Analysis of Charters to Current Moderated soc.religion.* Newsgroups (Very LONG)
Jon Noring
Analysis of Charters to Current Moderated soc.religion.* Newsgroups
*******************************************************************
Based on Russ Allbery's recent comments to alt.religion.scientology and
news.groups regarding the informally-proposed soc.religion.scientology, I
thought it important to analyze the Charters to all the current moderated
soc.religion newsgroups, and see if there is some common thread to guide our
discussion, and to determine the *established* purpose of the top-level
newsgroups in the soc.religion hierarchy.
My analysis looked at the Charters only and did not consider what is actually
occuring on these newsgroups (I vaguely recall old rumors that a couple of
the newsgroups were being mis-moderated). After all, it is the Charters
which the Usenet community voted on, and whether or not the moderators are
living up to the Charter terms is another matter not related to the purpose
of this post.
At Netcom, the following soc.religion newsgroups exist. I believe Netcom
subscribes to most of those in existence, if not all of them. If there is
any existing, legitimate and active moderated s.r.* newsgroup not on this
list, do let me know.
soc.religion.bahai
soc.religion.christian
soc.religion.christian.bible-study
soc.religion.christian.promisekeepers
soc.religion.christian.youth-work
soc.religion.eastern
soc.religion.gnosis
soc.religion.hindu
soc.religion.islam
soc.religion.kibology
soc.religion.mormon
soc.religion.paganism
soc.religion.quaker
soc.religion.shamanism
soc.religion.sikhism
soc.religion.unitarian-univ
soc.religion.vaishnava
Of these newsgroups, only two are unmoderated, soc.religion.quaker and
of course soc.religion.kibology (every hierarchy must have its "fun"
newsgroup). Since moderation is an important issue here, they will not be
considered in the analysis. Secondly, since the goal is to ascertain what
the moderation policy of the informally-proposed soc.religion.scientology
would be, the soc.religion.christian.bible-study, promisekeepers, and
youth-work newsgroups are not considered as these are not religions per se
but a topic within a specific religion. I'm only interested in the top
newsgroup in the soc.religion hierarchy, which by Usenet convention clearly
must be an established religion (or represent a group of religions) in the
eyes of all its believers *and* the consensus of the Usenet community.
That leaves the following 12 newsgroups to analyze their Charters:
soc.religion.bahai
soc.religion.christian
soc.religion.eastern
soc.religion.gnosis
soc.religion.hindu
soc.religion.islam
soc.religion.mormon
soc.religion.paganism
soc.religion.shamanism
soc.religion.sikhism
soc.religion.unitarian-univ
soc.religion.vaishnava
I did a complete search on the Web, including DejaNews, looking for the most
current Charter to the above newsgroups, and found Charters to all of them
(there is no document labeled "Charter" for soc.religion.islam, but there is
a FAQ which seems to carry the weight of a Charter -- they apparently are
working on a new Charter). Since including the full text of the Charters
here would make this already long post too long, I won't do so. However,
I'll place the Charters I used into the following directory available via
anonymous ftp. I will keep them there for a few weeks.
ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/no/noring/soc.religion
What I'll do is visit each newsgroup one by one in the above list and take
relevent excerpts from its Charter, and for some I will make some comments
given in []. Since I am taking excerpts, it is always possible I take them
out of context, so if you believe this to be the case, you are welcome to
access the complete Charter and show us what you believe to be the full
or true picture. I plan to let the Charters speak for themselves, and speak
they will. Following these 12 Charter excerpts I'll present a Conclusion,
focusing on the issues releveant to the informally proposed s.r.scientology.
The excerpts below are presented below in alphabetical order by religion name.
soc.religion.bahai
******************
"The group will act as a non-threatening forum for discussing and sharing
information about the tenets, history, and texts of the Baha'i Faith...The
newsgroup will be subject to standards of Baha'i consultation, a decision-
making process whose salient features include frank yet respectful statement
of views and the concerted, open-minded search for truth. In practice, the
moderators will reject personal attacks (flames) directed at individual
posters, similarly inflammatory attacks directed at religious institutions,
and articles which use offensive language. These guidelines are intended to
regulate only the tone of the discussions, and not their contents..."
[Notice from the above it is clear that all viewpoints on Bahai are welcome,
so long as accepted Usenet netiquette (being nice) is followed. There are no
specific topics in the Bahai religion which are not allowed to be discussed.]
soc.religion.christian
**********************
[The following speaks for itself and has some interesting insights I have not
seen before, and very relevant to present discussion. Read on...]
"...this is a group for discussion of Christianity and issues related to it.
It is not per se a Christian group. By that I mean that contributions from
non-Christians or those that other Christians would regard as "heretical" are
welcome. However they should be relevant to Christianity. A number of
Christians believe I should enforce some doctrinal standards. There are
three reasons why I do not:
- Tradition. This group was created by a vote, and many of the
people voting for it would not have consented to a moderatorial
policy that judged postings based on their theological views.
- Usenet and University policy. Usenet uses lots of resources
of various universities and governmental agencies. It would
be inappropriate to use these resources for an activity that
discriminates against posters based on their religious views.
- Which standards? This group is used by Christians from all
the major traditions, including "liberal", "conservative",
Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox. It's difficult to
imagine doctrinal standards that would not exclude some
of those groups. We might be better off with separate
newsgroups for each, but so far most proposals to create
specialized newsgroups have failed. (It's been tried
for Catholics and Mormons.)"
[These three "reasons" are very enlightening as to what should be the scope
of any soc.religion.* top-level newsgroup. They also acknowledge the
importance of the precedents set by the Usenet community.]
soc.religion.eastern
********************
"2) All people, irrespective of their religious background, can post articles
in this newsgroup.
3) Articles about western religious systems [Judaism/Christianity/Islam are
also welcome if the aim is to make rational/objective comparisons of these
systems with those discussed in this newsgroup [s.r.eastern]
4) The newsgroup will be moderated to prevent inflammatory articles, political
articles, personal attacks, proselytizing, and to encourage brevity.
5) The moderator will not impose his personal agenda on the newsgroup.
7) The moderator reserves the right to end a discussion if the discussion has
gone on for a while and no further light is being shed on the topic of
discussion."
[It is clear all points of view are welcome provided they are presented in
a "nice" way. There are no specific restrictions within the religions
covered (I did not include the list, but this newsgroup represents several
Eastern religions.)]
soc.religion.gnosis
*******************
"...the serious discussion and exchange of questions, ideas, experience,
views, and information about of the historical and contemporary trends,
techniques. practice and development of gnosis and gnosticism, its related
literature, and corresponding concepts. Everyone is invited to take part in
this discussion...
"...C. The newsgroup will be subject to conventions of network etiquette.
In practice, the moderators will reject personal attacks (flames) directed at
individuals, and also similarly inflammatory attacks directed at religious
institutions, and articles which use offensive language. These guidelines are
intended to regulate only the tone of the discussions, and not their contents.
This instruction is not intended to limit discussion and debate. Vigorous
discussion and criticism are encouraged, flames are not."
[Pretty clear -- no content restrictions other than having something to do
with gnosticism.]
soc.religion.hindu
******************
"...moderation will be used mainly for netiquette...
1. No personal attacks.
2. No "malicious attack" on Hindu dharma. Please note that although this
sounds like a broad classification, it is not. On alt.hindu have rejected
less than 5 out of over 3000 postings based on this criteria...
I have had to reject a total of less than 40 posts in about 3 years, and
out of over 3000 postings for alt.hindu. So, debates and discussions are
more than welcome, as long as it is "clean"."
[Other than the ambiguity of "malicious attack", it appears to be an open
forum for discussing all views on Hinduism.]
soc.religion.islam
******************
"Any individual submission is to be accepted for posting in s.r.islam
provided it satisfies the following two Guidelines. The submission must be:
1) relevant to Islam
2) free from verbal abuse, name calling, and insults...
