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.
I would like to meet the Protestant who is not repelled by the sentence, “Mary is the co-redeemer.”
It is truly unfortunate that you would not be soooooo repelled by Mary who is also the “Mother of God”, the “Theodokos” and “Queen of Heaven and Earth” that you took it somewhere else.
Lurking’
“And I’ve learned a lot about slash-and-burn evangelism. Hoo boy.”
You can say that again.
Whenever a RC freeper makes a cut comparable to some of the evangelicals - oh the caterwalling and wailing and knashing of teeth.
BTW just got back from two weeks in SD - what fun!
Lurking’
ok I’m off
.
Dear sir or ma'am,
This is the post I sent to you on this thread.
I am repeating it here per your request.
I realize what a tough job you have, but how much longer do you think this charade can continue here.
You cannot argue "for" something unless you are "against" something.
This semantical kabuki dance crashes under its own weight.
I know you have been getting a lot of feedback on this, but I don't see you listening to it.
If it is pride in ownership of these new categories (i.e. you wrote them yourself), then I plead with you to do some self-examination.
Again - I appreciate what you do here and I know it isn't easy.
Sky
If the posters are unable to acheive ecumenism so that the Lurkers can see all sides of an issue without noise and heat then the alternative would be to open "caucus" threads to "anti" statements but keep the caucus closed to all non-members.
That would be a loss to the Lurkers since all they would see on a caucus would be the view from one side and they'd have to comb through the "open" threads - noise and heat - to see how one religion compares to another.
That would be a loss to the Lurkers since all they would see on a caucus would be the view from one side and they'd have to comb through the "open" threads - noise and heat - to see how one religion compares to another.
The search function is not pulling up all the ecumenic posts, either by "title" or "keyword", but it is obvious from the sample shown from the link below, that the Lurkers aren't all that interested in the ecumenic threads.
The views counted are minuscule, and the replies numbers are pitiful, and if you look at the threads, many of the replies are complaints about the software.
This whole experiment appears to be a vehicle wherein unopposed proselytizing on FR has become an approved feature and I have seen many complaints regarding this. Not all these complaints can be attributed to the software change, either.
Do you know how much longer this experiment is expected to run, and just what criteria will factor into the decision on making it permanent?
The "caucus" threads - not the "ecumenic" threads - are closed to outsiders.
Posters who cannot resist posting statements critical of other beliefs can and should gravitate to the "open" threads. They cannot achieve ecumenism.
But if the poster is capable of expressing his testimony or beliefs without such criticism, his post is welcome to sit in contrast to other beliefs on the "ecumenic" threads.
As to how long this trial will run, I'm not sure. There are many factors - the software issue is only one.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2022295/posts?page=37
It appears that it has to do in regards in part to this portion of the ecumenic rules -
“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.”
First, the complaints I've read there have focused on the subterfuge aspect of the posted article, making a claim that J. Edwards is endorsing aspects of mormon theology. Since this is in the “article” the appearance of subterfuge is given and that the original poster of the article is exempt from your no-tear down rule.
Secondly, the ‘positive’ response requirement as I understand from your postings, would basically hand tie those who view that, as in this case, Edwards and his quotes have been improperly cited and out of context, and that his views would not endorse mormonism if presented within their proper context. As presented, the article in essence “reads the mind” of Edwards in regards to mormon doctrine. According to my understanding of your rules, any attempt to show that Edward's quotes and theology are not an endorsement of mormon theology would be ruled an ‘attack’ on another's belief. This is all due to how the very selective quoting of Edward's is woven into the article.
So here you have a situation where a positive response cannot be made because the ‘context’ of the article and how it was woven into particular religious group is use to bolster that group's attempt at legitimacy. Thus as shown in this situation your desire as stated to SkyPilot -
“That would be a loss to the Lurkers since all they would see on a caucus would be the view from one side and they'd have to comb through the “open” threads - noise and heat - to see how one religion compares to another.”
In reality, from how I interpret your rules, Lurkers would not see on this thread are the statements by Edwards which would be critical of mormon doctrine. Any attempt to show this difference would be designated an anti statement and barred or the thread converted to open. Furthermore, to set up a separate ecumenic thread to clarify those views would most likely be kicked into the open category because those views would be contrasted by necessity against another religion.
For your consideration - the posted article cannot be exempt from the ‘subterfuge’ clause. One final note, the article on the whole is a broad anti posting which is essentially this - only the mormon church is receiving the modern revelation from God today, other churches are not.
Admin and others, thank you for making clear the policies in here, and you are right, I have no doubt the influx has been due to these religion posts now showing up in the common areas of our regular reading. Good to know how to deal with it and where we stand. Thanks.
You got 4/3 of the Beast!
I diligently try to read all of your posts, but am not here 24/7 and cannot remember all of the slights and parties involved on every single sidebar much less when posters carry grudges between threads. So if you are wondering why I singled one guy out and not the other involved in a dispute, often it is because I either did not see a previous post or did not remember it as part of the sidebar.
If the other guy in the dispute was given a warning, consider yourself warned as well.
Devotional threads are closed to debate of any kind.
Caucus threads are closed to any poster who is not a member of the caucus.
For example, if an Islamic article said that Christians were polytheists because they believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit that would not be a “direct attack” – the issue can be discussed in an ecumenical, non-contentious format. But if the article said that Christians were “infidels” condemned to eternal damnation, that would be a “direct attack” and could only be discussed in an “open” format.
More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. The term “gross error” in an article may not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply. It is crucial to maintain the academic decorum on “ecumenic” threads.
Some contrasting of beliefs can be made without breaking the “ecumenic” tone but generally speaking, posters should express the beliefs they are “for” but not those they are “against.” They may also ask questions.
“Anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenic” tag.
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.
Do not “pick at scabs” by mentioning prior “open” threads. If you need to make a point previously made on an “open” thread, summarize it anew.
I am not the arbiter of truth, for that posters must turn to God or whoever they consider to be the final authority.
I am not the arbiter of logical proofs, for that the posters must turn to the mathematicians, logicians and philosophers.
I am not the arbiter of fact, for that the posters must turn to the scientists, physical evidence, testimonies and historians.
I am not the arbiter of the meaning of words, and I'm not sure there exists such a final authority so the burden rests with the posters to explain what they mean.
But when it comes to this Religion Forum, I lay out the guidelines and resolve disputes within those guidelines. But I do not "settle" matters of dogma, doctrine, tradition or meanings of words.
If a guideline, rule, policy or settlement exists which affects this Religion Forum, I will do all I can to see it enforced.
Thanks, RM.
Looks good to me.
I know this is an evolving concept, but as time goes by it seems to be fleshing out fairly.
Ping for updated Religion Forum rules.
The point about giving an article more leeway than a Freeper in an ecumenical thread is a good one, as many authors from every faith seem to slip in jabs at other faiths on principle sometimes, and many times these jabs don’t have a lot to do with the meat of the article. But I reckon that some articles are going to be contentious and “anti” to the point of defeating the purpose of an ecumenic thread in the first place.
Freegards
This would be a good development.
If the guidelines for “Ecumenic” threads were the guidelines for “Open” threads. With maybe a little more room for a slightly sharper elbows.
But the travesty of the current rules for “Open” threads continues.
Or perhaps, you could rename “Ecumenic” to “Open” and “Open” to “Open Sewer Threads of the Damned,” in that some of those who debase those threads the most are likely among that number.
It is disgusting that part of the guidelines for the Open Sewer threads include this:
“They may ridicule, similar to the Smoky Backroom...”
That the standard of behavior for posters on RELIGIOUS threads, predominantly CHRISTIAN threads, at Free Republic is that of the Smoky Backroom shows the disgrace of the Religion Forum.
I hope, Religion Moderator, that you've read how many folks have come to threads recently to say that they no longer participate much at the Religion Forum because of the increased incivility of the Religion Forum. Many of these folks are among the most civil, decent posters at FR. Evil posting has driven out good posting.
And the current rules, combined with the gracelessness of a a bit more than a handful of posters, has accomplished that.
sitetest
The villagers posting their opinions to the liberty tree didn't have to be likeable, graceful, logical, articulate. They could be silly, rude, mean, unintelligible, funny, uneducated.
Meanwhile the church with the closed doors down the street enjoyed its freedom of assembly. Others weren't allowed to tear down the doors or sneak in disturbing the peace.
And in like manner, there were other open door assemblies where the villagers could bring their disputes and they could hash them out as long as they were orderly.
It is a balance between the freedom of religion, the freedom of assembly and the freedom of speech.
If you hate the liberty tree, don't read it. Walk on by.
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.