GOOD NEWS - BAD NEWS (Don't Say You Weren't Warned)

The bad news is that I am the newly designated moderator of Free Republic's Religion Forum. The good news is that I am the newly designated moderator of Free Republic's Religion Forum.

I have no doubt that everyone who participates in this forum is aware of the general posting guidelines of Free Republic; they've been in effect as long as Free Republic has been in existence. Just for clarity, here they are again: "NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts."

Having spent the better part of a week reading as much as I was able to get to on the Religion Forum, which includes virtually every currently posted thread, I can say that I've seen no profanity (should be a given on a forum devoted to religion), and only one or two posts which could be construed to contain violence. On that score I commend you all.

Unfortunately, however, personal attacks are rampant. Protestants attack Catholics, and vice versa. Within these two major Christian families, Calvinists attack Arminians, and tit-for-tat. Traditional Catholics attack New Age Catholics, and back it comes. Self-professed Christians of all flavors post gratuitous insults and jibes directed toward Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses frequently. Threads are posted for the obvious and sole purpose of flaming "the opposition", whoever that might be in any particular instance. I could go on and on with further examples, but from many of your posted comments it is clear that all of you are aware of these facts, and seemingly, accept them as the order of things.

Sadly, a forum devoted to perhaps the highest endeavor of the human mind and soul, that of the religious expression of faith, has become an embarrassment to Free Republic. All too often the discourse appearing in the Religion Forum resembles that found in those threads devoted to the War on Drugs, less the profanity, of course. Consequently, the question whether the Religion Forum will remain much longer as a feature of Free Republic, at least in its present format, is very much up in the air. How that question is answered depends entirely on the response each and every one of you make to this announcement in the next few weeks.

Therefore, from this time forward, the Free Republic rule of " NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts.", will be more strictly enforced. Furthermore, you are all reminded that this is a religion forum; that is, all practitioners of any recognized religion, provided they also follow the rules, are welcome. However, since a large majority of posters to this forum are self-professing Christians, of one flavor or another, some additional rules will be imposed. You should all be quite familiar with them, even though some of you seem to pay them no heed at present.

"The second is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself'." [Mark 12:31 (RSV)]

"But I say to you that hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you." [Luke 6:27 (RSV)]

"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another." [John 13:34 (RSV)]

Or, if the commandments of our Lord Jesus are insufficient (paraphrasing Paul) speak the truth in love.

First and foremost, all that has passed prior to today is forgiven. However, my forgiveness, unlike that of God, is continuing but not unlimited. After all, I'm a sinner, too. Transgressions of the rules will be met with three warnings, followed by three progressively lengthy suspensions, after which unrepentant posters will be, shall we say, cast into the outer darkness. Totally outrageous violations, of course, remain subject to the ultimate penalty immediately, as always.

However, I am also aware that love, in the Biblical sense, is not the Hollywood kind of love we hear about all around us these days. Spirited debate is a hallmark of Free Republic, and is welcome. Sometimes the truth (at least as we understand it, through a glass darkly) sounds rather harsh, but even harsh truth can be couched in terms that allow the Christian love of the speaker to come through.

Further, no matter how you read the tenor of this announcement, I am not a martinet. I can be persuaded to change my mind by reasoned discourse. On the other hand, sinful nature that I have, I do not suffer fools gladly. Directing complaints to me over some action I have taken is fine; doing so with insulting language will not achieve the results you desire, and in fact, will probably result in something far worse. And, as always, I am not the ultimate authority regarding any decision I make; anything I do can be appealed to one higher court - Jim Robinson, by whose direction I am here as moderator.

There are some things I will not do. I will not arbitrate theological disputes. I will not resolve questions of church polity. Nor will I render judgment on interpretations of Scripture. Those are all issues for legitimate debate, and I do not propose to take part as just another poster on this forum. Naturally, I have my own opinions on all these issues, but my opinions are my own and I will keep them to myself.

You should also know, I suppose, that I was selected as the moderator of the Religion Forum because no one else wanted to wade into the mess that this forum has become. All too often when abuse reports come into the moderators from the Religion Forum it is discovered that there are no clean hands in the dispute under complaint. More often than not removing the post complained about generates another abuse report asking "why was I punished when he said thus-and-so first". In many cases, removing all of the offending posts makes the thread unreadable. So, whatever you think of me now, or come to think of me in the next few weeks, I'm your last chance. After me comes the abyss.

And do yourself a favor; before you respond to this announcement remember the immortal advice of Jim Croce:

One final word. I am not here 24/7. I actually have a life away from Free Republic; consequently your questions/complaints/comments may not be answered immediately. Be patient, they will be answered eventually. In the end, my goal is (our goal should be) that there will come the day when my presence here is unnoticed. That should be attainable if we all act like the Christian brothers and sisters we claim to be.

Hello. I am a lurker, which may or may not mean that my opinions carry as much weight as those who post on the Religion forum on a regular basis. However, if I can make one thing known to you, it is that I personally have learned much more from the short time I have been kicking around the Free Republic Religion forum than years upon years of sitting through sermons, Bible studies, even college level study. I imagine there are many here who could say the same.

Part of that learning process, for me at least, unfortunately comes from being told I am wrong about certain things. I understand the need to quell blatant ad hominium attacks, however when a person is wrong about something they truly believe they are right about, there are times then the truth needs to be spoken powerfully into their life. Often, to our overly sensitive politically correct minds, that could come off as an "attack", when it really isn't.

I would pray that you have the Spirit of discernment (in spades, you are going to need the wisdom of Solomon for this, buddy) to understand the difference between an attack and a strong correction.