"There is a FAQ maintained by a person named Asim Mughal which falsely
purports to give the rules and procedures governing Soc.Religion.Islam. You
may have seen it floating around on the net. Asim Mughal was a moderator
prior to March 6, 1994, when he was removed from the position by the
unanimous decision of a consultative group (shura) as a result of a variety
of abuses that he committed. The contents of his FAQ are outdated and do not
represent the current policies and practices of SRI and its moderators...
"From the FAQ:
6. I see a lot of material bashing Islam on soc.religion.*ISLAM*. You
should fear Allah and not approve this material!
"Please note that approving an article does not imply approval or endorsement
of its content by the moderator. The moderators' job is solely to ensure that
the material is relevant to Islam (for or against, and regardless of
accuracy), and that its language is appropriate. It is the job of readers
like you to check the accuracy of articles and to speak up if you think they
are wrong or misleading."
[The last paragraph above is very enlightening, and shows that a
soc.religion.* newsgroup must allow all points of view, even if it is
inaccurate. The way to counter perceived inaccuracies is to speak up,
rather than censor. The relevance to the proposed soc.religion.scientology
cannot be overemphasized.]
soc.religion.mormon
*******************
"...All articles reviewed by the moderators will be posted to the newsgroup
except those that are judged to be inflammatory speech, unwarranted
repetition, or violations of the charter. Judgment will be exercised to
reduce the number of articles containing flames, trolls, offensive content,
and me-too trailers. Two moderators must agree to reject these articles.
Article Rejection:
An article will be queued for rejection by the moderators if the
automoderator determines that the article meets any of the criteria
listed below. Articles which meet any of these criteria will be
considered to be in violation of the charter.
- Obscene and/or vulgar language
- Encoded binary files
- Crossposting to multiple newsgroups
- Quoted statements that are either attributed to, or
unmistakably part of, the LDS temple ceremony."
[Other than the prohibition of direct quotes from the LDS temple ceremony,
which I'll talk about in the conclusion, all other posts, within accepted
Usenet netiquette, will be allowed, including posts critical of the LDS
religion. Note that the moderation board must have both Mormons and non-
Mormons on it, a very positive thing to prevent abuse.]
soc.religion.paganism
*********************
"Soc.religion.paganism will be a place for Pagans from around the world to
meet and discuss topics of interest to Pagans, and for those interested in
Paganism to learn more about it from those involved in the many religions
collectively known as Paganism.
No attempt will be made here to define Paganism, nor will posts be approved
or rejected based on any one person's concepts or traditions. The Pagan
community covers a wide range of specific and non-specific religions and
lifestyles, and all will be respected and given space.
What will not be tolerated are posts promoting, arguing or comparing Judaism,
Christianity, Islam and Satanism that do not have demonstrable relevance to
Paganism. If the readers of soc.religion.paganism wanted to read about these
topics they would go read them in the appropriate newsgroups. As many Pagans
come to Paganism from Christianity, endless posts about the topic of their
former religion are no more welcome than persistent postings of bar
drink recipes would be to alt.recovery.aa. Christians and other
non-Pagans are welcome to post, but they should keep to the topic of
the newsgroup."
[This is one of the more restrictive of the s.r.* newsgroups, at least on its
face. However, note that any post is to be accepted *if* its topic is
related to discussing paganism, and otherwise follows accepted Usenet
netiquette. For example, Bible quotes are stated to be prohibited in another
part of the Charter (a point of contention) but are allowed *if* they are
relevant to paganism (which is not mentioned by those who have trouble with
this restriction). So the toughness of this Charter revolves around making
sure the posts are discussing paganism, a fair requirement. How that is
implemented is another story, but I'm only looking at the Charter.]
soc.religion.shamanism
**********************
"The purpose of soc.religion.shamanism is to provide a forum for discussion
and exchange of questions, ideas, views, and information about historic,
traditional, tribal, and contemporary shamanic experience. Everyone is
invited to take part in this discussion by sharing views, ideas, opinions,
experience and information about shamanism....
Anyone with an interest in shamanism is welcomed and encouraged
to post articles to soc.religion.shamanism. (See additional details
below.)
