Religion Forum Guidelines – Ecumenism

May 14, 2008 | Religion Moderator

[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.

If you are offended that conservatives have serious religious disagreements, do not use the “everything” browse option. If you are new to the Religion Forum, click on my profile page for guidelines.

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.”

Prayer threads are closed to debate of any kind.

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.

[annalex]

Second. Religion Forum on FR has been a tremendous source of Catholic education for me, brawls and all.

[Iscool]

Sad about that.

No need to be sad...I'm not ecumenical...I suspect most Protestants on these threads are not as well...Their new ecumenical threads will be just as barren as their caucus threads.

[1000 silverlings]

Well it’s posted on Drudge, must be true

[Uncle Chip]

Okay. Then I am really, positively repelled by the idea that Mary is considered as the "co-redeemer" among any Christian believer.

Now that would make a good Ecumenical Thread!!!

[Marysecretary]

Haha..probably true.

[Gamecock]

***P-Marlowe couild designate a mixed caucus, for example, Calvinist & Methodist caucus if he wants to compare and contrast, but doesn’t want a third perspective.***

By definition Marlowe would be excluding himself from his own thread. He isn't Methodist or Calvinist. ;-)

***We had “Cath-Orth” caucus when we wanted to discuss beliefs shared by Catholics and Orthodox but did not want Protestant input.***

Perhaps the name Cath-EOrth would be better. Many Proddies consider themselves to be Orthodox.

But then again EOrth sounds like a Winnie the Pooh character pronounced with a lisp.

[OLD REGGIE]

It seems that the failed "respectful thread" designation has simply morphed into the "ecumenic thread" designation, only this time the penalty for protesting error will be more severe.

Dr. E. I suspect some threads will die of their own weight and boredom. You may have noted "Caucus" threads have a few "regulars", live a short life, and go away.

If we find the "open" thread to be the only vibrant one it will move to the front and have the most participants.

In some ways it is similar to all the "free" offers available with any new computer. I decline them all and go on my way, choosing only what is meaningful to me.

[annalex]

That “brawl” aside was supposed to have an invisible smiley attached to it, chief.

[Marysecretary]

INDEED!!!

[Iscool]

All three of those threads could have been tagged “ecumenic” or “open” depending on the type of discussion you wished to encourage.

To be fair another religion, we will not be controversial on their ecumenical threads, but we can then duplicate the body of the thread and repost it as an open thread???

[Religion Moderator]

If you cannot post without saying something against another's beliefs, then stay on the "open" threads. It's that simple.

[Quix]

Oh, Dear.

I’m not sure which of us would be tainted the most with such a designation!

LOL.

Thanks. Am humbled.

[Quix]

I knew he felt that way.

Glad he made it public.

Of course, the RC’s seem to have been fumbling . . .

clumsily

with that ball ever since that thread was posted!

LOL.

[Quix]

It’s true.

You can check the thread.

I forget the title . . . let me check

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2015428/posts?page=87#87

It’s old news to those of us well read on the topic.

Those who are . . . super skeptical and light-years behind the learning curve . . . I can appreciate that there’s more skepticism there.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I think Dr.E has a point. Many discussions surround definitions and that a pro- post often has an anti- counterpart (and vice versa). So in the example given by Dr. E, the anti- component (Mary is a co-redeemer) trumps the pro- component (Mary is not because...). Absent the context in which the (or any) reply is given can almost be considered iconoclastic in nature. Thus if one wants to present a "positive" post, there is by definition another post being countered.

Exactly.

Iconoclasm is certainly in the eyes of the beholder.

I think the RM's thankless job has just been made much more difficult.

[Gamecock]

I took it as such.

[Religion Moderator]

No, do not post an exact duplicate. But if you find another, similar article you’d like to post for “open” debate, that is fine.

[Titanites]

Well it’s posted on Drudge, must be true

Did you bother to read it? The Pope isn't mentioned. Neither are UFO's.

[Iscool]

But I will try this format with some theological threads, like my old Cur Deus Homo series. The Caucus designation proved suffocating for them.

You certainly are bold, posting a Homo thread...

[Godzilla]

If you cannot post without saying something against another's beliefs, then stay on the "open" threads. It's that simple.

That is not what I was trying to say, only that posts and counter posts have context in each other. In the example Mary - co-redemptress the counter could be there is no redeemer but Christ (with no reference to Mary). But within the context of the thread either party could view the other as being said against the others beliefs. Which mother would you give the baby to?