Re: virus: "Religion"?

Reed Garrett Konsler (
Mon, 5 Aug 1996 21:56:04 -0400

>I don't know about everyone else, but just the very mention of the word
>"religion" tends to make me uncomfortable. It immediately conjures up
>images of sweat-ridden, leechy ministers, parasites, and by far the most
>destructive phrase ever spoken: "In the name of the L---". I would
>appreciate, if any one could, a satiation of my fears by affirming that
>this is *NOT* what you have in mind when you use that dirtied word,

Just before I joined this list I sent a letter to David (who's was kind
enough to create this mailing list) which said almost exactly the same
thing. It's his page and his list, so he is the one who gets to name it.
But since someone else brought it up...I agree with Peter. I also have a
reflexive aversion to anything with the words "church", "religion", "God",

I'm a subscriber to this list, but I'm not a memeber of "The Church of"

A wonder how many people who might otherwise be interested/interesting
avoid the Web page and this list becuase they also have filters that
exclude churches. My opinion is that there are a number of people like
Peter and I...but who don't take the time to find out.

If one wishes to spread the "Virus" meme it seems to me that the "church"
reference is inhibitory. Many potential vectors refuse to accept infection
becuase of an erroneously triggered immune response.

So, David...I'm sure other people have asked this (or similar) questions
before. Why did you decide to call this thing a church? Do you see an
advantage to such a name?


Reed Garrett Konsler