Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utcsrgv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!dave
From: dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman)
Newsgroups: net.news.group,net.religion
Subject: Re: Proposal for net.religion subgroups
Message-ID: <376@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 30-Oct-84 14:27:59 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.376
Posted: Tue Oct 30 14:27:59 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 30-Oct-84 14:43:29 EST
References: <187@hocsj.UUCP> <428@uwmacc.UUCP>
Reply-To: dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman)
Organization: The Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto
Lines: 30

In article <428@uwmacc.UUCP> rick@maccunix.UUCP (Rick Keir) writes:
~| 	As far as I know, net.motss and mod.motss are the only groups with a 
~| stated policy against such pro and con arguments (but only in relation
~| to BEING gay;  arguments within the topic area of gayness are ok). 

Not true. When I first proposed the creation of net.religion.jewish
(on behalf of about 15 people), that question was covered. I don't
have the exact wording handy, but it was clear that:
	- discussion (including contributions by non-Jews) of
	  Jewish laws and customs, including the "rightness" or
	  "wrongness" or, say, Orthodox vs. Reform Judaism, is fine;
	- proselytizing by non-Jews, or other articles which
	  began with the assumption that being Jewish is "wrong",
	  are not appropriate for net.religion.jewish.
The group has functioned quite well on that basis.

~| ... I can't see any way to cut out "proselytizing"
~| articles and still have something resembling a religious discussion group,
~| simply because it implies that only agreement is allowed in the discussion
~| group. 

Not at all. There's lots of argument in net.religion.jewish. However,
the basis of the argument is "what is the correct way to observe Judaism"
rather than "what is the correct religion".


Dave Sherman
Toronto
-- 
 { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsrgv!dave