The very fact that you acknowledge that this forum repersents "the highest endevor of the human mind and soul" means you understand what is at stake for those who are passionate about their beliefs.

I thank God for this forum. I welcome the oppertunity to continue to learn and grow here.

pony

Respectfully, might I ask a few questions for the purpose of clarification of the new rules?

Certainly. In fact, I've been waiting for someone to raise the issues you deal with herein. I'm not singling you out, except to acknowledge that your concerns are presented in the most reasoned and courteous fashion so far. I will try to answer your questions in random order.

My initial suspicion was that it was simply an attempt to stop the Arminian-Calvinist clashes and the Catholic bashing, but the response to post 60 (banning a tag line) led me to believe that the intent is to do something of much greater scope.

I'm afraid it wasn't that simple, since the examples you provide, while great in volume, are really only the tip of the iceberg when one looks at the entire problem. Remember I said that this is a religion forum, not a Christian only forum, and that all recognized world religions are welcome? But look around - do you find anyone other than Christians (and no, for the purposes of this particular discussion, Mormons don't qualify)? Did you ever wonder if that just might be because they've been driven away? I don't know if that's true, of course, but the possibility is very real, and that's sad. How do we Christians live up to the requirements of the Great Commission if we only talk (or fight) amongst ourselves?

If you can clarify what the actual objective is and what scope it covers, I would be appreciative.

I'd be glad to do just that. Our primary goal is for the Religion Forum to become an essentially self-policing forum. There's nothing that would be more welcome to me than to be the moderator of a forum which gave me nothing to do. Simply put, that can't happen unless everyone makes the attempt to improve the tone and tenor around here. This effort may seem harsh and stringent to some, but please believe me when I say that Jim Robinson and I have every intention of slacking off when the folks here take a little more responsibility for what they say to each other.

The former president of the Southern Baptist Convention called Mohammed a "demon-possessed pedophile" (or some such language; I cannot recall the precise phrase). Would a posting that used that language be forbidden under the new rules, since Muslims would obviously find it offensive?

An article containing that language would be acceptable for discussion, providing it wasn't posted solely to start a flame war. I see nothing wrong with Christians and Muslims being in dialogue with each other; in the example you provide the Muslims offering their arguments why Mohler was wrong in his description, and Christians offering their counter-arguments. All without name-calling and insult, of course.

Similarly, it could be suggested that news article mentioning pedophile priests might be offensive to those who are members of those sects. Does that mean that such articles are now forbidden? If not, what about use of such biblically "extreme" words as "sodomite" relating to the recent Episcopal heresy? For that matter, is "heresy" too strong of a word?

First of all, I should think any religious body would be offended by "pedophile priests"; mine certainly would. :) More seriously, it's context, context, context. For example, calling someone a heretic, especially done without any qualifiers, is, shall we say, confrontational and at Free Republic, such is taken almost universally as an invitation to "war". On the other hand, couching your objection to another's tenet as a question wondering about its orthodoxy - clearly seeking clarification - is another thing entirely.

You mentioned (in the original post), for example, the attacks against "new-age Catholics" (or words to that effect). Do the new rules preclude those who might have traditional views of Catholic doctrine (i.e., a devout belief in the sanctity of life) from using the word "heretic" against those who tolerate or embrace such things as abortion, yet who still claim to be Catholic? If so, does the limitation only apply against actual members of FR, or does such restrictions against "name-calling" include a general prohibition (so that such language could not be applied to anyone at all, even the subject of some posted article)?

Maybe it's just me (and if it is, at least for now you'll just have to put up with it), but wouldn't it be more productive to ask such a person to explain how such a position is not heretical? Let me reiterate: sprited discussion is, and always has been, welcome at Free Republic. However, there's a difference between spirited and nasty.

Can we always assume that posting scripture is acceptable, or should such text be avoided?

Post Scripture at will. I personally would prefer that people identify which translation they're quoting (and that other's not make that fact alone the point of their objections), but I won't insist on that. From what I've seen around here, it's not the posted Scripture that causes problems, but the inevitable follow-on interpretation that causes difficulties.

I trust this has been helpful, and again, thank you for your well thought out questions.

Some people consider Wiccan to be a religion; even the U.S. Army makes allowance for it. What if a Wiccan fervently insists their religion is Christian?

Like it or not, Wiccan is a recognized religion, albeit one that is pagan, and that by their own admission. I personally can't remember a Wiccan ever claiming to be a Christian, although here I'm speaking of ones who proudly proclaim themselves such. I do know more than a few self-professed Christians who are really pagan at heart.

Even so, should such a person appear here at the Religion Forum, my personal approach would be to query them about their beliefs concerning the essential tenets of Christianity (you all know what they are). It would be pretty clear in their answers that the two faiths are incompatible.

There is a more important point to be made at that juncture, I think. Let's say that someone - anyone - continues to be a Christian against all available evidence. It seems to me that we have some Biblical instruction about that very situation, something about "shaking the dust from your sandals". If everyone simply ignored posters whose positions are intellectually bankrupt, not to mention spiritually questionable, believe it or not they will simply go away in most cases. No one can withstand the silent treatment for very long. And for the occasional exception of the rule who insists on making a pest of himself, well ... that's one of the things we moderators are here to handle.

But "Defending the Faith" has been a rallying cry to the death for the past 2,000 - 5,000 years. All jokes aside, it's no small matter to people of faith.

I agree. But ... shouldn't the point of our defense be to win converts rather than to drive people away?

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.