Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC830713); site klipper.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!biep From: biep@klipper.UUCP (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) Newsgroups: net.news.group,net.religion Subject: Re: Proposal for net.religion subgroups Message-ID: <351@klipper.UUCP> Date: Wed, 7-Nov-84 06:13:53 EST Article-I.D.: klipper.351 Posted: Wed Nov 7 06:13:53 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 9-Nov-84 08:40:42 EST References: <187@hocsj.UUCP> <428@uwmacc.UUCP> <342@klipper.UUCP> <228@pyuxd.UUCP> Reply-To: biep@klipper.UUCP (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) Organization: VU Informatica, Amsterdam Lines: 50 Xref: godot net.news.group:860 net.religion:2169 Summary: In article <228@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >I guess some people would rather assume than "waste time" defending the basics >of their creeds. After all, despite the fact that SOME may consider thinking >a good exercise, wasting time delineating precisely what the roots of one's >faith (or non-faith) really are might actually lead you to see things you >haven't seen before, and that's not what faith is all about, is it? Better to >congregate with one's own kind and not ask questions than to hear what other >people have to say, including their "offensive" sacrilegious questions, right? > >Petty divisive isolationism only leads to 1) stagnation and reinforcement of >beliefs without allowing for further analysis and (more importantly) >2) breeding grounds for intolerance that lead to terror, assassination, war, >and death. No, I don't believe that people will be killed because of religious >subgroups, but it reinforces the mentality of divisiveness and "master-racism" >rather than encouraging discussion among ALL people. One might say "but what >about the person who doesn't want to talk with other people, only those of >his/her own kind?" I'd prefer to accommodate those who wish to have a >community to talk to everyone rather than those who wish to isolate themselves. > >Having people define groups for followers to belong to has been the single most >devastating destructive element in civilization. It leads to race hatred, >holy wars, "nationality"/"religious movement" (both arbitrary classifications >created by those who wanted power over large groups of followers) slaughtering >other nationalities and religious movements. If we can't even create one >community of people on a computer network, I have very dim hopes for the "real >world" doing the same. Don't forget those horrible groups of people coming together in universities, talking about scientific subjects in stead of staying on the streets investing their time in explaining those sciences to the masses! I wonder why you didn't share your article with net.astro.expert too. What I really want to say is: You forgot your smilie. As net.announce.newusers learns us: "subtlety tends to get lost". One general remark: When I for the first time proposed net.religion.[Cc]ristian, I didn't know that I was only receiving shared articles. So I'm afraid I started a lot of noise without ever being able to taste the fruist thereof (if any). A real pity. Please add me to the mailing list. Thanks. -- Biep. {seismo|decvax|philabs}!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!biep I utterly disagree with everything you are saying, but I am prepared to fight myself to death for your right to say it. --Voltaire