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.news.group,net.religion
Subject: Re: Proposal for net.religion subgroups
Message-ID: <244@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 6-Nov-84 13:59:30 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.244
Posted: Tue Nov  6 13:59:30 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 8-Nov-84 00:28:06 EST
References: <217@hocsj.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 55

> Rich Rosen claims that net.religion.christian will lead to "petty divisive
> isolationism."  The purpose of subgroups is to allow special interest groups
> to have discussions that are not of interest to everyone without cluttering
> up everyone's screens.  [EVELYN LEEPER]

The difference between subgroups based on topics (like different sports) and
subgroups based on tastes (in music, religious persuasion, etc.)  is that the
former doesn't isolate people.  The purpose of religious subgroups would seem
to be to keep people of like minds together in one spot, where they wouldn't
have to listen to other people who either have an alternative/antipodal
point of view or a broader message that doesn't fit into the individual taste
categories (assuming the isolationists stick to their subgroup to talk only
with "their own kind" and ignore other subgroups or even the mainstream
high-level group itself because it contains messages from un-like thinkers).

> I would probably continue to read net.religion, but if A and B want to argue
> about whether there really is transubstantiation of the bread, take it
> to net.religion.christian.  

On the contrary, it would seem that some see the purpose of a subgroup under
net.religion as twofold: 1) net.religion.xxxx would end xxxx proseltyzing in
net.religion, and 2) xxxx's could discuss xxxx-ism without having to defend
what they say.  Personally, I'd rather have xxxx's out in the open saying
their piece, answering questions posed to them (hmmm...), instead of isolated
in their little cubbyhole avoiding questions.

> Having net.religion.jewish by itself is just the
> ghetto all over again--it implies that Christianity is *it* and Judaism is
> somehow not quite equal.  (See yiri's posting about undercurrents of
> Christianity in net.religion.jewish for a better example of this thinking.)

AGREED 100%!!!!!!  Which is why I opposed net.religion.jewish just as
strongly.  Precisely because I felt it was important that Christians (excuse
me, xxxx's) not get the idea that a newsgroup about religion was somehow
THEIRS, I had hoped that Jewish issues/questions could be raised in
net.religion by those who wanted a separate subgroup.  (Just as I had hoped
that classical music lovers would do the same in net.music!!)  Alas, this was
not to be.  Of course, this would also mean that any questioning of
Judaeo/Christian beliefs in general (as opposed to specifically Christian
beliefs) would be directed at (and hopefully answered by) both Christians
(I'll give up the "xxxx" stuff) and Jews.  (Thus Christians would no longer be
able to claim that those who sought answers about ALL religions were somehow
"attacking" them!)

>>                                              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. [RLR]

> If the current state of net.religion is any indication, the world is in big
> trouble!

Agreed again (unfortunately)...
-- 
"Come with me now to that secret place where
 the eyes of man have never set foot."		Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr