winstonjen

So long as they'll be fair, balanced and unbiased, I don't see a problem with it.

Toto

Ah - fair and balanced.

We need more moderators. Most of the moderator work is removing copyright material, moving threads that don't belong here, fixing links, making sure that Amazon links have the right tag so the Secular Web gets a referral fee. There is no reason that an open-minded theist could not do this.

Would the theists see a theist moderator as a sell-out? It seems that a "liberal" theist acceptable to the Internet Infidels would probably be regarded as close to being an atheist anyway, as Magus says.

winstonjen

Why would it be considered by some to be a sell-out?

Toto

The theist would be supporting an institution whose mission is to promote non-belief.

Celsus

Someone asked me by PM: "If a theist is someone who believes in theism, what is "theism"?" I'm not sure that there is an immediate answer to this, but anyone subscribing to an intervening deity is definitely a "theist," while it is a bit more tricky in identifying deists as theists. I think it doesn't really matter: the proposal is for any and all theists.

Ok, we seem to have a problem. According to the poll, the majority are against it, yet in the thread, only Goliath has voiced his disapproval. What rational grounds are there for rejecting theist moderators? As you may have guessed, there has been a discussion in the MCR about this, and I don't expect those who participated there to rehash the same arguments here. Note that different people have different opinions on the matter, so some of the points listed may be internally contradictory from one side or the other. Remember, this is only with respect to BC&H, not the entire IIDB. In summary then, and without judgement on the merits or demerits of the arguments given:

For theist moderators:

• It increases the pool of potential moderators (we've been having some shortages of active and qualified nontheists)
• It will better cater to scholarly discussion, as the vast majority of scholars in the field are theists
• It adds active theist input into the moderation decision-making process. Moderator blindspots will be quickly corrected.
• It helps the Secular Web to distance itself from an ideological position.
• The "safe haven" idea of IIDB is not compromised, because this applies solely to BC&H and not any of the other fora (the community fora might be a prime concern).
• Theists have long provided good contributions to discussions here, and there are no rational grounds for exclusion.

Against theist moderators:

• We can always get less qualified nontheists, and we have always found some nontheist candidates worth their salt.
• It does not promote the goals of the Secular Web, and particularly, the mission statement on the front page.
• Moderators are supposed to be leading "Infidels" in the community
• Much theist behaviour in the past has been questionable, and they are not interested in scholarship but agendas
• Nontheists will start complaining or leaving in droves (or at least it would be an extremely divisive issue).
• Theist moderation may restrict the freedom nontheists feel in posting here
• Theists may be able to control the agenda at BC&H

Ok, that's probably an unfair summary to both positions, but there it stands. Like Toto says, much of moderator work is actually drudgery and not particularly exciting. So we can discuss away now!

Joel

Toto

27 votes is not a lot, and it's the middle of the night in most of the US. I'd give it another day for more people to check in.

I think that a lot of people oppose having a Christian moderator in the abstract, because of the behavior and adversarial attitudes of some of the Christians on the board. But I can imagine that there might be a liberal theist of some stripe who would actually work out.

winstonjen

I see. I thought that also IIDB may be seen as pandering to the theist community by giving theists a position of power.

Edit: Isn't the Secular Web's purpose to promote free thinking?

winstonjen

I think this is a very good reason for allowing theists to moderate. Perhaps BC&H could be used as a trial ground, and could be expanded to other fora if it proves to be successful.

Wouldn't this be against the expected conduct of the moderators?

Layman

Given that the "Disagree strongly" are running away with the vote but not voicing their objections, it appears that there is a strong sentiment opposed to the idea that goes beyond concerns about board maintenance. A Theist moderator would face an uphill battle in exercising the respect that helps a moderator in their job. And he or she may drive away some posters who care more about the Moderator's religious faith and not their actions while moderating.

But, perhaps discouraging such posters would actually improve the quality of the discussion here.

Celsus

Actually, quite the opposite. Moderators are supposed to decide on executive decisions in their own forum, and in whatever way, lead the direction. It is possible for anyone to subtly move the agenda to whatever purpose they have in mind. Particularly, I've been subtly moving BC&H to a more scholarly-based atmosphere. So subtle, in fact, that no one has noticed it.

Joel