HelenM

But is it true that the "no theist moderators" rule harms theists?

I think it would be immoral if IIDB invited theists to participate then had biased moderating which discriminated against them solely because of their beliefs. In that case I would say that theists are being "harmed" by the lack of theist moderators. But I've never thought that moderator bias against theists was the intention or practice here.

And I don't see why theists are harmed by not being allowed to be moderators on the discussion board of a site whose goal is to promote and defend nontheism.

Helen

brighid

Cheetah,

Should we look upon all theists (regardless of their actual and stated beliefs, as well as record here) as possible, or real intimidators simply because he/she self defines as a "theist?"

What are the social goals of secularism that require insulation from all theists from positions of authority (making no distinction for actual belief or character?)

Should part of our secular goal be to work with those theists in our community (and our communities at large) that support freedom of expression, etc? Does it necessarily or absolutely follow that a "theist" desires a non-secular world?

Is there better context to evaluate this? Let me try to do my best to explain what I feel is the current situation that I bring into question.
Hypothetically speaking:
Theist A is qualified in all other ways for moderatorship in the currently stated moderator rules, but states that he still believes in a God. He has spent much time at IIDB and the core non-theist membership has gotten to know him as a fine, upstanding individual and perhaps some (or many) have developed a personal friendship with him (and therefore the fear of intimidation should not rationally exist, except for those who might be new but that could be overcome with time.) Although he personally states he believes in a God (but let's say is an evolutionist and sees the Bible as metaphorical and as mythology) he is denied a moderator position ONLY because he maintains a belief in a God. He supports a secular vision in the respect that he believes this is the best way to support freedom (and it is not, as I understand it, the mission of iidb to eradicate religious thought, people, or philosophy), but he still maintains the right to make his own decisions about such personal matters and will not relinquish his personal belief in God. In this case, do you think it would be moral/right to apply the no theist rule SOLELY because he maintains a god-belief?



Just to make sure I understand you correctly is your position that A is indepent of B-H because A (theism) does not make one incapable of achieving B-H? (I think this is what you mean, but I want to be sure.)

I think the case-by-case basis is a good idea. Extremists, whether atheist, theist (or any system in between) would not make good moderators because they are unable to fufill the requirements of B-H. I also agree that it wouldn't be helpful to define certain faiths as acceptable because it is (imho) rather arbitrary. I would like to see individuals judged as individuals and none dismissed simply because of a belief (or lack thereof.) We entertain some rather unorthodox characters here

Brighid

brighid

I would say that is rather legalistic as well. Something may be legal but not moral (and vice versa.) I would agree that this group (and any other for that matter) has the RIGHT to decide membership (ie the Boy Scouts have the right to discriminate and eliminate homosexuals and atheists from service). I do not argue with that, but what I want to hear from others is whether or not they find it moral to exclude an individual, not based on his/her character or stated beliefs, but based on belief alone?

Brighid

HelenM

I think the answer depends partly on whether it's moral to create and define a group and restrict its membership based on criteria related to the definition of the group. I don't agree with those who have implied that a "no theist moderators" rule has nothing to do with the group. I think Aspenmama is right to look at the mission and support value of IIDB when considering whether theist moderators would be appropriate here, rather than simply thinking in the abstract about whether any theists here indicate that they have the ability to exercise good judgment and restraint and to commit to being here regularly. Those are good qualifications for moderators in general but most boards would also look at the prospective moderator's views of the purpose of a board.

Helen

brighid

Ex-xian,

Deists and panentheists are not currently on the list of those acceptable theist types that could be considered for moderation, therefore the answer to your question is yes (as far as I know, but I could be mistaken.)



I agree, but does the generic term that is used, "theist" mean that all theists will be in conflict with that agenda? The ambiguity of that distinction is what I want to address. Should that ambiguity be refined?


Would all theists (in the broad and undefined sense of the present requirements) be forced to do this? Also, the administrators of this forum don't force any of us moderators to believe uniformily (as a matter of fact there is a great degree of diversity in that group) and I don't know how one could actually be forced to do anything against ones will in order to perform the duties of moderator. Could you explain how you feel a theist would be forced to do so?

HelenM

If excluding them is not making a derogatory statement about them, then I think it's moral.

And in this situation, why would it be because in essence this is a preference, isn't it? Why would it be immoral to say "We want to have like-minded people in our private group"?

Helen

brighid

Gurdur,

Unfortunately the current theist disqualification policy isn't precise and therefore I feel the ambiguous "theist" term needs to be refined to either allow for a case-by-case examination of a "theist" who might very well be personally qualified to moderate at IIDB, or define which sorts of theistic strains COULD be compatible with our stated goals. In that respect I cannot define it any more precisely to make this question easier to answer.

Brighid

brighid

ToM,

Unfortunately, (and as I previously stated to Gurdur) I think the ambiguous distinction of "theist" makes it difficult to evaluate the current situation. I could, for the purposes of discussion, hypothetically refine that data (such as an example I presented to cheetah), but the principle I am attempting to get at is the solitary distinction of "theism" being a disqualifier and the morality of that distinction in deference to all other known characteristics. I do think we CAN have a discussion based on a singluar principle, even if it is difficult.

If the answers are going to be "depends" I think that speaks to my point that the MERE distinction of "theist" is at least immoral, at best incorrect/inconsistent in its ambiguity.

I will do my best to provide those hypotheticals a bit later in the conversation as I would like to focus (for the moment) on the sole distinction as a disqualifer.

Brighid

brighid

Daleth,

Let me ask you this question: If the original distinction was not done out of meanness and has come up for consideration to include some, appropriate theist moderators on staff but this was squashed (so to speak) because some (but not all, or even a majority of) users think a) theists are mentally deluded b) atheists are superior c) fear that a theist moderator would bring IIDB down through infiltration (presuming said person is faking an acceptable stance) or utter chaos because a mass segment of users would go ballistic d) a phobic fear of all theists ... would one, some, or any of those justifications be acceptable to maintain an absolutely no theist policy?



No apologies necessary. I appreciate your candor and effort. I apologize if it gave you hives

Brighid

brighid

I agree that not all users here will be comfortable with the general idea that a "theist" would be a moderator. That may, or may not cause the lurkers (who don't actually participate in the community and whose thoughts we cannot gauge until they become users) and some users to be initially, negatively impacted. Some might leave, but I ask you do you think it is moral to judge ALL theists as oppressors and intimidators, especially if there is a clear record that a specific individual does not embody these qualities?

I personally feel it is important to "challenge" people to be less sensitive when their feelings are based on reactionary principles not based in facts in evidence.

Should iidb support irrationality (as I do not feel it is rational to hate/be angry with all theists because SOME are deserving of such emotion?)

I feel it is the principle of stating that no theist (even if he/she doesn't adhere to traditional religious thought that would cause him/her a moral dilema.) A god-belief does not necessarily make one incapable of supporting a secular vision (such as those I and others have mentioned.) The ambiguous term is what I feel is causing my personal confusion, and general confusion on this subject.

Brighid