Introduction to net.religion

This shelf is not religion itself, not the whole history of online religion, not a census of early Usenet belief, and not a representative transcript of net.religion. It is a curated room of twenty selected texts from a much larger early Usenet forum: a place where Baha'i teaching, Pagan and Wiccan self-defense, ECKANKAR, Sufi poetry, Zen, Yazidi explanation, ceremonial magic, cosmological argument, survey data, and personal testimony appeared beside ordinary argument, cross-posting, and quarrel.

What This Shelf Contains

The public Good Works shelf for net.religion contains twenty selected Markdown files plus this introduction. The selected texts occupy about 26,000 words. They are not a raw dump. They are not even a balanced sample. They are a reader-facing selection of posts that can stand alone as sources: David Norris's 1984 survey of the group, Verbus M. Counts's Baha'i teaching posts, Grant E. Rostig's ECKANKAR introduction and poem, Ellen and Ellen Perlman's Pagan and Wiccan writings, Tim Maroney's New Age Digest and Lesser Banishing Ritual commentary, Don Steiny's Sufi anthology post, Steven L. Aldrich's Ten Oxherding Verses, Chuq Von Rospach's "Zen Druidism," Laura Creighton's post on the Yezidees, Kenn Barry's cosmological argument, Ray Levasseur's spiritual testimony, and a few shorter comparative or devotional pieces.

The broader source field is much larger. The Internet Archive net.religion.mbox.zip consulted for this pass contains 8,349 messages dated from 1983 through 1986. It is not a quiet library room. Its traffic includes religion and politics, Christian and Jewish cross-posting, flame traffic, philosophy, law, sexuality, creation and evolution debates, public-school secular humanism, church tax questions, abortion, gay rights, Falwell-era American religious politics, theodicy, Bible contradictions, Muslim personal law, anti-Muslim bigotry, and repeated arguments about whether online religion could become anything better than debate.

That difference is the heart of the shelf. The public files do not reproduce the atmosphere of the full group. They preserve moments when a post became readable after its thread: a survey, an explanation, a manifesto, a bibliography, a poem, an essay, a testimony, a ritual commentary, a translated teaching sequence. A reader should keep both layers visible. The selected shelf is cleaner than the group was. The raw group is larger than the shelf can show.

Selection changes memory. Long explanatory posts survive more easily than short replies. Minority-tradition self-presentations become more visible because they have documentary value. Argumentative churn falls away. So do many ordinary believers, lurkers, angry respondents, and people who only appeared in fragments. The result is useful, but constructed. Good Works preserves the selection as an archive room, not as the transparent soul of net.religion.

The Net.* Moment

net.religion belongs to the older Usenet naming world. Before the Great Renaming of 1986-1987, public newsgroups lived under older hierarchies such as net.*, mod.*, and fa.*. LivingInternet summarizes the old structure as net.* for unmoderated groups, mod.* for moderated groups, and fa.* for groups brought from ARPANET. The Great Renaming later mapped Usenet into broader families such as comp.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, and talk.*. The talk.* hierarchy became a marked home for topics expected to produce controversy.

Religion was already one of those topics. The Great Renaming FAQ specifically names net.religion among the high-volume or difficult groups whose distribution and naming produced conflict. That is a useful warning against nostalgia. Early Usenet religion was not simply a sunrise moment of open interfaith understanding. It was a costly, contentious, technically mediated public forum run through universities, laboratories, companies, and network administrators who were themselves negotiating what kinds of speech were worth carrying.

The net.religion room was also not alone. The broader net.* archive includes sibling groups such as net.religion.christian, net.religion.jewish, net.religion.flame, net.religion.interfaith, and net.religion.policy. The general room sat beside these named rooms and was often cross-posted with them. That means the public shelf should not describe net.religion as the undivided parent of all online religious discussion. It is better read as an early general crossroads: older than the later soc.* and talk.* religious map, but already surrounded by specialization, conflict, and administrative pressure.

This matters for the Good Works Library because later Usenet shelves can look more orderly than this one. soc.religion.christian, soc.religion.islam, soc.religion.quaker, and other later groups often had clearer names, charters, or moderation histories. net.religion is rougher and more mixed. Its value is partly that mixture. Before religion online became sorted into recognizable rooms, many traditions and arguments had to enter the same public channel and answer one another under the same subject line.

The 1984 Survey

David Norris's 1984 survey is the best doorway into the community because it interrupts fantasy. Thirty-six people answered. That number is too small for demographic authority, and the survey did not reach the full readership. Norris himself noted that active posters he could name did not respond. Still, the answers show the room's self-understanding at a useful moment.

