tim@unc.UUCP (06/20/83)
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 Maroneykwmc@hou5d.UUCP (06/22/83)
Yes Tim, Let's have some subgroups in net.religion for this purpose. Ken Cochran hou5d!kwmc
liz@umcp-cs.UUCP (06/23/83)
I think Tim is right about subdividing net.religion into subgroups. Although it is likely that a lot of the discussions will continue as they are in net.religion, it would be useful to provide a forum to discuss issues that are of concern to those of particular faiths. I can think of some things concerning Christianity that I would like to discuss in a less hostile forum! -Liz
done@teklabs.UUCP (06/23/83)
I'm glad to see that people are finally talking seriously about subdividing this newsgroup. I suggested a separate newsgroup for purely Christian discussion a while back, mainly because I got tired of reading Bible quotes all the time (you know, folks, people who aren't Christians tend not to accept Bible quotes as logical proofs, or hadn't you noticed?). I think the time to do this has finally come. My opinion is that the subgroup could contain discussions of interest to Christian folks, while we retain the rough and tumble religious debates at the top level (as was previously suggested). Any other ideas? Don Ellis Tektronix
loosemo2@utah-gr.UUCP (Sandra Loosemore) (06/24/83)
There should also be a subgroup for debates on the literal truth of the Bible. I am not so much interested in whether or not the flood or the resurrection really did or did not happen as in the moral questions (or answers, depending on your viewpoint) the Bible raises. Frankly, I get rather tired of all the nasty articles which have been posted on this subject, and it seems to be getting more attention than what I perceive as being more important issues. Froggy
smb@mhb5b.UUCP (06/24/83)
I'm going to vote 'no' on subdividing net.religion. To me, the best thing about this group is that it exposes people to different viewpoints. Let me suggest instead (a) some common courtesy (sadly lacking on much of USENET, I realize); (b) respect for others' beliefs (this can be as simple as saying "my religion thinks you're damned", rather than "you *are* damned"); (c) and more factually-based discussions statements, as opposed to name- calling.
rh@mit-eddi.UUCP (Randy Haskins) (06/26/83)
Part of my religion---which blends Secular Humanism, Unitarianism, and Zen---says that self-confidence is the first commandment. I'm not worried about any twit who takes it upon himself to show me that I'm a twit. I'm not worried about getting attacked because my beliefs seem weird to someone who has no basis for understanding them. I feel that anyone who attacks my religion lacks sufficient confidence in their own (sort of like 'misery loves company' is 'insecurity loves company'), so making mine look silly makes them feel better. What sad people. I would recommend to everyone who is dismayed by people tearing down their religion that reading Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" might make you feel better. Like Mike says, the Martians have just one word that translates to the English words: science, philosophy, religion. (Notice that many of us send the same article to both net.religion and net.philosophy). I suppose that's enough flaming for a non-net.flame group. Randy rh@mit-eddie