Once upon a time, all threads dealing with Sprituality and Religion were housed in the main Politics & Current Events forum. A former moderator named christopher d among others convinced the reluctant site administrators that a subforum would be a good idea, and thus S&R was born. We've had many new posters join the site and find the forum in the time since then. That is a welcome development. And as the guidelines stickied atop the forum are a couple of years old and perhaps not read by newcomers (or remembered by some of the oldsters!), perhaps it is time for a reminder. Here, then, are the original two guidelines from christopher d, which still apply: "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. If you are Christian, and got bent out of shape at the Jesus action figure images, you may want to consider leavng that thread and moving to another, rather than posting your own 95 theses on why such irreverence is tantamount to blasphemy." In one of our current threads, it was asked if proselyting or simply posting scripture (and I am paraphrasing) in the midst of threads is appropriate or not. That depends. As in all other forums on BigSoccer, content and context matter; we have various threads on various subjects in each forum so as to better organize discussions. If something doesn't fit, it is moved to a thread which does (if such exists) or to the Recycle Bin (if such does not), and the poster is asked politely to stay on topic. We'll try that here too.
Whatever the good intent of the creation of this forum, it's largely been a failure. I blame both the bitter prosthyletizers, bitter skeptics, but most of all, christopher d for being asleep at the wheel most of the time, when he wasn't being a dick.
I don't think the forum is a failure. It serves its function, which is to provide a place where certain people can have the same pointless argument over and over again without bothering the poor fools in the main P&CE forum. If the religion subforum was supposed to be a place for thoughtful discussion or constructive give-and-take, then it was never going to work anyway.
I dig the S&R threads! I dig them a lot. In fact, I haven't felt this good since Eddie Pope equalized against Mexico in 1997.
To me the forum has been fun, it has provided some interesting reading and many different perspectives. The problem is that some people take their own ideas and beliefs too seriously, and think very little of the ideas and beliefs of others. But that is to be expected.
I appreciate the Spirituality & Religion subforum and see a legitimate need for its continuance; to separate thread discussions that address spiritual (as opposed to political) issues. There does seem to be an inordinate number of threads developing on atheist/secular issues (as opposed to presumed topical spirituality and religion issues) and whether these atheist/secular topics belong in this subforum (one tightly focused on Spirituality & Religion) may be something christopher d or other Mods might change downstream. Insofar as issue of "proselyting or simply posting scripture" it seems useful, when proving a point, to cite a relevant source. I cannot imagine one taking exception to cites of scripture, particularly when it is within the Spirituality & Religion subforum designed for it, unless it is done at length to the detriment of thread discussion. Lastly, thanks to Ismitje and others for Modship of thread and keeping it on topic.
I agree wholeheartedly. The intent isn't to prevent scripture from being used in discussion, but perhaps to prevent using scripture to replace discussion.
You can't have it both ways. Theists can't say that atheism is a religion or a faith and then argue that it has no place on a forum on 'Spirituality & Religion'.
Gordon: Fair point and I'll briefly address it this way; while atheism and secularism may have a place on the forum, I echo Ismitje's sentiment that there seems to be "intentionally spiteful lampooning" about directed toward those that may believe or have faith. Indeed, certainly outright hostile posts entitled, "Shut the ******** Up, Catholic Church" are blantantly antagonistic in their intent and certainly not in the best interest of intelligent discourse. So too, religious and faithful need to practice tolerance toward those that do not believe. Balance is key. Specific to your post, however - as a rejection of theism - atheism rejects religion and faith. Remember too that atheism is (or was) a pejorative epithet against those that did not believe in religion so in fairness to them (grouped as secularists today) if they truly do not believe in spirituality or religion perhaps their entry into a specific forum on 'Spirituality & Religion' may not be in their interests? Just a thought...
Fair enough. I suppose it's up to the mods to dictate what tone or language is acceptable. "Intentional spiteful lampooning" my not be in the best interest of intelligent discourse but neither is any attempt to suppress opposing viewpoints or arguments. Nobody is under obligation to use this forum and if an argument (however forceful or crude) against their views is going to cause serious offence then I don't think this forum (or any internet forum for that matter) is the place for them. This place would be dead, and probably wouldn't exist if it weren't for vigorous atheist vs theist debates. But that's assuming that a negative viewpoint is inherently less valuable or worthy than a positive viewpoint. Do you not think that people who think the answer is 'no' or 'maybe' would be just as interested in debating a topic like 'Does God exist?' as people who think the answer is 'yes'?
This is all rather ironic, coming from the guy who started the thread entitled: "Godless Societies/Secularism" with the opening commment: So you just want this to be an atheist-free playground where the religious can spitefully lampoon the godless secularists, not an open forum where it goes both ways?
GringoTex--you know, the guy who started the "Shut the ******** Up, Catholic Church" thread--is a practicing Catholic, FWIW.
Fair point Gordon however a bit of clarification here; if you examine the track record, so to speak, of the majority of the secular threads herein, they are largely antagonistic toward Christians and typically surface some minutia of Christianity for which they take exception. While I and other faithful welcome challenges to our faith, it gets a bit stale when Christians, particularly Catholics, are held under the microscope while fundamental Muslims and their radical and oftentimes violent agenda of intolerance is ignored herein. It would help discussion if the secular would address the real threat to world peace; fundamental Muslims, and target their intolerance. Debates on that issue are long overdue. Quite respectfully bigred, if that's truly the case, GringoTex needs more practice... As I am sure you yourself know, anyone who alleges Christian belief, particularity one who suggests belief of Catholicism, and then starts a thread entitled "Shut the ******** Up, Catholic Church," might have nefarious intent in terms of the Catholic faith and may not be its best spokesman.
Since GringoTex has been outed I feel the obligation to reveal that bigredfootball was born in Norman, OK & has season tickets to the Sooners.
I realize that I don't post here as much as I used to so I might not be up on the latest news, but have your thread starting rights been taken away?
Sure would have liked to see a late FG against Texas. I like college teams & don't have much use for the likes of Texas, USC, Fla & St & those who can afford to "assist" players. Does that get me off the ban list?
Yep. And if you can find an offense for NU to go with our D, you'll be on the protected list for life!
so how do you give someone "gay" rep? when I want to give rep, I only have positive or negative options. now you tell me there is a third way??
Actually, the rep you just gave me may be what you refer to as purple, although my eyes see it as gray. I think it means that your rep total is too low to give it color, although I'm just guessing, I get one of those every once in awhile. Edit: And the BigSoccer gods tell me I can't currently contribute to your rep potency, sorry.
interesting... sorry, I did not mean to imply that you are gay or that I think you are gay. I avoid such speculation, and besides, my gaydar has not been calibrated in a while no worries on my part. It was actually meant to be a positive rep, but as you speculate, I probably do not have sufficient rank to provide a positive or a negative rep. I actually have two purple/grap reps and one seems to be a positive one, based on the comment, whereas the other seems to be a negative one. so who knows - I wonder if they count for or against one's rep.