A Change of Protocols for the Tol Eressëa Forum

[Erunáme]

But people aren't willing or able to refrain from criticizing Christian belief.

I don't see if that way. I didn't see people out to criticize Christian beliefs. I saw them talking about their own feelings on a subject. The fact that many of us have a history with Christianity makes it quite difficult for one who has rejected those beliefs or has had difficulties with those beliefs to not talk about them. Take the Hell thread: many came to their own conclusions about the idea of hell because they didn't like some aspects of some Christian beliefs. The rejection of those beliefs led to the beliefs they hold now. One must discuss that when talking about their feelings on hell.

I think you expect too much.

I think it best the restrictions were lifted. For some, a person talking about their own feelings is considered an attack or a criticism. I don't see anyway to deal with that. It's all up to the person who is feeling that way.

I can't say I like the idea of keeping people of a certain religion out of a thread. That sounds very much like discrimination.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

If someone wants to start a Christian-only thread, they are free to do so. I think that if a thread starter makes such requests, the Rangers should try to enforce it.

We don't have Rangers here.

Yov, I think we would be very reluctant to enforce something as explicit as that: no non-Christians allowed. No Blacks allowed? No Gays allowed? But I think that if the threadstarter asked for a particular kind of discussion, and a poster was clearly contravening that request by the nature of their post, we would ask them to volunarily edit or we might do an edit ourselves. This is true throughout the board ... if a thread is osgiliating and we are asked to do a split, or asked to call for order, we do it.

Exactly.

[Holbytla]

Jn et al you are taking me more literally than I intended.
I am not suggesting keeping anyone out of anywhere.
I think there is enough respect and messageboard savvy around here fpr people to police themselves.
If I were to start a "Holby's House of Worship" thread, then I expect people interested in that form of religion would be drawn there. That isn't to say others cannot join in, but it does imply the subject matter.
Now if I were to start a thread, "Is Holby's House of Worship A Sham", then that implies a different subject and tone.
I am not suggesting locked and sequestered rooms, just common sense.

[Jnyusa]

I am not suggesting locked and sequestered rooms, just common sense.

That's what we're hoping for, too!

[yovargas]

We don't have Rangers here.

If it walks like a Ranger and quacks like a Ranger.....

No Gays allowed?

If somebody wanted to start a thread for the sole purpose of discussing the evils of homosexuality than, yeah, I don't think I should be allowed to butt in with my opposing views. It should be very explicit though that they don't want criticism.

[nerdanel]

If somebody wanted to start a thread for the sole purpose of discussing the evils of homosexuality than, yeah, I don't think I should be allowed to butt in with my opposing views. It should be very explicit though that they don't want criticism.

Wow, I could not possibly disagree more strongly. I would ABSOLUTELY want to be present in that thread, and I'll go one further; if such a rule was enforced, I would leave this board immediately. That's not intended as a threat, as no such rule is seriously under discussion, but again, it's interesting how even two people who agree on the underlying subject matter (the evils of homosexuality) like yov and me are absolutely at odds regarding what appropriate "protections" to discuss such a subject would be.

I'm now absolutely convinced: no protections for TE is FAR better than the alternative.

[Ethel]

If somebody wanted to start a thread for the sole purpose of discussing the evils of homosexuality than, yeah, I don't think I should be allowed to butt in with my opposing views. It should be very explicit though that they don't want criticism.

Oh, gosh, really? What about if someone started a thread about how black people are genetically inferior to white ones? There is some (spurious, in my opinion) 'scientific' evidence to support this, after all. (Just trying to get calibrated on what people think should and should not be allowed.)

[Jnyusa]

If somebody wanted to start a thread for the sole purpose of discussing the evils of homosexuality ...

Well, I wouldn't want a thread here devoted to the evils of being Jewish or the evils of being a woman, though these are beliefs tied to religion among some groups. For sure I would not prohibit Jews or women from entering such a thread to defend themselves. That would institutionalize prejudice.

There are some religions (including orthodox Judaism) that wage against homosexuality, but on an open messageboard where people of many different persuasions are present, I don't think we want any threads at all that exist solely for the purpose of condemnation.

Jn

eta: meanwhile others have expressed their opposition to this idea. Don't worry, that is not something that we would allow.

[narya]

If someone wants to start a Christian-only thread, they are free to do so. I think that if a thread starter makes such requests, the Rangers should try to enforce it.