...This instruction is not intended to limit discussion and debate. Vigorous
discussion and criticism are encouraged, flames are not."
soc.religion.sikhism
********************
soc.religion.sikhism is intended to be a moderated newsgroup to carry
informative articles and discussions about Sikh Religion [Sikhism] and
Sikh people [the Sikhs]. The topics intended to be covered by the newsgroup
will be relevant to Sikhism and Sikhs and include, but are not limited to:
o Teachings, Philosophy and Practice of Sikhism.
o History of Sikhism and the Sikhs.
o Sri Guru Grahth Sahib Ji.
o Gurbani, and Literature related to Sikhism and Sikhs.
o News and current issues relating to Sikhism and Sikhs.
o Information about resources, pilgrimage, conferences and other
related endeavors.
o Specific queries of possible wide interest.
The moderators will ensure that the postings are relevant to Sikhism
and free from verbal abuse, name calling and flames."
[On its face, this Charter says nothing about critical comments, thus by
default it should allow any and all posts so long as they follow Netiquette
and are about Sikhism.]
soc.religion.unitarian-univ
***************************
"This group, soc.religion.unitarian-univ, is to serve as a forum for
discussion of issues pertaining to liberal or non-creedal religions,
particularly Unitarian Universalism...
Anyone with an interest in Unitarian-Universalism or other liberal or
non-creedal religions is welcomed and encouraged to post articles to
soc.religion.unitarian-univ...
These guidelines are intended to regulate only the noise level of the
newsgroup and not the content of the discussions. This instruction is not
intended to limit discussion and debate. Vigorous discussion and criticism
are encouraged, flames are not..."
soc.religion.vaishnava
**********************
"The newsgroup soc.religion.vaishnava will be an auto-moderated forum for
discussion of all topics having a bearing on the study of, and devotion to,
Vishnu, the Supreme Lord.... The moderation of this newsgroup is not to be
done directly by humans, and will always be only for the purpose of
preventing inflow of irrelevant material; there will be no restriction
otherwise, and the newsgroup will provide for the free exchange of diverse
views."
Conclusion
**********
If you reread the charter excerpts to the 12 newsgroups, I think a picture
should begin to emerge about the overall nature of these newsgroups, and thus
of the soc.religion *top-level* hierarchy (lower levels could in principle
follow different guidelines -- there aren't enough of them to come to any
firm conclusion as to current Usenet community preferences -- that is, it
is still an open book.)
It is abundantly clear that these newsgroups are truly public forums. That
is, they are open to any and to all viewpoints, only subject to accepted
Usenet netiquette and that the post must topically have something to do with
a broad interpretation of the religion name. The only noteworthy exception
is the "No Temple Wording" clause in soc.religion.mormon, which I'll discuss
later. (soc.religion.pagan also seems to have some restrictions, but see my
note under that section above.)
In a related way, it is also clear these newsgroups are NOT fellowship groups
by any stretch of the imagination. I define fellowship to be an intimate
setting where those of *like mind* can discourse in an environment free of
any disturbance (that is, posts by those of not like mind who call into
question or criticize their beliefs). There is NO precedence for this in the
soc.religion top-level hierarchy, and is best left for mailing lists (e.g.,
Scientology's TNX list) or possibly for newsgroups further down in the
hierarchy (for example, I've proposed the
'soc.religion.scientology.fellowship' newsgroup for the purpose of fellowship
by Scientologists free from any public criticism.)
In essence, the Usenet community, by allowing these soc.religion.* top-level
newsgroups to be created with the Charters they have, has overwhelmingly
required them to be *public* newsgroups, open to all viewpoints, open to all
criticism, and not to be narrowly defined religious-wise (e.g., there are
those in the "Free Zone" who follow tenets of Scientology but reject the
current organization -- the Free Zoner's religion is just as valid to be
discussed in the soc.religion.scientology newsgroup as those Scientologists
who accept the authority of the present Scientology organization -- btw,
Scientologists believe as a "religious" tenet that Free Zoners, aka squirrels,
should not be allowed to propagate their religion! -- should we allow one
religious group to be censored at the request of another?) (Also reread the
Charter excerpts to soc.religion.christian, where the three reasons given for
it not having any theological filter are VERY relevant to this whole
discussion, and further support the importance that the top-level
soc.religion.* newsgroups should not have any theological or topical
restrictions and must be considered as public-at-large forums.)
