adam@npois.UUCP (Adam V. Reed) (08/02/85)
sam@bu-cs.UUCP (Shelli Meyers) writes: >You have mentioned that there are "non-religious" Jews, who still consider >themselves Jews. Perhaps this is so, but they are definitely a minority. >And in that minority, probably only a tiny percentage reads this net. >Why? Because it is called net.RELIGION.jewish, not net.jewish. Therefore >we've got to assume some sort of religious concepts here. We ought to >discuss those religious differences, not the validity of individuals' >beliefs themselves. The above is factually wrong. Not just because there is no evidence for the claim that non-religious Jews are a minority among the readers of this newsgroup, but because, as one of the original founders of this newsgroup, I can attest to the fact that it was intended as a forum for discussion of everything Jewish, whether from a religious perspective or a secular one. The fact that it is a subgroup of net.religion is a historical accident. Initially, we requested "net.jewish", but several news node administrators objected to having yet another top-level group, and suggested net.religion.jewish, net.nlang.hebrew, or net.roots.jewish. At the time, net.nlang was pretty much restricted to linguistics, and net.roots to genealogy, leaving net.religion.jewish as the least objectionable alternative. No restrictions were implied by this choice. Jewish "theology" is a valid target for arguments from all viewpoints, including those of Jewish atheists. Remember, it takes a Jew to be an Apikoros. Personally, I would like to see more wide-ranging explorations in this newsgroup. How about a discussion of the political implications of Jewish ethics? Adam Reed (ihnp4!npois!adam)
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (08/07/85)
Sorry, I have to make some corrections to Adam's statements below: In article <390@npois.UUCP> adam@npois.UUCP (Adam V. Reed) writes: > as one of the original founders of this >newsgroup, I can attest to the fact that it was intended as a forum for >discussion of everything Jewish, whether from a religious perspective or >a secular one. That's true. I don't remember Adam as one of the people who originally contributed his name to the request that the group be founded, but I could be wrong. > The fact that it is a subgroup of net.religion is a >historical accident. Initially, we requested "net.jewish", but several >news node administrators objected to having yet another top-level group, That is not right at all. The foundations of the group began in mail discussions among myself and one or two others. I then sent mail to about 20-25 people who I thought might support the creation of the group, and (with Avi Gross) drafted an outline of why we thought the group was needed and why it should be called net.religion.jewish. While discussion was to be open to all things Jewish, it was clearly recognized that Judaism is first and foremost a RELIGION. I received approval from about 15 people to add their names to the proposal, and presented the proposal to the net (net.religion and net.news.group). An additional 25-30 people supported the proposal by mail and postings, and Avi created the group a couple of weeks after that. I think it would be useful to re-post the original charter for the group, so we can be aware of why it was created. If no-one has it handy I can dig it off a tape. >and suggested net.religion.jewish, net.nlang.hebrew, or >net.roots.jewish. At the time, net.nlang was pretty much restricted to >linguistics, and net.roots to genealogy, leaving net.religion.jewish as >the least objectionable alternative. No, it was the most appropriate, not the least objectionable. > No restrictions were implied by >this choice. Jewish "theology" is a valid target for arguments from all >viewpoints, including those of Jewish atheists. Remember, it takes a Jew >to be an Apikoros. Personally, I would like to see more wide-ranging >explorations in this newsgroup. How about a discussion of the political >implications of Jewish ethics? Fine with me. Note that the original proposal and charter did set out limitations on criticism of the very basis of Judaism, though it was somewhat fuzzy on this point. I do remember that "attacking Jews for being Jewish" was strictly out, though of course that's different from attacking Jews for believing in Judaism (I think :-). > Adam Reed (ihnp4!npois!adam) Dave Sherman Toronto -- { ihnp4!utzoo pesnta utcs hcr decvax!utcsri } !lsuc!dave