HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy)
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:20:55 GMT

aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault) writes:
>A school teacher in Denver was silently reading his Bible to himself
>during quiet time in class.  He never read the Bible to his students,
>or even told them what he was reading.  The Supreme Court recently let
>stand, without comment, a ruling by a District Court that upheld the
>following actions:

>1. The teacher was forbidden to read his own Bible silently to himself
>in class, or to leave it lying on his desk.
 
I can understand your concern, and think this is a bit extreme.  But we
cannot from this conclude that there is some anti-Christian sentiment
involved.  We can, however, expect that the court would have ruled the
same if it had been a Koran, a Torah, or the book of Morman.  AN
over-zealous attempt to avoid even the appearance of establishment.

>2. Two books (related to children's Bible stories) were ordered
>removed from the bookshelf of the classroom.  Books on Greek mythology
>and other religions were allowed to remain on the shelf.

I'll agree here that there is misguided zeal.  The Biblical stories
should have stayed shelved next to the Greek mythologies, and
suplemented with a Bible, a Koran, a Torah, Buddhist writings, etc.  How
else are children supposed to learn aboutthe religions that have driven
so much of the history of the world and will continue to do so?  These
religious materials _can_ very nicely be read and learned from without
embracing the dogmas therein.  An essay question like "Compare and
contrast the underlying strictures in the teachings of Jesus, Moses,
Buddha, and Mohammud" can work wonders towards building better relations
between people of various religions.

Mike Percy             | grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu  | I don't know about
Sr. Systems Analyst    | mspercy@clemson.clemson.edu | your brain, but mine
Info. Sys. Development | mspercy@clemson.BITNET      | is really...bossy.
Clemson University     | (803) 656-3780              | (Laurie Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault)
Subject: Re: [UPI] Report: Book censorship, challenges in schools at 10-year high
Followup-To: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 18:18:44 GMT

In article <JMC.92Sep1205244@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:

   It is nice to know that there was no leftist censorship at all.

No, only no leftist censorship reported by a left-leaning organization.

--
Jim Ault, ITS Systems Programmer, aultj@rpi.edu    <><
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Operation Rescue
From: daniel.moran@pcb.batpad.lgb.ca.us (Daniel Moran) 
Date: 30 Aug 92 23:15:00 GMT
Reply-To: daniel.moran@pcb.batpad.lgb.ca.us (Daniel Moran) 
Distribution: world
Organization: The Batchelor Pad PCBoard ~ Long Beach, CA ~ +1 310 494 8084

JN>allowing an end-run around the First Amendment.  This approach could
JN>have been used in the '60s to jail sit-in protestors on felony charges.
JN>Or Operation Rescue protestors today.

JN>        It's hard, but as with the "hate speech" issue, you have to
JN>separate words from actions and punish only the illegal actions.
JN>Otherwise you end up with people you agree with being silenced.

You're correct; you must separate actions from words. But let's note
that what Operation Rescue does is not an exercise of free speech; they
surround and blockade clinics that are legally in operation, engaging in
trespass on the clinic's property, and harrassment of the clinic's
customers. Let's throw in the death threats that have been directed at
the owners of such clinics, and the staff that work therein, and we
clearly are not dealing with anything recognizable as "speech," of any
sort.
From: aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Date: 1 Sep 92 20:19:53 GMT
	<1992Aug26.162055.5643@hubcap.clemson.edu> <24bn#gr.adamsr@netcom.com>
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

In article <24bn#gr.adamsr@netcom.com> adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:

	   Thanks, but I'll stick with the concept that secular subjects belong
   in the schools, that books refering to religion in any but a literary manner
   don't belong in the classroom, and that religious education belongs in the
   chruches and homes.

	   Not only does this protect MY children, it protects those of the
   Christian as well.

I would not say that the children of Christians are protected in
public schools at all.  They are not protected from meditation
techniques that come from eastern religions, "values clarification"
techniques that tell them not to obey their parents and to disregard
the values that their parents are trying to teach them, or "sex
education" classes that hand out condoms and show pornographic films.

No, my children are not protected from the secular humanist dogma of
the public schools at all.
--
Jim Ault, ITS Systems Programmer, aultj@rpi.edu    <><
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: [UPI] Report: Book censorship, challenges in schools at 10-year high
Followup-To: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 1 Sep 92 20:52:44

It is nice to know that there was no leftist censorship at all.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: The Establishment Clause
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:28:59 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.195215.23613@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes:
>Ok, people, read your Bill of Rights. Not only can no law be passed
>interfering with free excercise of religion, no law respecting the
>establishment of religion may be passed either. I keep reading these
>posts about the SC 'stifling religious speech' which act as if they
>stopped reading the 1st admendment before the establishment clause.
>
>Yes, the government CAN restrict the speech of government agencies.
>In fact, the govt MUST restrict the speech of govt agencies to prevent these
>agencies from 'eastablishing' Christianity as a government approved religion.

