The Other Michael

I'd like to remind people that this should be a typical MF&P discussion of hypothetical situations.

Any real discussion of a change in IIDB policy would need to take place in the IIDB Conference Room, and if the discussion can't stay focused on hypothetical situations, the thread will be moved to the ICR.

cheers,
Michael
MF&P Moderator (Maximus)

pz

I have to agree with the several people who have said that this is not a moral issue at all. I think the OP is poorly formed and inappropriate.

It isn't a question of good or bad, right or wrong. It's simply what is. This is a freethought board, dedicated to a secular worldview and opposing theism. If this were, say, a computer gaming board, or one dedicated to classic cars, we wouldn't be questioning whether the moderators like to play games or are interested in cars. We certainly wouldn't be calling it a moral issue.

Here, moderators and admins ought to be people who readily promote and defend a nontheistic worldview which holds that the natural world is all that there is. It contradicts the purpose of the board to do otherwise.

HelenM

Brighid,

I don't think it's 'immoral' to have a rule that no theists can be moderators here. I think it's moral to choose moderators based on the goal of the Secular Web and the wishes of those who post here and based on criteria for qualification which enable potential candidates to be fairly easily assessed. It seems to me that a 'no theist moderators' criterion is consistent with those things.

For what it's worth, I've never assumed that the 'no theist moderators' rule implies that all posters here think all theists lack maturity or good judgment or any of the other things listed as necessary for moderators here to have.

Helen

Daleth

On further consideration, I don't believe I expressed my true level of wishy-washiness on the subject because I just answered the questions as asked.

Calling it moral or immoral is assigning a quality that I just don't think is there. The decision IIDB made is not the one I would make, or if I did it would be out of meanness... cause that's me. This doesn't mean IIDB made the decision out of meanness, and it's perfectly reasonable considering the nature of the community. It has no more moral standing than do the decisions made about the forum categories.

Sorry if this second post is not what you're after, Brighid, but just answering what you asked didn't leave me room to be completely honest and it was giving me hives.

Dal

AspenMama

I have carefully read our mission statement and feel that it would be wrong, perhaps even immoral to appoint theist moderators to this website.

First it would require a theist to be something else--In order to accept a moderator position, a theist would have to be able to set aside a god-belief in order to support our mission of promoting metaphysical naturalism: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode.../mission.shtml
Would it be right to ask a theist to support this, or to set aside their belief, given he/she has all the other qualifications?

Secondly, I believe the effect would be so negative on our membership that it would hamper our mission. Lurkers, and people who live on the fringe would disapear into the mist if they didn't feel this was still a safe haven. People who might have felt free to talk before, might feel the need to bite their tongues and not gain the composure, knowledge and power to debate out there in the real world with dignity. I think we have a good thing going now and that such a change would cause our mission more harm that good.

HelenM

I think this is a very good question to ask. I hope it's ok if I ask a question in turn, such as...is it moral to prejudge all theists as unable to be supportive of IIDB in such a way that they could be moderators here? Presumably no-one is asked to be a moderator until they have been posting for a while. And presumably no-one is asked to be a moderator unless their posts have demonstrated that they make a positive contribution here and that they are not trying to undermine the mission. Is it true that every theist who posts here is demonstrably trying to undermine the mission? It doesn't seem that way to me. And for what it's worth, I don't think that disagreeingwith misinformation posted here equates to trying to undermine the mission. I'd say it actually helps it if theists are here to help separate what is accurate from what is not. Any mission loses credibility if it mixes accurate and inaccurate information.

But anyway, even if theists could be supportive enough to be moderators, your next point must be taken in consideration and probably will keep the 'no theist moderators' rule in place barring any significant changes to the people who post on IIDB and their reasons for posting.

Even if a theist could be a good moderator, that doesn't mean that all the nontheists on IIDB will believe or accept that he or she can. And I would think that those who are open to having theist moderators will not push to have theist moderators here in deference to those who feel very uncomfortable about it. Most 'communities' that value their support role function somewhat that way i.e. they defer to the more 'sensitive' members to some extent rather than alienating them. And by using the word 'sensitive' I don't mean to be derogatory or imply that 'sensitive' people don't have good reasons for their sensitivity. Sometimes it's appropriate to 'challenge' people to be less sensitive; it can be helpful to them.

I heard a discussion recently among some of the local Unitarians about whether members of their congregation who objected to the word 'God' being used in services should be catered to or be challenged to get over it. (This came up because their new ministerial candidate used it - although he's a panentheist rather than a theist - and evidently the last minister hadn't been using the word - and some people were upset that the candidate did). I don't think it's more 'moral' to do one or the other; I think that as long as decisions are based on one's values then they are moral.

I guess that's my bottom line...I see the value of these forums as being a 'safe' environment for nontheists to find support and to learn and if the presence of theist moderators would erode that, I think it's 'moral' to have a rule against them.

Helen

Kevbo

Is it really necessary to have theist moderators? It seems like there are a plethora of secular moderators already, and since this board isn't heavy on censorship (a good thing), we don't need huge numbers of moderators examining every post and hovering over the "delete" button. The function of moderators is more to keep people on topic and maybe remove some purely trolling posts, and they seem to be doing a pretty good job of that already.

HelenM

I think that's an argument against having more moderators, rather than against theist moderators per se.

I think there are ongoing needs for moderators, as IIDB continues to grow and since from time to time current moderators need to step down (generally because the time commitment is no longer possible for them).

So the question really is - when new moderators are required, should theists be considered or not?

Helen

brighid

Dr. Rick,

My question would be is IIDB strictly utilitarian? If I understand the utilitarian standpoint would this mean that a policy that only harms (hypothetically) a small number of people because they are by nature of their position, a minority that this is acceptable because the majority (non-theists in this case) aren't harmed, or even benefit from an action/policy?

Brighid

brighid

ManM,

This is at the heart of the matter I am attempting to flesh out. Presently the current policy makes exception for only a few "theist" exceptions (although I would say pagans generally have a belief in Gods). I don't believe this encompasses the diversity of theist beliefs, that although have a God-belief, aren't the sort of theists that "oppress" non-theists in daily life (Unitarian Universalits, religious humanists, deists, etc.)

A theist who did not embody all the other necessary qualifications for moderatorship would naturally be unable to fulfill those duties.

Brighid