Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!genrad!decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!hou5f!hou5e!hou5d!hogpc!houxm!hocda!spanky!burl!duke!unc!tim From: tim@unc.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: net.religion: A Modest Proposal Message-ID: <5405@unc.UUCP> Date: Sun, 19-Jun-83 20:05:43 EDT Article-I.D.: unc.5405 Posted: Sun Jun 19 20:05:43 1983 Date-Received: Thu, 23-Jun-83 00:10:41 EDT Lines: 52 This group is a seething cauldron of opposing viewpoints. Emotionally-charged issues provoke heated debate, and at times human courtesy is forgotten, even in articles from members of religions who supposedly believe that they love everyone. The posting of any article is widely seen as an invitation to attack the foundations of a person's beliefs. Only in net.flame do articles get more intolerant and irrational. This is inevitable, and no number of articles urging politeness will be able to change this. When such highly contrasting belief systems meet, there is bound to be violent reaction. This does not mean that anyone should add to this deliberately; however, I do believe that it will never cease as long as the group exists. In fact, it can be healthy to see how opposing ideas fare in such a savage environment. The problem is that people are intimidated. From my personal correspondence, I know that people with interesting things to say are often afraid to make their views public in this group. This seems very much a shame. Consequently, I decided to try to find a solution. What I hit on was subdividing the group into special interests. This has been proposed facetiously before as a means for "ghettoization" of those who disagree with the proposers. That is not my intent. Instead, various religions would have their own groups, say net.religion.buddhist, in which the fundamental assumptions of the religion would not be challenged. For instance, net.religion.christian would contain mostly articles by Christians on issues which would only interest Christians and those interested in Christianity. For instance, a discussion of the various moral views of the writers of the four accepted Gospels would go in the subgroup. In net.religion.jew, one might expect to find Talmudic discussion. And so on. The main net.religion group would be devoted to articles in which those of different faiths can share their differing beliefs, or square off if they prefer. Any article which had as its intent the conversion of someone to some religion would appear here, as well as articles in which different faiths are compared or contrasted. It would probably remain a "seething cauldron"; as I've said, that is inevitable when emotions clash. However, those who prefer to simply explore the ramifications of a particular faith that they have already accepted would have the appropriate subgroup, in which the mere posting would not be considered a challenge. What do the rest of you think of this idea? I would like to see more participation in religious discussions on the net, and this seems the only way to encourage it. People should not have to be afraid to share their beliefs with those of like minds. Tim Maroney