Posted on 05/14/2008 9:06:42 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
In late April, markomalley and gamecock made a trial run at a “respectful dialog” category for threads on the Religion Forum. The trial failed due to the inability of the posters to agree on what is or is not “respectful.” Then in early May, several other posters appealed for the elimination of posts which seek to tear down other poster’s beliefs (iconoclasm.)
Meanwhile, the situation on the Religion Forum has been exacerbated by posters on the News/Activism forum inadvertently being exposed to religious debate as a result of choosing the “everything” option on browse instead of the “News/Activism” option.
In response to the pleas for a “respectful dialog” and/or the elimination of “iconoclasm” (attacks on other people’s beliefs) – I’m opening the floor for trial postings of a new type of semi-open thread which we shall call “ecumenic.”
Unlike the caucus threads, any poster could reply to an ecumenic thread. And the article on which an ecumenic thread is based could include contrasts and challenges of other beliefs. However, on the ecumenic thread, the poster must not argue against any other beliefs. He can only argue for what he believes – or ask questions.
While we test this new type of thread, be sure to tag every article so that posters will know when to avoid a thread. The tags during this trial run are “prayer” “devotional” “caucus” “ecumenic” or “open.”
Devotional threads are closed to debate of any kind.
Caucus threads are closed to any poster who is not a member of the caucus. If it says “Catholic Caucus” and you are not Catholic, do not post to the thread. However, if the poster of the caucus welcomes you, I will not boot you from the thread.
Ecumenic threads in this trial run are closed to all “anti” arguments. Posters who try to tear down other’s beliefs – or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal – are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended.
Open threads are a town square – posters may argue for or against beliefs of any kind. They may tear down other's beliefs. They may ridicule, similar to the Smoky Backroom with the exception that a poster must never “make it personal.” Reading minds and attributing motives are forms of “making it personal.” Thin-skinned posters will be booted from “open” threads because in the town square, they are the disrupters.
When you see a post which is inappropriate for an ecumenic thread, ping me. Do not bother the Admin Moderators with an abuse report unless the situation requires immediate attention.
YEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSS
You’re so easy to please ... BTW, I finished that carrot cake I made the other day. Still nibbling on the cream cheese icing though.
Piggie
:)
Really, I'm not asking for anyone to be silenced, just reminded of tact and decorum. When the conversation becomes not a dialog but “Slash and Burn” then all should be reminded to tone it down.
>>I think Mormonism has corrupted Christianity. It appears you don’t believe that. It is your right.<<
Actually, I don't know enough about them to champion for them. However, in stumbling upon a thread or two, I see FReepers beat on. Religion aside, they are FReepers and we should not treat each other this way. It really has nothing to do with the religious aspect of it, but more to do with FReepers. Not “Mormon”, “Protestant” or “Catholic” just FReepers.
There are more than the posters on a thread. Lurkers and even just Google searchers come onto these threads. When sarcasm and berating rule the thread, it makes all of us look bad.
Actually, I remember seeing you on the Non-Denominational thread. You were very nice and kind. I really have no clue whether you fall to sarcasm, but I know I do sometimes and I MUST do better for all concerned.
‘Don’t hose me, bro!’ oink, oink
>>It’s possible to have spirited religious discussions and debates without being a jerk about it.
It’s possible to have spirited religious discussions and debates without being a jerk about it.
It’s possible to have spirited religious discussions and debates without being a jerk about it.
It’s possible to have spirited religious discussions and debates without being a jerk about it.<<
This bears repeating, many times.
(Cue condesending voice...)
See above ^
And, if you are WORTHY; you can get LDS for only 10% a month!
Me, too!
Why do those MORMON's do it?
Yooda Beast and a half!
When false teachings and obfuscations are plastered all over the site; souls may be lost.
More flies are gotten by honey than vinegar.
It’s shows who’s sweating vinegar.
>>It’s amazing to cruise over to the LDS threads and see the same names there as on the worst Catholic threads.