Yes.

The interesting thing, noted by Lawrence Tribe and other
constitutional scholars who push a broad definition of religion when
it comes to the establishment clause, is that using the same
definition for the free exercise clause can cause some problems for an
"active" govt.

Tribe points out that taxing people to support various social programs
does interfere with the free exercise of their religion, at least it
is an interference if we go with religion as defined when we're
talking about the establishment clause and we don't play games with
what it means to prohibit free exercise.

Tribe argues that we should use a different definition of religion
for the two clauses because the alternative is that govt can't do
things he wants govt to do.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:7332 talk.religion.misc:15400
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Limiting Government's religious speech
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 13:40:13 GMT
 <1992Sep1.145338.26786@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <m2jntc+.adamsr@netcom.com>
Organization: SPSS Inc.

adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:

>Thus spake kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie): 

>>[Reply to a thread in alt.censorship.]
>>
>>If the U.S. government has the legal authority to put "In God We
>>Trust" on our money, then it also has the legal authority to put
>>"There is no 'God'" on our money.
>>
>>I would prefer to live under a government without such authority.
>>

>	So would I. But my second choice would be the one that prints "There
>is no God" on the money!

Either statment is equally bad, in my humble opinion...and certainly contrary 
to the message of Scripture...no matter what Pat Robertson might think.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau)
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 16:39:02 GMT

In article <AULTJ.92Aug25131548@caleb.rpi.edu>, aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault) writes:
|> 
|> A school teacher in Denver was silently reading his Bible to himself
|> during quiet time in class.  He never read the Bible to his students,
|> or even told them what he was reading.  The Supreme Court recently let
|> stand, without comment, a ruling by a District Court that upheld the
|> following actions:
|> 
|> 1. The teacher was forbidden to read his own Bible silently to himself
|> in class, or to leave it lying on his desk.
|> 
|> 2. Two books (related to children's Bible stories) were ordered
|> removed from the bookshelf of the classroom.  Books on Greek mythology
|> and other religions were allowed to remain on the shelf.

Case number and text of the decision, please.  This is a much
more serious assertion, if it is true.

|> Unless, of course, the Supreme Court is busy deciding exactly what
|> kinds of religious words spoken by which people in which contexts are
|> deemed to be "coercion" and are therefore to be banned.
|> 
|> If a teenager is supposedly mature enough to decide whether or not to
|> have an abortion, don't you think that they could discern between a
|> ceremonial prayer and proselytizing?

But, coercion is not the motivation for the LEE v. WEISMAN decision.
You tried to discredit the decision by using the money argument.  Now,
it's a coercion argument.  What will be next?

Why is it that some people have such a difficult time seeing (or
admitting) that a state sponsored prayer to the Judeo-Christian 
god is an establishment of religion, and, therefore unconstitutional 
under the First Amendment.

|> More than that, because The Supreme Court has begun the process of deciding
|> which kinds of religious speech are acceptable and which are not, they
|> are far further along toward "establishing" a religion (or rather an
|> animosity toward Christianity) than you think.

In the case(s) you mentioned, the SC is deciding where and by
whom religious speech (activity) is appropriate, not which kinds 
of religious speech are appropriate.  You may argue that the above 
(alleged) removal of children's bible stories from bookshelves while 
leaving books on Greek mythology is a decision on the kind of religious
speech, but you would have to convince me that Greek mythology is
a valid (living) religion.

-- 
Dan Yergeau                         He's dead Jim.  Take his phaser
yergeau@gloworm.Stanford.EDU        and I'll get his wallet.
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.african.american,alt.activism,misc.legal,soc.culture.usa,oh.general
Subject: [UPI] High court strikes down ethnic intimidation law
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:42:32 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

Copyright 1992 by UPI.  Reposted with permission from the ClariNet
Electronic Newspaper newsgroup clari.clari.local.ohio and
clari.news.groups.jews.  For more info on ClariNet, write to
info@clarinet.com or phone 1-800-USE-NETS.