The respondents were religiously mixed but not evenly so. Christians and people raised Christian were strongly present. Jewish respondents were visible. Atheists and agnostics answered in numbers. The "other" category included eclectic, skeptical, polytheist, LDS, Scientology-adjacent, monotheistic, and Baha'i answers. The survey therefore does not show a neutral global religious commons. It shows an English-language technical network public with Christian inheritance, Jewish presence, secular skepticism, and scattered minority or alternative religious self-naming.

The most important part of the survey may be the comments about the group itself. Respondents wanted to learn about other religions but complained that non-Christian posts were often met by conversion pressure. Several described the tone as hostile or repetitive. A Jewish respondent wished for a separate Jewish group. Others complained about endless debates over God, evolution, creation, and proof. The survey thus names the shelf's central problem from inside the group: net.religion wanted to be a place of encounter, but encounter was repeatedly swallowed by argument.

Good Works should preserve the survey not as a proud origin myth, but as a diagnostic document. It tells us what early online religious talk could do and what it could not yet do well. It could ask strangers what they believed. It could collect pluralist answers. It could reveal frustration with Christian dominance and hostile rhetoric. It could also fail to protect the very minority explanations readers said they wanted.

Baha'i Unity In A Fragmented Room

Verbus M. Counts's Baha'i posts answer the group in a strikingly direct way. He posted from AT&T Bell Laboratories in late 1984 and early 1985, offering Baha'i writings on the search after truth, the unity of mankind, progressive revelation, and a Baha'i interpretation of the resurrection of Christ. These files are not forum chatter. They are teaching posts: structured, scriptural, and written as public introduction.

The Baha'i Faith's own public materials describe themes that match Counts's choices: the oneness of God and religion, the oneness of humanity, freedom from prejudice, progressive revelation, equality of women and men, harmony of science and religion, and justice. Its quotations on revelation frame religious truth as progressive and historically renewed. Counts did not choose a random Baha'i topic for net.religion; he chose the doctrine that made the most sense in a room exhausted by mutual condemnation.

For a reader, these files should be read on two levels. On the religious level, they introduce Baha'i self-understanding: many revelations, one divine source, human unity, and truth-seeking beyond inherited prejudice. On the media level, they show how a member of a minority religion used early Usenet: not mainly to debate every objection, but to bring primary texts into a room where readers might never have encountered them.

The Baha'i files also complicate the common picture of early internet religion as mostly atheist-versus-Christian debate. That debate existed, and the raw mbox shows plenty of it. But the selected shelf shows something else: a technical employee at Bell Labs using the network to circulate a universalist religious vision to a scattered public. That is not the whole room. It is a real part of it.

Pagan And Wiccan Public Self-Definition

The Pagan and Wiccan cluster is the shelf's largest sustained voice. Ellen, writing from the UCLA Computer Science Department, and Ellen Perlman, identified in the December ritual-practice file, explain Western Pagan paths, Wiccan reading, Goddess theology, coven practice, meditation, ritual, sexuality, hierarchy, feminism, body-spirit unity, and the problem of being misread as Satanist.

These posts need source-critical handling. Modern Wicca publicly emerged in England in the 1950s around Gerald Gardner and related circles, then developed through several traditions and spread through the United States during the 1960s and 1970s. Some early Wiccans claimed ancient continuity in stronger terms than later scholarship supports. Ellen's posts sometimes speak from within that older Pagan language of recovery and pre-Christian survival. A modern introduction should not turn those claims into settled history.

But correcting the history should not flatten the witness. Ellen is not writing as a museum label. She is writing as a practitioner in 1984, in a hostile or skeptical public room, explaining why she wants a religion without rigid hierarchy, male-only authority, body shame, or compulsory monotheism. Her reading list names books that mattered to American Pagan and Wiccan readers in that moment: Margot Adler, Starhawk, Diane Mariechild, Marion Weinstein, and Isaac Bonewits. Her practice account describes altar work, candles, incense, tarot, sacred reading, music, dance, food, Goddess imagery, cross-cultural symbolism, and small coven ritual.

The result is a record of public self-definition. Ellen repeatedly tells readers what Paganism and Witchcraft are not: not Satanism, not selfish spell-casting, not orgy fantasy, not a refusal of ethics. She also tells them what her path is for her: feminist, pluralist, embodied, symbolic, celebratory, and anti-authoritarian. Whether every modern Pagan would frame the matter the same way is beside the point. The shelf preserves a practitioner trying to make a misunderstood religion legible in a public technical forum before later web-era Pagan resource culture existed.

That makes the cluster valuable, but not final authority over Paganism as a whole. It is UCLA-network, English-language, mostly American, and shaped by a particular feminist and eclectic Wiccan milieu. It should be read beside later Pagan FAQs, Wiccan moderated-group documents, historical scholarship, and living Pagan communities.

New Religious Movements And Esoteric Practice

Grant E. Rostig's ECKANKAR posts and Tim Maroney's New Age Digest show another side of the group: new religious movements and Western esoteric practice entering network space in their own terms.

