMT
Distribution: ga
Organization: Georgia Tech Research Institute -- EOL

In article <66450@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt0418c@prism.gatech.EDU (Shane Wm. McWhorter) writes:
>
>But women are not guaranteed the rights of men by the 
>Constitution...

Sorry to take exception to this, but I do.  Can you point to an
article in the Constitution which denies women the same rights as
men?  

The 14th Amendment says:  1.  All citizens born or naturalized in the 
United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of 
the United States.  No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges of immunities of citizens of the United States...

Article 19 gave women the vote.

Which rights given to men are denied women by the Constitution?

Those advocates of an Equal Rights Amendment would have you believe
that an ERA is the *only* way women would be guaranteed equal rights
to men.  Others believe that current laws already do, if they were
only enforced properly, and that passing laws which aren't enforced
any better than our current ones is a waste of time.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^  Dr. J(effrey Neil Burch)                 jb118@prism.gatech.edu    ^
^  Georgia Tech Research Institute                                    ^ 
^  Electro-Optics and Physical Sciences Laboratory                    ^
^  Atlanta, Georgia                                                   ^
^  30332                      Times change, and men often change      ^ 
^  404-894-3628                 with them.  Principles, never!        ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: dawson@willard.UUCP
Newsgroups: ga.general
Subject: Re: Waffle 1.65
Date: 14 Aug 92 23:06:53 GMT
Distribution: ga
Organization: Willard's House BBS, Atlanta, GA -- +1 (404) 664 8814

cfs@gatech.edu (Charles Stephens) writes:

> dy@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Dr. Yes) writes:
> : Has anybody in Georgia put the new version of Waffle -- waffle
> : 1.65 -- onto a BBS from which it can be downloaded with an
> : ordinary comm program using Zmodem?
> 
> 	Dr. Yes, you can get Waffle v1.65 from COW Pastures 421-0764 in the
> /pub/waffle directory as waf165.zip.

You can also get it from MY bbs at 664-8814 in the /public/waffle directory,
also as waf165.zip.  But, you'll have to be validated first, and you'll have
to ask for that.  I don't validate unless asked to do so.  Maybe you'll have
an easier time on Charles' system.

-- 
dawson@willard.UUCP (Willard Dawson)
Willard's House BBS, Atlanta, GA -- +1 (404) 664 8814
From: brad@slammer.UUCP (Brad Isley)
Newsgroups: ga.general
Subject: Re: Warning: Religion!
Keywords: Murder, jesus, Beer
Date: 22 Aug 92 05:52:26 GMT
Distribution: ga
Organization: Just me & my computers

In article <1992Aug14.141612.29066@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> oaa@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (owen.a.alexander) writes:
>In article <65878@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt0418c@prism.gatech.EDU (Shane Wm. McWhorter) writes:
>>I hope it is OBVIOUS to the other readers of this group that I do
>>not have something against "Christianity," but something against
>>a government agency enforcing with a police force, the religious
>>beliefs of others.

...

>You keep making the same assumption, that the law was imposed by
>"some religious zealots trying to take away your fun" (my intrepretation,
>not your words), without any evidence for that assumption except that the
>day in question is on Sunday.

I hate to do this, but...

factoid mode on---

Face it folks, we're (in Ga.) in the middle of the bible belt.  This "blue
law" about not selling alcoholic beverages on Sunday was so blatently
obviously instituted by Christian influence that it is absolutely absurd
to even consider the possibility that it was not.  Don't ask me to prove
it.  It's part of Southern culture.  If you don't believe it, that's fine
with me.  That just means you weren't raised in the South, or you weren't
paying attention.

factoid mode off---  opinion/nastalgic mode on---

What we have in the vast majority of churches I have attended (not all,
but most - I'm a Christian) is a collection of people who attend church,
listen to what the preacher says, and go home and believe every word the
preacher says without cracking the bible.  For the past MANY decades,
most preachers (especially Baptist) in the South have maintained that
alcohol is evil and not to be consumed (forget the zillions of references
to all those people - including Jesus - drinking wine without sin).  This
led to the enactment of the so-called "blue laws" that banned all alcohol
sales on Sunday - because it was "evil" and inappropriate for sale on the
"holy" day.  We affectionately call the type "Blue-haired ladies", or
"Bible-thumpers", reminiscent of Swaggart, et al.

