Doctor X

Swears under his breath as he quickly puts away the flamethrower. . . .

Seriously, I do not think a self-proclaimed "ist" should be a moderator, in that proclaming as an adherent to an "ism" suggests a bias.

Despite appearances, I have little objection--if any--to the moderation here. I have yet, frankly, to see an ideological moderation--removal of "theistic material" because it is theistic. Sure "witnessing" pieces from any religion may not prove relevant here--that is why they are removed. If anything, the moderators are fairly tolerant of new posters who do witness.

As others have noted, moderation consists of moving threads to the "right place," cooling flames when they occur, fixing links, and, occassionally, editing out objectional or copywrited material.

The problem with an "ist" is it suggests a bias. I do not know, for certain, what is the religious views of Toto, Celsus or any other moderator here. It is none of my business, or anyone else's in this forum, unless the moderator wishes to bring it up.

Yeeeeessssss . . . this board is a "secular" board . . . but it is not as heavy-handed as some theistic boards. Make moderators "come out" and you suggest a bias akin to Former Chief Justice Roy Moore's placement of the momument: those who believe differently will be treated differently. This applies to a perceived atheist bias as well as a theistic bias.

Do moderators "overstep" the bounds? I am sure they do--they are human. For the record, I have not witnessed that here. However, if you advertise this board as having "theistic" or "atheistic" moderators, in my mind it suggests a bias.

Apologies for the verbage, but even if no bias exists--from a religous standpoint--a jerk [No name calling!--Ed.] . . . a less-than-honest poster can try to make it an issue: "You are censoring me because I am an atheist/theist!"

--J.D.

Bubba

I'd be mildly in favor of it-as long as the person chosen was open minded and scholarly.

I've had no problem with the mods in my three years posting here...I see no reason why a theist would add to moderation problems on the secweb.

Chris

Adora

Strongly disagree. Would you elect a Bishop who's an atheist?

judge

I voted neutral.
Allthough I am a theist I don't think they are needed.
I think the moderators here do a good job.

Hmm...the more I think about I am actually against the idea. I think it would create more problems than it would solve (if there are any).

BTW thanks to all the moderators

Amaleq13

If they let me vote, absolutely!!!!

Apikorus

Ever hear of John Shelby Spong?

judge

But seriously,
if we have a theistic moderator here, how will I be able to sit back with a self satisfied smirk on my face, knowing that I am right and you ae all wrong,wallowing in the fact that the moderators here are self deluded, and refuse to censor the posts of those who disgree with me?

Theistic moderators? No thanks. I prefer to be able to have an excuse to feel I am not getting a fair go here.:boohoo:

Kosh

Abso-f*cking-lutely not. There can be no censorship whatsoever driven by religious beliefs, and I can imagine some gray (grey?) areas where a thread could be shut down or a post removed based on said biases. And it might be subtle enough to get past everyone.

Nor would I want to theists to have access to the type of registration information that is usally kept private on these boards. Our strength is in our ability to remain anonymous.

But if you did, Vinnie would be the only one acceptable.

however, it should not be done.

mike_decock

Is a panentheist a theist?

-Mike...

Roland98

Including the other (atheist) mods? It's not like they would have some kind of Supreme Power. Everything mods due is subject to inspection by not only the other mods in their folder, but also all the mods on the board.

I'm still a bit green, so maybe one of the more seasoned mods can correct me, but don't only the admins have access to this info?