The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience

Subject:      Re: Traffic on alt.religion.bahai versus soc.religion.bahai
From:         Ron House <>
Date:         1997/10/29
Message-ID:   <>
Newsgroups:   alt.religion.bahai,news.groups
[More Headers]
[Subscribe to alt.religion.bahai]
Sharon Bouchard wrote:
> If there were some role that t.r.b. would fulfill that the existing
> s.r.b. doesn't already, then this would be a no-brained yes vote for
> me.  The problem is, I can't see anything going on on a.r.b. recently
> that would justify bothering to set up a separate group.
I for one can't read alt.religion.bahai because some carrier
between here and the US doesn't transmit it. Many people can't
read some alt groups. Also a new newsgroup is **CHEAP**, so
cheap you probably couldn't measure it. How much justification
is needed for something that some people want a lot and that
costs so little you can't measure?
> And whatever Usenet voting *guidelines* are, there are Baha'i
> guidelines to take into account as well.  I'm not averse to seeing
> attacks against the Baha'i Faith online -- people should have their
> say, and I view the opportunity to respond as a good thing, though it
> does get tedious sometimes.  But why create an unmoderated platform
> that includes the name of the faith in it?
Because it is _about_ the faith and if you call it talk
.religion.unicorns people won't know that.
> Those non-Baha'is who fall into a newsgroup where there's nothing
> going on but a couple of peoples'  complaints about moderation of
> s.r.b., trolls from s.c.i., and the inevitable "anti cult tracts" that
> will show up in time, might well mistake the content of such a group
> for being representative of what the Baha'i Faith teaches.
Too bad. This newsgroup isn't being set up for the
benefit of the Baha'i Faith. It is being set up so
that there is a forum for uncensored discussions by
anyone at all ABOUT the Baha'i Faith. And this fact
does not give Baha'is the right to vote against the
newsgroup. You don't have the moral right to
oppose a newsgroup just because you might not like
what will be said there.
> So my second "con" at the moment concerns the potential for this
> misunderstanding, and is it worth the risk?
> No one who wants to attack the Baha'i Faith is currently prevented
> from doing so, nor imo should they be prevented.  There are plenty of
> other forums for those who want to express their strong anti- views to
> speak out.  What's the point of having another?
Yes they are. I can't post to arb nor read what others say
there, nor will the moderatoras of srb accept all of my
postings. Besides, it is public money supporting this
system, not Baha'i money, so why do Baha'is imagine they
have the right to stop me discussing anything I want here?

> Surely Usenet users who want to attack the Baha'i Faith are not so
> stupid that they have not noticed the existence of religion-related
> ngs where they can post their tracts?  Sheesh, if I were one of those,
> I'd be insulted that anyone thought I was too stoopid to find
> someplace to upload my tracts.
So I should post comments on the Baha'i Faith in soc.religion
.christian, maybe?
> The other question I have about the creation of t.r.b. is whether that
> would siphon off the participation in the existing s.r.b., and by
> doing so, harm the existing group.  We all have only so much time on
> our hands.  To split things off may dilute our efforts more than its
> worth.
Who cares what happens to your censored group? I'll post there
if the moderators let me, but if they don't, I want the right
to express my opinions where some small minded traditionalist
can't cut me off whenever I offend his sensibilities. You have
no moral right to stop me, but you might still have the practical
ability to stop me if you can organise another of your unprincipled
block 'no' votes.
Ron House
An age is called Dark not because the light fails to shine, but because
people refuse to see it.         -- James Michener, "Space"