lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (03/26/84)
In case any of you aren't convinced I'm really human, allow me to get my
foot out of my mouth while the redness on my face fades...
I'd like to thank Lew Mammel for pointing out my bad misinterpretation
of Steve Bellovin's quote from the Supreme Court case of 1963. I had
(poorly) interpreted "State" as "Court's decision on behalf of the
United States" (State == New York; state == U.S.A.).
Apparently the court had no objections to the goals (promotion of moral
values, etc.), only to the means - which, in turn, provides for an
interesting question: what hath the State [state?] now wrought?
Also if "the place of the Bible as an instrument of religion cannot be
gainsaid," we should not overlook the religious effects of those things
that pass under another heading, like entertainment or "modern reading."
"Court hereby sentences Q-defendant to 25 years in California..." :-)
--
The Ice Floe of the Q-Bick
{ucbvax,ihnp4}!{decwrl,amd70}!qubix!lab
decwrl!qubix!lab@Berkeley.ARPA