Speaking as someone who mostly lurks rather than posts in the Religion forum, I think I may be missing the point here as well. Respectfully, might I ask a few questions for the purpose of clarification of the new rules?
Those who refuse to learn how to discuss God and theology without the use of ad hominums, insults, name-calling and other unpleasant tactics won't be around long.
Can we assume to limit such only to other members actually posting, or does the restriction apply in general? For example:
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? Is historical anecdote (for example, the fact that Mohammed actually did have a 6 year-old wife) defense against such usage, or is such historical context irrelevant?
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? 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)?
Finally, what about the posting of scripture? There are any number of bible verses which might be considered offensive or insulting (and even categorized as "hate speech" in some places). Can we always assume that posting scripture is acceptable, or should such text be avoided? And does such acceptability apply to non-canon texts or to the scripture of other religions (for example, posting from the Quran for no other purpose than to reveal the nature of the religion through such verses as "kill the infidel wherever you find him", etc.)?
In the effort of clarification I could probably ask quite a few more questions of a similar form, but I think the answers to the above would sufficiently elucidate the intent of what the new rules are intending to accomplish. 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. If you can clarify what the actual objective is and what scope it covers, I would be appreciative.
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.