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.
As long as I am the Religion Moderator, as far as possible, every poster will have a voice provided they comply with reasonable restrictions which are in place to help preserve the peace, e.g. not "making it personal."
Thank you RM. Thank you.
I agree with colorcountry...many thanks for this.
It's not just Catholics. Some are equal opportunity inciters. It's amazing to cruise over to the LDS threads and see the same names there as on the worst Catholic threads.
>>The covering up of ugly, insulting, demeaning behavior under the white cloth of “freedom of speech” is a liberal vice, not a conservative virtue. It has been used by the likes of Larry Flynt, various other pornographers, folks who peddle flesh, and other purveyors of filth.
“A person can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater or libel or slander others without consequence,...”<<
nail=head
****************
You're probably right. Many of the posts on those threads are virtually a mirror image of the anti-Catholic posts.
There are reasons we believe as we believe. I think Mormonism has corrupted Christianity. It appears you don’t believe that. It is your right.
Others may believe that both Catholicism AND Mormonism corrupted Christianity. That is their right.
Who are you to ask that those voices be silenced? Who are you to determine who has a right to speak their opinion. Obviously those with strong Protestant beliefs will believe that either Catholicism has left the Biblical standard and instituted traditions of men, or that Mormonism is a corruption of Christianity as the world has known it.
Why should Protestants posting on both types of threads be unusual at all.
BTW, you have never seen me posting on a Catholic related thread. While I might not agree with all of your traditions, I do believe you are brothers and sisters in Christ. That is my humble opinion. Others DO indeed have the right to disagree with me.
********************
Straw man?
Where is the post that asks that voices be silenced?
“There are reasons we believe as we believe. I think Mormonism has corrupted Christianity. It appears you don’t believe that. It is your right.”
Actually, as Catholics, we don't even believe that the LDS church is actually Christian at all.
It's just that we can disagree with LDS members without being jerks about it.
I used to post on LDS threads, presenting the reasons why the Catholic Church doesn't even believe that the LDS religion isn't even Christian. However, so many other posters posted so rudely, uncivilly, and vilely, evilly, that I just didn't want anyone to think I might be associated with them.
So I stopped.
For the record, I posted Catholic teaching that the LDS religion isn't Christian, that the LDS god isn't ontologically the same as the God of Christianity, or the actual Supreme Being, that the LDS Christ is not the Christ of the Bible, that LDS baptism isn't valid.
Yet, I got along fine with the LDS posters with whom I conversed.
It's possible to have spirited religious discussions and debates without being a jerk about it.
sitetest
How are you with Islamic posters ?????????
Same go along to get along ????????
Same wimpy compromise ???????
When "slander of others" is used to describe opposition to beliefs of others, just what, in your opinion, is the desired outcome of the folks that are bemoaning that "slander"?
As one who has been called everything from viper to terrorist to pig on these threads, I can verify that "slander" is a two-sided sword, but the other side is carefully overlooked by the proponents of censorship.
I have seen, several times, the opinion that whole groups of posters be banned simply for expressing THEIR "right" to free speech.
I know there is no such right on FR, as it is a privately-owned site, but JR has, heretofore, allowed that privilege to all sides.
If you don't believe that there are those who would change that position in a heartbeat, you haven't been listening.
For example, if the caucus article said that all beliefs before ours came along were apostate it could retain the caucus protection. But if it said, the [pick a confession] was apostate and what we have is true - then the members of that other confession have an interest in speaking for themselves and the caucus tag will be dropped and the thread opened for discussion.
If the "ecumenic" trial fails, that restriction would be lifted so that the members of the caucus can say anything they want to say about other beliefs.
The lurkers would be the losers in that case because there would be no zone where they could compare the different beliefs without being subjected to the noise of the "open" threads.
Good post.
Freegards
Thank you
“How are you with Islamic posters ?????????”
I think I've only encountered an Islamic poster once or twice in the 10+ years I've been at Free Republic.
I believe that I conducted my conversation with propriety and respect.
In real life, I've known many Muslims, and have always treated them as I'd treat any other human being, with the respect and dignity that inhere to human persons.
“Same go along to get along ????????”
Frankly, but courteously discussing differences isn't “go along to get along.” It's called “love of neighbor.”
“Same wimpy compromise ???????”
I don't think that I've ever given an inch on what I believe to any poster at Free Republic, or in real life, either.
But I do make a sincere effort never to ridicule, demean, tear down, belittle the other person or what he holds sacred, even as I disagree with him about those things that he holds sacred.
To the degree that I fail, I'm sorry for that. I'm as much a sinner as anyone.
But I at least recognize as SIN when one makes and effort to ridicule, demean, tear down, or belittle what others hold sacred.
Others call this evil something good. That's wrong.
sitetest
Thanks.
In other words, there isn’t one.
I assume, with no rebuttal allowed on the caucus thread?
In that case, would the restriction against reposting the argument from the caucus thread on an open thread be lifted?
Rebuttals would not be allowed and the restriction would not be lifted.
# 1000
#1000
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.