Dr Rick

It depends on your ethical system; from a utilitarian standpoint, in which one strives to do the most good and the least harm, I don't think it's immoral. I don't see any harm from not inviting theists to moderate or to a party, for that matter.

Kintaro

The IIDB is not a democracy nor a republic. To try to force such principles on it is just another form of abuse. If a theist wishes to participate, that is fine. But to moderate ?

Let's say this theist is a Hindu. Every hindu discriminatory or at least non-pleasing remark (i.e. "We don't believe in Jesus as much as we do Zeus or Vishnu.") could potentially be edited/deleted making hinduism almost immune to criticism.

Now, imagine a christian. I mean, in theory, they would be able to delete the whole subforums for Bible Criticism, E/C, and any MF&P thread concerning abortion, homosexuality, pre-marital sex and suicide, and of course more. Oh, C-S.S., every thread unless it involves a non-christian cult.


Let's pick at the requirements for moderator status here. Rules in bold, what I think in italic.

· The person must be a nontheist. For our purposes, a nontheist is defined as someone who does not believe in a personal deity or deities. That definition should not exclude pantheists, nice pagans or nontheist Buddhists This is of course a form of Lemon test, but what do you expect ? Jerry Falwell to moderate ? I'm sure 90 % of christians, well, anybody is more rational than him, but briefly, w/o reading the reference to the "our mission" page, what I've personally lived in IIDB is a home for people wishing to discuss Ethics Without God (not referring to the book, but any ethical guideline that isn't divinely inspired; a place where coming out isn't criticized; or a place where other already self-defing freethinkers can converse with people that think similarly and won't cut them off on the mention of something that makes perfect logical sense, even if it offends someone's religious views. Such views should be left at the door for some, and for others, don't even exist.)
· An above average level of maturity and levelheadedness. This has nothing to do with religion. Atheists can be as irrational, hot-headed and bigoted as the next guy. Being a freethinker doesn't make us immune from stupidity. Sure, maybe religiously inspired stupidity, but freethinkers can'T view themselves as enlightened, but more down to earth, more free, but as vulnerable as anyone else to things that aren't religiously-related, i.e. STDs, tumors, mental diseases, etc.
· The ability to take criticism without taking it too personally. Multiple forms of criticism, Sure, religious forms are more common, but what if in the bottom forums there is a discussion of Country music or shaving down there, and you personally find both gross, or in reverse, enjoy them both and have views against anyone who thinks the contrary? An ideal test is to see how they react down there .
· The ability to use good judgment regarding specific posts and how those posts relate to the forum rules. Again, this has nothing to do with religion or spirituality, of course, it will be majorly the case here... In the upper forums, this involves being able to tell the difference between someone declaring why he loves h8is deity, and someone wanting everyone to this deity. And then the off-topic idea. If some religions have hair growth/removal requirements being discussed and it turns into a "how about my privates" thread, then I am pretty sure that you would try to find a rule (most likely being off-topic, also flamefests as a good reason) to shut topics.
· The ability and willingness to strive to be a cohesive force in our community. Plain english : Are you becoming a moderator to guide others, and enforce rules when necessary or instill the Digital Reich ? The answer should be obvious.
· A concern for the reputation and well-being of IIDB and the Secular Web. Plain english : No intense drive to slander every theist you can get your hands on that comes by. Deconvert, yes. Slander, no. :P
· The ability and willingness to check the forum every day (Or a different schedule as agreed to by all moderators of that forum) and read all new posts. Obvious. If you're moderating, you have to check it all and not just what you like or what offends you.
· Responsive to email and a willingness to publicly display an email address* in the profile To show that you are willing to have discussions with others off the forum. To show a certain openness, but then again, it could be tested.


So of course, it would take a non-theist for this job. Any non-theist ? Absolutely not. It takes more than an Atheist license plate or bumper sticker, or freethought advertisement to become a moderator that can actually moderate while respecting the whole community. It's not a form of discrimination. Would you hire a mute person on a telephone line ? A blind person for a graphics design job ? There are some jobs people with different conditions just cannot do, and it can't be viewed as discrimination. Not linking religion to a handicap, but that is a kind of condition to become a moderator. If you are a secular God-lover that doesn't believe in shoving religion down our throats, you're our (plural intended = the community. I am not speaking on behalf of the moderators, I'm not even one so o_O.) kind of people. But maybe not the right type to moderate. And as I said, this is no democracy. No maximal time limit before you become a moderator, and no obligations to those who participate the most. Those are called either ancient consistent members, post whores , and possibly (not linking the 2, they may both coexist, but not necessarily) a combination of both.

On that note, I stop here. I think I covered why some people can't expect to be moderators. Not just for theists, but for the ancient (although that helps :P ), and post whores (it'S an accepted term) either.

AquaVita

I would like to remind everyone that in this given scenario, all other rules that apply to theists would still apply. No preaching zones would still be recognized, and the theist mod would literally be no different from any other mod, except they hold a God-belief of some kind.

Also bear in mind we would obviously not consider a raging fundamentalist.

I'll be on later tonight to speak further on this issue.

auto-da-fe

Certainly, my apologies brighid.

No, I don't think ALL theist beliefs can preclude you from being a moderator, but I do think SOME can. Fundamentalism of any theistic beleifs will/should automatically exclude you.

I think of the moderator req's a theist would have the most problems with req #4 and req #5. This is only my opinion based on my experience, but I find it hard to beleive that a theist can be non-judgemental, and neutral in an arguement. They would tend to take a certain side when discussing certain matters. Now if your discussing what happened on Friends last night, then anyone could moderate that, theist or not. But if you are discussing the existence of "God", then a theist is going to obviously lean one way. Not a problem if they are simply commenting on the posts as you so elequantly do from time to time. But if they have to view a post with an objective eye and decide wether it is proper (or even banable) then they may have problems with that. They would take one side of the arguement and instead of saying "Everyone here calm down and think logically", they may say "Poster A is out of line and therefore banned". I know this is pure speculation and not proveable, but this is my opinion. If someone cannot think logically when deciding for themselves wether god exists, how can they for other matters? (ftr I think a theist is illogical in their theistic beleifs).

yguy

I'm not sure either of those viewpoints differs substantially from atheism.

As for the thread topic, I don't know what could possibly be immoral about it. Any minor quibbles I've had with the moderation here are not traceable to the mods' atheism, as far as I am aware.

brighid

This isn't the point of the discussion. We are talking about morality, not legality and I would like the discussion to remain strictly about morality for the time.

Is it moral to exclude a theist from moderation for no other reason then a belief in God(s)?

Does one being a Hindu make one unable to allow critical thought about Hindu theism? If so, how? If we apply the same standard you suggest here that means atheist will edit/delete discriminatory/non-pleasing remarks made by theists to make atheism immune to criticism. I don't think that is actually the case. One's theism does not make one incapable of objectivity.

Furthermore I want to make clear that a theist moderator must meet ALL the other prestated requirments and I think it is obvious that Jerry Falwell would not make a good moderator under any circumstances.


Again, as to the requirements please demonstrate how a belief in God makes one incapable of achieving the criteria for modship.

Brighid

brighid

However, that is not what I am asking in any of my three questions. Please re-read them and if you could answers each accordingly.

If you have no problem with moderation based upon a mods atheism, would you then have no similar problems with similar moderation based on an individuals theism?

The position I take on the morality of this argument is that individuals should not be judged by generalizations, or stereotypes but rather on the basis of ones character. If a theist meets all the other qualifications for a moderator, but CANNOT be considered for an appropriate forum for no other reason then he/she has a god-belief is it moral to exclude him/her?

Brighid

ManM

"Is it moral to exclude a theist from moderation for no other reason then a belief in God(s)?"

Of course I think it is immoral to discriminate against people solely on the basis of their creed. Now, some may argue that a theist could not possibly embody the traits of a good moderator. But if that is a case, the theist candidate would fail based on the traits of a moderator, not on his/her belief. If my logic is right, the first criterion is either unjust or redundant. In either case it should be discarded as an official policy. Also keep in mind, changing the official policy does not require the powers that be to choose theist moderators.

beth

well, I do feel it is wrong to deny a theist consideration for moderatorship if the theist can support the mission of the Sec Web. I know of at least one theist who is level-headed and rational enough to be a moderator in here.

yguy

Geez, no need to get snippy is there?

Seriously, I don't know exactly why you're asking "the enemy", but here you go:

1. Yes, since I've not seen a compelling argument to the contrary.

2. No.

3. I don't think any are particularly incompatible. All a mod needs is a modicum of fairness.

No.

Yes, but you would be doing yourselves a disservice by rejecting someone on such technical grounds. Even fundies can be both fair and intelligent. Finding one that could moderate this particular board would be a longshot, but it could be an interesting experiment.