home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!news.service.uci.edu!ucivax!news.claremont.edu!nntp-server.caltech.edu!SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU!LYDICK
- From: lydick@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Speaker-to-Minerals)
- Newsgroups: alt.callahans
- Subject: Re: God and Science: The Ramblings of The Nightstalker
- Date: 21 Nov 1992 05:22:57 GMT
- Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
- Lines: 15
- Distribution: world
- Message-ID: <1ekh3hINNpkg@gap.caltech.edu>
- References: <1ea09rINNolh@gap.caltech.edu> <1992Nov19.171539.18292@onetouch.COM> <STEVE.92Nov20164310@styx.crc.ricoh.COM>,<1992Nov21.040728.26398@midway.uchicago.edu>
- Reply-To: lydick@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
- NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu
-
- In article <1992Nov21.040728.26398@midway.uchicago.edu>, mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer) writes:
- >It's the potentially injurious speech and religion and publication that the
- >amendment and the principle behind it are supposed to protect, with
- >only _very_ carefully considered exceptions. (Call me a hypocrite if
- >you will, but I'll not object to laws against libel or against human
- >sacrifice. Conversely, laws requiring paid permits for peaceful
- >demonstrations on public property, and laws forbidding the use of
- >hallucinogens in religious ceremonies go too far, IMHO.)"
-
- I think that in some cases, paid permits for peaceful demonstrations on public
- property might be reasonable. For example, requiring a deposit against the
- cost of cleaning up after such a demonstration seems eminently reasonable to
- me. If the demonstrators leave the property in good shape, they get their
- deposit back. If not, the money goes to pay the workers who have to clean up
- after the demonstrators. But on the whole, I agree with you.
-