Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site wivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!wivax!dyer
From: dyer@wivax.UUCP (Stephen Dyer)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Discussion moved from net.singles
Message-ID: <19575@wivax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 1-Jun-84 03:15:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: wivax.19575
Posted: Fri Jun  1 03:15:03 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 2-Jun-84 11:54:46 EDT
References: <73@stat-l> <19552@wivax.UUCP>, <78@stat-l>
Organization: Wang Institute, Tyngsboro, Ma.  01879
Lines: 44

	>Ok, Steve; first of all, it's "Rsk the Wombat", not "Ask the Wombat";

Oops.  Corrected.  I'll have to turn off my mental spelling checker.

	>and secondly, as I've stated, I'm not an atheist, so quit calling
	>me one.

You misunderstand me (prob with reason)--my use of the phrase "obviously
atheist" was just sarcasm referring to the issue at hand concerning
Christianity.

	>Thirdly, I see no reason whatsoever to keep *my* opinions to myself;
	>you obviously have no qualms about speaking up, why should I?
	>I'm really not being sarcastic here; I'm just wondering why I can't
	>bitch and moan about religious intrusion -- *if* someone else can
	>bring it up in the first place.  Did that make sense?

I was expecting such a reply even as I was sending mine.  I guess the issue
comes down to this: USENET is a public forum where all sorts of opinions
are offered.  Thus, all things being equal, one likes to err on the side
of freedom of speech.  At the very least, I think it is better to say to
someone "I don't agree with your point" than to say "Hey, keep your opinions
to yourself (or out of this newsgroup.)"  The first response is in the
spirit of discussion and debate; the second serves no purpose at all except
to alienate the other person and to close off discussion.  In the case of
Jeff Sargent, his early postings on the subject mentioned Christianity
as a component of his mental and emotional condition regarding SO's--
it sure sounded relevant to me, since we were discussing Jeff Sargent.
It all comes down to "appropriate behavior", something which is impossible
to define or legislate, but the lack of which is pretty easy to spot.
Evangelizing outside of 'net.religion' isn't appropriate behavior, but
I don't think Jeff was doing that--merely saying what is true for oneself
is always appropriate, don't you think?

Now, you have every right to your opinions, and to express them as you wish,
(as do I) but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be open to persuasive
arguments for tolerance.   My article wasn't the analog of yours to Jeff;
I wasn't saying "stuff the religious intrusion bit", I was asking for
you to listen to my arguments for tolerance--maybe this article expresses
some points better.  You are free to do with this what you will.
-- 
/Steve Dyer
decvax!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA