Layman

I see no problem with the theists who are regulars here. And I doubt the more conservative members of our congregations will be making appearances.

Truly, the biggest problem I suspect is the respect from atheists. Or trust, to be more fair to some here.

One other comment. I've seen some here propose a type of probationary period. I can't think of anything that would more effecitvely undercut a new moderator here than being on probation.

Layman

I suspect that nontheists believe that their ideas will prosper and prevail in a well moderated board where all ideas get a fair hearing. I also suspect that any theist moderator would have the same commitment to a well moderated board but expects that his or her ideas would prosper in such an environment. Thus, if the Secular Web has the courage of its convictions, and finds a theist who has the courage of his or her own, there would be no problem for either party.

mike_decock

Theism includes quite a broad range of beliefs. Some of them are so different from mainline Christian theism that few Christians or atheists would even think of them as "theists". For example, there's a certain panentheist whose contributions to this forum I greatly appreciate and I think he would make a fine moderator. I doubt that 45% of the folks who read his posts would "strongly disagree" with him being a mod. I could be wrong, though.

-Mike...

Celsus

Very good points. I think if we are to have a forum based on learning and discussion, we have to leave prejudice and presumption behind. There was an interesting idea in that apologetics should be split off from academic discussion, but the admins do not want to start more fora if possible (already, the amount of volunteers needed to run IIDB is prohibitively large). Someone with a name like "Christ Is Lord" isn't likely to last very long here, so I doubt there will be a problem with monikers. Then again, my nick is offensive to anyone who knows something about early Church polemics.
Again, something to consider seriously. There have been unpopular decisions made before (closing Rants Raves & Preaching and closing the private forum), which on the whole benefited II considerably, though there was a hostile reaction. I think a garbage dump idea is useful (which ~Elsewhere~ provides) if only to let people say what they have to. On the other hand, to what extent would it alienate your target audience?
That's interesting. Has anyone else changed their mind since voting?

Joel

Kosh

No

Bubba

I'm not really sure that Spong would rightfully be considered an athiest...this is the kind of thiest moderator I could handle here.

Bubba

godfry n. glad

Yes. I initially considered the idea repugnant.

My reason: How can a secular discussion board, which reputedly relies upon discussion based upon evidence, have a moderator who, as a matter of principle, violates the very underpinning of evidence-based research by acknowledging his/her belief, _without evidence_, of some indeterminate numinous entity?

It seems contradictory to the purpose of the board.

Yet, I moderate on another historical board on Yahoo groups. Our primary topic is the historical Jesus. There are five other moderators... We do not recruit our moderators based upon their theological stance. Indeed, we do not even ask. What we look for is the person who is intent on advancing reasonable and civil discussion. Their position vis a vis a godhead is irrelevant. I think it works well, despite the fact that several of the theists posters here have managed to have themselves exiled.... and the hue and cry of "biased moderation" will arise from their ranks.

I've found that if the moderator can keep their personal faith out of their duties and focus on filtering out grandstanders, soap boxers, wackos, off-topic mavens, trolls and the multitudinous crowd of non-sequitor generators and keep the threads on track and on-topic, even while operating under the influence of a dibilitating delusion (and personally, I've seen very adept and well-educated Unitarians do very well at it)...well, that's all to the good.

So... I've modified my intial stance to one of "guarded and begruding acceptance...depending upon _who_ is selected."

godfry n. glad

Celsus

The issue is now dead, and so the thread is closed. Thank you all for your participation.

Joel