Draft Agreement for Science Thread Posters

July 30, 2003 | Participants on a previous thread

[Alamo-Girl]

We are negotiating an agreement between the parties on the science threads. Your comments and suggestions are appreciated:

Draft Agreement

Effective August 1, 2003 and binding only those Free Republic posters who voluntarily agree to the terms, we the parties to this agreement resolve as follows:

We will make no accusations concerning anything that may have been said or done prior to the effective date of this agreement.

We will not seek to have a thread removed or a poster banned or conspire, scheme or bait any poster to cause humiliation or embarrassment or to encourage a poster to leave Free Republic.

We will not use profane, belittling or mean words to describe another poster or whatever that poster believes.

We will not discriminate against any poster or group of people on or off the forum, living or dead, on the basis of religious belief, sexual orientation, gender, age or scientific beliefs.

We will not call evolutionists Marxist (etc.) or make them feel unwelcome
We will not call Christians inferior (etc.) or make them feel unwelcome
We will not make fun of one’s gender or age and
We will not attribute sexual orientation to anyone.

We will not bring an accusation against another poster or his beliefs without also bringing, on the same post, the evidence for that accusation.

If we accuse a poster of lying we will show an intent to deceive
If we describe a belief as silly, we will show why we believe that to be true.
We will not question another poster’s motives without specific evidence.

We will correct our mistakes and endeavor to cause source websites to correct their mistakes.

When we are wrong, we will apologize.

The terms of the agreement will continue even if any one or more of them are found untenable. All remaining parties to the agreement agree to be bound even if one or more parties disavow their agreement.

Supplemental Agreement for Fundamentalist Christian Freepers:

We additionally agree to forgive all trespasses prior to the effective date and thereby join in agreement praying for civility among all the participants and blessings for each and every one. Mark 11:24-25.

Comments/Suggestions so far…

ALS, Alamo-Girl, ConservababeJen suggest this change to the first provision:

We will make no accusations concerning anything that may have been said or done prior to the effective date of this agreement, but reserve the right to address and defend ourselves if an accusation/insinuation is made towards us directly or indirectly, involving a prior date.

So far agreed: Alamo-Girl, ALS, conservababeJen, Newland, betty boop

So far agreed in principle, but having reservations: Aric2000

So far refused: Doctor Stochastic,

As of this morning…

PatrickHenry proposed the following as conduct which would, specifically, not be considered Christian bashing:

1. opposition to a literal interpretation of Genesis (or other scripture passages);
2. opposition to "creation science" or to "intelligent design theory";
3. advocacy of the theory evolution;
4. posting any evolution-oriented thread;
5. advocacy of (or merely explaining) the scientific method;
6. or any similar activities.

Newland objects that #6 is too ambiguous for an agreement. I concur.

The remaining suggestions from this morning are difficult to summarize, so I ask that you each repost your comments below.

[Alamo-Girl]

Here is the separate thread as requested so that we can hammer out an agreement among the willing.

Please copy your suggestions on the other thread to here and ping whoever you believe would be interested in the agreement.

Thank you all so very much for making this good faith effort! Hugs!!!

[Alamo-Girl]

Two quick comments:

1. We may need to extend the effective date so that everyone has a chance to be heard and to allow time for blowing off steam.

2. Please keep the agreement as short as possible so that it will be easy to remember and comply with it.

[bvw]

This is an interesting comment, as general directions of advice superb, yet it's the spice of heated personal argument that keeps people involved in discussion, and eliminating that so constrains any discussion that the discussers are in time no longer to be found.

[bvw]

To be clear, my reply was to the orginal post.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your comment! Hugs!

[NewLand]

Hi Alamo-Girl!

This is great stuff! I love the supplemental agreement. I commit to pray for all those who have opposed me and all whom I have opposed on these and all FR threads.

I just finished my last defense on the other thread, and have washed my hands of that issue.

Thanks again! You are the best!!!

[AndrewC]

I trust your judgement. I already try to abide by what you appear to be hammering out. I do fire back and will continue to do so, but I will allow more leeway.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the kudos and encouragement and especially for your agreement on the supplemental!

IMHO, there are some things in life which we cannot do - but He can do anything. So if we pray, believing and trusting - it is both doable and done. Hugs!!!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post and your support for this effort! Are you taking a "no, but agreeing in principle" position?

[CobaltBlue]

Can we have some clarification about what "discriminate against" means?

It concerns me that fundamentalists might argue that teaching creationism and/or ID in public school is called for because otherwise fundamentalism is being "discriminated against."

[Right Wing Professor]

Delete everywhere 'or make them feel unwelcome'. Unworkably vague, and too much out of the control of the poster. In general I think this section will cause problems.

I have no idea what the 'non-discrimination' clause actually means in practice.

Replace 'profane' by obscene. Profane is a religiously loaded term; obscenity we all know when we see it ;-)

I don't care if people apologize when they're wrong, and oftentimes there's nothing to be ashamed of. Science progresses from error to error. I think people should acknowledge when they're wrong, and apologize when they act badly.

I would like the fundamentalist clause removed. By all means agree among yourselves whatever you wish; it shouldn't be part of a general agreement.

[js1138]

We will make no accusations concerning anything that may have been said or done prior to the effective date of this agreement.

Suggested ammendment: This will not apply to factual statements or predictions made on previous threads which are relevant to the current discussion, and which are subject to new evidence.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your excellent point!

Indeed, we need a description of what constitutes "discrimination" especially wrt faith. When the Dini issue came up, I read through a ton of Supreme Court case law on discrimination - which I'm sure you know by heart and thus would be in the best position to sum it up in layman's terms.

As I recall, the case law centered around preventing a person from the practice of their faith, forcing a person to make a profession of faith or to disavow a faith and targeting people of a particular faith for separate treatment which would not have applied to anyone else.

[AndrewC]

I am taking a yes, with maybe a reservation.

[lockeliberty]

It concerns me that fundamentalists might argue that teaching creationism and/or ID in public school is called for because otherwise fundamentalism is being "discriminated against."

How about we just agree to abolish the public schools altogether? Only RINOs believe someone should be coerced into paying for someone to teach a false religon. Whatever happened to true liberty and limited government?

[Right Wing Professor]

An interesting debating point, but off topic as far as the thread's concerned.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you both so much for your suggested additions, deletions and rewording! I look forward to other posters comments. As for me, I have no problem with any of the changes proposed so far.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the clarification! Since it is in a flux, I anticipate once the negotiation is closed, we'll post the agreement for actual virtual signing. But I wanted to better understand your position as it stands today. Hugs!

[CobaltBlue]

I don't pretend to have any Supreme Court cases memorized. Every time I express an opinion about Constitutional law I spend some time double-checking that which I recall dimly, and frequently find things I did not know.

Dini discriminates, but deciding whether or not to recommend a student is within his discretion. Otherwise, his recommendations would be meaningless.

At any rate, I see that my uneasiness about "discriminates against" was warranted.