Replies

Your #352: I foresee you pushing abuse ... Are you going to push abuse constantly

Let's keep the focus where it belongs. The problem is not, and has never been, my "pushing abuse", nor is it the posting of responsible articles critical of the LDS Church, of which there have been plenty (though some even-handedness there, airing both sides, would boost credibility for you guys).

The problem is the posts containing personal attacks and false accusations. They violate the rules of this forum, and the moderators deal with that as they see fit.

If there are any who hit the abuse button too much, or irresponsibly, I would expect the moderators to ignore them over time, but Lead Moderator has told us on this thread:

Lead Moderator's #242: I have read more than my share of the threads in this forum. ... I don't think it is just that the complainers are button happy. What my own eyes see meshes with the volume of abuse reports. And the other moderators and Jim also see it this way.

I would agree that personal attacks against posters and freepers should not be tolerated. Also "false" allegations against freepers and posters should not be tolerated as well. But if we are going to have free and open and cordial discussions of religion, then allegations (whether true or false) against religious leaders and allegations (whether true or false) about what certain religions teach or have taught in the past, should not be considered as violative of the spirit of the religion forum or of the general posting rules on FR provided they are done to further discussion and ultimately seek the truth rather than to ridicule or berate any particular poster's beliefs.

Some religious practices and doctrines and histories are just plain unorthodox. People should be allowed to point those things out and not fear that merely raising the issue is going to get them banned.

As everyone knows I attend Calvary Chapel and their peculiar doctrines and practices are considered by some as "cultic". I have no problem defending their practices, and I would not cry foul if someone were to point out the human flaws in any of its leaders or to question the orthodoxy of any of its beliefs or practices. That would give me a chance to get an objective view of the church from people who are not a part of it and also give me the opportunity to defend the beliefs, practices and personal quirks of the church and its leaders.

Unfortunately a lot of people see criticisms of peculiar doctrines or questions regarding the personal histories of the church leaders as personal attacks on them.

I would hope that you would agree that personal attacks against freeper are unwarranted, but questioning the validity of specific doctrines and church history and politics is legitimate in order to further the purpose of a free and open discussion of all things religious.

Would you not agree?

The problem is the posts containing personal attacks and false accusations. They violate the rules of this forum, and the moderators deal with that as they see fit.

respectfully WM, 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

will these now be tolerated - or will pro-LDS be the only ones that survive?

Im frankly skeptical by whose measure we judge "false attacks"