What do you expect from mob rule where the mob is "Blue-haired bible-thumpers?"
If they bothered to read the Bible, they'd be drinking wine during communion,
not banning it's sale.  But that's what we got.
-- 
emory!slammer!brad   (Brad Isley)
+1 404 841-4169 Work			 Nopottopeein: "Howzit Goink?"
+1 404 925-9663 Home			  The gang: "Fine, just fine."
From: jrives@eng.tridom.com (Joel Rives)
Newsgroups: ga.general
Subject: Re: Warning: Religion! (Turning the Screw)
Keywords: Murder, jesus, Beer
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:14:13 GMT
Reply-To: jrives@eng.tridom.com (Joel Rives)
Distribution: ga
Organization: AT&T Tridom; Marietta, Georgia

In article <1992Aug14.141612.29066@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>, oaa@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (owen.a.alexander) writes:
|>
|> Okay, let me try to understand your point.  Because the law stipulates
|> Sunday, then you assume that the law is there because of the religious
|> belief of others.  If the law said Monday, then I guess we would not be
|> having this discussion, right?

Tell me Owen, why do you think the laws of Georgia single out Sunday for the
prohibition of the sale of alcohol? While you're at it, see if you can come
up with a justification for applying such a prohibition to any other day of 
the week.

-- 
-------
Joel M. Rives                           INTERNET: jrives@eng.tridom.com
O-O Analysis, Design & Implementation   UUCP:     joel@ad.UUCP      
Avalon Designs, Inc.                    VOICE:    (404) 514-3398 
Consulting with  AT&T Tridom                      (404) 377-0764
-------
From: jb118@prism.gatech.EDU (Jeffrey N. Burch)
Newsgroups: ga.general
Subject: Re: What' Wrong Here? (Laws)
Keywords: laws, morality, rights
Date: 14 Aug 92 22:47:10 GMT
Organization: Georgia Tech Research Institute -- EOL

In article <66012@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt0418c@prism.gatech.EDU (Shane Wm. McWhorter) writes:
>So, I'm asking myself, "Why would there be ANY disagreement about
>this seemingly clear issue?"

Our whole system of government is based on the ability of people
with differing opinions to resolve them through compromise.

Any argument which says "my opinion is so correct, why would anyone
disagree with it?", is itself scary.

>My answer could be:
>
>Most lay-citizens believe laws go like this: "We got together, and most of
>us decided this is a good thing, so this is what we are gonna do."
>
>For example, "Hey, if you don't like the law, why don't you vote for someone
>that will change it?"
>
>Unfortunately, this is a misunderstanding of law.

On the contrary, this is EXACTLY how the political and legal system
of our country operate.  While there are provisions in the law to protect
minority opinions from certain types of discrimination or suppression,
the minority will find itself outvoted in anything which is susceptible
to a vote.  Many things are, including modifications to the Constitution.

>Laws are within the juristiction of the US Constitution, written by Thomas
>Jefferson, and signed by the State of Georgia, with a few others.

No offense, but this statement itself seems to constitute a great 
misunderstanding of the law.

US Constitution, Article X:  The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The statement "Laws are within the jurisdiction of the US Constitution"
does not appear to recognize state or local law, or laws enacted through
voter referendums.  But when not dealing in Constitutional matters, those 
laws hold equal weight to the Constitution.

>The United States' Constitution protects the right of Christians not to
>have to buy alcohol on a Sunday. The Constitution also prevents Christians
>from enforcing that opinion on other citizens.

The United States Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it 
means.  So far, they haven't said that it means that citizens can 
buy alcohol in all states on Sundays.  Until they assert that alcohol
sales are within the jurisdiction of constitutional protection, the
issue will be left to the states.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^  Dr. J(effrey Neil Burch)                 jb118@prism.gatech.edu    ^
^  Georgia Tech Research Institute                                    ^ 
^  Electro-Optics and Physical Sciences Laboratory                    ^
^  Atlanta, Georgia                                                   ^
^  30332                      Times change, and men often change      ^ 
^  404-894-3628                 with them.  Principles, never!        ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: gt0418c@prism.gatech.EDU (Shane Wm. McWhorter)
Newsgroups: ga.general
Subject: Re: Warning: Religion!
Keywords: Murder, jesus, Beer
Date: 14 Aug 92 19:38:37 GMT
Distribution: ga
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology


Yes, it is also illegal for Atheists to pass laws enforcing their
views, e. g. "You MUST buy alcohol."

