Religious lockdown

[kiobe]

After a bit of a vacation from the religious portion of the forum I was shocked to see that almost all of the discussions had been locked down. A very odd and interesting use of subjective rule making. Reminds me of the present administration in the US.

[MaryLupin]

Actually, I wish it was reminiscent of US policies. Then, perhaps, the US government/military/business/church complex wouldn't be on a "crusade." If the US could remember that there is supposed to be a division between church and state (and if posters on a literature site could remember there is a difference between literary discussion and proselytizing), then I suspect there might not be quite so much disdain for the intellectual and moral capacities of those who cannot seem to keep these distinctions in mind.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Actually, I wish it was reminiscent of US policies. Then, perhaps, the US government/military/business/church complex wouldn't be on a "crusade." If the US could remember that there is supposed to be a division between church and state (and if posters on a literature site could remember there is a difference between literary discussion and proselytizing), then I suspect there might not be quite so much disdain for the intellectual and moral capacities of those who cannot seem to keep these distinctions in mind.

Bravo re both your points! What is always offensive is the effort of any group to assert that its way is the superior if not the only way, and to impose it wherever it can.

[kiobe]

Actually, I wish it was reminiscent of US policies. Then, perhaps, the US government/military/business/church complex wouldn't be on a "crusade." If the US could remember that there is supposed to be a division between church and state (and if posters on a literature site could remember there is a difference between literary discussion and proselytizing), then I suspect there might not be quite so much disdain for the intellectual and moral capacities of those who cannot seem to keep these distinctions in mind.

Well put but you might be overthinkng it. It's a dicussion forum. Discussion. If a person that believes with his/her whole heart in evolution and did not grow up in a religious environment how would that person know without a doubt that his/her questions are offensive? If a person that believes with his/her whole heart in creation and that the universe is no more than 6,000 years old, why would they automatically be offended by questions that may seem contrary to the information that leads them to thier beliefs? The way I see it is, if there is a repeat offender of the religious beliefs of the members in that area of the forum "that person" should be warned rether than locking out everyone. As a side note, my comparrision using the US admin. isn't about religion it's about the dictatorship they are running. Just my opinion.

[MaryLupin]

Well put but you might be overthinkng it. It's a dicussion forum. Discussion.

It's a literary discussion forum. Literary.

So what text would you like to discuss?

[kiobe]

It's a literary discussion forum. Literary.

So what text would you like to discuss?

Don't you believe it would be impossible to discuss religous text without discussing religion?

[MaryLupin]

Don't you believe it would be impossible to discuss religous text without discussing religion?

Practice makes perfect: what text are we discussing?

[Logos]

kiobe, I had tried to explain things regarding your concerns to you in private messages and am disappointed that you are bringing them up again, almost a month later, in the forums, even after you had made your feelings about this site quite clear.

There are rules for the religious texts forum which have been markedly implemented lately because the moderators here were spending a *lot* of time there and behind the scenes dealing with complaints and problems. You have no idea what goes on behind the scenes or who gets warned or timed out because that is kept private between that member and the mod.

This is a privately owned discussion forum with rules, yes a benevolent dictatorship where you are free to come and go. I don't understand why some people can't grasp the concept(s) of the rules.

Especially this part:


In light of the recent increase in the number of posts and references lacking tolerance towards others' views and beliefs, the Religious Texts Forum Rules will be implemented vigorously as of now and only new threads with questions about or directly discussing 'Religious Texts'* will be permitted as per Rule No. 5.

*eg: Torah, Quar'an, Bible(s), Upanishad etc.

Off-topic posts/Posts which are in violation of these rules will be edited/deleted without any further notice and those who persist in a similar vein will be issued Time-Outs as well as infraction points which might lead to temporary or permanent loss of Forum privileges.

[kiobe]

kiobe, I had tried to explain things regarding your concerns to you in private messages and am disappointed that you are bringing them up again, almost a month later, in the forums, even after you had made your feelings about this site quite clear.

There are rules for the religious texts forum which have been markedly implemented lately because the moderators here were spending a *lot* of time there and behind the scenes dealing with complaints and problems. You have no idea what goes on behind the scenes or who gets warned or timed out because that is kept private between that member and the mod.

This is a privately owned discussion forum with rules, yes a benevolent dictatorship where you are free to come and go. I don't understand why some people can't grasp the concept(s) of the rules.

Especially this part:

Well I'm a tenatious little monkey aren't I?
Are you actually inferring that I can't 'grasp' the concept of rules? I have to take issue with that. I'm a 50 year old business owner, a father, a volunteer first aid coach and a philanthropist. It is impossible, IMPOSSIBLE to discuss a religious text without discussing religion, and because the followers of the holy books of thier choosing see these books as factual, historical documents, the only possible outcome, (other that a cheerleading session between people all piled up on one side of the teeter-totter) would be a difference of opinion. Like you and I are having here. And after all is said and done we'll turn off our computers to find that we are still alive and unharmed.

[Nossa]

Well I'm a tenatious little monkey aren't I?
Are you actually inferring that I can't 'grasp' the concept of rules? I have to take issue with that. I'm a 50 year old business owner, a father, a volunteer first aid coach and a philanthropist. It is impossible, IMPOSSIBLE to discuss a religious text without discussing religion, and because the followers of the holy books of thier choosing see these books as factual, historical documents, the only possible outcome, (other that a cheerleading session between people all piled up on one side of the teeter-totter) would be a difference of opinion. Like you and I are having here. And after all is said and done we'll turn off our computers to find that we are still alive and unharmed.

I'm afraid that some people DO take things a little bit too far sometimes. Some people insult and launch against religions per se, or specific religions. And discussing religion CAN be possible without bashing or even getting into details. For instance I once posted a thread asking about the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament...People replied to me, and I understood the whole thing, and we got it over with. This is, I believe, what Logos and the Admin bith refer to. Ask about specific things, and stay on topic, cuz when it comes to religions, going off topic can be pretty harmful.
Hope you get my point.

[Niamh]

I'm with Logos and Nossa on this one. It should be possible for us all to discuss religion and religious texts without attacking our fellow litnetters for their beliefs, which was what was happening way too much in the threads. It was become very unpleasent and i'm glad they've been cracking down on it. Maybe this closing of threads might make the religious forum calm down, and people might actually start to respect everyones beliefs with out calling them ignorant or condemning them to hell. The Mods have a hard enough time around here and have an aweful lot of work to do to keep the site updated etc with out having to monitor one section 24hrs a day because of flaming.
You have to respect them for that!:thumbs_up :thumbs_up

[MaryLupin]

It is impossible, IMPOSSIBLE to discuss a religious text without discussing religion

It is in fact possible. I do it all the time with people of completely different conceptual systems.


because the followers of the holy books of thier choosing see these books as factual, historical documents, the only possible outcome, (other that a cheerleading session between people all piled up on one side of the teeter-totter) would be a difference of opinion.

It is possible to bracket one's reality in discussion. This is perhaps the greatest potential lesson of academic/intellectual training. It is possible for the human mind to hold more than one "truth" simultaneously. One can have a belief system and still speak (and listen) as if it might not be true.


Like you and I are having here. And after all is said and done we'll turn off our computers to find that we are still alive and unharmed.

There are many kinds of harm. Certainly, since you are not where Logos is (nor where I am) there is no threat of physical hurt. Posturing--and rudeness--can and do cause emotional harm. That is, after all, the point of rudeness--to harm,or at least diminish, another's sense of self.


Well I'm a tenatious little monkey aren't I?

Finally, it is also possible to speak to others without mockery or rudeness.

[PrinceMyshkin]

It is in fact possible. I do it all the time with people of completely different conceptual systems.



It is possible to bracket one's reality in discussion. This is perhaps the greatest potential lesson of academic/intellectual training. It is possible for the human mind to hold more than one "truth" simultaneously. One can have a belief system and still speak (and listen) as if it might not be true.



There are many kinds of harm. Certainly, since you are not where Logos is (nor where I am) there is no threat of physical hurt. Posturing--and rudeness--can and do cause emotional harm. That is, after all, the point of rudeness--to harm,or at least diminish, another's sense of self.



Finally, it is also possible to speak to others without mockery or rudeness.

If you were to offer a course in Mary Lupinness, I would rush to sign up. The passion to speak dispassionately is a noble and oft-neglected one.

[quasimodo1]

Having observed and been involved in the religious texts forums, it became obvious to me early on that the discussions became personal and sometimes downwright hostile very quickly. Religion has that effect on discussion because so many of us have made up our mind allready and have dug in our heals on one or several belief systems. The members who think this is unfair to have more stringent guidelines might want to spend a day or two trying to decide when these discussions are about text and religious theory and when they are about in-your-face attiitude. quasimodo1

[kiobe]

It is in fact possible. I do it all the time with people of completely different conceptual systems.

@K. Please show the way.

It is possible to bracket one's reality in discussion. This is perhaps the greatest potential lesson of academic/intellectual training. It is possible for the human mind to hold more than one "truth" simultaneously. One can have a belief system and still speak (and listen) as if it might not be true.

@K. This is true and pluralism is one of the great attributes of the human mind but this does not address my statement of religious discussion that cannot exclude religion.

There are many kinds of harm. Certainly, since you are not where Logos is (nor where I am) there is no threat of physical hurt. Posturing--and rudeness--can and do cause emotional harm. That is, after all, the point of rudeness--to harm,or at least diminish, another's sense of self.

@K. True there is no reason for this except to say that the rudness and posturing is borne from ignorance and contempt.

Finally, it is also possible to speak to others without mockery or rudeness.

@K. Why would you automatically assume that I was being rude or mocking without knowing me? I assure you and anyone else reading this that my goal of communicating to any poster here is to either learn or to teach. You don't know me, or maybe now you know me a little better but I am a tenatious little monkey. Tell me I can't, and I'll break by back and the bank to prove otherwise. Tell me I shouldn't, and we will have a cool, lucid discussion where the end result finds itself no further from me than to you.


It is in fact possible. I do it all the time with people of completely different conceptual systems.



It is possible to bracket one's reality in discussion. This is perhaps the greatest potential lesson of academic/intellectual training. It is possible for the human mind to hold more than one "truth" simultaneously. One can have a belief system and still speak (and listen) as if it might not be true.



There are many kinds of harm. Certainly, since you are not where Logos is (nor where I am) there is no threat of physical hurt. Posturing--and rudeness--can and do cause emotional harm. That is, after all, the point of rudeness--to harm,or at least diminish, another's sense of self.



Finally, it is also possible to speak to others without mockery or rudeness.


I'm afraid that some people DO take things a little bit too far sometimes. Some people insult and launch against religions per se, or specific religions. And discussing religion CAN be possible without bashing or even getting into details. For instance I once posted a thread asking about the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament...People replied to me, and I understood the whole thing, and we got it over with. This is, I believe, what Logos and the Admin bith refer to. Ask about specific things, and stay on topic, cuz when it comes to religions, going off topic can be pretty harmful.
Hope you get my point.

Hi Nossa. You are right, some people don't think before speaking, or writing and this can cause distress to more than the intended victim. Let me say for the zillionth time, I don't advocate harsh or hurtful language. But to lock down most of the conversations either says something of the intollerance of the posters or the panic of the mods. It's just that I, (call me a hopeless humanist) truly believe that people can get along with oneanother with a gentle nudge rather than a locked door. That being said, there is a small percentage of people that need more than a nudge. So I am not misunderstood again, I am not implying that I know better than the mods how to do thier jobs, I have never believed in micromanaging.


