ex-xian

Quote:

But a very real question, as yet unanswered, is whether or not the mission or purpose of the IIDB is identical to that of the II. It seems to me that the IIDB has in fact taken on a life of its own.

I agree with brighid that this is an important question. I would go further and say that this is the most important question. If the goals of II are one and the same with the IIDB, then it seems to me that excluding theists is necessary. However, if IIDB has grown "beyond" II, then the question needs to be revisited in light of IIDB's purpose.

crazyfingers

IIDB will support the mission of the Internet Infidels / The Secular Web until such time that the II Board of Directors decides that it's mission should be different. Until such time, the Admins of IIDB are guided by the II/ Secular Web mission statement.

When it comes to IIDB, it does not have a life of it's own. It is bound to the II/Secweb mission.

I will also say that the Admins are currently unanimous that we will not be having theist mods at this time.

ex-xian

Well, this being said, the issue of morality is settled for me. Since having theist (as defined by the qualifications) would force them to moderate with an attitude contrary to their personal beliefs, to have them as moderators would be, IMO, immoral. It would be unfair to them, and unproductive for IIDB.

HelenM

For what it's worth, this is what matters to me: that the IIDB moderators do not exhibit a pattern of unfair bias against theists in their moderation.

I'm satisfied that they don't. If I felt they did I think I would have left IIDB long ago.

Helen

Jobar

Helen, I feel sure I speak for all the mods and admins when I thank you for that. We try hard to make this a place where people of all beliefs or none can feel welcome, as long as they maintain a minimum of civility.

When the idea of theist mods was first proposed many months ago, I spoke out in favor of it. It seemed to me to be a great way to improve IIDB's public image, and to further the cause of freedom of thought, and of the individual. (This was just after the Baptist Board's purge of atheist posters.)

But the question of advocacy caused me to change my mind. IIDB is, as the very name shows, a place primarily by, of and for unbelievers. To ask any believer to aid in our cause would be unfair to the believer, and dishonest and manipulative of us.

If you, or seebs, or anyone else is aware of a discussion board which is specifically aimed at peaceful and fruitful interaction between believers and unbelievers, whose stated goals attempt to reach some detente which might be applied to the larger society, and world, around us- let us all know.

I personally avoid the believers' boards, because I do not think going there to confront the beliefs of their members is appropriate. But a *balanced* board- if such a thing can exist without succumbing to a nasty power struggle- I would join.

In the meantime, I will do my best to keep IIDB *close* to the balance point- while always definitely on the atheist side of the scales.

HelenM

That's been evident to me and I've appreciated it. I realize that there is quite a bit of freedom allowed in the way people express themselves on IIDB which means that some posters will be friendlier to theists than others. What matters to me is what the staff intention is and what they are working towards, rather than whether every individual poster wants to 'welcome' theists here or not.

I understand what you are saying except, as I said earlier in this thread, I think that it should be up to the believer to make the decision, in the end, about whether he/she can somehow justify advocacy of the Sec Web. I think the justification would have to be along the lines of "I'm in favor of people speaking out about what they believe is true; if what Christians believe is true then they have nothing to fear from nontheists promiting what they consider to be true; in fact it might enable them to distinguish better between what they say which is 'defensible' at any level and what isn't, but continues to be claimed by Christians because it is not being credibly challenged". I would hesitate to say that it's impossible for any theist, thinking along those lines, to decide they could support the mission of the Sec Web.

If there's a board where it's happening, I'm unlikely to find it because I spend very little time visiting boards where I'm not posting regularly already. And I'm on very few boards at present.

If it's happening somewhere I think it's probably because the board has successfully attracted enough people, and allows a broad enough range of topics to be discussed, that there is relative freedom for people to find that although they sharply disagree on some issues, they do have various things in common, nevertheless, which they enjoy discussing with each other.

I don't see that it's inappropriate on boards where believers invite nonbelievers to discuss their beliefs with them.

That doesn't mean that any particular nonbeliever would necessarily find it enjoyable or productive to do so. But it wouldn't be inappropriate, per se.

I listed a few things I think a board needs for that to be a possibility. I think IIDB has those things and that's why some people might wish it could be more encouraged here. But - as recent posts on this thread indicated, community-building and relationship-building between people of varying beliefs/nonbeliefs is not overtly part of the mission of Sec Web and I imagine that people here would disagree over its importance as a covert way of advancing the cause of nontheism.

Fair enough . Thanks for your response.

Helen

AquaVita

Well said.

You essientially sum up my feelings on this matter with those last two sentances. It has been often pointed out that our mission is to promote growth and tolerance, the ability to work to maintain our own right to be non-religious. It says nothing about erradicating religion or separating ourselves from it.

If it did, I would not be able to be a part of this community. I do not wish to "erradicate" anything.

It has been said, but it bears repeating; It is by it's very nature, grossly hypocritical of us to apply the same standards that are applied to us by theists, in regards to allowing a theist moderator. We have long loathed the opression we face on a day to day basis....why on earth would we apply that same opression and segregation? As I've said before, how can we aspire to rise above a group whos bias we ourselves cannot even overcome? Are we not better then that?

