I understand that and agree, though I question whether posting a thread that is predicated on the "necessity" for other religions to convert to yours is "ecumenical." While perhaps being a sincere belief of the poster, perhaps the post is mislabeled?
Titus objects to the content of the post - here are the rules, I believe the post itself is proper for this type caucus designation, am I in error?
From the rules:
Ecumenic threads are closed to antagonism.
To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others.
Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenic” thread can discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.
More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical fact and a legitimate subject for an ecumenic discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.
Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions.
Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenic” thread, I’ll be looking for the source.
Therefore “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.
No, if I remember correctly, ecumenical threads were set up to enable different beliefs to be discussed without having all the flame wars that open threads get, or the restrictions that caucus threads have.
For instance, an article which says that the Jewish holy writings are incomplete without Christian holy writings would nevertheless be ok for ecumenical discussion.