[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: RFD: soc.religion.hindu-reorganization (Was: Re: Religious...)
In the article <4d29vc$6o4@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
of 11 Jan 1996 06:16:12 UTC,
kstuart@snowcrest.net (Ken Stuart) wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 1996 12:52:18 +0800 (MYT), SV Singam
> (vijia@pop.jaring.my) wrote:
>>>> In the first instance, those who proposed SRV, by choosing to
>>>> exclude the word 'Hindu', sought to divide. Surely we do not
>>>> need that.
>>> This is simply false.
Yes, the soc.religion.vaishnava proponent/supporter team sought to
divide and also restrict free speech. This is very evident becuase
they also issued a "rmgroup" control message to delete the
alt.religion.vaisnava newsgroup. Fortunately, many Internet sites
have not honored that "rmgroup" command.
>> Instead of having a plurality of religions, I am suggesting
>> that all religious traditions that originated on the Indian
>> Sub-continent be happy about associating with each other, be
>> happy to share a common label. The label can be as clumsy as
>> 'Religious traditions of Hindustan' or as simple as Hindu.
>
> This is already too late as there is already:
> soc.religion.sikhism
> talk.religion.buddhism
> alt.religion.buddhism
> - kstuart@snowcrest.net (Ken Stuart)
Since reorganization is not the answer because newsgroups already
exist, as Ken Stuart put it, therefore reorganization is not the
answer because SRH also already exists.
> Furthermore, as an ex-Buddhist, I specifically read
> soc.religion.hindu BECAUSE there are no buddhists here.
> [...]
> - kstuart@snowcrest.net (Ken Stuart)
I think it would be difficult to make an assertion like the one
above unless a poll has been taken and every participant has
responded in the negative to the question "Do you agree with any
Buddhist principles, or do you consider yourself a Buddhist in
whole or part?"
Jai Maharaj <jai@mantra.com> *-=Om Shanti=-*
%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%
References:
