Religion and Spirituality Forum Rules

[Jayson]

This post is an addendum to the ILP universal rules found at the following locations:
ILP General Philosophy and Guideline
ILP Original Rules




SECTION I


ILP'S GENERAL MISSION STATEMENT
"TO PRODUCE HIGH QUALITY PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSIONS"




SECTION II

THE RULES

1. NO AD HOMINEM POSTS.

2. NO SLANDERING OR BELITTLEMENT OF ANY OTHER USER.

3. NO SLANDERING OR BELITTLEMENT OF ANY RELIGIOUS OR SPIRITUAL BELIEF.

4. NO SLANDERING OF WORLD RELIGIOUS LEADERS.

5. NO SLANDERING OF ATHEISM OR AGNOSTICISM.

6. NO INSTIGATION TO RISE BY POSTING BLATANT RELIGIOUS OR THEOLOGICALLY AGGRESSIVE MATERIAL - FOR OR AGAINST.



SECTION III

WARNINGS:
In the Religion Forum: First offense is the first warning, second offense is the second warning; within the same post or not.
I will not be issuing pre-warning PM's to offer extra chances.

WARNING'S FOLLOW THE ILP STANDARD FOUND AT ILP General Philosophy and Guideline:

1st warning: board warning, no further action
2nd: the user will be barred from posting for 24 hours
3rd: barred from posting for 4 days
4th: 1 week
5th: 1 month
6th: 3 months
7th: 3 months, but seriously, 7 warnings in 6 months when you can't post for 4.5 of them? Why do you come back?

SECTION IV
A NOTE ON THE WORD, "PHILOSOPHY", IN THE RELIGION SECTION.
The religion section is NOT the PHILOSOPHY section.
It is for the philosophical discussion OF religion.

"Philosophical" in this use refers to: The critical analysis of a system of beliefs, values, or tenets.

At no point in the Religion section is anyone required to adhere to ACADEMIC PHILOSOPHICAL normalities as is expected in the Philosophy Section.
Emotional and Intuitive Logic is perfectly acceptable in the Religion Section discussions.




SECTION V
Click the below UNTAB for further details about Terms and extra clauses:

untab

TERMS
Ad Hominem
An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the truth of a claim to a negative characteristic (or belief) of the person advocating it.

Slandering
An insulting remark that is damaging to ones reputation or merit.

Belittlement
To treat as if unremarkably unimportant; especially if normally viewed as important (commonly condescending).

Instigation to Rise
To provoke or urge in attempt to cause direct quarrel for that purpose alone.

Theologically Aggressive
Material inclined to be hostile, or cause hostility, regarding theological matters.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION VI

GRANDFATHER CLAUSE
All posts made prior to 10/05/2010 will not be subject to this documents rules.
All posts after 10/05/2010 will be subject to this documents rules.


GRIEVANCE
The grievance clause is a means to protect people who feel they are being targeted and feel attacked, even if the attack is not arriving in the form of breaking one of the above rules.

Should you feel you are being "stalked" or "attacked" please send me a PM.
The format is as follows for the Grievance PM:
---------------------------------------------
To: TheStumps
Subject: GRIEVANCE
Body:
(link to example thread or threads)
Complaint

---------------------------------------------

GRIEVANCE RULING
Just by sending a Grievance notice does not guarantee that I will agree with your complaint.
I will look over each case and decide my stance.

If I do not rule in favor of your Grievance, please respect my decision.
I will usually attempt to explain my reasons.

If you are someone that a Grievance is sent against and I agree with, please respect my decision.
I will usually attempt to explain my reasons.

GRIEVANCE WARNINGS work differently than other warnings.
The first Grievance warning is simply a PM from me informing you that there is a user (remaining un-named) that feels attacked by you; to consider your posts in the Religion section more carefully.

The second Grievance warning is a PM from asking you to take a break and give some space between yourself and the person feeling offended; at this point, you will be made aware of the individual.

After this, you will be warned as per normal ILP standards.


Grievance is given extra elbow room because, in Religion, it is a condition that occurs that we may not realize we are offending someone, or that they may perceive that we are going after them with our comments, as in Religion, some folks sensibilities are higher than others.
For this reason, some forgiveness is granted.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION VII

These are the rules.
They are as they remain until I, or the moderation staff, decide otherwise.