So, I believe I have made a strong case that by prior and overwhelming
Usenet precedent, the informally proposed soc.religion.scientology newsgroup
MUST have the following Charter provision (your wording may vary):
Soc.religion.scientology is to be a public newsgroup where discussion is
open to *all* people and *all* viewpoints on *any* topic related to the
broadest interpretation of Scientology. There would be no limitations
except accepted Usenet-wide netiquette. Posts deemed "inaccurate" by
anybody including the moderators would be allowed to be posted since the
best way to answer such posts is not with censorship but posting
"corrected" information.
Now this brings up the final issue, and one which was contentious a year ago.
This involves the only clearly censored topic in the soc.religion top-level
hierarchy -- the "No Temple Wording" clause of soc.religion.mormon. My views
on this have been made abundantly clear -- this should not have happened. If
the LDS faithful needed a newsgroup with such a restriction, it should have
been placed one-level down in the hierarchy, which I proposed numerous times,
e.g., soc.religion.mormon.restricted (the answer by the LDS faithful was
essentially, soc.religion.mormon is going to be "our" newsgroup and this is
our requirement -- which of course runs counter to what the Usenet community
has clearly established for the soc.religion hierarchy as I shown above --
that is, all Usenet newsgroups spring from the consensus of the interested
Usenet community -- they do not *belong* to any special interest group except
by the allowance and at the invitation of the Usenet community.)
Nevertheless, after a lot of compromise, the current s.r.m. became a reality.
One compromise was the assurance the moderation team had to have non-Mormons
on it, and that other than the Temple Wording restriction, all viewpoints on
s.r.m. are to be allowed and respected, subject to Usenet netiquette.
What does this have to do with the Scientology issue? Well, the s.r.m.
"No Temple Wording" restriction has been brought up as a precedent to allow
soc.religion.scientology to have a similar restriction on discussions
revolving around details about Scientology's so-called "Upper Levels", aka
the OT levels. But I think the only precedent it set is that the Usenet
community is willing *to consider exceptions* on a case-by-case basis,
subject to the facts and the overall goals of the collective Usenet
community. Because of the s.r.m. approval, it would be unfair not to allow
rational discussion of exceptions to established precedents, but it would not
be unfair, in my opinion, should the Usenet community ultimately rejected the
exceptions after thoughtfully considering them.
The important point is that the Usenet community *compromised* regarding
s.r.m. (read the discussion from that period and it was clearly called a
*compromise*) It was an expedient thing to do given the particulars of the
situation (though I disagreed with it, and voted against the newsgroup -- I
was the *first* to post a congratulations to s.r.m., as far as I know.) A
compromise is an exception to the general rules, and this one exception does
not, in my opinion, negate the general consensus (by overall precedent)
that all soc.religion top-level newsgroups must have no content restrictions
other than posts having something to do with the named religion. As I just
said above, if any precedence was set, it was that the Usenet community will
*consider* granting exceptions to the rule, NOT that they will.
Thus, any proposal to restrict s.r.scientology to not include discussing the
details of the "upper levels" or the OT levels must be considered a special
case, and must not be considered a sure thing just because it was allowed for
s.r.mormon -- these exceptions to overall precedence must be examined on a
case-by-case basis, and examined very carefully and include all specific
factors of importance to the Usenet community. If the Usenet community
decides to reject a Charter having special restrictions at the request of
some of the followers of the religion, that is NOT being unfair. But at
this point, because of the approval of s.r.m., it would be unfair not to
consider them.
[oops, I repeated myself, but redundancy helps to explain my views.]
I'll defer any further discussion here of the "no-upper-level details" ban on
the [informally] proposed soc.religion.scientology since that should be
discussed in another post or when (or if) the newsgroup
soc.religion.scientology is formally proposed.
Anyway, these are my thoughts on this whole issue, and I hope the Charters
I dug up will prove helpful to all of us should soc.religion.scientology be
formally proposed.
I'm not sure what more can be discussed unless or until something formal
happens.
