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

Self | 1-22-04 | Sidebar Moderator

[Sidebar Moderator]

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.

First, let's discuss why this is bad news.

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.

It is not the order of things, and it will no longer be tolerated.

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.

These rules are:

"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)]

"If you love me, you will keep my commandments." [John 14:15 (RSV)]

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

For now, enough of the harsh words. There really is good news.

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:

'You don't tug on Superman's cape
You don't spit into the wind
You don't pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger
And you don't mess around with Jim'

I'm not Jim, but I've got his ear.

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.

May God bless you all.

[drstevej]

Great answer

[lockeliberty]

Because the Christians who founded this country didn't write the first amendment just for Christians. They didn't think it was wise to drive away non-Christians. Neither should we.

I'm pretty sure the motivation behind the first amendment had nothing to do with the founders fear of driving people away. It had to do with a basic liberty entrusted to man by God as a result of being created in the image of God. I ask you, do those of the liberal persuasion get "driven away" off the news forum by passionate persuasive arguments? Of course they do. Why should the Religon forum have a different set of rules than the News forum? If a Buddhist were to post on the Religon forum then that person should expect to have his beliefs challenged and if he can't handle the heat he'll run from the kitchen. Are we to treat those of other religons with kid gloves so that we acheive some form of diversity?

You have one chance to convince me that the last word in this sentence was not selected to push my buttons.

If I offended you please accept my apologies. You obviously had a different connotation in mind than what I had. But this is an excellent example of how tough it is to try and regulate free speech. I gave my general experiences with different groups of people and then used some descriptive phraseology to try and get my point across. Since this phraseology was not directed at any particular individual it did not violate the rules. But it did offend you even though it was not directed specifically at you. How are you going to regulate every phrase that may offend someone even if it is not directed at them?

[polemikos]

I'm not going to touch that one

[Utah Girl]

Thank you for your reasoned comments. Here's to you making a difference on the religion forum.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Probably for the same reason there are pro-choice Protestants - they're failing to obey the fifth commandment.

Great. Now that makes the 4th and 5th.

[xzins]

It is an offensive word in any context except that in a children's book describing an actual kitty-cat type feline.

Whether talking of "weakling" or of female anatomy, it's original meaning derives from it being a coarse derivative connected to female anatomy.

Therefore, there is no "acceptable and non-confrontive" way to refer to anyone by that word.

[Sidebar Moderator]

If a Buddhist were to post on the Religon forum then that person should expect to have his beliefs challenged and if he can't handle the heat he'll run from the kitchen. Are we to treat those of other religons with kid gloves so that we acheive some form of diversity?

Diversity - for diversity's sake? Heaven forfend!

If people are driven away because of ideas faithfully presented, it's their loss, and I have no problem with that. If people are driven away because they are insulted, belittled, derided, called names, and generally treated like they (rather than their ideas) are not wanted, then I have a problem.

I think I presented my thoughts on the issue of "the offending word" in a post to you and A.J.Armitage, just up the page. As I said, I could have brought it to your attention in a less confrontational way, and I should have. And I repeat (something you couldn't have known), we do receive abuse reports about that word. That undoubtedly played into my thinking, as well.

If it makes you feel better I have no intention of becoming the Language Police; at the same time, if we know that a particular word or phrase offends other people, wouldn't it be the Christian thing to do to choose another word or phrase, if possible?

[A.J.Armitage]

But the pro-choice Catholics also fail to obey the Pope.

[Sidebar Moderator]

Ooops! In a post to you and rwfromkansas, not A.J.Armitage. Sorry.

[A.J.Armitage]

Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Before Sept. 11 it was the largest religiously-inspired mass murder in American history. The guy who ordered it liked to bring 'em young.

[lockeliberty]

You know, words that you might say in the middle of a heated football game with your buds, but might refrain from using in front of women, your mom, your grandma, your kids, your pastor/priest/rabbi/significant spiritual leader?

I agree that there are certian vulgarities that nearly everyone would agree are vulgarities. The word I used certianly could be a vulgarity but also has other connotations. I thought it was pretty clear from the context of my post what connotation I had in mind. How do you regulate what one subculture thinks is a vulgarity against another subculture? Words must be understood through their context.

[Barnacle]

But anyway, why are there bound to be some?

Because with in any sample group you will have an average, or typical example that generally defines that group, as depicted in the illustration below.

Although the bulk population of that group will be concentrated near the mean center, and will be generally representative, smaller populations that deviate from the norm can be found to the left and right of the center. This principle is applicable to most natural occurrences, whether the subject is the height of adult males or the number of miles you can get from tires.

[Utah Girl]

Agreed. We all want the gentle ones who have been driven away to come back, and the aggressive ones to cooperate and live by the rules of the forum.

Hi White Mountain. That's my hope too. :)

[White Mountain]

Your #452: I've seen threads regarding the congressional testimony of Maj. Carleton regarding the infamous MMM last exactly 3 posts. The was no editiorializing nor comment - yet they got whacked

Maybe that is why I never saw them. But I have seen the MMM articles that the Washington Post and Salt Lake Tribune recycle every few months.

Funny thing is, the only MMM articles they ever print, so far as I know, and the only MMM articles I ever see here, uniformly try to pin the blame on Brigham Young, and by extension the LDS Church for having him as its leader. But never a word about Haun's Mill, or Governor Bogg's order, or Carthage, or the exodus from Nauvoo in the dead of winter, or the hardships of crossing the plains, or the trailside graves, or the difficulty of communication and travel in those days in the inter-mountain West which Brigham Young somehow miraculously overcomes.

Is there some agenda at work, such as to have our leaders permanently on trial? Why so one-sided?

I am here to discuss the Scriptures, not apologetics. People need to get the responses of our scholars and link to them as well, so people can compare and make up their minds. And then of course people need to behave, so the threads stay there.

[xzins]

see #489 if you so choose

[drstevej]

***I am here to discuss the Scriptures, not apologetics.***

Fine, then ignore the threads that deal with history and apologetics. Why should your prefderences be the boundaries of the Religious Forum? Whaz sup wit dat?

***People need to get the responses of our scholars and link to them as well, so people can compare and make up their minds. ***

Then feel free to post them. But don't just whine.