Ennazus

I voted "strongly disagree". I once read a suggestion posted that theists should have their own discussion forum here at II. In response, I posted asking if atheists have special boards at theist sites. (nope)

Do the religious sites have atheist moderators? Would theists appreciate infidels moderating Rapture Ready, for example?

To me, the cons Joel posted outweigh the pros.

MilitantModerate

Three thumbs down. As Goliath, Suzanne**Atheist, and a few others have already mentioned or aluded to: This is our little corner of the net and I see no reason to be completely egalatarian. Tolerant, yes; understanding, yes; theists as moderators, NO. To advance a sippery slope arguement: this could be the first step towards losing the mandate of a friendly, supportive place by non-theists for non-theists. First BC&H next SL&S. . Anyhow, to put it another way: theists are welcome (well most of the time) guests but this is not, and never should be, their home.

Vinnie

Mike, a panentheist is a theist.

Actually they do at some sites. I know Tweb has a naturalism 101 forum for non-theists.

I have one on my forum. I must have been drunk that night

Vinnie

Haran

Yeah... Works out real well for the theists...

Soul Invictus

I voted that I am in moderate agreement. I may as well voted neutral though. Outside of issues of pride, iidb.org would not suffer with a theist moderator. I am sure it can be done. I think HelenM,CJD, and Vinnie are a few candidates who I feel would be impartial as the rest in maintaining correct dialogue. With Magus55's knowledge, I think he could pull it off as long as he didn't abandon threads.

If there was not a combative stance by the posters to his replies and vice versa, he could pull it off. That's a big IF though.

All I've noticed mods do that regular posters can't do is delete/edit posts and advise for positive discourse. I don't really see how this may be problematic for a theist, as long as there isn't any evangelizing.

Regards,

Soul Invictus

Vorkosigan

I am in favor of the proposal. I can think of many theists past and present who would make good candidates.

However, inasmuch as this site is one of the major atheist havens on the web, and inasmuch as there have been many theists who have expressed a wish to bring this place down, and, since local sentiment is so strongly against it, Infidels should probably not adopt this policy at the present time.

Vorkosigan

Celsus

Re: Respect for theist moderators

I think this is the best objection tabled thus far, but I also think that this objection says more about the BC&H audience than anything else (see below though). Why, exactly, can't theist moderators be respected?

Re: Registration information

Unless there's some secret button I've missed, only admins get access to this.
So, in other words, you could end up with a theist mod who is not respected by theists, because of some implication of being a "sell-out", while not being respected by the atheists on account of his theism.
So, you only accept on the grounds that specific kinds of theists are selected?
Yes. "Nontheism" is a current requirement for all moderators.
Well, I have to say BC&H is far more than just discussing the historicity of Jesus. I thought a large number of people here are Jesus-agnostics anyway. Presumably they prefer to go after the HJers than the MJers. However, you are arguing that we should focus on broadening the audience and participation instead, which is a good idea. What suggestions might you have in mind?
Three problems: Firstly, theism is a varied thing, and there is no one theism that you can identify. Secondly, most beliefs in general are held on the basis of faith. Faith/trust in peer review, or faith in an author's accuracy, for example. This isn't a bad thing because it helps us to classify information quickly without having to double check everything (and of course there are differing degrees to which it is justified). So a Jewish biblical scholar may have great faith in the ancient origins of Israel, which buttresses his faith. Thirdly, why, in particular, can a theist not separate his faith from the study at hand? I think it's immediately obvious that any nonproselytising theists here do just that.
So atheists are right out then? But I understand your point: There is a certain ideological weight to a theological stance, and said person is likely to have that perhaps clouding their views? Well we have moderators at this moment who do subscribe to certain ideologies, and whether or not it affects their judgement is left to the audience (I happen to think it does).
You do realise that slippery slopes are logical fallacies right? The community fora have a different purpose from the upper fora (which have their own unique flavours), so this argument does not apply.

Ok for those for theist moderators:
No one has yet addressed the issue of how much it promotes the Secular Web's goals as a secular organisation in appointing theist staff.

Secondly, what of the issues of respect, possible disturbance to the board, and what a large change this is?

Again, thanks for all the feedback so far.

Cheers,
Joel

braces_for_impact

I voted with moderate agreement.

Once again this board has stopped to make me think, which is a good thing. In all honesty, my initial gut reaction was that to allow thiest moderators would be a bad idea. I examined other's opinions before voting, as I wanted to see what others had to say on the subject.

I feel as some do here. This is a secular board. As an atheist I am a minority, and as a minority, I have had to deal with injustice and prejudice from time to time. This little corner of the web is a "safe haven" if you will, and something I enjoy. It is not something I would like to lose.

As I read across posts however, and see many (not all) of the reasoning behind rejecting theist moderators, many of them are unconvincing.

I think some theists on this board presently would make good moderators, and some would not. I think in BC&H, a certain knowledge of the topic would be helpful. As I type, it even occurs to me that some atheists here would probably not be good moderators as well. I believe it would come down to the person specifically.

Perhaps a trial run would be in order.

Adora

Yes. I think the man is amazing and never ceases to impress me with his open-mindedness and intelligence. But he is not an atheist. He is simply a lateral thinking Episcopalian.

joedad

That's a tough call. To discover a non secularist moderating a forum in a secular community may appear strange, even disturbing, to newcomers, especially secular newcomers. So long as such mod is very qualified, and perhaps doesn't have a moniker that clashes with the decorum, it's probably doable. I do come here to rant at times, but mostly to learn, no matter the source.That depends on the theist. My preference is a pantheist or panentheist, or even a deist, or a theist who is so secure in his or her beliefs that it's not uncomfortable wearing an atheist hat. But the bottom line is you can't please everyone. A theist or atheist who knows his or her subject matter is preferable imho to an-atheist-for-the-sake-of-atheism. But I wouldn't want either person plugging a favorite link every time they post.

I initially voted strongly against but am backing off to neutral.