If you have problems with these rules, you may PM me your concerns.

If you just hate rules and therefore wish to challenge the authority, I won't stop you.
But I won't stop the consequences either.

In the end, it's about respecting each other and having a good time discussing our personal interests in religion.
Stick to that and these rules should collect quite a bit of dust.

AMENDMENT I

Moderator Clause:
This rule is not allowed to be removed except by the administrator of the site.
The moderator of religion is never allowed to report a post and serve a warning; regardless. Even if the moderator receives the most terrible personal attacks, the moderator is not allowed to report the post nor serve a warning for the actions.

The only action the moderator of religion may take, without a report from another member, is that if the post is 75% not related to the thread, then the moderator may move the post to wherever is needed.

Section removed by Carleas, 10/6/2010


CONSENT

By Posting in the Religion Section; You Agree To These Rules.
-Jayson

[Nah]

I don't think setting new rules without consulting other members fits into "Respect" principle ...

Also,"Respect" isn't something you can expect or demand. It's rather something you feel without any intention toward others upon recognition of certain quality, to me.

You can certainly craft forum rules to motivate "respectful" people to post, and push away people without much potential for respecting.
But I think trying to force people to "respect" is a disguised form, a soft form of promoting and casting "blind obedience".

With the kind of rules you set, I think the forum can become pretty superficial positivist hangout.

It that what you want/intended ?

Also, many religions (like monotheism) are highly condescending.
Will you ban any promotion of these fanatic religions?

Then, there is the offending the feeling of someone.
I mean, Atheist can be offended by the posting of theist and so on.
Anyone can be offended by anything.
I understand that you want to have "a good time", but there is mundane bubble for that.

And do we come here to have "good time"?

Isn't for thinking/discussing, even it means sometime we can feel being offended and we can make someone feel being offended (intentionally or not).

Personally, I don't think "feeling" based rules are good choice, since it's highly subjective.
It can also promote "victim consciousness/attitude", too.

So, I'd suggest you to think over, discuss with other members, and revise the rules.

[Jayson]

Thank you for your concern Nah.
I have considered these rules carefully.

They will stand.

They actually ask one thing and one thing only:
To simply use some decency when talking to people and remember that the discussion is the point; learning.

I do not consider these to be too difficult considering the primary focus is against slander and belittlement.

Unless we're interested in low brow conversation, I see no value in either form of communication.

[Wonderer]

The only thing which rouses my concern is the term "hostility".

If i construct a respectful argument which in effect refutes some theological claim, hostility is an expected result.

perhaps you could clarify?

Congratulations on becoming a moderator by the way.

[Jayson]

Congratulations on becoming a moderator by the way.

Thank you.

The only thing which rouses my concern is the term "hostility".

If i construct a respectful argument which in effect refutes some theological claim, hostility is an expected result.

perhaps you could clarify?

It is part of the previous statement; material written to purposefully cause hostility.

Hostility that comes as a natural reaction to a "respectful argument" is not the same as posting material to "instigate a rise by posting blatant religious or theologically aggressive material".

You cannot make a respectful argument that is at the same time blatantly aggressive material intended to anger people, and for that purpose alone.

It is a rule that is written with the understanding that Religion is a sensitive topic to begin with; as such, there is no need to stab the tender skin with a red hot poker just to see what kind of screams come out, or to entertain oneself with the writhing of those that are seared.

A slang term for this is called, "Trolling", but I do not like using that term because it is too vague since it is widely used to mean many things on the internet with the advent and popularity of community forums.

[MagsJ]

Sorry, I don't understand the new forum rule!

Just kidding! Welcome aboard TS

[Nah]

Thank you for your concern Nah.
I have considered these rules carefully.

They will stand.

They actually ask one thing and one thing only:
To simply use some decency when talking to people and remember that the discussion is the point; learning.

I do not consider these to be too difficult considering the primary focus is against slander and belittlement.

Unless we're interested in low brow conversation, I see no value in either form of communication.

Maybe you don't see that Monotheistic view can be felt/considered as slander/belittlement by other religions and by agnostics/atheists, for example.
Hindu my think Buddhist idea is a slander, too.

Any religion (or a person) who believes in "absolute value" of their Gods/scrips/symbols/ideas/whatever can get offended by any other person who doesn't agree and think it's a slander/belittlement/Blasphemer.


Personally, I think the concept of "slander" and "belittlement" can only be held by someone who presume ego-centric and self-aggrandizing idea/evaluation of oneself and things related/attached to the self, as something normal/absolute/objective and something that must be shared by others.

So, I think your rules are based on highly emotional and also irrational principle which cannot be evaluated in reasonable manner.

Having said that, Carleas is the owner of the site and since he wants you to moderate (including unilaterally setting new rules), I will try to conform when I write in this section.

[Jayson]

I will try to conform when I write in this section.

Thank you.

[Tab]

Well, at least the threads in the forum will be shorter. Which is a mercy.

Best wishes Stumps, you may well need them.

[Nah]

Stumps,

I'm posting a reply to you, here, partially following your wish of not to comment in that thread.
However, since you posted in the forum and not via PM, I'm posting in forum, too, this time.

I'd recommend acting according to what you suggest to others.
I mean, if you wanted to keep the thread clean and encourage the use of PM, probably you could have used PM, by yourself.

pfft

get a life

He's in the clear; he was not slandering the religious belief of anyone or belittling it.
He was voicing his opinion of the perspective in question as being over thought; suggesting that if this is what one's mind wonders to, that they need more to do in their life than ponder cultural phrases and whether they present one as arrogant or not; or, in short, "get a life."
--- snip ---

Fisr, let me refresh your memory.

There is really only one rule:
RESPECT

Now, telling someone "get a life" is pretty much same thing as treating the person as "lifeless". Since "having a life" is suggested as something desirable, A+O is treating the person to be in less than desirable state. I think it is a belittlement of the life of the person, and the life of a person includes/made-of her/his beliefs.

And was it "respectful" comment?
I don't think so.

However, if you still believe firmly that you welcome and stand by the type of comment A+O made, we can respect your wish, too.

pfft

get logic

get heart

join your tongues
and so on.

I'm not so sure if you want to fill religious section with such comment, though.

[Jayson]

Respect for:
* any persons beliefs; regardless of how ridiculous they may appear to your mind, including atheism
* religious leaders

You over-looked the following section in that quote Nah:

However, to elaborate as to avoid some possible confusions; this is what that word means for the Religion Forum:

[Oughtist]

[list][*]There will be no tolerances of slandering or belittlement of any persons beliefs; regardless of how ridiculous they may appear to your mind

Does this apply even to me to my own beliefs? Cause I personally think they're pretty rediculous, and often want to share that fact... (...can I laugh at myself??)

Happy to see your moderation in my life, Stumps, your honour!

[Ingenium]

Nah, your posts are without malice, as far as I've seen, so I doubt you'll have to worry about being accused of such sins as 'slander'. Although, most of us are guilty of hypocrisy if you search back far enough through our posts (or our lives). IMO, since The Stumps has volunteered, he deserves a chance in his new role, if only to see if he proves to be overly authoritarian -- as the OP might well be construed by some -- or if he can actually moderate by leaving that part of himself out of the process, to the extent that's possible. I think he's capable of it, with some effort. And I think he's probably a hard worker.

Personally, I dislike being a moderator for that reason. I view it as a higher calling of sorts, so it causes me to try to curb my nature just so that I don't push the edges too much, which is something that I find too psychologically taxing! (This isn't the way of all moderators, I know, but it's been my approach.) I imagine authoritarians don't have to struggle as much with the edge-pushing business, of course. Maybe their challenge is more along the lines of dealing with ambiguity.

[Jayson]

[list][*]There will be no tolerances of slandering or belittlement of any persons beliefs; regardless of how ridiculous they may appear to your mind

Does this apply even to me to my own beliefs? Cause I personally think they're pretty rediculous, and often want to share that fact... (...can I laugh at myself??)

Happy to see your moderation in my life, Stumps, your honour!