ECKANKAR was founded by Paul Twitchell in 1965. Britannica describes it as a Westernized form related to Sant Mat and Radha Soami Satsang, centered on divine Light and Sound, soul transcendence, spiritual exercises, and a living teacher structure. ECKANKAR's own public site continues to describe Soul Travel as a shift or expansion of consciousness, a practice of inner journey, and a way of approaching God. Rostig's 1984 prose introduction and poem are best read within that frame. They are practitioner explanations, not independent scholarship. Their value is that they show a relatively new movement being explained by an engineer to a broad online religious public.

Maroney's New Age Digest is different in scale and texture. It is a mailing-list doorway preserved through net.religion: a call for an unconventional religious forum covering ritual, yoga, meditation, ethics, reviews, occult skills, summaries, exegesis, biography, chemicals, afterlife, and cosmology. Its center is Maroney's commentary on the Lesser Banishing Ritual of the Pentagram, a ritual associated with Golden Dawn-derived and Thelemic ceremonial magic. He writes as a practitioner and gives technical detail: posture, visualization, divine names, pentagrams, angelic guardians, psychological interpretation, and ritual effect.

Good Works should preserve this file with care. It is not a recommendation that readers perform the ritual, not a training document, and not an endorsement of Maroney's claims. It is an early network esoteric source: a practitioner trying to build a distributed occult and unconventional religion community through mailing-list form. In the shelf's wider argument, this matters because it shows net.religion functioning not only as debate, but as infrastructure. A person could gather a list, define a charter, permit anonymous posting, and ask people interested in stigmatized practices to write.

Chuq Von Rospach's "Zen Druidism" belongs here too, though in a gentler register. He openly describes an invented syncretic path: Zen, Druidic nature-reverence, Taoist influence, Christian symbolism, humor, non-striving, and ordinary life repair. The post is not a doctrine of Druidry or Zen. It is a document of late twentieth-century spiritual bricolage: someone making a workable path from multiple inheritances, then sharing it not to convert but to be understood.

Sufism, Rumi, Zen, And The Limits Of Outsider Introduction

Don Steiny's Sufi post is a vivid cross-cultural file, but it is also a lesson in mediation. Steiny writes as a curious outsider who has recently been reading Idries Shah's The Way of the Sufi. He is trying to resist crude judgments of Islam by introducing Sufi poetry and aphorism to readers who may have known Islam chiefly through political news. Britannica describes Sufism as Islamic mystical belief and practice seeking divine love and knowledge through direct personal experience of God; Steiny is reaching toward that understanding through a popular anthology.

The post works because its astonishment is sincere. Steiny discovers al-Ghazali, Ibn al-'Arabi, Rumi, Attar, Saadi, Jami, and Abdul-Qadir of Gilan as living intellectual and spiritual presences. He notices resonances with Taoism, William James, Zen, and modern psychology. He wants readers to see that Islam cannot be reduced to Khomeini or to Western fear. In that sense the post is a bridge.

The bridge has limits. Shah's Sufi books have their own reception history. Steiny is not a Sufi teacher. The post does not stand for Islam, Sufism, Persian poetry, Arabic terminology, living orders, or Muslim communities. It stands for a 1985 Usenet moment in which a technically trained American reader tried to correct his own ignorance in public. That is still worth preserving. In fact, it may be the very reason to preserve it: the file records intellectual humility becoming public pedagogy.

Steven L. Aldrich's Ten Oxherding Verses raise a similar issue. Zen is an East Asian Mahayana Buddhist tradition centered on disciplined cultivation, teacher-student practice, and awakening; Britannica also notes that modern popular uses of "Zen" often drift far from Buddhist context. Aldrich's post gives net.religion readers a classical Zen teaching sequence in English. The value of the file is its circulation of a teaching image; the risk is that readers treat it as a detached inspirational poem without Buddhist context.

The same caution applies to the Rumi poems in the shelf. Rumi has become highly portable in English-language spiritual culture, often detached from Islam and Persian literary context. In this shelf, Rumi appears through Usenet circulation and translation, not as a full Sufi education. The right response is neither dismissal nor romantic absorption. Read the poems as traces of how Sufi material entered early network spirituality, then seek better-rooted sources for the tradition itself.

The Yezidees File And Corrective Reading

Laura Creighton's post on the Yezidees, now more commonly spelled Yazidis, is a clear case for corrective reading. Creighton writes from memory and says some details may be wrong. That admission is essential. The post is valuable because it shows an early internet user trying to introduce a persecuted Near Eastern religious community to readers who knew little about it. It is dangerous if read as a final account.

The central correction concerns Melek Taus, Malak Ta'us, the Peacock Angel. Britannica notes that outsiders have often identified Malak Ta'us with Satan, leading to the false accusation that Yazidis are devil worshippers. Creighton's 1985 language still passes through older outsider categories: "Satan," taboo names, Paradise, Gnostic speculation, and older transliteration. A Good Works reader should therefore read the post as historical reception, not as Yazidi self-description.

