From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: soc.religion.christian is moderated.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 02:15:22 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: alt.atheism

In article <Oct.11.20.33.25.1992.19402@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) wrote:
> Actually, in soc.religion.christian, the most consistent problems are
> with anti-Catholics and homosexuality.  Catholics sometimes want to
> use soc.religion.christian to discuss issues of interest to them.
> Every time they do, somebody wants to tell us that it's idolatry to
> worship Mary, etc.  I don't want to suppress this topic, but I also
> want Catholics to be able to use the group without having to engage in
> a full-scale defense every time they want to post something.
> Homosexuality is a major topic for the Church now.  Various aspects of
> it are quite relevant to the newsgroup.  However every time anyone
> mentions the term in any context, we're in danger of recapitulating
> the basic arguments over interpretations of some of the key Bible
> passages.  A lot of this is because we have new readers all the time,
> and somebody always finds it a shock that any Christian could possibly
> accept homosexuality.  This is a case where an FAQ is the obvious
> answer.

So we have two options, either control the flow of discussion and
kill any longish issues dealing with homosexuality and Christianity.
Or then keep the discussion alive due to the huge interest in the topic.

I agree that there are many things that could be condensed down to 
a FAQ. However we have issues that are extremely actual, such as 
the current struggle for the human rights of homosexuals, or the
ever lasting issue of if abortion is a human right or a moral
disgust. If we want to stop such discussion, we are directly dealing
with the control of what is said and mentioned in a newsgroup. 

Anyway, my earlier remarks about misinterpretations concerning 
Biblical doctrines was a far cry from the topics mentioned above.
I would agree that it does not make sense to discuss these topics
time after time. At the same time the name of the group is soc.religion.
christian, and it would imply that the group should be open for
discussions related to the interpretations of Christian doctrines.

 > Now if the readers really wanted to see continuous arguments over
> these issues, that would be no problem.  But the primary complaint I
> get from readers is that there are too many arguments and not enough
> attention to the day to day business of being Christian.  In fact I'm
> trying to preserve diversity in the group: the ability for
> non-fundmentalists to say things without constantly getting jumped,
> and the ability to deal with topics other than a few that generate
> voluminous flames.

And this is my point. It certainly makes sense to guard the real
readers of the group. At the same time you are isolating them from
the real issues, and the group becomes slowly a 'club for Christians'
where everyone agrees on issues, and where critique is stopped outside
the door. I guess this is not really the full picture, and I understand
and also applause your efforts to keep the door open for agnostics
and atheists. The situation could be even worse.

Regards,
Kent

It is one of the superstitions of the human mind to have imagined that
virginity could be a virtue.  -- Voltaire
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism