Discussing the new forum guidelines

Free State Project Forum

265015 Posts in 21194 Topics by 34921 Members / Latest Member: BethShnibss

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 19, 2013, 01:46:17 pm

Join the FSP

POSTING GUIDELINES and ADVICE FOR NEW MEMBERS

Quote from: thewaka on March 23, 2003, 10:00:21 pm

Quote from: stumpy on February 24, 2003, 11:39:31 am

If anyone wants to engage in these religious discussions, there are many chat rooms dedicated to such matters.

So why was Elizabeth's thread "The "Left Behind" Series - Salon.com" allowed to remain? Didn't seem to me to fit the examples given of appropriate discussions and instead the examples of what isn't appropriate.

Oh, now I see what that thread was about. At first I thought it was a discussion of Candide - or was that the Right Behind?
http://www.literature.org/authors/voltaire/candide/chapter-12.html

Quote

Religious issues can be core issues underlying liberty and are thus fair game for discussion. Examples of appropriate topics include the religious or non-religious context of liberty, the moral philosophies inherent in different religions & ideologies, religious affiliation (or non-affiliation) in the candidate states, and so on.

But it is inappropriate to delve into discussions of technical differences of religious ordinances, excessive scriptural interpretation (word nit-picking), or disparaging religions by calling them "cults," "deviant" or "apostate." This forum is not the proper venue to proselytize.

Also inappropriate to this forum are arguments about the existence of God, because they are fruitless, and because they have nothing to do with the FSP, since we will never take an official position on the matter.

Finally, posts that suggest a course of action counter to the goal of the FSP -- the creation of a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property -- are also inappropriate

From the Merriam-Webster OnLine Dictionary:

Religion>noun 1 : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Scriptural>adverb of, relating to, contained in, or according to a sacred writing.

From the Oxford University Press Dictionary:

Interpretation>verb 1. Explain the meaning of

nit-picking>verb informal fussy or pedantic fault-finding.

excessive>adjective more than is necessary, normal or desireable

delve>verb 2. research intensively into something

liberty>noun 1. The state of being free from oppression

Question :

Is it consistent with the Forum Guidelines to delete posts which quote a scriptural text even though the guidelines state that "religious issues can be core issues underlying liberty and are thus fair game for discussion"?

--Seeking clarification on this matter, I asked the question , "[so,]no scriptural verses may ever be posted on the religion forum since that could lead to an interpretation war? "

--The answer given to me by was "sure."

How is it tenable to allow for the discussion of "religion and morality in the context of liberty and the FSP" without allowing even the context of that discussion to take place by banning any mention of scriptural text, i.e., the very source of that discussion concerning the relationship between liberty and religion?

The forum guidelines define "excessive scriptural interpretation (word nit-picking), as inappropriate. But is merely quoting a scripture or providing a reference for a scripture an allowable cause for deletion of a post even when offered without the provision of any specific interpretation? To what extent shall the attainment of the social goal of preventing people from being scared by the FSP for having religious individuals be enacted by the suppression of the discussion, even if the discussion is focused upon liberty in the context of religion?

If this is so, what specifically is to be defined as scripture?

And if the FSP is going to assume the utterly awesome task of defining what constitutes a religious text or scriptural passage for purposes of moderating the 'Religion & Liberty' discussion, then is not the ideal of maintaining strict impartiality and not taking an official position on the existence of God then breached while the official agents of the FSP go about determining which words are of men, gods or devils?

₁₀₁

Right, okay, so you want to nitpick the guidelines because you can't nitpick scripture.

Scripture wars are unacceptable topics. Period.

Rather than get into a discussion that will go nowhere, let me put it this way -- the board is moderated using my and Stumpy's judgment, based on the guidelines as posted. No further clarification will be given at present. If you have a question in advance, ask, or you can post and take the risk of deletion. It's your call.

Quote

Scripture wars are unacceptable topics. Period.

I agree.
Let it be far from me to â€˜Bible-bashâ€™ or engage in a pointless verse-to verse- vis a vis argumentation and thus prevent the â€˜still-small voiceâ€™ within the heart from persuading someone concerning the word of God.

I was both surprised and glad to return here and see my last post still around after several days, I engaged in this whole rigorous examination of the guidelines in the first place because Stumpy gave me every reason to believe that my post was a candidate for deletion since it quoted a scriptural reference, and since I was answered in the affirmative the question, â€œno scriptural verses may ever be posted on the religion forum since that could lead to an interpretation war?â€

So perhaps it is all a big misunderstanding, forgive me, Stumpy for launching into full â€˜activist modeâ€™ with you here and through private messages, I do not know what battles and baggage influenced the many decisions on how this forum is moderated, I do recall this topic area being the busiest and most ugly thing going on in the whole Free State discussion board. I cheered when the new guidelines were implemented, almost all of those now-deleted threads had absolutely nothing to do with the mission of the FSP. At any rate, it is not an enviable position, what you have volunteered to do in being moderators here.

Before the implementation of the current guidelines and policies, I spent all of about 26 minutes in this area, and several people I know who have much to say on the topic of religion and liberty felt uncomfortable here, like Varrin, who avoided this area completely. But the new silence around here is a little eerie, I am concerned that the FSP does itself a disservice to not allow more rigorous discussion along the narrow lines of â€œReligion & Libertyâ€, but if this is the price that has to be paid to keep away the ugly fights and to keep out the â€˜stone the sinnersâ€™ and â€˜stone the infidelsâ€™ crowd, I guess itâ€™s the price to be paid. I only make this suggestion because without peaceful and thoughtful religious individuals to argue the theme of liberty to the religious population, obtaining liberty is not going to happen, at least not here in America anyways.

Once, many months ago, I was very happy to read passages from the Koran that supported freedom of conscience, and to find Islamic organizations that supported liberty. My joy is even more and my desire to promote the cause of liberty is all the more great as I have rediscovered declarations in the canon of my own faith that give me hope that the message of liberty can be instilled in people even through just using the word of scripture! If I can do nothing but preach the message of liberty in Mormonism to the Mormons, I will have done my part very well.

₁₇₈

It's beginning to sound to me like the new guidelines can be summed up as:

1) Anything warm, fuzzy and friendly to religion(s) is acceptable

2) Anyone who thinks religions in and of themselves are a threat to liberty don't discuss it here. (ie shut up zack, reaper, et al.)

Reaper,

Perhaps the moderators are doing their job right after all if both you and I together feel uneasy about the stance they seem to be taking toward our respective opinions.

_{Edited for grammatical errors.}

₁₉₉

I read an interesting article in Free Inquiry regarding cults.

It stated that one of the basics of a cult was a dichotomy of belief systems.

They used as an example, the Randians, who while outward espousing individuality, enforced a rigid conformity within their ranks inwardly, even up to which TV shows could be watched, which books could be read, etc.

It went on to postulate that one of the reasons they remained small was that members would eventually be faced with this dichotomy more and more over time and realize that the outwardly projected philosophy was not really adhered to.

Reaper,

I hope your recent post is not a sign of second thoughts about this project.

I, for one, would certainly hate to see you give it up just when it's starting to catch the eye of the nation.

It can be very frustrating trying to have a discussion with someone whom is very religious. I know, I grew up in the bible belt.

However, it's the Free State Project that we are all about. It's going to take all of us to make it work, the religious and the Britte Community.
And Reaper!

Have a good day!!

John

LOL.

I don't give up easily. Grin

NOTICE: The forum will be down for maintenance beginning at 7PM (NH time) this evening. It should be up again by 9PM. Please forgive the inconvenience and feel free to e-mail arick@freestateproject.org if you have any questions or support requests.