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.

[trisham]

Or perhaps, you could rename “Ecumenic” to “Open” and “Open” to “Open Sewer Threads of the Damned,”

*****************

Heh. Why not? At least the uninitiated would know what they were getting into.

[annalex]

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”

That is too subtle to be enforceable. To a Muslim -- in fact, to a Christian or Jew as well -- polytheism is a gross error that violates the first commandment and sends one to hell as sure as anything. "Infidel" simply means non-believer, although we usually put in in the mouth of the Muslims. In short, if supposed polytheism can be discussed, then the notion that it condemns to hell should be discussed as well on an ecumenical thread

I think, the real line in the sand is not about hell but about respectful tone, staying on topic, responding to questions, stuff like that. If someone believes I am going to hell for whatever my faith is, it is not offensive to me in the least; in fact I appreciate the concern.

[sitetest]

Dear Religion Moderator,

“The ‘open’ threads are in the tradition of the ‘liberty tree’ - a conservative principle.”

Baloney.

There is nothing “conservative” about argument by insult.

The fact is that Free Republic is not an all-out open forum. It IS moderated. The failure to moderate the Religion Forum appropriately is a black eye for Free Republic as a whole, and has REDUCED the level of worthwhile religious discussion and debate while DRIVING OFF decent people.

The sort of rules in play here would be most at home at DU.

sitetest

[sitetest]

Truth in advertising.

[xzins]

There is nothing “conservative” about argument by insult.....The sort of rules in play here would be most at home at DU.

Since this is a thread by the Religion Moderator, and since you are addressing the Religion Moderator in your post above, then why engage in "argument by insult," that which you've just condemned, when you tell the RM that the RM's rules are "most at home at DU?"

[trisham]

Truth in advertising.

****************

That might be nice. At the moment the most subtle statements made here on the Religion forum are those addressing the definitions of the various thread classifications.

[sitetest]

Dear xzins,

Oh, dear me! I thought that this was an “Open [Sewer]” thread! I was just obeying the rules!

The fact is, I attacked the rules, not the rulemaker.

However I attacked the rules, whether by ridicule, mocking or whatever, is that not encompassed by the rules?

But actually, xzins, there IS a difference. Unless I miss my mark, I don't think that the Religion Moderator considers his/her rules to be a sacred thing. Thus, I'm not doing the actions I condemn from others.

sitetest

[trisham]

The fact is that Free Republic is not an all-out open forum. It IS moderated. The failure to moderate the Religion Forum appropriately is a black eye for Free Republic as a whole, and has REDUCED the level of worthwhile religious discussion and debate while DRIVING OFF decent people.

******************

Holy mackerel. I completely agree, sitetest. One cannot use foul language on the Religion forum, and yet the most egregious attacks, lies, misrepresentations, and outright trolling are allowed.

It is my impression that there is an organized group which purposely incites Catholics.

[lady lawyer]

“It is my impression that there is an organized group which purposely incites Catholics.”

There is also such a group which attacked my faith, Mormonism.

My mother always used to say that you don’t discuss religion or politics in social settings because those two topics inevitably led to hard feelings.

IMO, FR exists to build a political coalition, and for that reason should ban religious posting. It wouldn’t surprise me of the Freepers who make a hobby out of attacking religons were actually trolls from DU. If not, they are doing the work of DU — dividing us to make it easier to conquer us.

Honestly, when I read the stuff posted about my religion, I think to myself that these people are validating all the worst stereotypes about conservatives. It’s said that politics makes strange bedfellows. But, while reading the vile posts of those who attack what others hold sacred, I think to myself that politics is making revolting bedfellows, and if I didn’t love this country so much, I’d cease supporting conservative causes.

[xzins]

You might want to reconsider whether your words were intended to insult or not. Perhaps it was an oversight.

We all know that comparing someone to DU is an insult.

[trisham]

There is also such a group which attacked my faith, Mormonism. My mother always used to say that you don’t discuss religion or politics in social settings because those two topics inevitably led to hard feelings. IMO, FR exists to build a political coalition, and for that reason should ban religious posting. It wouldn’t surprise me of the Freepers who make a hobby out of attacking religons were actually trolls from DU. If not, they are doing the work of DU — dividing us to make it easier to conquer us.

