Dr Rick

What harm comes to theists by excluding them as moderators?

brighid

The line should be drawn when the attack becomes personal or is a fallacy of any sort. ALL theists, just like ALL women, ALL men, ALL homosexuals, etc. cannot be put into simple, compartmental categories. They may all share similar traits, but they are not all alike.

Brighid

brighid

Dr Rick,

If you go back and read one of the recent posts I made to Helen I did my best to address that question. My subsequent posts also discuss my feelings on that matter. If you would like further explanation after reading through those I would be happy to answer that question more precisely.

Thanks,
Brighid

AspenMama

Brighid,
Do you feel it is immoral to disqaulify a big burly man from leading a battered women's support group, simply because he is a big burly man?

Do you think a majority of women could achieve a sense of security and find a way to recover their dignity this way?

brighid

Aspenmama

Yes.

Brighid

brighid

(this was added after I replies)

Well, I think in time yes, they could especially as a woman who has endured abuse of varied sorts from different men (ranging from extremely violent to more mild.)

I am also not sure if all women have been abused by big, burly men ... mine sure weren't. I do understand the fear and I do understand the pain, however I also understand having worked through that fear and pain and learning to trust men again.

If a support group has the goal of helping abused women heal and recover from the indignity they suffered I feel it would benefit them to learn that not all men (who resemble their abusers) are not like their abusers simply because they are men (or big and burly.) I would think a safe haven would want to put forth models of appropriate behaviors and persons so the abused could learn to trust again and not continue in the pain and trauma by falsely believing all men will abuse them.

I personally think a support group would be, in part, failing their clientelle by failing to take this measure.

Brighid

brighid

I just wanted to add a note at this point in the discussion to note that although I moderate MF&P I will not be acting in full moderator capacity in this discussion. I am acting as a user, but I do reserve the right to ask that discussions stay relatively close to the OP.

Brighid

brighid

Dr. Rick,

I apologize for missing this initial post ... dangers of attempting to read through these things while at work ... and the frustration of many server busy signals ... please forgive the oversight. Someone was kind enough to point out that I have missed your question.

Unfortunately, a few more pages have been added since you posted this question and I do think I have made my personal feeling known on this. If after reading through those posts you feel you would like me to address you specifically I will surely do that.

Brighid

ex-xian

brighid - It's tedious to carry on a discussion with so many people and reply to all the posts...kudos to you for making the effort.

Yes, I certainly think so. The term "theist" is often used to describe everyone from fundies to pagans.
This, IMO, is very unfortunate. Of anyone who falls into the "theist" category, deists and panentheists are those most suited to support metaphysical naturalism.
A theist who believes in a personal god cannot consistently hold to naturalism. To ask them to moderate a board that espouses this philosophy would have them dichotomizing their personal and professional (for lack of a better term) lives and thoughts.
I find it puzzling why "nice pagans" are allowed to moderate, since pagans, as I understand the term, believe that god/godess has a personality that is manifested through nature.

I don't think that panentheists or deists would have to become cognitively dissonant in supporting naturalism. I believe in the existence of a god of some sort, but this being is not personal. I believe in the god of whitehead's "Process and Reality," but this in no way conflicts with my holding to naturalism as a philosophy. A god that would interfere in the affairs of men, to me, seems ridiculous.

The acid test, so to speak, of being a moderator should be their ability to uphold and support the goals and reasons of this board. Anyone who is unable to do this, should be excluded. It would immoral not to do so. However, a simple belief in a deity of some sort does not fall into this category.

brighid

Ex-xian,

Thank you. This particular discussion is personally important to me and I think I should do my best to answer everyone since I was the one starting this discussion. Thankfully I type rather quickly



I agree, but again I think this should be judged on an individual basis.

Well, as a former pagan (and an atheist who continues to participate in pagan events and ritual - if you would like to discuss my personal quirk on this in more depth please feel free to email me at brighid@infidels.org) all I can say is that some pagans do not see gods and goddesses as personal, real beings but more of a manifest energy that is described through archetype and myth. However, that is probably a discussion for another time because understanding paganism can be quite complicated.

Now, I am only remembering this off the top of my head at the moment but I believe pagans are allowed because of their oppressed, minority status in society (thereby similar to atheists.) Perhaps someone else could clarify that better, but some are theists and herein lies the quandry.