Gurdur

Let's all get back on topic.


Nope, there was no initial coinfusion between "immoral" and "discriminatory"; the thread started out as a question as to whether the discrimination was ethical.
Now it's become a general policy thread.

Bill Snedden pointed out some aspects, I pointed some aspects; these have not largely been dealt with so far; e.g. I pointed out 2 things, that SecWeb presents itself often in ethical terms, so its organization also has an ethical component to a degree; and I also made a small remark, following ex-xian's, to the effect that there's a lot of conflation going on over just what is a "theist".

The arguments against it being not unethical not having a theist mod range from:

1) that Secweb just is, like some natural phenomna, or in any case, we just shouldn't be arguing its policy
---- this counter-argument has been dropped, apparently, in favour of other ones.

2) that theism, and therefore theists, are the enemy, and therefore we should not have a theist mod
---- this stance has a lot of problems. Not only does it conveniently ignore just what is a theist, it presupposes a lot which should rather have been examined closely.

3) that theists are not capable of carrying out mod duties in a fair and impartial manner, and/or they are not capable of reason
---- this one simply ignores the fact that atheists have no monopoly on reason/impartiality, or guarantee of it, and the occasional theist --- or fideist --- may well be able to carry out moderation duties in the way prescribed by SecWeb.
Plus I've already pointed out that two already-existing mods do not adhere to strict naturalist metaphysics.

4) that having a theist mod might disturb secret atheist councils.
---- Untrue.

The good argument against having theist mods is:

5) It would disturb a lot of people here who have bitter experiences with theism, and might scare off lurkers who otherwise feel that SecWeb is a safe haven.
_______

Taking SecWeb's expressed mission (from various documents) into account, it seems that the best idea has been expressed by AspenMama:
This would be of use in many ways:

A) it would be a practical furtherance of SecWeb's mission

B) having a good theist mod in such a limited forum would eventually help those who need to do so to learn how to interact with theists in a assured, mature and self-confident way

C) it would be of even greater help in assisting practically the division between the idea and the person who holds the idea.

brighid

ToM,

I have no problem with this discussion being moved as you have. I wonder if splitting the thread might be appropriate, but I haven't thought that through just yet ... just an idea off the top of my head.

Brighid

brighid

Gurdur,

Thank you for your input. I would like to see "theist" defined in less ambiquous terms to prevent confusion for those types of theists who don't fit into the mainstream, and who could potentially match our mission.

If two moderators are not presently metaphysical naturalists (and I don't know if this is true) and this is allowable I would think it would then be allowable to have others who aren't metaphysical naturalists as moderators. Must one be a metaphysical naturalist to be a moderator?

I also like the idea seebs came up with (and Aspenmama and yourself agreed with) as a good idea. I think it would address many of the concerns I and others have. I also think it would address the fears others have with regard to theist mods, fragile feelings, etc.

Brighid

HelenM

It seems to me there are three types of forums here:
1) Ones in which theists and nontheists debate/discuss issues upon which their beliefs/nonbeliefs have a bearing
2) Secular support forums
3) Forums where religious beliefs/nonbeliefs don't necessarily impact the discussion/debate/chat

Maybe there is some overlap.

Anyway, it seems to me that having a theist moderator in type 2) forums would hinder the safety of them.
I'm not sure there's any reason to have a theist moderator in type 3 forums.
I think it's the type 1 forums that stand to gain most, because it could be that having a theist moderator would attract more theists to those boards. It's not necessarily true that having a theist moderator will make the moderating fairer to theists but it might make theists more willing to venture onto those boards and that could improve the quality of debate/discussion on them.

To me it would make more sense to consider adding a theist moderator to one or more higher debate/discussion forums than to add a whole new forum with a mixture of moderators. I mean, if there was call for another forum, wouldn't it have been added already?

One of the problems right now on the religious debate/discussion forums - as far as I'm concerned - is that there are so few theists posting compared to the atheists that any theist who comes in trying to answer nontheist questions gets totally overwhelmed with questions. I think most of them leave because they realize they don't have nearly enough time to answer/discuss them all. Unfortunately some then get ridiculed for not responding to everyone. But who has time to do that? If there would more theists here I think the religious discussions would be better. It's going to be hard to achieve as long as there is a perception that theists who come here will be mocked and derided. Theists who saw/experienced the worst of Rants and Raves won't quickly forget it. But it could be that having a theist moderator will encourage theists to post here because they will feel they have an advocate in the event they are unhappy about their treatment here.

Anyway, if most people here feel happy about the quality of discussion on the debate/discussion boards then what I just wrote is invalidated.

In general, this approach of having a theist moderator (one or more) on one or more boards but not all of them will still mean that theists are 'discriminated against' solely on the basis of their beliefs. If discrimination is immoral, then less discrimination may still be immoral.

Anyway I don't know what else moderators do. Should theist moderators get access to all staff-only discussions? If two nontheist moderators who agree can do something, should two
theist moderators who agree have the same powers? Should theist moderators have a say in who is banned? Etc. And as I just said, to the extent theist moderators do not have the same rights/privileges/powers as other moderators, they are still being 'discriminated against'. In fact it might be more humiliating to say "you can be a moderator but you can't do what other moderators can do" than to have the absolute rule 'no theist moderators'. I mean, either you trust people or you don't.

