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
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.
Very clear, thank you.