	COLUMBUS, Ohio (UPI) -- The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled the state's
ethnic intimidation law is unconstitutional because it is an
infringement of the right of free speech.
	The ethnic-intimidation statute is a type of statute that enhances a
charge such as menancing or criminal damaging to a felony level, says
Hamilton County prosecutor Joe Deters.
	He pointed out that felony charges carry heavier fines and jail
sentences.
	``The Legislature thought racially motivated crimes deserved a
stiffer penalty,'' said Deters.
	The Ohio Supreme Court, in its decision, apparently disagreed.
	``Enhancing a penalty because of the motive ... punishes a person's
thought, rather than the person's act or criminal intent,'' the court
said in an opinion written by sssociate justice Herbert Brown.
	``We express our abhorrence for racial and ethnic hated and
especially for crimes motivated by such hatred,'' he said.
	``We fully accept the premise which prompted the enactment of the
legislation before us: that bigotry, whether expressed merely in words
or by violence, does harm to its victims and to society as a whole.
	``The ethnic intimidation statute is a well-intentioned response to a
society-threatening nroblem,'' Brown wrote.
	Officials of the regional office of the Anti-Defamation League of
B'Nai B'rith criticized the decision.
	``Contrary to the reasoning of the Ohio Supreme Court, we do not
believe that Ohio's hate crimes law punished bad ideas,'' the league
said in a statement.
	Ohio Attorney General Lee Fisher, who wrote the law when he was a
member of the state Senate, is considering an appeal to the U.S. Supreme
Court.



--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: [UPI] Report: Book censorship, challenges in schools at 10-year high
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 00:45:17 GMT

In article <JMC.92Sep1205244@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>It is nice to know that there was no leftist censorship at all.
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

So what books have liberals had removed recently?
-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault)
Subject: Re: Operation Rescue
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:29:39 GMT

In article <68.844.uupcb@pcb.batpad.lgb.ca.us> daniel.moran@pcb.batpad.lgb.ca.us (Daniel Moran)  writes:

   JN>allowing an end-run around the First Amendment.  This approach could
   JN>have been used in the '60s to jail sit-in protestors on felony charges.
   JN>Or Operation Rescue protestors today.

   JN>        It's hard, but as with the "hate speech" issue, you have to
   JN>separate words from actions and punish only the illegal actions.
   JN>Otherwise you end up with people you agree with being silenced.

   You're correct; you must separate actions from words. But let's note
   that what Operation Rescue does is not an exercise of free speech; they
   surround and blockade clinics that are legally in operation, engaging in
   trespass on the clinic's property, and

All this is true, and also was true of the sit-in protestors of the '60s.

   harrassment of the clinic's customers. 

Harassment?  How many examples of this have you actually *seen* personally?
I would say that the majority of these protests are peaceful, and not
harassing at all.  However, many people on the pro-abortion side feel
that even walking in front of someone with a sign is harassment.

   Let's throw in the death threats that have been directed at
   the owners of such clinics, and the staff that work therein, and we
   clearly are not dealing with anything recognizable as "speech," of any
   sort.

What death threats?  When?  Where?  Many people on the pro-abortion side
mention these, but I have not seen anyone produce any attempt at
evidence of these things.  Just a newspaper clipping that *documents*
one (not just allegations) would be nice.

Were you in Buffalo in April?  Which side was chanting and shouting
and blocking the doors? The pro-abortion side.  Which side was
peacefully walking up and down on the other side of the street?

Which side was closer to harassment?
--
Jim Ault, ITS Systems Programmer, aultj@rpi.edu    <><
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.african.american,alt.activism,misc.legal,soc.culture.usa,oh.general
From: ppessi@vipunen.hut.fi (Pekka Pessi)
Subject: Re: [UPI] High court strikes down ethnic intimidation law
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
	<1992Aug28.131307.8755@gdstech.grumman.com>
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:29:12

In article <1992Aug28.131307.8755@gdstech.grumman.com> david@gdstech.grumman.com (David Nettles) writes:
>Someone here at my job made the same assertion, and therefore
>concluded that burning a cross on a Black person's lawn should not be
>considered a hate crime, but an act of free speech protected by the
>constitution and further the perpetrators should not be charged with
>anything more than property damage.

>"Intent.  It is the intent that decides whether or not the accused
>will spend ten years in prison or fifty or even further receive the
>death penalty.  It is the intent that makes all the difference.  There
>is a difference between scrawling ''Joanie loves Chachi'' on a
>deli-owners wall and scrawling ''Niggers Go Home!''."

