Posted on 03/03/2015 12:32:27 PM PST by two134711
Thank you Free Republic for allowing me to post and vent on this site for over ten years. I am a young, married conservative woman who is trying to raise her daughter to be a fine, upstanding lady, an educated woman and a worthy wife to a decent man. Despite the stupidity of my generation (I am on the cusp of GenX and GenY) there is hope. Many young people are more prolife than ever. And at last, many others are beginning to open their eyes to the lies of socialism.
However recent events on this site like witnessing the discord between fellow believers of Christ and how the Religious moderators have given carte blanche to those who wish to spread hate is not something I want to be part of.
I received this message from the Religion Moderator regarding Key words received 03/02/2015 8:45:19 PM PST
“DO NOT use keywords to snipe at other posters or beliefs. RM”
I certainly did not post key words that sniped at anyone; they were terms such as "enough already,” “Christianity,” “unity” and "peace." Now, yes, the comments I made were invectives thrown at posters. I don't deny that; but they deserved every word directed at them and more. Outside of Caucus threads the religious forum is based on sniping at posters and insulting other's beliefs. Mostly it’s a few alleged “Evangelicals” damning those Papists, pedophiles, pagans, cracker-eaters, cannibals and Mary-worshipping heretics to Hell if they don't convert to the Western Branch of American Reform Presbylutheranism or the Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879. Then a very small contingent of Catholics tries to fight back.
These are the kind of comments are allowed on the religious forums without any moderation.
"I believe that Catholicism has caused more people to go to hell then [sic] Islam."
84 posted on 2/23/2015, 2:36:42 PM by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
AND
**Have you accepted the Catholic Church** "I have accepted Jesus. Not some abomination created by man."
98 posted on 2/23/2015, 2:46:17 PM by Gamecock (Joel Osteen is a minister of the Gospel like Captain Crunch is a Naval line officer.)
I have no skin in this game other than to realize that Christians (and Jews) are not each other’s enemies. There is a much more diabolical force in this world that should be fought. Anti-theists, Islamists, secular amoralists, etc., they're nothing. But, hey, keep going after Catholics and Mormons because they're the ones ruining the world today!
I said those words because it was the truth, (a truth that many others see but do not mention; they merely avoid the conflicts). If the anti-Catholic delusional bigots have a problem with the truth, then a pox on their houses.
I have posted on and off this site for over ten years. Every time I come back here I think to myself, “Wow, FR is one of the only sites telling it like it is when it comes to politics!” But then the OCD religious posters take control over and over again. It’s not just the religious forums, but they’re the worst. In the past the moderation was far more even-handed. Now it’s out of control. Please use more judiciousness in moderating them in the future.
You are losing members left and right and your fundraisers take months to complete. I am aware that the owner of this site, Mr. Robinson, is a Catholic, and I’m sure it breaks his heart to see such infighting amongst fellow Christians. I hope his health betters and that he can continue to fight the goof fight.
Nevertheless, FR's days as a premium conservative site are over. There a quite a few decent folks around here like Mrs. Don-0, xzins, Morgana, miss marmelstein, wardaddy, that fellow named something like yefrugeturbrumuy, and lots of others. There are many good folks with diverse opinions and no malice in their hearts.
But some others seem possessed by other-world forces. Mostly they're old people scared of death, wanting to make sure they get in with God before the end, desperate to hold on to every penny they've ever come across, willing to kvetch about the future and frequently mentioning how glad they'll be when they're dead and won't have to deal with this world, while their children and grandchildren will. Or worse, they actively wish for the world to end today or soon. Sorry, I'm young enough to have a smidgen of hope despite the moral disaster this world is in.
The Apple squabbles, the griping about TV and art, heck even the "my candidate is better than your candidate" bloodletting is nothing compared to the nutters that run rampant on the religion forum.
So Religious moderator, if you thought my key words were examples of “sniping,” then I suppose this post was outright bashing. Every time I come to this site I get angry. Anger opens up the heart to dark forces; it’s best not to be part of that.
Got to go. May peace come to this once wonderful site and make it a place of harmony for future posters.
Perhaps not on this particular thread, but that idea has been floated/demanded on more than one occasion, and by multiple Catholic FReepers.
...Am I getting the details of the full proposal correct, so far?
The list of what it would boil down to is about right, combining the various suggested remedies of those who have been complaining longest and loudest...
How substituting the points which Alex listed would allow some lively honest debate better than this
is so far from clear --- it appears an impossibility.So tell us, mlizzy and Dr.Brian, just how your proposals would be better than what has been developed by the present, leading (or main) religion forum moderator?
As far as the bringing forth portion of the hoped for -- some lively honest debate, that bringing forth is in the hands of the participants.
It's either there (honesty included) or it's not.
Forum Moderators cannot be arbiters of what is truth.
Under the guidelines as now outlined, forum participants should be self-policing.
Would banishment to Juddengasses help?
What of those instances where issues of religion and actual hard news intersect?
What then?
I put it like that since discussions which touch upon issues tangent to religion can be in "the news" as that circulates around the globe (nowadays, in a few blinks of gazillions of electrons).
How about religiously devotional and/or promotional threads (promoting one outlook of faith while criticizing & comparing others) be banished instead, leaving religion itself taboo?
Next up, lets' not discuss politics either.
It may scare the horses.
No. Too many variables and inconsistencies. Who, for example, qualifies as a "lukewarm" Catholic and who makes that determination? It may not be perfect - nothing is - but by now we have all grown accustomed to posting to the Religion Forum, and dealing with each other's foibles.