And who is a Christian?

[nerdanel]

yov --

I just remembered, last night I was complimenting you in absentia to a b77er and saying - well, I'll just quote - "While we're on the subject of b77ers and homophobia, can I just say that yov's calm and seeming nonchalance in dealing with [homophobes] always amazes me. I mean, I want to jump right in against homophobes with pitchforks, and he's always level-headed, avoids the bait, and doesn't take things personally."

In a board moderated mostly by my friends, I would simply not be able to deal with them being the ones offering the "special protections" of a forum to people who want to discuss the evils of homosexuality, and restraining me from responding. But I admire you for being that committed to dispassionate discussion, seriously.

[Cerin]

But we have had discussion of other historical aspects of Christianity here that Christians found immediately offensive because it implied non-veracity of the Bible. Where do we draw the line? How incontroveribly historical does something have to be before it can be spoken and not be perceived as an offense?

Christians did not find offensive a discussion that implied non-veracity of the Bible!!! I cannot stress this strongly enough.

What this Christian found offensive (and I think others did as well) was the implication that people not willing to relinquish belief in the Bible were necessarily anti-Semites and obdurate of character.

Apparently these were not the intended implications; however, it was those apparent implications (before one, at least, was explained not to be intended) that Christians found offensive, NOT IMPLIED NON-VERACITY OF THE BIBLE.

"You shall not suffer a witch to live," and goes into the Heathen thread and tells them they should expect to die a terrible death for their beliefs? Allowed? Hey, it's in the Bible! But would that breach the rule of respect that governs the whole board? You bet it would. Would I edit it? You bet I would. Would I receive complaints from some members that I was discriminating against certain beliefs? You bet I would.

I would not object to you editing a post of someone telling another person that they should expect to die a terrible death for their beliefs. I don't think there is anyone here who would lodge such an objection; I don't think there is anyone here who would say such a thing in the first place.

[Jnyusa]

There's also such a thing as internalizing the prejudice against oneself.

Jn

eta:

Cerin: I don't think there is anyone here who would lodge such an objection; I don't think there is anyone here who would say such a thing in the first place.

There is no one here now who would say such a thing - that was my first qualifier- but one of our many discussions about TE had to do with beliefs being objectionable in and of themselves, and I can easily imagine examples of this arising in the future and creating a dilemma for us. And I think that the editing of such posts would have to be handled very carefully to avoid complaint. It is never extreme belief that causes the problem; it is always some belief that sits right there on the edge of public acceptability that causes problems.

[Primula Baggins]

If somebody wanted to start a thread for the sole purpose of discussing the evils of homosexuality than, yeah, I don't think I should be allowed to butt in with my opposing views. It should be very explicit though that they don't want criticism.

Oh, gosh, really? What about if someone started a thread about how black people are genetically inferior to white ones? There is some (spurious, in my opinion) 'scientific' evidence to support this, after all. (Just trying to get calibrated on what people think should and should not be allowed.)

I think a thread like that would fall under the category Jn mentioned, of threads that exist only for the purpose of condemnation. We wouldn't tolerate it. I would leave a board that tolerated it.

Such a thread could also be considered trolling, which we also don't tolerate.

[Pearly Di]

What this Christian found offensive (and I think others did as well) was the implication that people not willing to relinquish belief in the Bible were necessarily anti-Semites and obdurate of character.

You weren't alone, Cerin. I was shocked and hurt by this.

Yov ... your hypothetical homosexual-bashing thread is not one I could countenance. No way.

Any more than I would countenance a poster telling another poster they would die for being a witch. Yikes!!!!!

But since nobody is thinking of doing any such thing, I think we can rest easy. :)

-edit-

It is never extreme belief that causes the problem; it is always some belief that sits right there on the edge of public acceptability that causes problems.

Wow, Jn, that's deep.

[yovargas]

yov --

I just remembered, last night I was complimenting you in absentia to a b77er and saying - well, I'll just quote - "While we're on the subject of b77ers and homophobia, can I just say that yov's calm and seeming nonchalance in dealing with [homophobes] always amazes me. I mean, I want to jump right in against homophobes with pitchforks, and he's always level-headed, avoids the bait, and doesn't take things personally."