Laws CANNOT be passed on MORAL grounds, because MORALITY is specific
for one particular religion.

For instance,

(1) Murder is NOT illegal because it is IMMORAL, but because it violates
the Constitional Rights of the victim.

(2) Rape is illegal because it violates the rights of the victim, not because
we think "it is wrong."

(3) Smoking is banned in public places because it violates the rights of those
who are in the same room, and it has been demonstrated that smoke causes
disease: i. e. You smoke around me, and you are violating my right to
good health.

(4) Robbery is illegal becuase it violates your right to liberty and freedom
from siezure.

So, therefore, which one of your Constitutional Rights am I violating
when I sell liquor on a Sunday? This is an important question that
any resonable response to this must address.

Unless you can show me how the sale of liquor on a Sunday violates
the US Constitution, there is no legal ground to stand on.

However, I can show you how MY rights are violated. 

If YOU prevent ME from doing something I want, it is ILLEGAL unless
what I want to do violates the rights of others.

IT'S ABSOLUTELY CLEAR.

We do not live in England, which supports a state religion.

We live in America, a country who's existence is based on the fact that it is
illegal to make laws enforcing anyone's morality.

Christianity is no more a state religion than French is the offical
language of Georgia.

IT IS ABSOLUTELY ILLEGAL TO PASS A LAW THAT ENFORCES A MORAL VIEW.

Just because murder is illegal, and it is viewed by some to be immoral,
IS COINCIDENCE.


-- 
 | Shane Wm. McWhorter | Graphics, Visualization, and Usability Center | 
 | shane@cc.gatech.edu | Georgia Institute of Technology               |
 |                     | Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0355                   |  
 | Psychophysics, Displays and User Performace in Virtual Environments |
Newsgroups: ga.general
From: goldsman@cc.gatech.edu (Michael G. Goldsman)
Subject: Re: Warning: Religion!
Keywords: Murder, jesus, Beer
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Distribution: ga
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 15:27:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.141612.29066@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> oaa@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (owen.a.alexander) writes:
>
>Another point I meant to make before, but will make now. Since you don't
>want someone else's religion imposed upon you, what do you define
>'religion' as?
>
>
ut oh.. this debate has degenerated to the point where one of the
participants is using the "Term Definition Attack". This is the station 
where I get off.


>I could argue that these are all religions.  Which one do you not want
>imposed upon you.  Do you not want Atheism imposed on you?  If you went
>to public school you could not bring a Bible, or pray openly.  

You most certainly can pray in school if you want... you can
bring a bible all you want, but there just can be no ORGANIZED
prayer.  That's what the school prayer debate is all about, certain
factions wanting ORGANIZED prayer in schools.  If a kid wants to pray in 
school, let him, but do not impose this ritual on others. Then everyone's happy.

>Satanists feel that their "rights" are being imposed because our laws 
>limit their ability to do evil.  Atheists want God removed from our
>laws, even though the Bill of Rights reference God several times.


Bzzzzzt   wrong answer, try again.
Nowhere in the entire constitution (bill of rights included)
is "God," "Creator," "Christ," "Allah," "Jehova," or "Budda"
memtioned.

The only places where religion is mentioned at all is:

"...but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification 
to any office or public trust under the United States."

and


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" [1'st ammendment]

The  1'st ammendment is what separates from the apes as the saying goes.


I think you are thinking of the Declaration of Independence:

     "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty,
and the Pursuit of Happiness... [blah blah blah .. more colonialist 
propaganda deleted ... :-) ]"


The constitution is a legal document while the declaration of independence
is not.