**Who, for example, qualifies as a “lukewarm” Catholic and who makes that determination?**
I suppose one of the uber-Catholics.
Forgot who even made that suggestion. Alex?
** It may not be perfect - nothing is - but by now we have all grown accustomed to posting to the Religion Forum, and dealing with each other’s foibles.**
1+
I hope that answers it. Sorry I missed it the first time! God bless you!
Please, and I am begging, please, don't speak of the Holocaust in such a way. It is one of the most horrible tragedies in the history of mankind, and should not be spoken of lightly. I don't believe that you, or any of us here would wish what happened there on anyone.
Peace, Dragon, and peace between the two of us, if you're willing. Either way, God bless you.
I would imagine that would be determined by our hypothetical "TRUE Roman Catholic Religion Moderator".
The qualifications of the new moderator and of acceptable posters were key parts of mlizzy's proposal in post 962. You yourself called for establishing a protocol for resolving repeated, unprovoked attacks on Catholics, and later identified that the moderator staff should be the ones to deal with the daily/inconsistent attacks on Catholics.
To me, all of these functions sound like they would be handled by this new Moderator. As for the "who qualifies/ makes that determination" question, I would think the answer is heaviliy implied within all of your pitches: it's up to you yourselves to determine what the definition of a "TRUE" Catholic is, to select a Moderator who fits that description, and to enforce that standard across the entire Catholic FReeper population to "lessen the shenanigans" of the lukewarm Catholic troublemakers, and presumably of the repeat-attack-Protestant troublemakers as well. And that process is what my attempted harmonization of the Catholic-pitched proposals was trying to articulate.
The level of acrimony that I read about current moderation practices makes it exceedingly obvious that no outside i.e. no non-Catholic proposal would be acceptable to your collective group.
I wasn't the one who introduced the term to this thread.
It came about though, due to a FRoman suggesting that the religion forum itself be banished to the Smokey Backroom.
Why don't you ping the rest of your "list" to this reply?
Then they may see what I'm talking about, instead of your comment to me (and pinged to who knows how many others) suggesting that I'm out of line here?
A trial period of say one or two quarters with ONLY Roman Catholic mods on the Religion Forum segregated part of Free Republic?
Would that be acceptable to RCs?
If that is the case I think we need an appropriate degree of moderation for all of the 42,375 Protestant denominations as well. Some who is a shining example of each denomination, that has truly studied each of their respective catechisms/statements of faith etc.
That would go a long way to keep their underlings inline and to prevent the pot being stirred by repeat-attack-Protestant Catholic troublemakers as well.
Maybe we can start with a member of The Salvation Army?
I was directing my comment to you, but courtesy-pinged all the names that were visible, per forum rules. You chose to include it in your comment; it was not clear that another FReeper was being quoted..
What would be an acceptable solution for ALL Roman Catholics on Free Republic Religion Forum so that the departed RCs would return to posting and donate again to FR’s upkeep?
R2z
I introduced the term first, and I chose it because it was the term coined centuries ago for the Jewish ghettos established in Salzburg, Austria long before there was a Holocaust. It is a historical fact that the Catholic archbishop expelled the Jews from Catholic Salzburg in the fifteeth century, using some familiar methods we saw in the Holocaust centuries later, and we're hearing hints of similar ideas in the moderation proposals coming from your fellow Catholics today:
In Salzburg, which was non-secular and ruled by a Catholic Prince-Archbishop not overly pleased about non-Catholic residents of any kind, Jews were expelled in 1492 and prevented from permanent settlement until the 19th century. Emperor Maximilian I banned Jews from Styria and Carinthia on request of local guilds in 1496 and relocated to the Eastern edge of the Empire in Zistersdorf near Eisenstadt. From 1551, Jews had to wear a yellow spot on their clothing every time they entered market towns or cities.
Then why not have directed your reply then only to myself?
Excuse me, but I made mention of only two of those individuals in the textual portions of comment.
There is no need to "courtesy ping" each individual listed in the "to" heading of a comment. Although one may do so if so desired.
Please, in the future, read the interplay between various comments, backtrack through threads of conversation to better understand just why a thing is being said (particularly if it makes one uncomfortable) instead of jumping the gun.
Are you trying to "get even" with me somehow? Or trying to make it out like I'm being unreasonable?
I am generally not much for shrinks - but this book is a phenomena. I hope you find it as deeply helpful as I did. Thanks for the reply.
Well thank you for your kind reply! It made my day!
My Mom was a cancer survivor who said that the toughest things in life can either make you bitter or better. It sure sounds like you've become better [...]
Better and so much more! I believe in miracles because I am one. : )
Thanks again.
And that's a thing
Won't you stop and listen
To the children sing
Won't you come on and sing it children
He's a stranger in a strange land
Just a stranger in a strange land
I believe that the heart, mind, and senses can be deceived. I do believe, however, that each of us is conceived with an immortal soul that "thirsts for the living God," a natural inclination toward the loving Father Who so carefully and lovingly created each of us.
I believe that the soul is either edified or corrupted through those faculties, by internal factors (desires, emotions, physiology, original sin, etc.), and external factors (life experiences, people, perceptions, etc.). We are also given a free will, to use that "information" (for lack of a better word, sorry!) to choose between God and evil; to seek the truth and attempt to live according to or against it.
I believe in Adam and Eve (sorry about the rhyme!). When God created them, and they made the wrong choice, God was both just, in casting them out of the Garden, and merciful in promising a Redeemer. I believe He gives that same consideration to everyone who honestly tries to seek the truth and follow it, even if the heart, mind, and senses have misguided it along the way.
Sorry to go on again! Thanks for asking, and God bless you!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.