Thanks. It's very easy for me: I have learned, from experience, that believing homosexuality is wicked is not the same as believing homosexuals are wicked. Many people think homosexuality is wrong, while being kind and loving and caring and generally Jesus-like towards homosexuals. Therefore, a thread discussing the evils of homosexuality is not attacking people, the way a thread arguing for the inferiority of blacks or women would be.

eta: If someone started a "Homosexuals are evil" thread, I'd be wrestling you for that pitchfork.

[Holbytla]

I don't think me being a heterosexual qualifies me as someone who is against homosexuality, but I am basically by my choice stating that indeed I am not into homosexuality.
So if we can follow that logic, then someone who is a Christian, while not anti whatever other religion, is by nature stating they are not into whatever other religion.
So what?
Seems like such a simple thing to get past, yet after all of these centuries intolerance seems to still rule the day.
I cannot for the life of me wrap my brain around any of this.
I don't give a rat's arse who believes in what and simply cannot fathom why anyone else would.

[Jnyusa]

You weren't alone, Cerin. I was shocked and hurt by this.

Di and Cerin, I am very sorry for the initial hurt caused by my statements. Your interpretation was so far from my intended meaning that it took several posts for me to understand what clarification you were seeking.

Just for the record, the very first ... counter-claim ... on that topic did have to do with the accuracy of historians versus the accuracy of the Bible and much of the subsequent disagreement with my post also had to do with that. The credibility of historians who challenge the accuracy of biblical accounts was an issue, and I am quite sure it would be an issue under old TE rules if we were to be trolled by somone using the Bible to 'prove' that women/Blacks/homosexuals/Jews/Moslems/Heathens are inferior.

I much prefer to decide whether a post is insulting or prejudicial than to have to decide whether an article of faith is legitimate.

Jn

[nerdanel]

Thanks. It's very easy for me: I have learned, from experience, that believing homosexuality is wicked is not the same as believing homosexuals are wicked. Many people think homosexuality is wrong, while being kind and loving and caring and generally Jesus-like towards homosexuals. Therefore, a thread discussing the evils of homosexuality is not attacking people, the way a thread arguing for the inferiority of blacks or women would be.

eta: If someone started a "Homosexuals are evil" thread, I'd be wrestling you for that pitchfork.

yov, I wish I held this view, because it undoubtedly would spare me the blood pressure problems that I'm now likely to develop in the longterm.

But for me, that view (love homosexuals, hate homosexuality) is absolutely, positively, 150 percent disingenuous. I cannot see it as kind, loving, caring, or Jesus-like for heterosexuals to see a caring, loving, committed, monogamous gay or lesbian couple, each of whom would die for their partner, and to decry their love, union, and commitment as "evil". That's not love; that's hate.

Homosexuality is not defined as "fabulous interior designers and butch power-tool wielders," it's defined as people who are solely oriented towards forming sexual and romantic relationships with people of the same sex. I can't see a thread that's discussing "the evils of homosexuality" as doing anything less than attacking people who are thus oriented, saying that gays must remain sexually unfulfilled, romantically disattached, and either entirely celibate or only engaging in sexual relations that repulse them. To me, it's as entirely spurious as saying, "I don't hate women. It's not their fault that they have breasts, a vulva, a vagina, a uterus, a clitoris. They were just born that way. But if they actually act on the fact that they have these things - use them for sexual pleasure (despite the fact that using them is the only way they can achieve sexual pleasure), then that's evil and sinful and wrong. If they'd happened to have been born with a penis and testicles, then no problem. But, it looks like they're out of luck and should remain celibate."

That seems so absurd that I can barely type it. And, I believe, one day it will seem as absurd to people that others ever thought that we should not freely act on our orientation, form same-sex relationships, and marry same-sex partners. But in the meantime, someone who "loves" me as a person while "hating" my sexual orientation and what relationships it predisposes me to form is merely saying that I should deny who I am, turn away from true love (which, remember, is EVIL) if I'm lucky enough to find it, and remain sexually unfulfilled. [In fact, thanks to the internalized prejudices that such people have caused me to feel, I feel hesitant - years after being honest to this group of people regarding my sexual orientation - to state this straightforwardly what such views mean to me, because I STILL fear their judgment and condemnation.] I have a very hard time not experiencing that as hate, yov. You're fortunate that you see it differently.

[narya]

You've been through a lot of pain, haven't you.

[JewelSong]

I've been reading this thread - and you know what?

There are some awesome people on this board.

I feel humbled and privileged beyond measure to know each and every one of you.

That's all. Carry on.