Open Letter to Forum Moderators

[stuntpickle]

Dear moderators,

Currently, on the front page of this Religious Texts forum, in which participants are enjoined to respect the beliefs of others, there are the following threads: Why I Don't Believe in God, Why I don't Believe in the Bible, Why Does God Hate So Much, Spanish Catholic Church and Baby Trafficking. The largest group of participants in this forum appears to consist of atheists, who will generally show up in a thread to disabuse the "lemmings" of their "delusions." Very often they openly call theistic beliefs crazy, stupid, delusional and various other varieties of disrespectful things. This sort of behavior seems largely unpoliced. However, as soon as a theist says something comparatively innocuous, such as "atheism is vacuous" a moderator shows up wagging his finger. In the thread entitled "Why I don't believe in God" in which there are slurs against belief in God from the first page including the suggestion that Christians are dip****s and idiots, it is not until page twenty-eight when I, who am a theist, say something that is, at least, not so obviously pejorative that the moderators show up. Based on my experience in this forum, one can say that a Christian is stupid, idiotic, delusional, crazy, a douchebag with no repercussions; however, statements such as "you are incapable of understanding logic" and "are you in elementary school?" result in infractions if made by theists.

Previously, I have written you privately. You did not respond. I regret having to address you so publicly, but I see no other means by which to get your attention.

What are the mechanisms by which the moderators police the forum? Are they entirely reliant on members reporting incidents? Is the problem I am witnessing due simply to theists not reporting anyone and atheists reporting everyone? Are the moderators predisposed against religious belief? Can a thread that obviously concerns no religious text and seems to have no other purpose than to antagonize those adhering to various varieties of belief be anything other than disrespectful to the beliefs of others?




Respectfully,
Stuntpickle

[Varenne Rodin]

Everyone who breaks the rules of the forum gets infractions. Atheists included. Myself included. I wondered if you got one today or if it was only atheists. The forum, as it turns out, acted quite fairly and with no apparent bias.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Just because you got infractions as a theist doesn't mean atheists didn't. I recently received a pretty good amount of infraction points for something I said to Bien. Just because a moderator warning directly follows your post doesn't mean it was directed only at you or other theists.

[BienvenuJDC]

Just because you got infractions as a theist doesn't mean atheists didn't. I recently received a pretty good amount of infraction points for something I said to Bien. Just because a moderator warning directly follows your post doesn't mean it was directed only at you or other theists.

You got infraction points for something you said to me? I demand that they be removed. I was offended by nothing that you said. Or maybe I'm able to take it. I hope that the moderators remove those points, because these infraction points are....pointless.

[Charles Darnay]

It's a fine line between "attack" and "opinionated debate" - and when religion is involved the line shrinks all the more.

As long as we keep in mind while slinging religious/anti-religious sentiments at each other, that we are discussing philosophic ideas, it becomes easier and less barbaric to debate such matters.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

You got infraction points for something you said to me? I demand that they be removed. I was offended by nothing that you said. Or maybe I'm able to take it. I hope that the moderators remove those points, because these infraction points are....pointless.

Well, demand as you might, I doubt it'll have an affect. And It's no big deal, I still have plenty of infraction points to go before I'm banned. :D

[Calidore]

Do the points expire after a period of good behavior?

[JuniperWoolf]

So we should just ignore statements such as "homosexuality is wrong" because it's intolerant to imply that in fact it is these doctrines of fundamentalist Christianity that are wrong? Yeah, because we should all be tolerant of Christians at all cost, we should even tolerate their intolerance, because faith is just so important. Their ignorance is protected under the umbrella of "religion," so we aren't allowed to say anything about it.


Do the points expire after a period of good behavior?

Sometimes. Sometimes they make them permanent.

[ftil]

So we should just ignore statements such as "homosexuality is wrong" because it's intolerant to imply that in fact it is these horrible doctrines of fundamentalist Christianity that are wrong? Yeah, because we should all be tolerant of Christians at all cost, we should even tolerate their intolerance, because faith is just so important. Their ignorance is protected under the umbrella of "religion," so we aren't allowed to say anything about it. Why do we even need to protect GOD in the first place? Isn't an all-powerful diety capable of protecting himself? Are we hurting his all-powerful feelings?


Hm… your response is quite interesting. Isn’t it interesting that whenever people address the lack of religious tolerance, they are called fundamentalist Christians or Muslims? I know people who are fundamentalist Buddhist, Hindu, New Age, or Satanists. Fundamentalism applies to people not to a specific religion. :D It is about power and control. I personally feel sorry for them as they must hate themselves so much that they had to project self hatred on others. :cryin:

[Varenne Rodin]

Not topical, sorry.

[Charles Darnay]

Woah, what happened here....seems like a....well I shouldn't be posting this right now.....being....well sleep deprived and tired to that point where it seems like your drunk when you're really not....how eloquent! but it's the best way I could describe it.....right the point.

I have known people, quite a few, who consider themselves extremely orthodox Jew and orthodox Christian - real theists, take the Torah/Bible at its word sort of thing - yet have no qualms with such things as homosexual rights. Theism does not always equal intolerant ****head, and thus not every debate with a theist has to be along the lines of "how dare you insult me while being an intolerant ****head."

I do agree with the point (whose was it...I should go check....too far, too far....I have miles to go before I sleep....right) with the point that atheists should not be looked upon (by themselves or others) in regards to theism (despite what the name suggests). Atheism does not mean "against theism" despite what the language says - it is simply another belief.

I have to go.....now.

[ftil]

I agree with this 100%. Togetherness isn't really going to happen as long as atheists are being judged by people adhering to a theist set of rules. A set of rules that seem unjust and hurtful to secular people and some minorities. It's going to be tough to speak to theists as long as they preach angrily. I'll do my best to avoid insulting anyone or breaking forum rules, though.

It is interesting that you have that kind of experience. I know people from all religions, atheists included and they don’t have the need to impose their beliefs upon others. My best friend is atheist and it is a pure delight to have her as a friend. We can discuss any spiritual belief or religion.
As I said, some people have serious issues of controlling others. It is a personal issue not a religious one. :ihih:

[Varenne Rodin]

I shouldn't be responding. Thanks, Pip. :)

[OrphanPip]

I'll just point out that it's against the rules to question the moderators decisions like this, if you have issues you need to PM the staff, just so people don't get themselves into further trouble by continuing this discussion.

[ftil]

I'll just point out that it's against the rules to question the moderators decisions like this, if you have issues you need to PM the staff, just so people don't get themselves into further trouble by continuing this discussion.

Hmm…you haven’t noticed that it isn’t discussion about questioning the moderators decision at all but it turned out to be another religious battle. I agree that it is better to stop . We have many treads in religious section...... for those who want to continue. :brow:

[JuniperWoolf]

Hm… your response is quite interesting. Isn’t it interesting that whenever people address the lack of religious tolerance, they are called fundamentalist Christians or Muslims? I know people who are fundamentalist Buddhist, Hindu, New Age, or Satanists.

Me too. In fact, I mentioned fundamentalist Muslims three times in the other thread, but no one was rushing to their defence. I wonder why?


Woah, what happened here....seems like a....well I shouldn't be posting this right now.....being....well sleep deprived and tired to that point where it seems like your drunk when you're really not....how eloquent! but it's the best way I could describe it.....right the point.

Haha, that was me last night when I started getting into this crap in the first place. On the days before I have nightshift I have to stay up all night and go to bed at 9am in order to re-set my sleep schedule. So, for any mods that are reading this, I'm sorry about getting into another religious discussion, I was sleep deprived, I'm pretty certain that I managed to avoid getting personal, forgive me! To err is human, yeah?

*grovels*

[Paulclem]

I wonder what a fundamental Buddhist is.

[PoeticPassions]

I wonder what a fundamental Buddhist is.

Well, a fundamental hindu might come in the form of the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. And maybe a fundamental Buddhist would be illustrated by those that set themselves on fire in protest. That seems pretty fundamentalist to me.

Of course, Buddhism is quite a peace loving religion... so it might be more rare. Maybe due to the lack of a holy book.

Though if we think about the word 'fundamental' and go back into history (the first time that was used to denote religious fundamentalism was in regard to American Evangelicals... going back to the 'fundamentals' of the religion.. in some cases, the Amish are considered fundamentalists as well), then the meaning of the word and what it denotes becomes a bit different...

[BienvenuJDC]

Well, a fundamental hindu might come in the form of the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. And maybe a fundamental Buddhist would be illustrated by those that set themselves on fire in protest. That seems pretty fundamentalist to me.

Of course, Buddhism is quite a peace loving religion... so it might be more rare. Maybe due to the lack of a holy book.

Though if we think about the word 'fundamental' and go back into history (the first time that was used to denote religious fundamentalism was in regard to American Evangelicals... going back to the 'fundamentals' of the religion.. in some cases, the Amish are considered fundamentalists as well), then the meaning of the word and what it denotes becomes a bit different...

I'm still wonder what would be entailed in being considered a Christian fundamentalist. What does that mean exactly?

[Darcy88]

"Fundamentalism is strict adherence to specific theological doctrines usually understood as a reaction against Modernist theology.[1] The term "fundamentalism" was originally coined by its supporters to describe a specific package of theological beliefs that developed into a movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century, and that had its roots in the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy of that time.[2] The term usually has a religious connotation indicating unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs.[3] "Fundamentalism" is sometimes used as a pejorative term, particularly when combined with other epithets (as in the phrase "right-wing fundamentalists")."

I don't think the Buddhist monks who set themselves on fire qualify as fundamentalists. Its a political action.

[Paulclem]

Well, a fundamental hindu might come in the form of the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. And maybe a fundamental Buddhist would be illustrated by those that set themselves on fire in protest. That seems pretty fundamentalist to me.

Of course, Buddhism is quite a peace loving religion... so it might be more rare. Maybe due to the lack of a holy book.

Though if we think about the word 'fundamental' and go back into history (the first time that was used to denote religious fundamentalism was in regard to American Evangelicals... going back to the 'fundamentals' of the religion.. in some cases, the Amish are considered fundamentalists as well), then the meaning of the word and what it denotes becomes a bit different...

those that set themselves on fire in protest.

In what way is it fundamental? It's using teachings that have developed since The Buddha's time, so it doesn't fit with the going back to fundamentals definition.

Fundamentalism also has negativie, violent connotations, though no-one but the monk was harmed. Also, the harm, whilst affecting his body, would not have affected his karma, which, motivated by the wish to free people from the sufferings of the Vietnam war, may have been positively influenced.

[MarkBastable]

I'm still wonder what would be entailed in being considered a Christian fundamentalist. What does that mean exactly?


It's all pretty clearly explained by the fathers of the movement, here...


http://www.eaec.org/bookstore/the_fundamentals.htm

[BienvenuJDC]

OK...then who I really qualify as a Christian Fundamentalist? I've been accused as such here on this site. I'm just wondering.

[cafolini]

"Fundamentalism is strict adherence to specific theological doctrines usually understood as a reaction against Modernist theology.[1] The term "fundamentalism" was originally coined by its supporters to describe a specific package of theological beliefs that developed into a movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century, and that had its roots in the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy of that time.[2] The term usually has a religious connotation indicating unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs.[3] "Fundamentalism" is sometimes used as a pejorative term, particularly when combined with other epithets (as in the phrase "right-wing fundamentalists")."

I don't think the Buddhist monks who set themselves on fire qualify as fundamentalists. Its a political action.

But any religious or merely philosophical system of thought asserts an intellectual straightjacket and views it as fundamental. It is a pity because the word fundamentalist or even foundation has been infested with the hocus-pocus, and you have to think twice before you use it and in what context to make it meaningful.

[MarkBastable]

OK...then who I really qualify as a Christian Fundamentalist? I've been accused as such here on this site. I'm just wondering.

I wouldn't worry about it. I've been accused on this site of being an insensitive, intolerant, ill-informed, fatuous, liberal, old, stupid, intellectually-restricted, bourgeois, crude, humourless jerk.

Any of which is debatable, but even if it's right, the people saying so just got lucky.

[BienvenuJDC]

I wouldn't worry about it. I've been accused on this site of being an insensitive, intolerant, ill-informed, fatuous, liberal, old, stupid, intellectually-restricted, bourgeois, crude, humourless jerk.

Any of which is debatable, but even if it's right, the people saying so just got lucky.

That's crazy...you're not that old!!

[MarkBastable]

OK...then do I really qualify as a Christian Fundamentalist? I've been accused as such here on this site. I'm just wondering.



I wouldn't worry about it. I've been accused on this site of being an insensitive, intolerant, ill-informed, fatuous, liberal, old, stupid, intellectually-restricted, bourgeois, crude, humourless jerk.

Any of which is debatable, but even if it's right, the people saying so just got lucky.



That's crazy...you're not that old!!


Well, exactly. Thank you. And you're not that Christian.

[ftil]

I wonder what a fundamental Buddhist is.

Fundamentalism is a rigid adherence to a religious doctrine. This term does not apply to a specific religion but describes a person who has a rigid belief system.

[krymsonkyng]

How does someone find out if they have infraction points? I kinda feel left out if I don't have any. They sound kinda like prison tattoos for troll cred or something.

If I say something like "The next person to post in this forum smells of moldy brownies and rotten armadillo meat" will I earn a point or do I need to be more offensive?

[Emil Miller]

How does someone find out if they have infraction points? I kinda feel left out if I don't have any. They sound kinda like prison tattoos for troll cred or something.

If I say something like "The next person to post in this forum smells of moldy brownies and rotten armadillo meat" will I earn a point or do I need to be more offensive?

I shouldn't think so, moldy brownies and armadillo meat are my favourite scent. However, if you were to imply a phrase like 'leftist progressivism' to be a contradiction in terms, you might well find yourself part of the growing membership of the infraction club.

[Darcy88]

I shouldn't think so, moldy brownies and armadillo meat are my favourite scent. However, if you were to imply a phrase like 'leftist progressivism' to be a contradiction in terms, you might well find yourself part of the growing membership of the infraction club.

Is "leftist progressivism" a contradiction in terms? Maybe its redundant, like "right-wing conservatism," but I don't see it as contradictory. Maybe I'm just not getting the joke if there is one.

[kiki1982]

Wow, this has been quite a thread. Personally I have never had a real problem with atheists, not on here and not anywhere else. Maybe because I don't aggravate them...


OK...then who I really qualify as a Christian Fundamentalist? I've been accused as such here on this site. I'm just wondering.

Oh I've been accused of being that. Bullied with it even. I am not though. I was accused of it, I think because I mentioned the word 'God'. Didn't go down well. Maybe you did that once...


How does someone find out if they have infraction points? I kinda feel left out if I don't have any. They sound kinda like prison tattoos for troll cred or something.

If I say something like "The next person to post in this forum smells of moldy brownies and rotten armadillo meat" will I earn a point or do I need to be more offensive?

Oh, I think I don't have any. Unless I didn't get the message (although I am a very nice girl :D).

[Ecurb]

I don't want to do anything offensive, or nasty, but I'd like to get some "infraction points" just so I'll look like a tough guy. Then people will be scared to mess with me. Can anyone help me out and tell me how?

[Paulclem]

Fundamentalism is a rigid adherence to a religious doctrine. This term does not apply to a specific religion but describes a person who has a rigid belief system.

Define rigid in terms of Buddhism.

[Emil Miller]

Is "leftist progressivism" a contradiction in terms? Maybe its redundant, like "right-wing conservatism," but I don't see it as contradictory. Maybe I'm just not getting the joke if there is one.

There's no joke but here's an extract from my novel that puts it into perspective:

That section of the Labour party that leaned towards the USSR, had found an outlet for its frustration through the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, a recently formed pressure group made up of people from various social strata. It was headed by academics, politicians and churchmen, but driven by communist sympathisers whose motives were, to say the least, questionable.

[Whifflingpin]

"rigid in terms of Buddhism"

The sound of one hand clapping.

Non-rigid is the sound of one hand flapping.

[ftil]

Define rigid in terms of Buddhism.

I said a rigid belief system. It means any religious doctrine or dogma.

[Calidore]

I don't want to do anything offensive, or nasty, but I'd like to get some "infraction points" just so I'll look like a tough guy. Then people will be scared to mess with me. Can anyone help me out and tell me how?

For starters, you might want to move to a city with a tougher-sounding name than "Eugene."

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

OK...then who I really qualify as a Christian Fundamentalist? I've been accused as such here on this site. I'm just wondering.


I don't want to do anything offensive, or nasty, but I'd like to get some "infraction points" just so I'll look like a tough guy. Then people will be scared to mess with me. Can anyone help me out and tell me how?

Just say you have some. Know one will know you're lying. Well, except in this case since you told everyone you have no infraction points.

Just call someone an idiot and pepper some curse words in there. That should do it.

[Paulclem]

Fundamentalism is a rigid adherence to a religious doctrine. This term does not apply to a specific religion but describes a person who has a rigid belief system.

This is what you said originally.

I said a rigid belief system. It means any religious doctrine or dogma.

So are we saying fundamental, rigid or both? My question was what do you mean by a rigid belief system in Buddhism. Both words have associations beyond religious doctrine or dogma, but say something about the attitude or application of the person.

I'm just interested.

[ftil]

Fundamentalism is a rigid adherence to a religious doctrine. This term does not apply to a specific religion but describes a person who has a rigid belief system.

This is what you said originally.

I said a rigid belief system. It means any religious doctrine or dogma.

So are we saying fundamental, rigid or both? My question was what do you mean by a rigid belief system in Buddhism. Both words have associations beyond religious doctrine or dogma, but say something about the attitude or application of the person.

I'm just interested.

Well, language is not perfect, isn’t it? :ihih: I said fundamentalist as a description of a person who has a rigid belief system. Maybe I should clarify what I mean by a rigid belief system. For example, a person who accepts a religious doctrine or dogma without questioning has a rigid belief system. In contrary, a person who has a flexible belief system is not afraid to question any belief he or she holds as the truth.

Second, as Tao Te Ching said, “ Those who know are still” Unfortunately! :banghead:

[Ecurb]

For starters, you might want to move to a city with a tougher-sounding name than "Eugene."

Don't knock the dark side of Eugene, Oregon. It is a hippie haven, and that may lead you to think we're all wimps. Also, I'll grant that there are several Quaker Meeting Houses in town, so the uninitiated and naive think we are wussies. However, if you go inside one of the Meeting Houses, the first thing you see is a huge poster of the Quaker Oats Man, wearing a black beret and two ammo belts, and holding a submachine gun. Underneath is the caption, "Never Again".

I asked a well armed attendant at the House what it meant. "We're the Provisional Wing of the Quakers," he told me. "Never Again!"

[papayahed]

Dear moderators,

Currently, on the front page of this Religious Texts forum, in which participants are enjoined to respect the beliefs of others, there are the following threads: Why I Don't Believe in God, Why I don't Believe in the Bible, Why Does God Hate So Much, Spanish Catholic Church and Baby Trafficking. The largest group of participants in this forum appears to consist of atheists, who will generally show up in a thread to disabuse the "lemmings" of their "delusions." Very often they openly call theistic beliefs crazy, stupid, delusional and various other varieties of disrespectful things. This sort of behavior seems largely unpoliced. However, as soon as a theist says something comparatively innocuous, such as "atheism is vacuous" a moderator shows up wagging his finger. In the thread entitled "Why I don't believe in God" in which there are slurs against belief in God from the first page including the suggestion that Christians are dip****s and idiots, it is not until page twenty-eight when I, who am a theist, say something that is, at least, not so obviously pejorative that the moderators show up. Based on my experience in this forum, one can say that a Christian is stupid, idiotic, delusional, crazy, a douchebag with no repercussions; however, statements such as "you are incapable of understanding logic" and "are you in elementary school?" result in infractions if made by theists.

Previously, I have written you privately. You did not respond. I regret having to address you so publicly, but I see no other means by which to get your attention.

What are the mechanisms by which the moderators police the forum? Are they entirely reliant on members reporting incidents? Is the problem I am witnessing due simply to theists not reporting anyone and atheists reporting everyone? Are the moderators predisposed against religious belief? Can a thread that obviously concerns no religious text and seems to have no other purpose than to antagonize those adhering to various varieties of belief be anything other than disrespectful to the beliefs of others?




Respectfully,
Stuntpickle

I think all your answers will be found here:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/announcement.php?f=9

Believe it or not moderators do not read every thread, if you feel someone has violated a forum rule please report the incident. We do not close threads because we or members do not like the content.

And since we have addressed this matter this thread can now be closed.