I'm with Logos and Nossa on this one. It should be possible for us all to discuss religion and religious texts without attacking our fellow litnetters for their beliefs, which was what was happening way too much in the threads. It was become very unpleasent and i'm glad they've been cracking down on it. Maybe this closing of threads might make the religious forum calm down, and people might actually start to respect everyones beliefs with out calling them ignorant or condemning them to hell. The Mods have a hard enough time around here and have an aweful lot of work to do to keep the site updated etc with out having to monitor one section 24hrs a day because of flaming.
You have to respect them for that!:thumbs_up :thumbs_up

Hi Niamh. I have really enjoyed my conversations with you but as you have stated in other threads you are a beliver in censorship, which I am not. So I am not misunderstood again, there times when language needs to be tempered. Although as long as the statements are true and harm no one why are we then afraid of those words. For instance, if someone condems me to hell, I wouldn't, on any imaginable level be offened. Now, there are people that might be offened by the same statement, but they might actually end up closer after all is said and done. This very thing happened between Kathycf and I. Because a person can't know the exact personality of the author and in fact interprets the text within the readers personality, the aim of the message is sometimes misunderstood. Kathycf and I are simpatico and I consider her a friend, and I would be there for her in any capacity she sees fit. In general, I truly believe that censorship is a very bad thing.

[MaryLupin]

It is in fact possible. I do it all the time with people of completely different conceptual systems.

@K. Please show the way.

OK. So, Kiobe, what text are we discussing?

[kiobe]

OK. So, Kiobe, what text are we discussing?

Hi, MaryLupin. I will start a thread in the religious section at 5:00 pm pacific time US. It will be about Genesis, Adam and Eve, Noah and the origin of man.

[PrinceMyshkin]

As one of those who got heated and at times offensive in my responses to some of the advocates of their religion, I apologize for my contribution to the locking down of this post.

I didn't see much discussion of the meaning of various texts but rather efforts to sell this or that religious position. I wish there were a place in these forums to discuss the psychology of belief, especially the point at which subjective conviction becomes "knowledge." Quite often when we speak of "knowing" this or that about God, creation, Jesus &c., what we really mean is fervent belief, and hope.

[motherhubbard]

I have seen a hand full of people speak harshly in the religious text forum, but just a hand full. And, they mostly are speaking to the others in that hand full. I love a passionate conversation. I love to hear and see and feel the passion in others when they believe strongly. I am very grounded in my faith, but I constantly question to make sure what I practice is in accordance with the Holy Book that I ascribe to. These passionate people do not offend me or cause my faith to falter, but often cause me to go back to the text and study further. As for flaming, I just don’t go back to that thread- when it comes up I don’t click it. I respect that most people, even people under the same umbrella title, disagree with me. But I would rather people disagree with passion that with apathy. I find it disturbing that a subject as old and profound as religion can be discussed with absolute apathy. I would much rather hear what you have to say, and risk being offended. I’m sure most people do not intend to offend, I don’t, and when offence occurs are ready to appoligize.

I understand that this is a private sight and they can do away with the religious forum altogether. Many great works of literature and much of philosophy contain so much religion and religious overtones that it becomes necessary to discuss this aspect when discussing certain works. However that is not a personal view of religion, but rather what message or idea is the author trying to convey.

I guess what I am saying is that both opinions expressed here, to sensor or not to sensor, are valid. But the long and the short of it is there will always be buttonholes causing trouble, and the sight doesn’t belong to you or me.

[kilted exile]

I really dont see what the issue is: There is a clear rule in place saying all topics in the religious section have to deal with a specific text. The rule is not going to be changed. You really have 2 choices: accept it and post within the confines of the rule or find a different site to discuss religion and discuss literature here instead.

[kiobe]

As one of those who got heated and at times offensive in my responses to some of the advocates of their religion, I apologize for my contribution to the locking down of this post.