******************

I usually steer clear of those Mormon-bashing threads, as I find them to be disturbing. However, I must respectfully disagree with you about the inclusion of a Religion forum on Free Republic. One of the important forces within a free and conservative society, which also works to strengthen marriage, family, and a work ethic is religion. We need to support religious beliefs.

Allowing the trolling posts we see every day on this forum is to me the problem, not that we allow discussion of religion.

[annalex]

attack what others hold sacred

This, I think should be banned altogether on all kinds of threads: mockery, insult and ridicule. It is simply uncivilized behavior.

However, most conservatives value religion, and would want to discuss it, in order to explain what they believe, learn it better and hopefully attract others. This inevitable leads to critical posts. In this light, let me ask you this question: as a Mormon, do you allow for the possibility that I could inquire about Mormonism and point out why I am not a Mormon? I am sure you heard people questioning, for example, the historical veracity of the events in the Book of Mormon, or Mormon Christology that is not trinitarian. Would you say all such inquiries are "attacking what is held sacred", -- while I agree that some certainly are?

[sitetest]

Dear xzins,

No insult intended. Just an observation of reality.

I'm not speaking about ideology, politics, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, but only about posters behave.

One of the things that always strikes me on my rare trips to DU is the low level of civility on their threads.

It honestly reminds me of the level of civility not infrequently found on the “Open [Sewer]” threads here on the Religion Forum.

It would be bitterly ironic if one could say the most evil things about what others hold sacred, but one could not make the honest observation that the discourse in some Religion Forum threads is reminiscent of DU.

sitetest

[sitetest]

“posters behave.” = “how posters behave.”

[narses]

Travelling this week and not posting as much.

I agree though with sitetest, if a thread qualifies for the ‘smoky back room’ it really doesn’t belong anywhere else, certainly not in the religion forum at the Free Republic.

We are about to enter an era of repression unknown to the United States before and we ought to try and have those of us with a faith based point of view working together. The FR Religion Forum can be that catalyst. Not under the current rules though. Civility ought to obtain. It can obtain. But only if the Moderators so want it to.

[trisham]

Amen, narses.

[narses]

Thanks. Ping to those who keep Catholic ping lists for more discussion.

[sitetest]

Dear narses,

You said it a lot better than me.

Thanks,

sitetest

[annalex]

I have an idea.

How about, instead of Ecumenic (ecumenical?) designation, have Academic threads.

Instead of drawing a fine line of when questioning/objecting becomes attacking/tearing down, let us simply require that posts should meet the standard of an academic discussion:

- calm respectful tone;
- staying on topic;
- argumentative posts: “I agree with X, disagree with Y, because of Z” style of posts is encouraged, one-line zingers discouraged;
- no satire or ridicule; irony and humor in small dozes; easy on graphics and HTML effects.

I think, this is much easier to police, especially given that some confessions are more attack-oriented in their own essence. Like one prominent Protestant poster said here, the entire Reformation is about attacking something, so with the Ecumenical label you appear to create a built-in bias.

[narses]

FRiend sitetest,

You are one of those posters whose thoughful choice of words always leaves me in awe and respect. High praise, thank you.

I pinged our host as I believe he understands the threat we are facing. I hope he agrees and we can begin building trust and confidence in the FR community so that we can reconstitute that which we lost about the time I came here - the Activism and the Network.

We may well regard that reconstruction in the same way the Founding Fathers did their Committees of Correspondence. IOW our tool of resistance to tyranny.

Already our government has broken the bonds of the Constitution, soon it will break the bonds of commen humanity. When that happens, all Hell breaks loose.

Me, I have the joy of the Faith that was handed down to us, the Hope of the Truth of Our Lord. But He expects more than simple Faith, we must act as He dictates and the time comes soon for us to witness that Faith with the Sword and Armor of Truth and the Crown of the Martyr.

The internet is simply one of His many Gifts, the Free Republic is part of that Gift. I hope we can do His Will and protect this wonderful Gift of a Free Land and a Free Republic working together in His Faith doing His Will.