Helen

pz

I disagree. Moderators here already only moderate one or a few fora anyway. I don't see how suggesting that a theist moderate one forum specifically designed for interactions with theists is any kind of concession or limitation at all.

I also wonder if there would have to be special rules in this hypothetical forum. Would people be allowed to criticize religion there? We're already seeing here how some theists take general criticisms of religion very personally. Would this forum be protected with special rules so that atheists would have to tiptoe around tender christian sensibilities?

Contrary to what you say, I don't think it addresses any of the issues that have been brought up, and adds new potential problems.

Besides...why is this whole thing even an issue? We don't need theist moderators, and I can't see a significant number of the atheists and agnostics here clamoring for a theist moderator. It looks like a trojan horse to me, an attempt to sneak theism into iidb, for the benefit of theists.

brighid

I was trying to find pz's initial response to my OP where he commented that the questions I was positing were inappropriate and my OP was poorly worded ... but for the life of me I cannot find that post.

I had not initially responded to it because it rather upset me and I didn't feel answering at the time would have been beneficial to the discussion. However, I was thinking about that and a few other things last night and I felt it important to address those comments.

Although this has moved to the policy forum, the OP originated in MF&P. It is my feeling that there really are no inappropriate moral questions. In MF&P we discuss everything from cannibalism to pornography to veganism to pedophilia. I also do not think it is inappropriate to question authority when one has a genuine concern. Furthermore, given the unpopular views of atheism/non-theism and the challenge this gives to traditional authority I cannot see how it would be inappropriate to question any policy at iidb.

I did not raise these questions out of some self-interest to 'win' a conversation so I could thump my chest later. I did not raise this question to attack iidb, it's administrators, moderators or members. I asked the questions out of sincere concern for a place I am passionate about. I see some inconsistencies in this policy and I wanted to have open, honest discussion about it. I ask these questions because I desire to help iidb reach it's fullest potential and I see the complete restriction of theists (and some other inconsistencies in application) as harmful and partially supported by irrational justifications.

I also want to address this idea of community. I see iidb as a community, but in many ways each forum is it's own little world. Many people are intimidated by the upper fora and do not venture there. Many people don't get outside of their pet forums very much. In this sense I think forums are almost seperate communities under the umbrella of ii and each has a unique dynamic and purpose. In this sense I think an appropriate theist could fit into either a newly created forum (as suggested by seebs), or in existing forums that won't have the negative reactions to a theist moderator others would.

I am not the first to question this policy. I will not be the last. I think it will (for some) continue to be a nagging concern that should be adequately addressed, and put to rest.

Thank you everyone for your time, effort and understanding.

Brighid

HelenM

Perhaps Brighid has secretly converted and is now working for the Holy Christian Conspiracy...

(Just kidding, Brighid )

pz

This is where I get totally baffled by the intent of this whole discussion.

Why should iidb make policy changes that make theists happy, and that encourage more theists to join?

I mean, if that's what we want, why not just open up a new forum for the specific purpose of spreading the Good News about our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ? That'd get 'em flocking in, and make them feel comfortable and right at home.

ManM

Gurder,
You left out what I consider the best reason to disallow theist mods. The moderator is not just a person who administers a forum, but is a representative of II. How can a theist represent a group that believes in metaphysical naturalism?

brighid,
"Must one be a metaphysical naturalist to be a moderator?"

I'm getting the distinct impression that this is the case. Anyone who believes in something beyond nature cannot really represent a group of people who believe nothing is beyond nature. There are some shady areas of course, such as deists and pagans. Deists are functionally naturalists, as their God has little relation to the world. Pagans place their Gods within nature. In the case of the deist, God and nature and independent of each other. In the case of paganism, the Gods are either dependent on or one with nature. The people who are banned from the inner temple of metaphysical naturalism are the ones who believe that God is greater than nature.

brighid

I don't think there should be any special restrictions in any forum so as not to offend the sensibilities of any moderator. We don't have any such rules against people criticizing anarachy and we have had anarchist moderators. We don't have any restrictions on discussing pedophilia in MF&P and as one of the moderators I am a survivor of childhood sexual abuse. I personally chose not to moderate those discussions because although I can be objective I am physically sickened by such discussions. The moderators on my team have no problem with this.

Theists are allowed to criticize atheism and we have strong atheist mods. Furthermore all theists aren't Christian even if we attract more Christians then other theists. I can't even imagine an appropriate theist mod who embodies the maturity, et al required to be a mod would demand such concessions especially one who is already a seasoned veteran of iidb.

It is an issue because it appears to have some discriminatory elements supporting it. I don't see those instances as being ethical. A trojan horse? Now come on pz ... (sarcasm meter on high) Yes, pz ... you guessed it all the pro-theists moderators and members here are in a very deliberate conspiracy to sneak theism into iidb (isn't theism already in these forums?) by questioning the validity of an ambiguous restriction based solely on a god-belief! How horrible it would be to provide any positive benefit to those damned theists!!! Buggered if I know! (sarcasm meter off.)

Some things are (to me anyway) a matter of principle and although there is at least ONE valid reason (as discussed by Bill Snedden) to disallow some theists as moderators, the other reasons you and I both know support this (as expressed in this forum and other public conversations) smell a bit foul.

Brighid