Me, too!<<
I’ve been on 2, count um, 2 LDS threads. I had to ask who was Mormon and who wasn’t. But I sure could pick out the “Usual Suspects” from the Catholic threads!
The Religion Forum would be more like the kitchen and the Smoky Backroom would be more like the garage. If a poster can't handle the heat, he should stay out of the kitchen. If he can't handle the fumes, he should stay out of the garage.
Also, the "standard of basic courtesy" is just as elusive as the standard of "respectful dialog." That is why the trial run of a "respectful dialog" thread failed.
The prime example from the trial was that the very same poster who uniquely took objection to being called "Roman" Catholic just a few posts later referred to another poster's views as "Satanic." And yet the poster so accused took no offense.
Hopefully the language of the guidelines for ecumenism will fare better than that experiment.
It would be interesting to see the result of a test ecumenical thread where each of the major caucuses (Catholic, Orthodox, Reformed, Non-denom, LDS etc.) appointed a single representative for the thread to set an example for what an ecumenic discussion should be like.
At any rate, the guidelines "do not make it personal" "no thin skin" and "no potty language" are intended to prevent the “open” threads from devolving into the childish behavior of the Smoky Backroom
“The main forum, News/Activism, would be the ‘living room’ in Jim's cyber house.
“The Religion Forum would be more like the kitchen...”
I don't know about you, but I don't permit folks to talk trash to my guests in my kitchen anymore than I allow it in my living room. Folks who can't maintain a civil tongue in my house get the boot.
But insisting on civility is a CONSERVATIVE principle.
“Also, the ‘standard of basic courtesy’ is just as elusive as the standard of ‘respectful dialog.’ That is why the trial run of a ‘respectful dialog’ thread failed.”
It failed primarily because the enemies of respectful dialogue mocked and ridiculed the notion, and the idea was given up on long before it ever had a chance. Look at how much effort is being put into this “ecumenic” idea. Look at how much effort is being put into figuring out what's what, how things should be defined. Look at how much effort is being made to hash out where the limits should be, what the limits should mean.
If a tenth of the thought and effort put into this had been put into the other, it would have succeeded.
Ironically, your latest rule change moves the "Ecumenic" thread much toward the original idea of the "Respectful Dialogue" thread. The shortcoming is the permitting of the "Open [Sewer]" threads, where Free Republic's reputation is tarnished daily.
Decorum really isn't that hard to achieve, if someone puts his mind and heart to it.
Unfortunately, there is no will in evidence here for such a result.
“At any rate, the guidelines ‘do not make it personal’ ‘no thin skin’ and ‘no potty language’ are intended to prevent the ‘open’ threads from devolving into the childish behavior of the Smoky Backroom”
In critical ways, the Smoky Backroom has nothing on the “Open [Sewer]” threads here.
sitetest
>> And yet the poster so accused took no offense. <<
Isn’t that also reading minds? The poster responded and went off in a different direction.
To: big’ol_freeper
[ It is my observation and respectful belief that only a satanist would say that. ]
You mean a heretic?.. You are correct I am a heretic..
In John ch 10 Jesus speaks of the Sheep pens.. Thats what one sheep pen calls those in a another sheep pen.. heretics.. But then, the Flock is NOT in the sheep pen.. the flock is outside the sheep pens grazing with the shepherd..
The heirling shepherds in the sheep pen distract form the sheperds voice.. For they preach Satans Gospel.. learn of the good and the bad (Gen ch 1-3) and you will no longer need God,, but can determine good and evil(dogma) for themselves.. And if not, “we”(heirling) will forgive your transgressions in the confession booth..
268 posted on Sunday, April 27, 2008 5:26:40 PM by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
If the poster took no offense, then it wouldn’t have been responded to at all. The opposite of love is not hate, it’s apathy.
>>I don’t know about you, but I don’t permit folks to talk trash to my guests in my kitchen anymore than I allow it in my living room.<<
But you must remember that trash talking the Catholic Church is the way that some worship. I was specifically told that.
I have seen such equivalences drawn.
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.