	Difference between manslaughter and murder is "intent to
	kill". Difference between burning a cross or burning a fire is
	"intent to express an opinion". It may be an ugly, hateful,
	disgusting opinion, but it *is* an expression of opinion. For
	some reason killing is not specially protected unlike
	expression.


--
Pekka Pessi	/	ppessi@niksula.hut.fi
From: bernman@symphony.cc.purdue.edu (Bern Man)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:12:38 GMT
Organization: Purdue UNiveniversityurdue UNiversityniversity

In article <1992Aug25.203135.2539@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
---
>In article <AULTJ.92Aug25131548@caleb.rpi.edu>, aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault)
>writes:
>|>A school teacher in Denver was silently reading his Bible to himself
>|>during quiet time in class.  He never read the Bible to his students,
>|>or even told them what he was reading.  The Supreme Court recently let
>|>stand, without comment, a ruling by a District Court that upheld the
>|>following actions:
>|>
>|>1. The teacher was forbidden to read his own Bible silently to himself
>|>in class, or to leave it lying on his desk.
>
>A teacher has no business doing his private work in class. Reading the Bible is
>not part of his contract of employment, he may do it in his own time but not in
>the time he is paid to teach.
---

	Oh, come on now!  Two years ago, when I was in high school,
we had a mandatory "reading time."  The students (AND the teacher) 
had to read for ten (or was it fifteen?) minutes each day.
	I do not know what guidelines that school had for their
"quiet time" but I definitely think that decision was wrong.
	If we are going to pay the teacher to supervise this "quiet time"
why should we not let him or her read what they want?  (As long as
the situation is like that of above?)

--
                            /\/B E R N   M A N\/\

"The more I learn, the more I realize how much I do not know..."
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault)
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
	<AULTJ.92Sep1151953@caleb.rpi.edu> <g2jnqq_.adamsr@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 22:36:41 GMT

In article <g2jnqq_.adamsr@netcom.com> adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:

   He and his brainwashed followers
   would STILL believe that they had the right to dictate what OTHER people's
   children should be taught.

Not nearly as much as the National Education Association already
dictates what everyone's children shall and will be taught.  And they
continue to fight tooth and nail for their own agenda.  Have you read
their resolutions lately? 

Maybe you agree with what they want to teach, I don't. 

I certainly have the right to participate in the political process to
affect public policy (voting for officials that share my beliefs, etc).

Being an informed voter, and informing your own elected officials of
your views in order that they may represent you is not "dictating"
anything.
--
Jim Ault, ITS Systems Programmer, aultj@rpi.edu    <><
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.motss,ne.motss
From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Subject: Re: [soc.motss, et al.]  Re: advice sought: handling on-street harassment
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 20:53:30 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

==>If you want to stage a public campaign against them, get a
==>group of people to scream pro-gay things in the same area.
==>Personally, I think the shouting on the part of the
==>fundamentalists gives additional proof to onlookers that
==>lesbians and gay men exist and are threatened.

	On the contrary, stage a pro-gay demonstration in THEIR
neighborhoods instead!

	I suspect that the knowledge that a large group of "Sodomites" will
be "displaying their depravity" in front of THEIR homes and THEIR children
every time they try to preach "the true word of Dog [or is that Ogd? Ddo?]"
in the "sodomite's" own community would rather rapidly put a damper on their
enthusium to "save the sinners." ];-)

-- 
    rick.adams on GEnie   /|\        You are right from your side,        
     adamsr@netcom.com  /  |  \        And I am right from mine.          
    adamsr@irie.ais.org \ /|\ /  We're both just one too many mornings,   
   adamsr@norwich.bitnet  \|/  And a thousand miles behind. (c Bob Dylan)
From: jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Book censorship, challenges in schools at 10-year high
Date: 2 Sep 92 21:29:30 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

From article <AULTJ.92Sep2131844@caleb.rpi.edu>, by aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault):
> 
> No, only no leftist censorship reported by a left-leaning organization.

That's an unfair criticism.  PFAW has vigorously opposed censorship based
on leftist political correctness.  For example, they've opposed such
things as efforts to ban such things as Huck Finn because its patronizing
view of blacks.  I don't think they've been as consistently free speech
as either the ALA or the ACLU, but they certainly try pretty hard.

I have no patience with those silly folks who think of the ACLU is a
leftist organization.  If my memory serves me right, back when George Bush
was bashing the ACLU, his own attourny general was a member and past chair
of the Pittsburgh chapter!
					Doug Jones
					jones@cs.uiowa.edu
Newsgroups: alt.censorship