-Mike


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Goldsman              __o          o__      o__      o__      o__    
36004 Ga Tech Station    _ \<,_        _.>/ _   _.>/ _   _.>/ _   _.>/ _   
Atlanta, Georgia 30332  (_)/ (_)      (_) \(_) (_) \(_) (_) \(_) (_) \(_)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PGP Key available upon request
From: cmrlbgw@prism.gatech.EDU (Hal Crawford)
Newsgroups: ga.general
Subject: Re: Why Food Items are Taxed in Ga?
Date: 18 Aug 92 21:04:35 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

I sympathize with you, Sree, but I know that there is no state sales
tax at all in the state of Oregon (which really shocked me when I first
tried to buy something when I was there -- I said, "oh, the tax is 
already included in the price, right?").  So, why not remove the
sales tax altogether?

Seriously, there has been some occasional quibbling about taking the
tax off food, but with our legislature trying to find NEW sources of
taxation, they aren't going to let the old standbys slide.

--- Hal

-- 
Hal S. Crawford
via Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!cmrlbgw
Internet: cmrlbgw@prism.gatech.edu
From: chemsn@emory.edu (Sreehari Nimmala)
Newsgroups: ga.general
Subject: Why Food Items are Taxed in Ga?
Date: 15 Aug 92 20:09:53 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

Forgive me if its not a relevent question.
I lived in Michigan before moving to GA.
Ther was no tax on food-items. Also, I was
told, that some states don't tax on food. Why
is then that there is tax on food in Ga? Is it not
possible that Georgians can bring pressure on state
govt. to remove tax on food, specially in this
election year? Just a thought.

---Sree.
From: gt0418c@prism.gatech.EDU (Shane Wm. McWhorter)
Newsgroups: ga.general
Subject: Re: Constitution
Keywords: nudity
Date: 15 Aug 92 01:08:49 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

I agree, that is how the law operates in Georgia, but
not how the law should operate in Georgia. If the law did
not actually operate by majority, we wouldn't have Blue Laws,
but the point is not moot.

For instance (correct me if I'm wrong) New York State wanted
to prevent women from taking thier tops off at the beach. Well,
you can't have one law for men, and one for women, so it is now
perfectly legal for women to go topless on NY State beaches.

But that does not mean they can in Georgia. It just means that
next time someone tries to take it to court in Georgia they 
have a good chance of winning.

Am I correct in my belief that other cases in other states have already
established the unconstitutionality of blue laws?

I believe it is then up to individual cases in other states to change
the laws in those particular states.


-- 
 | Shane Wm. McWhorter | Graphics, Visualization, and Usability Center | 
 | shane@cc.gatech.edu | Georgia Institute of Technology               |
 |                     | Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0355                   |  
 | Psychophysics, Displays and User Performace in Virtual Environments |
From: cfs@gatech.edu (Charles Stephens)
Newsgroups: ga.general
Subject: Re: Waffle 1.65
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:44:04 GMT
Organization: School of Information and Computer Science, Georgia Tech, Atlanta
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

dy@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Dr. Yes) writes:
: Has anybody in Georgia put the new version of Waffle -- waffle
: 1.65 -- onto a BBS from which it can be downloaded with an
: ordinary comm program using Zmodem?

	Dr. Yes, you can get Waffle v1.65 from COW Pastures 421-0764 in the
/pub/waffle directory as waf165.zip.
From: gt0418c@prism.gatech.EDU (Shane Wm. McWhorter)
Newsgroups: ga.general
Subject: Constitution
Keywords: Booze
Date: 15 Aug 92 00:42:20 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

Extremely good points.

The Constitution reserves the right, however, to prevent
local laws that infringe on the rights explicitly stated in
the document. Like this religion thing.


-- 
 | Shane Wm. McWhorter | Graphics, Visualization, and Usability Center | 
 | shane@cc.gatech.edu | Georgia Institute of Technology               |
 |                     | Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0355                   |  
 | Psychophysics, Displays and User Performace in Virtual Environments |
From: goldsman@cc.gatech.edu (Michael G. Goldsman)
Subject: Re: Warning: Abortion! (Legal status only)
Keywords: abortion, citizenship, NOT MORALITY
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:29:04 GMT

Kelly Waters writes:

>>You see? BORN of US parents, BIRTH certificate. Does this mean
>>a fetus is not legally a US Citizen until birth?
>
>	Let's get some input from those most involved: let a few fetus be born
>and ask them what they think. 


