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.
The “open” threads are here to stay on the Religion Forum. Since that kind of debate is not to your liking, ignore them.
Do you consider his reply to be “hateful?”
Respectfully, sitetest, this is JimRobs house and he has asked the RM to police what is said in his kitchen. While I recognize that you might not like the way the RM has allowed the converstation in the kitchen to evolve, you are still a guest as am I, and the RM is still in charge. If you don't like the conversation taking place in the kitchen, you are still free to go into the living room or go to another party altogether.
It is my opinion that referring to the conversations that take place in the kitchen as "the sewer," you are being offensive to both your host and your RM. I don't have a problem with your disrespect as long as they don't. I simply want to point out what I view as your hypocrisy.
“While I recognize that you might not like the way the RM has allowed the converstation in the kitchen to evolve, you are still a guest as am I, and the RM is still in charge.”
Until Jim Robinson decides to kick me out of here after 10+ years, I'll continue to voice my opinion about when I see things that are wrong.
“It is my opinion that referring to the conversations that take place in the kitchen as ‘the sewer,’ you are being offensive to both your host and your RM.”
The rules of the “Open [Sewer]” threads are basically, no personal attack, no profanity, no “potty” language and “no thin skin.”
In calling these threads sewers, I'm not attacking any person. I'm not using profanity. I'm not using crass “potty” language. Anyone who takes offense to my characterizations, however, IS showing a thin skin, and I guess, if the rules were enforced fairly, would have to go.
Certainly, my criticisms of the “Open [Sewer]” thread policies are more polite, more decorous, less mocking, less ridiculing, less demeaning than MANY of the posts of non-Catholics and non-LDS against things held HOLY AND SACRED by Catholics or LDS.
Are you suggesting that criticism of Religion Moderator policies is WORSE than trashing other people's sacred things?
“...your hypocrisy.”
Sounds like a personal attack to me.
sitetest
“Since that kind of debate is not to your liking, ignore them.”
If it were a matter of personal taste, I'd be indifferent.
But relativizing moral issues into mere differences of personal taste is not a conservative principle.
sitetest
>>Do you consider his reply to be “hateful?”<<
Honestly, it doesn’t matter what I think. It matters what it is. I didn’t think the comment about the Roman Catholic Church was hateful but the post that the satanic comment came from is very telling.
>>[ There is no church called the RCC or Roman Catholic Church... ]
Really; I have always called the roman catholic church, the roman catholic church.. It is based in Rome at a separate country (Vatican) and “thinks” it is universal.. Voila roman catholic church.. To call the roman catholic church the Universal(catholic) Church is either dumb or arrogant.. The Universal CHurch would include the roman catholic chutch the EO and all reformed churchs.. One Pope made a slipshod attempt at doing that but failed.. You know, making the roman catholic church all inclusive.. with/by semantics.. but the roman catholic church remains a denomination nevertheless.. The old boy failed.. <<
And therein lies the problem. The first post where BOF said that he didn’t want the Church called the Roman Catholic Church should have been corrected with kindness. But instead was answered with words to incite “dumb, arrogant, slipshod” All of us, and I mean all need to write our posts, preview and ask, “Would I want to be spoken to that way? Am I turning the other cheek as Our Lord instructed me to?”
Added to that, context counts. Bill O’Reilly picked out single posts and we all screamed about it.
And I’m saying this because you asked.
BTW, I am not the one complaining. I happen to like the Religion forum, and I think it is being very fairly moderated. I am often on the Mormon threads and in my opinion many mormons will accuse others of hatred, bigotry and vileness just because they don't like the ideas expressed by the opposite side.
I certainly hope the Catholics are not as oversensitive as to view anothers opinion as hatred. I wouldn't know, as I am never on Catholic threads.
Is the system running slow?
After reading that senario I can’t help but think so many are so ready and egar to judge another.
But not with the Spirit of the Lord to assist them, no they want to use the world yark stick on Spiritual manners.
It is obvious very few here have taken the time to prepare to be in a reverent place, but oh how they want to take the mole out of the other person eye!
It should also be noted that the ones who turn the other cheek win the debate to an objective onlooker every, single, time.
I was rehearsing for # 1000
:)
How about "latrine"? "Commode"? "Bathroom"? "WC"? "Waste disposal"? "Diaper"? "Excrement"?
Is that "potty language" too?
More flies are gotten by honey than vinegar.
__________________________________________________
Jesus did more for God with a whip and a loud, angry voice and name calling than others can do with a beehive...
To an objective observer, the ones on the receiving end of such spitwads is the winner - providing of course they don't throw spitwads back.
Yes.
>>Jesus did more for God with a whip and a loud, angry voice and name calling than others can do with a beehive<<
But you’re not Jesus, are you?
And Jesus got angry once. I got angry many times. My bad.
Continual anger at people makes them shut down to you.
>>But spiritual maturity is not a prerequisite for posting on a Religion Forum thread.<<
I would say.
but let me show my less than mature side here, the spitball analogy was cool!
Ooops sorry, it was spitwads, wasn’t it?
LOL! Still cool!
LOL! Thank you!
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.