This does not make the file useless. It makes it teachable. The file shows how minority religions entered early internet awareness through partial, memory-based, sometimes flawed summaries by non-specialists. The library's duty is to preserve the artifact while preventing inherited misdescription from hardening into authority. For living communities, especially communities marked by persecution, that distinction matters.

Philosophy And Testimony

Kenn Barry's cosmological argument and Ray Levasseur's testimony remind the reader that the group was not only a display case for traditions. It was also a room for intellectual and personal religious struggle.

Barry's post on the cosmological argument is careful precisely because it does not overclaim. He remembers losing childhood faith, finding the causal-origin argument temporarily persuasive, then recognizing that God can be used merely to push the causal problem back a level. His final position is not proof of God, but recognition that cause-and-effect reasoning may have local limits when applied to the origin of the universe or to quantum events. The post belongs to the technical culture of net.religion: physics, metaphysics, epistemic caution, and childhood religious memory in a single argument.

Levasseur's testimony is a different kind of source. He writes about a harsh Catholic upbringing, a crisis around his father's illness and his marriage, a breakdown, pastoral counseling, reconciliation, and a movement from fear-based religion toward a God of love. The post is not systematic theology. It is a personal account of spiritual repair in a public room more often dominated by abstraction.

These two files should not be made to carry the whole shelf, as the old introduction did. They are important because they show the range of forms net.religion could hold: argument and witness, metaphysical boundary and pastoral recovery. But the shelf's deeper story is broader. The general room also carried minority teaching, feminist Pagan defense, esoteric community-making, comparative curiosity, and flawed attempts at explaining persecuted people.

What Is Missing

The shelf's absences are not minor.

It does not contain a full history of net.religion. It does not reproduce all 8,349 messages in the public mbox. It does not show the ordinary pace of argument, the repeated fights, the short corrections, the unread posts, the hostile replies, or the technical routing culture in full. It does not represent global religion. It is overwhelmingly English-language, networked through North American and Western institutional access, and shaped by who had accounts on university, corporate, and research machines.

It does not contain strong internal Muslim community teaching apart from the Sufi material mediated through Steiny and the raw group's scattered Islam-related debates. It does not contain a full Jewish record, though the survey shows Jewish respondents and the wider net.religion.jewish archive sits nearby. It does not contain Hindu, Buddhist, Yazidi, Pagan, Baha'i, ECKANKAR, Sufi, Christian, or ceremonial-magic authority in any comprehensive sense. It contains posts about or from people connected to those worlds, under early Usenet conditions.

It also does not solve the ethics of religious archiving. Some posts reproduce older terminology, partial scholarship, or living-practice material in ways that require care. Some files are practice-adjacent. Some involve traditions whose public misdescription has caused harm. Good Works should not erase these files, but it should place them behind honest introductions.

How To Read The Shelf

Begin with the survey. It gives the room's self-portrait and its own complaints about hostility, conversion pressure, and repetitive debate.

Then read the Baha'i cluster. Notice how Counts brings universalist scripture into a room struggling with religious plurality.

Read Ellen's Pagan and Wiccan files together: the pluralist defense, the reading list, the new witchcraft defense, the meditation and ritual account, and the comparative deities file. Keep modern Wicca's twentieth-century public history in mind while also respecting the 1984 practitioner voice.

Read Rostig and Maroney as new-religious and esoteric self-presentations. Do not treat them as neutral scholarship or as instructions for practice. Treat them as sources for how early networked practitioners explained themselves.

Read Steiny, Aldrich, the Rumi poems, and Creighton as mediated introductions to traditions that require stronger sources beyond the shelf. Their value is in the act of circulation and curiosity; their limits are equally part of the record.

Finally, read Barry and Levasseur to remember that net.religion was not only comparative display. It was also a place where people tried to think through the boundaries of science and metaphysics, or to speak about personal faith after suffering.

Keep four controls active.

First, the selected shelf is not the raw group.

Second, early does not mean final.

Third, a post can be valuable as historical witness even when its religious description needs correction.

Fourth, net.religion should be read as a mixed public room under pressure: argument, self-introduction, teaching, testimony, curiosity, error, and repair all sharing the same wire.

Sources Consulted

This introduction was written from the local twenty-file public shelf, the local UTZOO batch files where available, the Internet Archive net.religion.mbox.zip public mbox, and the following public reference points:

Colophon

net.religion was an early unmoderated Usenet forum in the older net.* hierarchy. The public Internet Archive mbox consulted for this pass contains 8,349 messages dated from 1983 through 1986. The Good Works public shelf contains twenty selected files, not the whole newsgroup.

Introduction written for the Good Works Library, 2026.

← Back to index