Posted on 04/24/2008 9:22:03 PM PDT by markomalley
I would like to advance an idea to see if there would be any support for it.
Right now, on the religion forum, there are two types of threads: open threads and caucus/devotional threads. On an "open" thread, pretty much anything goes, with the exception of personal attacks against other posters on that thread. In caucus threads, any type of questioning or criticism, even if politely phrased, can be quashed by any member of that caucus. There isn't any middle ground out there.
I don't think that is constructive. I don't think that helps me understand non-Catholic religions. I don't think that helps non-Catholics understand Catholicism. I do think it helps build acrimony between different religious groups that isn't constructive. This is not to say that I think that we should all agree...but we should disagree based on facts and not on shadows we have in our minds.
I, for one, enjoy talking about my beliefs. Particularly with audiences who don't necessarily agree 100% with them...as I have to learn my faith better in order to adequately explain and defend it. Frankly, if I can't defend my faith, maybe I should reconsider it. But I don't particularly enjoy having to deal with bomb-throwers in the process of doing so.
I would like to propose a middle ground between the "caucus" designation and the "open" threads. I would call it a "respectful dialogue" designation, but I, for one, am not particularly hung up on the name, just the purpose.
On this type of thread, people could feel free to disagree all they want, but bomb throwing on either side (such as, you Protestants are nothing but heretics, you Catholics are idolators, you Mormons are cultists) would be strictly prohibited. Hopefully, along with the disagreement, would be an argument to tell the person with whom you disagree exactly where and how he is wrong, and what is correct.
I don't know if such a thing is possible, or if it would overload the Religion Moderator (who has got a tough enough job keeping us from killing each other on the "open" threads). I don't know if there are adequate members of any particular caucus who would support such a concept and would try to abide by the above kinds of Rules of Engagement. But I would think that such a thing would benefit many of us. (I am confident that the vast majority of us are adults and if we were face to face could likely manage an actual adult conversation, but maybe I'm being a bit pollyanish).
But I'd be interested in any feedback (agreement/ disagreement/ boredom).
This is exactly what we need.
I would like to keep the Theological Word Of The Day open to all, but a flame free zone.
How say you RM?
For a trial run, I suggest each of you try one thread with that designation and a warning as post #1. Ping me to them and we’ll see how they go. If there’s a bunch of abuse reports and moderator pings, we’ll know the forum is not “mature” enough ... yet.
Good luck with that! MDS sufferers are not able to control their outbursts. :-)
Amazing,
GREAT IDEA!!!
A few weeks ago after a dialog here with several others who often are into “strong” statements, I thought of posting a suggestion or a new kind of caucus called a SASM caucus.
SASM stands for the “Society to Abolish StrawMen”. I came up with that name about twenty years ago and suggested it in several settings (including her, I think, years ago.
My idea was just a bit stronger than “respectful dialog. I think that if all of the energy we spend on creating “heat” was focused instead on creating “light” — sharing real information, there is no telling what we might uncover.
I love a good argument about religion but not when it degenerates into a flame war.
I think that if we had a clear, small set of rules that the RM could enforce, it might revolutionize this forum.
I would like to see this happen.
Oh please. Aren’t we slicing the ham a little too thin?
open to all, but a flame free zone.
These two concepts cannot exist on the same thread, but I certainly agree with the idea.
I think it’s a good idea, in theory. Of course, different people have their own personal definitions of “respectful,” so ...
It would be nice to have the opportunity to discuss and ask questions politely. “What do you believe about this? Yes, but how does that relate to this other thing? Thanks, that was informative.” It does happen occasionally, even on threads that are otherwise full of the Usual People saying the Usual Things.
The Undead Thread Religion Rule is that anyone can ask a question about religious belief, but once the information has been provided, argument isn’t allowed. That’s not quite what you’re looking for, though.
I would also have to know that there would be no banning or suspensions based upon the sources and resources used in the discussions.
no one follows “the Bible alone.” Everyone is influenced to some degree by some other’s interpretation of the writings (whether it be Martin Luther’s, John Calvin’s, Pope Benedict’s, Thomas Aquinas’s or simply their own Pastor’s) and their own biases as well as by general Christian tradition-—the basic statements of faith, like the Nicene Creed.
Only if people choose to be "heated" instead of polite. Mark seems to be looking for a level of self-chosen civility that simply may not be possible for some, in which case those people would want to avoid the designated threads.
My suggestion would be that anyone who behaves inappropriately on a thread where the participants have agreed to discuss politely should simply be ignored. It works for the Undead Thread.
;-) Ham is not scripturally clean !
X-rated: all out flame war in progress.
PG: food fight underway which shows signs of escalating but pockets of civility remain.
G**: generally OK but a provocateur has entered and things could get ugly at any moment.
G: Intelligent, civil discourse in progress. Thread is informative and uplifting.
gag: mutual admiration society being faux nice to each other.
FB: flame bait, posted by a troll with the express purpose of starting trouble.
Good luck.
I hope it works.
But color me skeptical.
Unless the Religion Moderator does some large-scale permanent banning, there are a number of posters who likely will not be able to participate in the long-term on a respectful basis.
I had some success in this regard on my “which translation of the Bible” thread, though without such a formal designation.
I wish the experiment well.
What about "lighted" rather than "heated"?
My suggestion would be that anyone who behaves inappropriately on a thread where the participants have agreed to discuss politely should simply be ignored.
Yes! I agree that this kind of thread could be largely policed by participants ignoring hot spots.
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.