Jon Noring
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
OmniMedia Digital Publishing | E-Books: http://www.awa.com/library/omnimedia
9671 S. 1600 West St. | Digital/Fractal Art: (coming soon!)
South Jordan, UT 84095 |
801-253-4037 | E-mail: omni...@netcom.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Two great mailing lists: FRACTAL ART, and ELECTRONIC BOOKS. To subscribe to
either one, send e-mail to majo...@aros.net and put the appropriate line in
the body of the message:
subscribe fractal-art
subscribe ebook-list
Keith Justified And Ancient Cochran
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <noringEJ...@netcom.com>, Jon Noring <nor...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Analysis of Charters to Current Moderated soc.religion.* Newsgroups
>*******************************************************************
[Oh, Great One, accept my humble sacrifice of WOTS.]
>soc.religion.mormon
>*******************
>- Obscene and/or vulgar language
>- Encoded binary files
>- Crossposting to multiple newsgroups
>- Quoted statements that are either attributed to, or
> unmistakably part of, the LDS temple ceremony."
>
>[Other than the prohibition of direct quotes from the LDS temple ceremony,
>which I'll talk about in the conclusion, all other posts, within accepted
>Usenet netiquette, will be allowed, including posts critical of the LDS
>religion. Note that the moderation board must have both Mormons and non-
>Mormons on it, a very positive thing to prevent abuse.]
[wow. Thank you, Jon Noring, for doing this research.]
>Conclusion
>**********
>
>If you reread the charter excerpts to the 12 newsgroups, I think a picture
>should begin to emerge about the overall nature of these newsgroups, and thus
>of the soc.religion *top-level* hierarchy (lower levels could in principle
>follow different guidelines -- there aren't enough of them to come to any
>firm conclusion as to current Usenet community preferences -- that is, it
>is still an open book.)
Actually, I think there is precedent here. Specifically, look at the
comp.*.misc, and comp.*.advocacy groups. The charters for things like
comp.os.os2.communications specifically state that they are not there
for debates, but to help people.
By extension, soc.religion.*.soemthing groups (like src.promisekeepers)
could easily have the same type of charter, i.e. "a place for people in
the promisekeepers movement to come together to help each other".
>So, I believe I have made a strong case that by prior and overwhelming
>Usenet precedent, the informally proposed soc.religion.scientology newsgroup
>MUST have the following Charter provision (your wording may vary):
>
> Soc.religion.scientology is to be a public newsgroup where discussion is
> open to *all* people and *all* viewpoints on *any* topic related to the
> broadest interpretation of Scientology. There would be no limitations
> except accepted Usenet-wide netiquette. Posts deemed "inaccurate" by
> anybody including the moderators would be allowed to be posted since the
> best way to answer such posts is not with censorship but posting
> "corrected" information.
>
>
>Now this brings up the final issue, and one which was contentious a year ago.
>This involves the only clearly censored topic in the soc.religion top-level
>hierarchy -- the "No Temple Wording" clause of soc.religion.mormon. [...]
>Nevertheless, after a lot of compromise, the current s.r.m. became a reality.
>One compromise was the assurance the moderation team had to have non-Mormons
>on it, and that other than the Temple Wording restriction, all viewpoints on
>s.r.m. are to be allowed and respected, subject to Usenet netiquette.
And a similar board would have to occur for srs, if it ever comes to pass.
The alternative would be to robo-moderate it to exclude all crossposts
(similar to what talk.origins does).
>What does this have to do with the Scientology issue? Well, the s.r.m.
>"No Temple Wording" restriction has been brought up as a precedent to allow
>soc.religion.scientology to have a similar restriction on discussions
>revolving around details about Scientology's so-called "Upper Levels", aka
>the OT levels.
Nitpicking time: I can sit here for hours typing in messages that discuss
the OT levels (and NOTS, and the purification rundown, and the philadelphia
doctorate course, ad nauseum) without actually _quoting_ anything from the
materials.
If the ban was "discussing the levels", those posts could/would be rejected.
Of couse, all the "big win" stories from people doing the OT courses would
also have to be rejected...
