Moratorium on religious discussion

[Memnoch]

I hear what Cerek's saying, and I understand the concept behind "testing the waters", but I'd suggest an alternative option: that you can also "test the waters" using existing allowed topics in here, like homosexuality, politics, and so on.

ALL WE CARE ABOUT AS MODS IS THAT WE CAN ALL COEXIST HERE IN RELATIVE HARMONY. It's really quite simple, this thing that we want. If we're able to get along and coexist, disagreements and all, without people digging in to the point where they have to be forcibly uprooted or need a mod to intervene just so that they can save face without looking like they've backed down then conceivably there will be very little topics on this earth that you can discuss here.

Can I just say that it's really really simple what we want, this coexistence and self-respect, but really hard to give to us, it seems. Sometimes I get frustrated at how we can't achieve this simple thing, which I reckon we'd be able to do if we were in a pub discussing things face to face. [img]graemlins/awcrap.gif[/img] I don't like having to come here and lock threads and tell people to ease off and lay the law down and all that - I'd be happiest if I never had to put my mod hat on here.

Anyway, back to the topic. If we can achieve oppositive harmony and coexistence with all the other topics, then we can draw an inference that we can do that with religion as well. Unfortunately, religion has a habit of making people get up on soapboxes and pontificate (saw it starting even now). We just need people to swallow their pride a bit and recognise other people's points of view as being valid, even if they disagree with them. So we'll have to see how we go. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 08-27-2004, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: Memnoch ]

[Mouse]

TL, as far as I can see, I was being entirely consistent. Due to the interventions in Jaradu's post, it's original focus on prejuduce and intolerance was hijacked into a Christian -v- secular wrangle on definitions of the term "Satanist".

So as opposed to religion being an adjunct or periferal to the thread, it had become the central topic.

Thread closed. Lesson (hopefully) learned

[ 08-27-2004, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: Mouse ]

[Aerich]

Jaradu, the direction the thread took was none of your doing. We are experts in thread-morphing.

And thanks, Mods, for allowing us the limited freedom to discuss topics connected to religion. I think it is valuable because of the effect religion has on the underlying and overt beliefs and values of most societies and even political systems.

However, I agree with Memnoch, and to a degree with Chewie. Discussions are dangerous if they are focused on religion, or if posts only deal with the religious aspects of a particular issue. It only takes a couple flamebaits to ruin a thread (and everyone's mood). The recent threads raise hope that we can discuss religion peacefully, but I have my doubts that the current spirit will last indefinitely. So I support a continued moratorium on discussions that primarily focus on religion.

[Chewbacca]

Firstly- Sorry I helped derail your thread into lockdown, Jaradu. I humbly offer to delete my posts if it would get the thread re-opeened so the on-topic discussion can continue.

Secondly- I am a bit confused so I'm going lay this out:

I saw this post by a Mod:

By Larry: So far its fine for me to leave be, as nobody is getting heated or upset here, which is a great thing. The trouble will come if somebody wants to debate against any points made here, however, which will be clearly in the wrong where the ban is concerned. I'll let this be for now, anyway, since it is informative and good-mannered. Another moderator may override my opinion if they choose.

So, I took this as a greenlight to share the webpage on the topic of Satanism. I then responded when the integrity of the information of that webpage came under question in the spirit of being "informative and good-mannered" although by replying I may have been adding to "debate against any points made" already in progress. Honestly, I had forgotten Larry's warning about debating at this point but my intention was to remain civil and keep mostly to the point of discussing the website in question.

So after my last post in the now locked thread I thought to create this one for clarification on the issue. I reviewed the thread with Satanism as a side topic and it seemed that we were blantantly breaking the moratorium, yet had permission to do so as long as we didn't debate points being made and we remained good-natured and informative. I became confused as to what I could do and couldnt do.


Was I wrong to reply as it seems Mouse's last post suggests? I didn't mean to ignore Larry by reponding to the critism of the websource I provided.

As it seems I might actually have overlooked Larry's warning- I offer an apology to Larry for overlooking and not heeding his words as a Mod in that thread.

[Jaradu]

LOL, Aerich! [img]smile.gif[/img]

It's not a problem, Chewie. After a while, the whole discussion was about Satanism, so to delete your posts would equal a dead thread. [img]smile.gif[/img] I'm not sure if there was anything else to say about what the thread intended to talk about. I appreciate the offer, though. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Memnoch]

G'day Chewy. I can understand where you're coming from - after all you started this thread. Larry posted his post when religion was NOT the central topic of discussion. The detailed posts on religious issues by yourself and Yorick took it over the edge (unintentional I'm sure, which is why both of you are still here [img]smile.gif[/img] ).

I realise that allowing people to mention religious issues as a related issue to another, bigger central topic, as Mouse initially suggested, can cause confusion with people. As he also said, it makes it very difficult for you guys to discuss Mideast issues if we don't allow you to at least state the causal factors behind certain events. I hope that my subsequent posts, statements and actions (as well as Mouse's) have clarified the position on religion, if not I'll lay them out crystal clear:

- you CAN mention religion as an adjunct to an existing topic (eg the 16yo girl thread was opened with this in mind)

- you CANNOT discuss or debate the pros and cons of any one religion, be that Christianity, Satanism, Islam, Buddhism etc. This includes discussing various aspects of these religions in and of themselves, including issues on beliefs, theology, doctrine, etc.

Hopefully this will provide some clarity. [img]smile.gif[/img]

EDIT: Can I just say that if you guys have behaved yourselves way back before we had this moratorium this wouldn't even be an issue.

[ 08-27-2004, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: Memnoch ]

[Timber Loftis]

The misbehavior never comes until a few weeks have passed and the entrenched lines have been redrawn.

[Larry_OHF]

- you CAN mention religion as an adjunct to an existing topic (eg the 16yo girl thread was opened with this in mind)

This is exactly what I was trying to express, but Aussie men are smarter than American men. Or maybe it is because my two kids have driven me over the edge of sanity. Whichever is the case...Memnoch has said what I attempted to explain earlier. That idea-stealing, booze-drinking womanizer!

[Aerich]

Originally posted by Larry_OHF: That idea-stealing, booze-drinking womanizer!

Care to explain the religious implications of that statement? [img]graemlins/blueblink.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

I think matters of faith are the most interesting topics you can discus. I think contention and conflict are also vital and important aspects of finding truth. To use an analogy, music contains harmony and dissonance. Tension and release. To have discussions that are always purely harmonious is like having bland music that is always sweet. never melancholy, never aggressive, never tense. Emotions are good. Change is often precipitated by conflict, pain, or contention.

As long as insults are avoided I think much value is in a conversation where people have investments in the topic that lead to deeper soul searching.

I honestly believe the board is worse off for not having matters of faith discussed. Color, diversity, and the tension that results from alternate worldviews meeting are beautiful, and can result in truer understanding.

I would be putting a line through personal character assasinations, but otherwise giving free reign to discussions.

If you treat people like children, they act like children. Trust is given, not earned. If you treat people like adults, they act like adults. Trust is given, not earned.

I'd vote to keep ironworks interesting by ending the morotorium. I'd also vote to remove the division between gencon and current event. Before that division there was more harmony, as heated exchanges were interspersed with light banter. Now people generally camp in one or the other. I have found it's affected my own posting style and approach to Ironworks for example, and noticed the effect on the board.

Were it my forum, I would have one nongaming general discussion forum, where people who like games can talk about whatever they like. religion, politics, their pet fish, cellphone ringtones, sushi and the death penalty. Celebrate diversity. Makes for a more interesting and vibrant board, with dissonance that moves into harmonious resolutions.