Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu!news
From: chacko@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (George W. Chacko)
Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.methds-reagnts
Subject: Re: Religious comments on networks
Message-ID: <1990Nov11.180025.26647@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 11 Nov 90 18:00:25 GMT
References: <9011110615.AA04925@lash.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Sender: news@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University (IRCC)
Lines: 46
Nntp-Posting-Host: hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu

In article <9011110615.AA04925@lash.utcs.utoronto.ca> clark@mshri.utoronto.ca writes:

>	I believe the problem is that the US Constitution forbids the 
>government from promoting or supporting *any* religion, and this message was
>posted on Internet, parts of which are supported by the US government, and
>on a newsgroup maintained by GenBank/Intelligenetics, under contract to the
>Department of Health and Human Services, which is part of the US government.
>Americans take their constitution very seriously, and in my opinion, I think
>our (Canadian) constitution would do well to have a similar clause.

I do believe that this is getting out of control. One line of trailer
has sparked off four follow up postings to date all of which have actively
discussed this propriety issue and ignored methds-reagnts completely. I
find it difficult to agree with Steve Clark in that Dan Sinclair was
promoting religion. Neither is the US government, just because of an 
individuals signature file.I believe that this attitude is repressive. By this
yardstick all .sig files should be prohibited incase they offend someone
else on the newgroup or because someone might consider it a promotional
attempt of sorts. Similarly in my opinion, what the Canadian constitution
would do well to do could also be construed as promoting a political
school of thought and quite unnecessary as far as this newsgroup goes.

>	I saw this message via the Internet, not Usenet. Also, there's a
>difference between discussing and promoting religion. 

Are you implying that it's OK to discuss religion but not to promote
it? 

Lastly, as far as I know (Dave Kristofferson correct me if I'm wrong) I
do believe that it is perfectly legal to have ANYTHING on your .sig file.
If you post on a newsgroup and other readers find the tone or contents
of your posting distressing for some reason you will get flamed either
by e-mail or as follow up postings. This really hasn't happened on this
newgroup or on any of the bionet newgroups as far as I can remmember but
it seems to be developing. However, no one can really dictate what you
may or may not post. The US constitution does guarantee freedom of 
expression. One way out of this is to scan the trailer first in every
posting and edit your Kill file accordingly. Seems quite absurd to me
but it works.

Smiles (oops did I say something wrong?)

George