Having a theist moderator would not mean the end of a secular safe haven for non-theists. The normal rules of preaching and such would still apply, were any theist made a moderator. They would not be allowed to make moderating decisions based on their beliefs.

The same should hold true for the non-religious moderators. Not once during my time as a mod, have I made any decision on this board regarding how to run my forum, based on my non-religion. And that is the way it SHOULD be. Decisions should be made with logic and reason. Not emotion. The decision to preclude theist moderators, as it is being argued now, is a purely emotional one.

The best argument against it that I have seen, is that it's "going to appear as if the IIDB is no longer a safe-haven". Again, that is strictly emotional. Decisions have been made before that stirred things up because they were in the best interest of the board...why should this be any different? It is in our best interest to integrate, not segregate. We are striving to work harmoniously, and show theists that we are not the evil assholes they think we are. How can we show this to fellow human beings when they don't even get an equal shot at something like this?

I've yet to hear a single. logical, convincing argument as to why when a theist comes along who is dedicated to this community, levelheaded, a frequent and active poster, who obviously cares about his or her fellow users, that we would STILL decline them the offer to moderate.

It should be quite obvious that a theist not need to suspend his beliefs in order to make day to day moderation decisions. We are not asking them to be hypocritical, or abandon their beliefs. Not in the slightest. As I've said...one need not take ones beliefs into acount when considering such a thing.

I have selfish reasons for this as well, I'll admit.

I believe, that if we were to open our doors in every way...that we would attract more quality theists to this place. That we can influence them, and show then the benefits of living a logical life. One based on reason and evidence. And how it's such a great thing to affirm the beauty of life, and that we humans are all we have. We have to support each other.

We cannot do this if we simply reject theists the way they do us.

Someone has to be the bigger person and take the first step towards working together.

I know, that speaking for myself...if a certain community of atheists had not shown me that same love and openess...I have no idea where I would be today.


And apologies to all for arriving at this little party so late. Between work, jury duty, and my latest production project...I'm swamped!

AquaVita

No.

I"m saying you reject Theist moderators out of simple prejudice. As someone else pointed out, your posts in this thread are very emotionally written, which is not your normal style. As such, you've yet to give any logical reason for your stance. Your "trojan horse" bit, as well as other odd statements, are indicative of such emotion and lack of reason.

pz

I am finding it rather irritating to have people claim that I haven't given a single logical reason here, and to be accused of prejudice, especially when I am the target of insulting comparisons with Falwell and accusations of bigotry, among other such hypocrisies. This is simply a dismissive ad hominem which ignores what I have actually said.

There is a simple logical reason to reject theistic moderators: this is a nontheist board, by nontheists, and for nontheists, with the goal of promoting nontheistic viewpoints. That is our raison d'etre. That is why I am here. That's why many other people are here. It's what the founders of the board put it here for. Supporting theism and giving theists a greater role in the operation of the board dilutes our purpose and represents a radical compromise.

Another logical reason: there is no need, and no rational reason has been given to require expanding our manpower to the pool of theists. You have said that the "safe haven" for atheists argument might be good, but you reject it because it is "strictly emotional". By the same token, however, your pleas for theist moderators as an indicator of fairness and to show that we care about people are also "strictly emotional". Your argument that not letting theists moderate is the "same opression and segregation" that atheists experience, or that it implies that we are "evil assholes", is also rather heavily larded with emotional rhetoric, don't you think?

Another: theist moderators are not going to fully support the nontheistic mission of the secular web. I agree that there are a number of theists who would be fully capable of secular, day-to-day decisions in the operation of the board. I have been told that often, as if those of us on the other side were somehow claiming that the theists were all a bunch of vapid flibbertigibbets who couldn't make it through the day without inserting a "Praise God!" into everyone's posts. This is not the case. My argument has been that there should be more to the moderator's role than censoring posts. We are advocates and examples for atheism and agnosticism. A theist moderator just cannot perform those roles.

Now, please...if you are going to bother to address these arguments, do so as they are offered. These are not irrational, emotional claims. Pretending that I am making them out of fear and hatred is not only ridiculous, it's insulting, and not just to me personally, but to all the other regulars on this board who also prefer to keep theists away from operational positions here.

Kassiana

This thread is 8 pages long. I only read the last page. I do not, at this point, intend to read the othe 7, and hope that if there's really something relevant in there to what I say here, someone can inform me. Thanks!

I am a Pagan theist. I have been a theist for ... Gods, 17 freakin years now. Boy, I'm old! I have no problem with the board here being theist-moderator free. Yes, even though there are those of us here (I modestly include myself ) who could and would do a good job, who have no problem with the SecWeb existing here and who may even think it's a good thing y'all are here. It's your board, it's your decision...as long as the rules are applied fairly to all, theist and not, I don't care if you restrict moderation to left-handed pipe welders from Alaska. (You don't, do you?)

In fact, the only way I'd see a possible justification for theist mods would be if you set aside a portion of the discussion boards exclusively for theists...and you aren't very likely to do that, now, are ya? Being all for secular kinds of stuff and all...but you haven't.

That's all. Return to your regular programming. Or else. :P