Moratorium on religious discussion

[Yorick]

I would happily put my head on the chopping board and leave Ironworks if it meant religion could be discussed here. If you think I am the problem, I can go. Better to have people allowed to talk about faith than banning arguably the most important topic on earth. People die for faith. Faith gives people life. The search, journey and challenges to personal truth are all part of an amazing part of life that should be explored more.

I believe the banning of potential contentious topics is like the prozac epidemic. Remove the highs and lows, just keep all moderate. Yet the highs and lows are where it's at for me. Feel. Experience. Be mistaken. Risk. Be wrong.

"To live a truly creative life, we must first lose the fear of being wrong" - Joseph Chilton Pierce.

I repeat, Larry, if you think I for one, can't have a discussion without personal attacks and mayhem, I would gladly offer to leave if it means Ironworks can't have the vibrancy I am speaking about.

[Aerich]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Where religion is concerned, it's nice to be sitting with the person you are discussing it with. It allows cooler heads to prevail. Online, discussions get out of hand because it's easier to yell and cuss at words on a screen rather than the person in front of your face. Politics gets heated enough online, religion burns like a wildfire.

Aye.

It's also harder to get proper context - no body language, tone of voice, etc. Likewise more difficult to get clarifications about what a person actually means by a particular statement. Language, especially English, is darned imprecise and imperfect.

[Mouse]

Yorick - nobody is suggesting you have to leave IW and we will keep the issue of religion under review. As for your assertion that IW is a poorer place for this moratorium, that's your opinion and I respect it.

However, a decision has been reached and I would ask that you respect it. As Cerek pointed out, there are other sites which specialise in discussions about religion that you may wish to participate in. Remember, at it's heart, this place is a CRPG board with other bits bolted on

As an analogy, try thinking of IW as say a vegetarian restaurant. There may well be several things on the menu you like, but if you hanker after a chargrilled steak, you will go somewhere else. You might suggest to the owners that they add your preference to the menu, but I'm sure you wouldn't be insulted if they politely declined. I'm also sure you wouldn't expect then to allow you to take in your own steak and let you cook it in their kitchen

[ 08-28-2004, 05:16 AM: Message edited by: Mouse ]

[Cerek]

That's a good analogy, Mouse, but I view IW more like a restaurant/bar that no longer allows patrons to smoke inside.

Some of the patrons disagree with the policy, because they feel smoking enhances their experience - but the owners prohibit smoking because they and other patrons don't like the atmosphere it creates.

[ 08-28-2004, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: Cerek ]

[Mouse]

@ Cerek - I can live with that.....

[Cerek]

Originally posted by Mouse: @ Cerek - I can live with that.....

Thanks, Mouse.

But a thought struck me early this morning in regards to the locked JW thread...while the religious beliefs of the girl were a central issue of the topic, there were side issues that could have been discussed. Issues such as:

Can a parent overrule the wishes of a 16 yr old child in Canada? In America, the teenager is considered an adult at 18, and thus the father would have had no say in her treatment if she didn't want him to. But at the age of 16, it would be a much more complex issue.

What actions should the courts take when parents have conflicting wishes regarding a teenager's treatment - and does the teenager get to cast the "deciding vote" in such a case, even though they may not be of "legal age"?

These are just a couple of issues that could have been explored if the topic had been allowed with a strict warning from the Mods to avoid attacking the validity of the teenagers beliefs themself.

The reason these thoughts ocurred to me is because the JW incident draws some very interesting parallels to a similar topic here in America that HAS been allowed on the board before - the case of Newdow vs California regarding the Pledge of Allegiance. I know the primary argument is that the Pledge violates separation of church and state - but if THAT discussion is allowed, then we ARE allowing the father's "religious beliefs" to be the central issue of the topic.

Just like the case in Canada, the father is sueing "on behalf" of his daughter. But the reality is that he is just using her as a pawn for his own motives, because her own beliefs are in conflict with his.

Well, the bottom line is that - in BOTH cases - the religious beliefs of the people involved are the CENTRAL issue, but the conflict creates several side issues that COULD be discussed within the parameters of the moratorium - at least in my opinion.

[Memnoch]

Cerek, if you wish to debate the whys and wherefores of why the JW thread was locked you'd best PM Ziroc, since he was the one who made that call - there's not much point in examining it here, in my opinion. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Cerek]

Originally posted by Memnoch: Cerek, if you wish to debate the whys and wherefores of why the JW thread was locked you'd best PM Ziroc, since he was the one who made that call - there's not much point in examining it here, in my opinion. [img]smile.gif[/img]

No worries, Memnoch. I understand why it was locked. I'm just pointing out that there were other aspects of the issue that could have been discussed.

While that probably wouldn't have worked in the JW thread, I was also pointing out these same issues have been discussed in other threads in which religious beliefs were at the core of the controversy.

I thought of Newdow because I heard on the radio he is going to bring yet another suit to change the Pledge of Allegiance in the near future and I thought there were a lot of parallels between the two issues.

I understand where we stand with the moratorium and I accept the limitations the Mods have put in place. I do appreciate this thread being allowed to stay open so that both sides can discuss the moratorium and make their pleas for it to either be lifted or left in place. While the decision remains, it is essential that discussion like this take place so members recognize that their opinions do matter to Ziroc and the Mods.

[John D Harris]

Keep it or Lift it, it doesn't matter, the discusion of religion and any insuing degradation of the discusion into the depths of namecalling squabling or "IS Too"vs."IS NOT" level is just a symptom of the problem. If it makes it easier and less hassle on the MODS let IT stand!

[Timber Loftis]

Hassle on the mods is an important consideration. If they don't have to police us so much, maybe they can enjoy posting more of their own thoughts.

"To live a truly creative life, we must first lose the fear of being wrong" - Joseph Chilton Pierce.

[img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] Yorick, this is really funny if you think about it. You can "lose the fear of being wrong" by not being afraid to find out you're wrong -- but you can also lose it by convincing yourself you are always right. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]