Originally Posted by Admin

[...]

As a site we do thank LGM for bringing this to our attention. We take seriously any threats or perceived threats and do our best to make sure that such does not happen. We have reviewed the original thread in general (including the deleted posts - more on that) and find that although it is very understandable that Champagne would be rattled - that Jason did make it clear he was speaking satircally of what he would do IF such and such - and reviewing the whole thread in which the comment took place to give it context only re-affirms that assessment. That is not a threat, to us it is obvious hyperbole - though untactful due to the case of personalizing the satire in that manner. However, that does not take away from the fact that Champagne would be understandably upset because her name was mentioned specifically.

Exactly what Jason was expressing was, like it or not, the opinion of many in leadership - NOT that we would go on a murdering rampage if we lost our faith (that was not Jason's point - nor a "threat), but that there is no logical morality to atheism - that we take worldviews seriously - and right now we operate under a Christian worldview, but in an atheistic worldview, moral constraints (to some of us) seem quite arbitrary. Jason's statement that he takes worldviews seriously does not make his statement to Champagne a serious threat but rather a serious challenge to examine his point. He was doing a reductio ad absurdum of his opinion of the underpinnings of atheist morality - an opinion that some others share. That does not mean we or those that may agree with Jason's position on the inherent amorality of atheism think that all atheists are all lying, stealing, murderers, but that they have to borrow a metaphysic they claim not to believe in to have the morality that almost ALL atheists do. No one claimed that all atheists are always amoral or immoral, it was claimed that within an atheistic worldview amorality is the only consistent system, but fortunately most atheists etc are inconsistent and behave morally despite the inconsistency. Like it or not, that is the point of view of many Christians and has been debated over and over and will again.

However, as we have told Jason, and advise others, when there is a chance that one's words may be viewed as a threat, they need to be chosen carefully, and perhaps enclosed in sarcasm tages to show they are hyperbole. Also it is better practice in debate not to personalize as was done with Champagne. This is consistent with our ruling a few years ago when an argument was brewing over whether Christians should marry non Christians. The debate was allowed to continue, the targetting of specific members in that situation was not.

We as a site apologize to Champagne for any distress that caused her personally. Please accept this public apology. Please rest assured that you were not being threatened.

HOWEVER, we do not as a site condemn Jason's position for that is the position of many members of leadership - not that we would kill people who annoyed us if we were not Christians - but that there would not be a system that would necessarily command that such things be morally wrong. He could have worded things better for which he has apologized. To personalize (with permission) with a specific site leader, Dee Dee Warren now carries the conviction that she was complicit in the murder of two of her unborn children through abortion before she converted - now as a Christian she has a reason for seeing that as wrong - as a nonbeliever she did not.

Originally Posted by Aristophanes

:rolling: oh sure, and a command by a god isn't arbitrary? what was stopping him from saying the exact oposite?