Forum guidelines

[christopher d]

A wise person once said: “discuss anything you want, except politics, religion and sports”. S/He had a point. Matters in these arenas can easily become contentious, and friendly debate can turn into rancorous and spiteful verbal knife-throwing at the drop of a hat.

No one is expecting this forum to be free of controversy, and if the occasional flame is shot in anger, it won’t surprise anyone. However, it took more arm-twisting than a Stewardship sermon the week after Christmas to get this forum, and now that it’s here, it would be a shame to see it go the way of World Rivalries. The forum tagline wasn’t my idea, but in order for things not to turn into Spiritual Cage-Match, some ground rules are going to need to be in place, and need to be followed. To wit: in addition to the TOS and the Politics & Current Events guidelines, the following will not be tolerated:

1. Intentionally spiteful lampooning of entire religions, denominations, or other large groups of people who can be categorized by their spiritual belief system.

So, while it’s perfectly appropriate to say “That wacky Archbishop of Canterbury is at it again”, it is not appropriate to say “Will those Anglicans never learn?”

2. Taking one’s self or one’s religion/spiritual belief system (or lack thereof) so seriously that it hampers discussion.

For further illumination on this, check out the “First Thread” thread. If you are Christian, and got bent out of shape at the Jesus action figure images, you may want to consider closing that thread and moving to another, rather than posting your own 95 theses on why such irreverence is tantamount to blasphemy.

Constructive comments are appreciated.

[bungadiri]

Personally, I've always thought this was a risky, potentially bad idea and regret the movement of religion-related threads away from the politics forum, even if it's only to a subforum. Religious practice has always been inherently political and, moreover, I like the synergy that comes from broader, more inclusive, as opposed to subdivided, fora.

That said, I think #1 is an excellent rule. I think #2 is less a rule than it is very sensible advice (which is perhaps how you meant it, come to think of it).

Will proselytizing be allowed?

[Chicago1871]

Will proselytizing be allowed?
No, but I hear crucifixion will.

[chad]

I think this forum is absurd.

Political views are determined by values. The politics forum, as awful as it might be, cannot be segregated from discussions of the origins of those values. If this forum is simply supposed to be internal religious debates and information sharing, then that's nice. But otherwise, it just seems silly.

And, as you know, I think it is laughably ignorant to think "morals" belongs here, unless you already assume it must be tied to religion and spirituality.

[nicephoras]

Pfffffft. Sophistry. And I agree with chad. Mostly I think this subforum is pointless because almost none of the threads that end up about religion start that way.

[bigredfutbol]

Will proselytizing be allowed?

I have a pamphlet which will answer that--and many other--questions.

:D

[needs]

Personally, I've always thought this was a risky, potentially bad idea and regret the movement of religion-related threads away from the politics forum, even if it's only to a subforum. Religious practice has always been inherently political and, moreover, I like the synergy that comes from broader, more inclusive, as opposed to subdivided, fora.


Seconded.

Where would threads on, for example, intelligent design, the political power of the religious right, SC rulings on church and state matters go? Those are all inherently political issues that are also deeply imbricated with religion.

If those do belong in the politics forum (which I strongly think they do), what's left for this forum?

Threads on:
-Outrageous statements by various religious leaders
-Internal religious debates.
-And what is and isn't allowed in the forum

And I can't remember a single thread on religious doctrine (although the possibility for a subforum that discusses transubstantiation and the tripartate God (or how the Qaran builds on the New and Old Testaments) might be entertaining and somewhat informative, it won't happen). So we're left with what will likely become a religious rivalries forum, with a heavy dose of meta forum.

Great.

[YankHibee]

I also think this forum is generally a bad idea, especially as part of the already heated politics forum. It's only a matter of time before people start hurling ban demands here. The rules are far too ripe for abuse and essentially unenforceable. While it's easy to card for insulting christianity or judaism, are the mods really prepared to card for a statement like "all Scientologists are complete ********ing idiots"?

[needs]

I also think this forum is generally a bad idea, especially as part of the already heated politics forum. It's only a matter of time before people start hurling ban demands here. The rules are far too ripe for abuse and essentially unenforceable. While it's easy to card for insulting christianity or judaism, are the mods really prepared to card for a statement like "all Scientologists are complete ********ing idiots"?

http://www.witz.org/images/tom-oprah-thumb.jpg

[christopher d]

Will proselytizing be allowed?
In politics, it's difficult to express one's own opinion on issues felt strongly without trying to actively convince others to believe similarly. Some might consider that proselytizing. In the course of a thread on religion, some folks might post about how they came to their current belief systems. This might be considered proselytizing.

There might be merit in a posting extolling the benefits of one's own belief system. It may simply be obnoxious. That depends largely on the post. If there's a rash of obnoxious, obvious proselytizing, it may be called out as guideline #3. If it's only occasional, it will probably be dealt with the way most obnoxious posts are -- a dog pile of witty retorts.

Thanks for the question. It was an unanticipated issue :).

[christopher d]

While it's easy to card for insulting christianity or judaism, are the mods really prepared to card for a statement like "all Scientologists are complete ********ing idiots"?
Nah. It's easier to simply edit such lines.

But if you have something to say about Scientology, it'd be better to take a look at its principles, tear those apart, and post your argument than what you posted above.

[MikeLastort2]

Add mine to the list of voices saying that this forum is a stupid idea. It's not needed.

[YankHibee]

Nah. It's easier to simply edit such lines.

But if you have something to say about Scientology, it'd be better to take a look at its principles, tear those apart, and post your argument than what you posted above.


Sure. But, I still see lots of room for relativism. With as heated as the politics forum often gets with regards to religious issues, I think this subforum could make the situation worse. Nonetheless, I still plan to contribute, so we'll see how it goes.

[spejic]

I think the main problem with the subforum is that religious discussions in the Politics forum, while heated and lengthy when they take place, are usually rare and sporadic. Either this subforum will go empty, or it will serve to spur more argument than existed before (kind of like how the Politics forum spured political discusion when it was created to take away political threads from Free For All).

[bungadiri]

I'd just like to point out that I deliberately phrased my complaint--such as it was--about this forum primarily in terms of my personal preferences ("I like the synergy yada yada yada") with the added concern it might be a little volatile (recognizing at the time that this latter issue being an empirical one). I never said it was a stupid idea, for the simple reason that I don't consider it to be so, and would like to explicitly distance myself from that position.

yrs trooly,
Goody D. Zapatos

[vivzig]

Man, miss a week around here and everyone's gone off the deep end you get back. Even the layout is different.

And what's THIS crazy forum for? Is ITN back?

[IntheNet]

Is ITN back?

Did you miss me?

On second thought let me edit this and just pray for you okay?