I'd really like to see a 4-week old fetus try to either formulate or 
articulate opinions :-)


-mike
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Goldsman              __o          o__      o__      o__      o__    
36004 Ga Tech Station    _ \<,_        _.>/ _   _.>/ _   _.>/ _   _.>/ _   
Atlanta, Georgia 30332  (_)/ (_)      (_) \(_) (_) \(_) (_) \(_) (_) \(_)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PGP Key available upon request
Newsgroups: ga.general
From: goldsman@cc.gatech.edu (Michael G. Goldsman)
Subject: Re: What' Wrong Here? (Laws)
Keywords: laws, morality, rights
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 22:34:52 GMT

In article <66012@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt0418c@prism.gatech.EDU (Shane Wm. McWhorter) writes:
>
>Laws are within the juristiction of the US Constitution, written by Thomas
>Jefferson, and signed by the State of Georgia, with a few others.
>
>Jefferson said, "The most dangerous faction is the majority." He wrote
>the Constitution for exactly the OPPOSITE reason as above, to protect the
>minority from having the majority impose thier beliefs on them.
>

I may be wrong... but I was always taught that the constitution
was based mostly on the federalist papers--- by Hamilton, Jay and Madison.

(Actually, I think Hamilton is called the Father of the Constitution)

Jefferson was a devout anti-federalist.

the Bill of Rights was included becuse the anti-federalists thought that the
constitution as written gave too much power to the federal government.
The federalists didn't see any need for the bill of rights.. that those
rights would be preserved anyway...

Soooo the only way to pacify the anti-feds was to add the Bill of Rights.

I think this is the basic idea.

(next issue: the failures of the Articles of Confederation... :-)


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Goldsman              __o          o__      o__      o__      o__    
36004 Ga Tech Station    _ \<,_        _.>/ _   _.>/ _   _.>/ _   _.>/ _   
Atlanta, Georgia 30332  (_)/ (_)      (_) \(_) (_) \(_) (_) \(_) (_) \(_)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PGP Key available upon request
From: fuller@athena.cs.uga.edu (James P. H. Fuller)
Newsgroups: ga.general
Subject: Re: Warning: Religion!
Keywords: church state separation myth
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:53:16 GMT
Distribution: ga
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

scott@prism.gatech.EDU (Scott Holt) writes:


> Separation of Church and State is a myth in a democracy.

    No.  It's an incompletely achieved ideal -- or, if you will, a
direction in which to strive (if you happen to believe it's right.)


> a contradiction. 

    So what?  We all have ideals and duties that are in conflict with
other ideals and duties we hold at the same time.  It's probably a good
thing that the world works this way.  (Great Ghu spare me from other
people's completely achieved ideals.)


> If you are a member of a Church (or other religious body), you have a
> responsibility of faith to attempt to practice the moral ideals of
> your religion in every aspect of your life. This includes the decisions
> you make concerning the State. You have no choice to but to impose
> your religious morality on the State.

     ...while at the very same time, if you believe in fairness and 
religious freedom you have no choice but *not* to impose your religious
morality on the state.  Conflicting ideals.  There is no clean, elegant
programmer's solution to this kind of conflict.  You can a) sacrifice
one of your ideals or b) compromise both of them, and those are the only
choices there are.


> I believe that the constitutional provisions which have been interpreted
> as requiring the separation of Church and State were designed solely to
> prevent the Church INSTITUTIONS from becomming State INSTITUTIONS. These
> provisions were not, however, meant to prevent those who hold certain
> moral views (religiously inspired or otherwise) from imposing those views
> on the State.

     Probably correct.  Luckily there are enough committed people on both
sides of the issue so that it isn't likely ever to be settled, but will
remain an open question and a source of friction.  Freedom is in the friction.



| James P. H. Fuller, Research Coordinator     Soil/Water Biology Laboratory |
|                                              Institute of Ecology          |
| work: fuller@athena.cs.uga.edu               University of Georgia         |
| home: (crom2 rejoins the bitstream one day)  Athens, GA U.S.A.             |
From: fuller@athena.cs.uga.edu (James P. H. Fuller)
Newsgroups: ga.general
Subject: stomachs
Keywords: abortion, citizenship, NOT MORALITY
Date: 15 Aug 92 21:24:15 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens


>I'm curious. Do you apply this attitude universally or is there a sexual
>bias in your opinion? 

     Your privilege.  No.  Yes.

                                               -- jf