[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
SRH Reorg: What is Wrong With Proposed Moderation Policy
Namaskar!
The RFD for the re-organization, based on personal vendetta and petty
politics specifies that in the new group:
---------Quote from RFD --------------
Political announcements, hortatory articles, calls-to-action,
reminders of past misdeeds, special-format postings, etc., will be
rejected,
--------------------------------------
I would like the readers of this group to judge this statment on its
own merit, but here are some points to ponder:
1. ISKCON temples in UK and Armenia were under legal and bigoted
attack. A Call for Action, asking for letter writing etc. was issued by
ISKCON temples. Under the proposed guidelines, this post would
have been rejected. Should the discrimination against Hindus not
be portrayed on a *moderated* Hindu newsgroup? Should not its readers
be asked to take action? Would SRV reject such a post?
2. Hindu Temple in Fiji was burnt down last year. Would writing against
such incident be considered political? Should a call for action against
such atrocity go un-read by the *moderated* soc.religion.hindu readers?
3. Can one imagine a Jewish newsgroup's charter would be written
where it is specifically forced that the Holocaust not be mentioned?
Should the moderators impose their political ideology on the readers
and demand that Hindu suffering of the past and present not be mentioned
in any article on this newsgroup? Not every discussion has to be on
Hindu past or Hindu history, band neither does every one have to read
such articles, but if a Hindu wants to express his/her views on
Hindu history and past or present Hindu injustice, in a moderated
environment, should it be censored out? I would think not!
4. Pat Robertson attacked Hindu dharma, a call for action was issued (in
form of writing letters to him). Should this not have been posted on
SRH?
5. No proponent of RFD has been able to prove that postings were
rejected based on ideology, political affiliation etc. on
soc.religion.hindu. Acceptance of Shree Partha Banerjee's articles and
others clearly show this newgroup prides itself on presenting the
diversity of opinion that exists in the Hindu society. And afterall,
shouldn't the expression of views, rather than supression of views be
out driving force?
Perhaps some past politically motivated commentrator or critic
(3023 years ago) would have considered Mahabharat as a matter of
politics between Kaurava and Pandava, or objected to Shree Bhagwad Gita's
inclusion, as it was after all delivered as a call-to-action
or consider Ramayan as a matter of politics between Lord Shree Ram
and Ravan...and forbiden discussions on these topics?
So the ideal moderation policy is what SRH already has. Allowing
all the sides of the Hindu opinions to be heard in a personal attack
free, intellectual and educational environment. A forum for the voice
of all the Hindus.
Sure, an un-moderated newsgroup for such discussion is proposed. But why
not allow such discussions in a moderated personal attack free environment?
Why this rush to elimiate a *moderated* forum that Hindus already have
for such discussion?
Once again, please do not construde any of this as personal attacks But
it is certainly worth noting that one of the proponents voted against
the creation of this newsgroup, then, at the first opportunity (normal
re discussion on newsgroup process takes 3 months, and RFD came out 3 1/2
months later) asked for a reorganization of this newsgroup. Politics?
You decide!!
regards,
ajay shah
editor@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
ajay@mercury.aichem.arizona.edu