That wouldn't really be disrespectful now would it?
If you want to poke at yourself, then by all means, go for it, it just means you have opened the door for responses on your statements of ridiculousness since you voice that you aren't considering it something to respect yourself.

The rules are there for the obvious, which folks seem to be trying to sway around; whereby someone simply wishes to discuss a topic of religion and finds their personal belief's ridiculed and ostracized.

The forum for religion is not to make fun of religion; that is the point.
The forum for religion is to discuss religion with quality conversation beneficial to the discourse on religion.

That which the rules describe help keep this basic premise the focus instead of letting the forum become a, "pick your religion to make fun of" forum.

[Nah]

Respect for:
* any persons beliefs; regardless of how ridiculous they may appear to your mind, including atheism
* religious leaders

You over-looked the following section in that quote Nah:

However, to elaborate as to avoid some possible confusions; this is what that word means for the Religion Forum:

You overlooked the part of my post that already addressed the point.

[Nah]

Nah, your posts are without malice, as far as I've seen, so I doubt you'll have to worry about being accused of such sins as 'slander'.

It wasn't for my posts.

Although, most of us are guilty of hypocrisy if you search back far enough through our posts (or our lives). IMO, since The Stumps has volunteered, he deserves a chance in his new role,

Well, it sounds as if you are saying TheStumps is also hypocrite but let's give him a chance.

I think I'm giving him a chance to hear different opinions/suggestions. Although I know some people would prefer to stay silent and to watch for a while, I prefer to say when I feel like doing so.

if only to see if he proves to be overly authoritarian -- as the OP might well be construed by some -- or if he can actually moderate by leaving that part of himself out of the process, to the extent that's possible. I think he's capable of it, with some effort. And I think he's probably a hard worker.

Well, I gave my opinion and suggestions, but I know he's gonna do what he wants/feels like, and basically I'm fine with that.

[Jayson]

Well, I gave my opinion and suggestions, but I know he's gonna do what he wants/feels like, and basically I'm fine with that.

Good to hear.

[xzc]

Having recently become a Nietzsche-tard, I'm interested to know how would his sort of criticism of religion fairs under the new rules.

* There will be no tolerances of slandering or belittlement of any persons beliefs; regardless of how ridiculous they may appear to your mind
* There will be no instigation to rise by posting blatant religious or theologically aggressive material
* There will be no slander of world religious leaders

He repeatedly states that religion and Christianity in particular is contemptible.
His work is nothing if not aggressive.
His words about the apostles are anything but kind, especially with regard to Paul.

[MagsJ]

You can still have a meaty debate and remain respectful of others, you know - what is so hard to understand about being respectful...?

[xzc]

There's a train of thought that says you can't separate the philosophical argument from the philosopher, and that it reflects bad upon the argument when you show that the arguer is weak or lacking in some way. I'm just asking whether it is okay if I quote Nietzsche when he talks about religious figures, or about religion, or about religious people. And more importantly, can I argue in favor of any such points? Can I, for example, defend Nietzsche's ideas about Paul, or would that be against the rules since Paul is a religious figure and what I would be defending can be viewed as slander? Can I defend his ideas about people who have 'theological blood running through their veins' given that the main point leveled against them is that they are contemptible, i.e., lowly, or low worth? I think these are fair questions, and the issue is bound to come up given the popularity of Nietzsche.

[Jayson]

If Nietzsche were to post in this Religion forum, I would hold him to the same standards.
Luckily, Nietzsche wrote books instead of talking on Forums so he didn't have to be moderated by a forum admin.

[Alpha+Omega]

If Nietzsche were to post in this Religion forum, I would hold him to the same standards.
Luckily, Nietzsche wrote books instead of talking on Forums so he didn't have to be moderated by a forum admin.

What would you do to someone who did both?

[Jayson]

Hold them to the same standard.

[xzc]

If Nietzsche were to post in this Religion forum, I would hold him to the same standards.
Luckily, Nietzsche wrote books instead of talking on Forums so he didn't have to be moderated by a forum admin.

I don't understand what you mean exactly...are you saying that arguing in the manner of Nietzsche, or maintaining and defending the same propositions as Nietzsche did is against the rules in the religion forum now?

[Jayson]

He would be held to the same rules.