[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Why I support soc.religion.hindu: Reorganisation
[As most of you might be aware there is a Request for Discussion
about reorganisation of Soc.Religion.Hindu group. You might find
more discussion on "news.groups" newsgroup].
Why i support YES for SRH reorganisation
===================================================
i have not yet found a convincing criticism against the RFD
yet. I summarise the criticisms and why i feel they are not
yet convincing to me:
"They are out there to oust Ajay Shah through back door":
-------------------------------------------------------
The proponents' offer of moderatorship to current moderator
Ajay Shah seems to have been made even prior to the accusations
of intention to oust Ajay Shah have surfaced. They continue to
state that even at this stage Ajay can accept moderator-ship.
Hence the accusation does not hold water imo.
"Multiple moderators are redundant"
-----------------------------------
Hinduism is a complex subject, and requires an understanding
of different views. I am in no way implying that Ajay does
not possess wider perspective. But adding more moderators
does not harm any one: they only add to the expertise. Even
staunch supporter of Ajay... like N Tiwari agreed at one stage
in the discussion that multiple moderators are ok provided
"Ajay pickes his team" or if we the "netters" pick the moderators.
In other words, multiple moderators is not the question, but how
they are to be selected.
"Why moderators be picked by proponents"
------------------------------------------
N Tiwari argued that multiple moderators can be picked up by
Ajay Shah or we the netters. Some questions puzzle me in this
regard:
(1) Was Ajay Shah selected by netters? (I donot know, actually)
(2) Is it practicable to select moderators by us the netters?
how, and who will be the independent vote taker?
(3) Has Ajay Shah any reservations about the moderators proposed?
(4) Have the proposers in any way exceeded their mandate-as-proposers
in suggesting the list of moderators? is it not done routinely
in RFDs?
(5) IF it is legitimate to propose moderators in an RFD why
cant we give a little credit to the proponents for doing a
complete job?
"How can non-hindus submit RFD for srh-reorg"
---------------------------------------------
Bon G asked how can those vaishnavites who argue that
vaishnavites are not hindus submit this RFD. And he
specifically asked them to declare that they are hindus.
It turns out that their statement was not that vaishnavites
are not hindus, but that 'there could be some vaishnavites who
might not be hindus' and that they never proclaimed they
are not hindus. They might have argued during discussion on
a "specific definition" under discussion in the past that
the particular definition does not encompass all hindus.
Yet, to meet the demands of Bon G, they did (at least one of
them on their behalf) declare that they are hindus. and none
of the other proponents ever retracted it.
(I personally do not believe that only hindus can propose
RFD for s.r.h. reorg, since i know of many non-hindus having
more than average interest and devotion to hinduism and its
study, but that is another side matter)
"SRV itself was created illegally, and the same people behind
SRV are out there to create srh"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jai Maharaj accused vote-taker to be "non-independent" in the
case of SRV. But he never described his accusations. On the
other hand it turned out that he himself was seen posting
campaign statement against the usenet regulations during vote
taking period, and hence his mesgs had to be cancelled and that
seems to be basis of his accusations.
"The proponents are out there to control the SRH"
--------------------------------------------------
I cant exactly remember, but i think Bon G and Tiwari (pardon
me if i am wrong) argued that the proponents are out there
to control SRH.
But, the proponents are not the moderators. How can they control
the group?
"Hinduism is religious culture"
------------------------------------------------------------
The proponents were hounded because of their opinion (i am
not privy to such of their opinions, i only understood from the
criticism against the RFD) that hinduism a a religious culture,
which is much more than mere religion, that it is a way of
life, ethics and beliefs.
But i am rather surprised because it is my understanding that
that is the way many people described hinduism in the past.
I have attended "haindava saamskuthika maha sabha" organised
by Sri Ramaalaya samithi" under co-funding of AP Govt. And
that was the opinion expressed by many: i can recount the
discourse by a renowned vedic scholar from Hyd: Puchchaa
Subramanya Sastry.
And:
Even Tiwari implicitely described hindu'sim as "Dharma". and
i dont think dharma can be correctly translated as 'religion'.
"There is not enough traffic to warrant reorganisation"
-------------------------------------------------------
This seemed to be a valid point. but the explanation
that it is a catch 22-situation, that potential to increase
traffic exists from the very fact that hinduism is not only
a huge religion but also most ancient existing religion
makes me to believe it. Further Ajay Shah himself was expressing
some problems in hardware failures etc. In any case, what
is big harm in trying?
