Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!cbnewsc!rjp1
From: rjp1@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (on the jagged cliffs of Ngranek)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Call For Discussion: talk.religion.pagan
Message-ID: <4834@cbnewsc.ATT.COM>
Date: 16 Nov 89 19:38:44 GMT
References: <20614@ut-emx.UUCP> <1017@umigw.MIAMI.EDU> <1026@umigw.MIAMI.EDU>
Lines: 42

In article (a.e.mossberg) writes:
>In article (Patrick T. Garvin) writes:

>> By Definition 1, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists and the like are pagan.
>> Definition number 2 is greatly annoying.  Pagan is to no religion as
>> homosexuality is to no sex.  Both are alternative life{styles, choices}.
>> Definition 3 was probably in vogue when Christianity was a majority religion.

> Okay, you threw out the dictionary definition of pagan, but you've not
> offered one of your own. 

>> The problem with talk.religion.wicca is that, although Wiccans are pagan,
>> not all pagans are Wiccan.  The other varieties of pagan would feel
>> excluded.
>>
>> I think that more discussion is warranted on the name, obviously.  
>>
>> How about talk.religion.neo-pagan

> neo-pagan? What the hell is that? It's another newage bastardization.
> Crowley would be proud. If it's neo-pagan you want, keep it in
> t.r.newage where it belongs.


Why are you so angry with Patrick's response?  Nevermind...

I think talk.religion.earth would make a better name.  Then, pagans,
wiccans, neo-pagans, and other "earth" centered peoples would have
a forum.

As it stands now, talk.religion.newage does not satisfy that need.
The 'newage' is great for those into channeling, crystals, and
other spiritual mediumship.  Nowhere does it imply an "earth" based
philosophy or religious point of view.  Newage is too broad a term.

I'd vote yes for talk.religion.earth.  As for moderation, well, it
would be a task.  But I don't think it is absolutely warranted.



--									    --
rj pietkivitch							att!ihlpa!rjp1