Also, would putting URL's in posts be considered a good thing or a bad
thing? Could the moderator chose to reject http://home.sol.no/heldal/CoS
because it's a link to the "upper level material"?
>I'm not sure what more can be discussed unless or until something formal
>happens.
I'm sure we can find something...
-- .sig and PGP Block follow. Visit http://www.dimensional.com/~janda/
^L
"[scientology] is less evil than the Aum cult, and thus to the extent it
keeps people out of some even worse cult, that is a positive feature of
scientology." H. Keith Henson in <hkhensonE...@netcom.com>
finger -l ja...@dimensional.com for my PGP public key block.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNGtdH22jF2vR4ZtNAQHJTgP8CMGUIREKjpIxI2xqPIes6KQFh3V+OJcr
Bpo01hzwdmLD3G0SMtq36JDx7iWiN04Ep62G0fjBqHL99OjDAm+QsGv9dWY7kHgv
MM6HXms3UZ1/LgQxsH1Il3R3frw4viYeMlJ7q/XbWTQs+OGwK4au4cKueyUaGVKu
Yl3Q3Pk+Zhs=
=vcBo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Paul
Russ Allbery wrote:
> *sigh* Lots of snippage.
[ditto]
> In news.groups, Jon Noring <nor...@netcom.com> writes:
> > In a related way, it is also clear these newsgroups are NOT fellowship
> > groups by any stretch of the imagination.
>
> They most certainly are.
>
> > I define fellowship to be an intimate setting where those of *like mind*
> > can discourse in an environment free of any disturbance
>
> That, to be frank, is a ridiculous definition of fellowship.
Not that I wish to interrupt a perfectly good argument, but from a
religious standpoint, I think Jon's definition is not only not
ridiculous, it is very close to the definition that religious adherents
mean when they use the term. More pertinently, I think it is precisely
what the Church of Scientology[tm] would like this to-be-created
newsgroup to be.
That does not make it a Bad Thing[tm], but it is one more data point to
add to the list.
-Paul
Jon Noring
In article ja...@dimensional.com (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article Jon Noring <nor...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>What does this have to do with the Scientology issue? Well, the s.r.m.
>>"No Temple Wording" restriction has been brought up as a precedent to allow
>>soc.religion.scientology to have a similar restriction on discussions
>>revolving around details about Scientology's so-called "Upper Levels", aka
>>the OT levels.
>Nitpicking time: I can sit here for hours typing in messages that discuss
>the OT levels (and NOTS, and the purification rundown, and the philadelphia
>doctorate course, ad nauseum) without actually _quoting_ anything from the
>materials.
I believe that Scientology proponents would not only want a ban on direct
quoting (within Fair Use of course) from the OT documents, but also any
description of the details contained. So, they'd want posts containing
any mention or discussion of Xemu/Xenu and all the other space opera stuff,
as an example, to be censored from the newsgroup.
Compare this to s.r.mormon where only the actual wording to the Temple
Ceremonies cannot be posted, but can otherwise be discussed.
>Also, would putting URL's in posts be considered a good thing or a bad
>thing? Could the moderator chose to reject http://home.sol.no/heldal/CoS
>because it's a link to the "upper level material"?
Here, again, soc.religion.mormon allows one to post URL's to the Temple
Wording, but one can't post the actual words. Though I disagree with the
Temple Wording restriction on general principles, at least they've made it as
uncensorous as possible.
Guy Macon
I might add that soc.religion.quaker was created unmoderated for the
express purpose of making content restrictions impossible.
This does not imply agreement or disagreement with your conclusions,
just one more fact to mix in as you seek truth.
Tovar
I might add that soc.religion.quaker was created unmoderated for the
express purpose of making content restrictions impossible.
My understanding is that unmoderated status for s.r.q was accepted on the
basis that content restriction were contrary to their religious practices.