I didn't see much discussion of the meaning of various texts but rather efforts to sell this or that religious position. I wish there were a place in these forums to discuss the psychology of belief, especially the point at which subjective conviction becomes "knowledge." Quite often when we speak of "knowing" this or that about God, creation, Jesus &c., what we really mean is fervent belief, and hope.

Thanks for that, you are a good person. The last part of your post is right on the money.


I have seen a hand full of people speak harshly in the religious text forum, but just a hand full. And, they mostly are speaking to the others in that hand full. I love a passionate conversation. I love to hear and see and feel the passion in others when they believe strongly. I am very grounded in my faith, but I constantly question to make sure what I practice is in accordance with the Holy Book that I ascribe to. These passionate people do not offend me or cause my faith to falter, but often cause me to go back to the text and study further. As for flaming, I just don’t go back to that thread- when it comes up I don’t click it. I respect that most people, even people under the same umbrella title, disagree with me. But I would rather people disagree with passion that with apathy. I find it disturbing that a subject as old and profound as religion can be discussed with absolute apathy. I would much rather hear what you have to say, and risk being offended. I’m sure most people do not intend to offend, I don’t, and when offence occurs are ready to appoligize.

I understand that this is a private sight and they can do away with the religious forum altogether. Many great works of literature and much of philosophy contain so much religion and religious overtones that it becomes necessary to discuss this aspect when discussing certain works. However that is not a personal view of religion, but rather what message or idea is the author trying to convey.

I guess what I am saying is that both opinions expressed here, to sensor or not to sensor, are valid. But the long and the short of it is there will always be buttonholes causing trouble, and the sight doesn’t belong to you or me.

Very beautifully said, thanks for your contirbution.


I really dont see what the issue is: There is a clear rule in place saying all topics in the religious section have to deal with a specific text. The rule is not going to be changed. You really have 2 choices: accept it and post within the confines of the rule or find a different site to discuss religion and discuss literature here instead.

Hi Kilted exile, very clear and precise. Unfortunatly life isn't quite that black and white.

[Virgil]

After a bit of a vacation from the religious portion of the forum I was shocked to see that almost all of the discussions had been locked down. A very odd and interesting use of subjective rule making. Reminds me of the present administration in the US.


Actually, I wish it was reminiscent of US policies. Then, perhaps, the US government/military/business/church complex wouldn't be on a "crusade." If the US could remember that there is supposed to be a division between church and state (and if posters on a literature site could remember there is a difference between literary discussion and proselytizing), then I suspect there might not be quite so much disdain for the intellectual and moral capacities of those who cannot seem to keep these distinctions in mind.

What are you talking about? First of all this site is supposed to be political free. But then you bring it up. Where has this adminsitration destroyed the separation between church and state? It seems to me that most court rulings go against religious people. What law that this administration put through that has violated church and state? Be specific because your political ignorance is showing through.

And Mary, government/military/business/church complex? What stupidity. This government, military, business, and church institutions were here for the previous administration (which happened to be of a different political party) and pretty much unchanged for the past 150 years. If you don't like this country, because obviously you do not believe in its institutions, you are free to leave.

[kilted exile]

Hi Kilted exile, very clear and precise. Unfortunatly life isn't quite that black and white.

As it relates to this site however it is black & white. It is no different to how I deal with the no politics rule. There are a myriad of websites to discuss politics on the web & I use one of them instead. You could do the same incredibly easily regarding religion. If you specifically want to discuss the topic with a certain member of this site you can PM them and send them the link to the other forum.

[Scheherazade]

Oh, dear! Where to start from?

Current politics, personal comments, inflammatory remarks... The thread has been open a little over a day and look at where we are. Guess, goes to show how things develop without moderating and certain rules.

Kiobe, however life might be, there are couple of black and whites when it comes to Forum rules:

- Current politics: No.

- Preaching: No.

- Inflammatory/personal posts: No.

Now that most of us aired our views on this issue *yet* once again, let's go back to discussing books and literature, please!