Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.news.group
Subject: Re: A Proposal for net.religion.coercion
Message-ID: <242@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 6-Nov-84 10:41:23 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.242
Posted: Tue Nov  6 10:41:23 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 8-Nov-84 00:27:34 EST
References: <867@ihuxn.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 32

> I propose to setup a new religion subgroup - net.religion.coercion.
> The aim of this subgroups  will be to:
>     a. Identify and discuss instances and areas of religious coercion
>        and oppression.
>     b. Propose ways to combat religious coercion attempts.
> Some Examples of areas of religious coercion and oppression:
>     1. Abortion rights
>     2. School prayer
>     3. Creationism
>     3. Book banning.
>     4. Witch hunt
>     5. Gay harassment

[There are TWOOOOOOOOOO...  rule #3's!!! :-) ]

If people want to see everyone cubbyholed into newsgroups where they will only
be talking with those who agree with them, then this subgroup requested by
Yosi Hoshen is a MUST.  Frankly, to those people who think one reason for
net.religion.christian is to keep christian proselytizing out of the main
stream, let me say this:  I'd much rather have them proselytizing and proposing
their imposed moralities and claiming their claims out in broad daylight in a
mainstream newsgroup.  Because as long as we believe in their freedom to
express their viewpoints, others will have the freedom (no, obligation) to
try to point out precisely what they are doing.   

Unfortunately, the very nature of isolationist subgroups makes discussion
between people of dissimilar (or diametrically opposed) viewpoints next to
impossible.  Which is, unfortunately, exactly what some of the proponents may
want.  Makes for a better world, I guess, from their perspective.  A quieter
one, perhaps, and a less questioning one...
-- 
"If we took the bones out, it wouldn't be crunchy!"     Rich Rosen  pyuxd!rlr