On the 'rec.religion.paganism', they debated this principle extensively,
as it is also contrary to their beliefs, but in the end, accepted on robo-
moderation in order to curtail vehement and occasionally abusive postings
from a very small segment of Christian (and other) practitioners. These
could have been eliminated on the same basis as the other most groups in
'rec.religion.*' had adopted, but given the considerable experience with
such postings in 'alt.pagan' and elsewhere, i believe that describing
directly the troublesome postings would clearly indicate that they were
unwelcome and reduce the burden on the moderators, particularly in
explaining why such postings were not acceptable.
Other than that, in general, i agree with the analysis mentioned in the
Subject line, but not necessarily the conclusions that followed.
With regards to 'Temple Language', i think that material posted to 'r.r.p'
which is known to be liturgical material intended only for higher level
initiates would likely be dealt with in a similar manner eventually, even
if that's not currently specified in the charter. Attempts to disseminate
such materials have happened before, albeit not on USENET per se, and
community pressure quickly took such material out of circulation.
So i can support not having the text from inner religious practices being
propagated in 'rec.religion.scientology' if said newsgroup is accepted,
but not suppression of all discussion of such practices. I cannot support
not permitting some discussion of the concepts and principles involved
without going into the specific details of their rituals or practices.
-- Tovar
Jim Riley
In article <noringEJ...@netcom.com> Jon Noring wrote:
>My analysis looked at the Charters only and did not consider what is actually
>occuring on these newsgroups (I vaguely recall old rumors that a couple of
>the newsgroups were being mis-moderated). After all, it is the Charters
>which the Usenet community voted on, and whether or not the moderators are
>living up to the Charter terms is another matter not related to the purpose
>of this post.
Actually, it is approval of (initial) moderators that occurs.
>I did a complete search on the Web, including DejaNews, looking for the most
>current Charter to the above newsgroups, and found Charters to all of them
See <ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/>
>soc.religion.mormon
>*******************
>[Other than the prohibition of direct quotes from the LDS temple ceremony,
>which I'll talk about in the conclusion, all other posts, within accepted
>Usenet netiquette, will be allowed, including posts critical of the LDS
>religion. Note that the moderation board must have both Mormons and non-
>Mormons on it, a very positive thing to prevent abuse.]
Why do you believe that when twin proposals for soc.religion.mormon and
talk.religion.mormon were proposed, *both* failed by similar margins?
>It is abundantly clear that these newsgroups are truly public forums. That
>is, they are open to any and to all viewpoints, only subject to accepted
>Usenet netiquette and that the post must topically have something to do with
>a broad interpretation of the religion name.
It is obvious that they were created by those who primarily had a
positive interest in the particular religion, and were willing to
entertain respectful inquiries from outsiders.
> The only noteworthy exception
>is the "No Temple Wording" clause in soc.religion.mormon, which I'll discuss
>later. (soc.religion.pagan also seems to have some restrictions, but see my
>note under that section above.)
Both moderate out posts that are disrespectful to the beliefs of
participants in the group, and are non-conducive to discussion.
>In essence, the Usenet community, by allowing these soc.religion.* top-level
>newsgroups to be created with the Charters they have, has overwhelmingly
>required them to be *public* newsgroups, open to all viewpoints, open to all
The so-called Usenet community has set no such requirement. It has
recognized the interest in particular proposed groups on several
SEPARATE occasions, and determined that such interest outweighed the
opposition to creation of the group.
How does Jon Noring explain the widespread opposition to
soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya? Did it violate Usenet community precepts
and requirements?
>The important point is that the Usenet community *compromised* regarding
>s.r.m. (read the discussion from that period and it was clearly called a
>*compromise*)
452 members out of millions and millions of potential members of the
so-called Usenet community made such a decision.
--
Jim Riley
Sherilyn
In article <3506c8af....@news.pipeline.com>, Jim Riley
<jim...@pipeline.com> writes[Religion group moderation policies]
>
>> The only noteworthy exception
>>is the "No Temple Wording" clause in soc.religion.mormon, which I'll discuss
>>later. (soc.religion.pagan also seems to have some restrictions, but see my
>>note under that section above.)
>
>participants in the group, and are non-conducive to discussion.
I subscribed to s.r.m. in March/April of this year and no such policy
was in operation, nor is there anything in the charter about such a
policy.
--
Sherilyn