brighid

Kevbo,

I may be misinterpreting your meaning, but it seems to me (in relation to the OP) that you feel that theist moderators, because they have a god-belief would be heavy handed and support strict censorship. I am understanding you correctly?

I would also argue that just because there are many secular moderators presently, this shouldn't disqualify a person for a future moderator position (we do have turnover and burnout) ONLY because he/she is a theist.

Brighid

ManM

Perhaps an aside, but why does the purpose of II come into play here? This website is meant to support metaphysical naturalism. Does it follow that moderators are expected to discriminate against other philosophies/religions in order to promote naturalism? If not, then it is clear that a moderator candidate should be evaluated independent of creed, race, or ice cream flavor preference. Candidates should be judged by merit, not by label.

However, I do see the opposite argument. A ban on theist moderators may be necessary in order to maintain the peace and stability of II. This really has nothing to do with the theist, and everything to do with the culture of II. That leaves the upper management with a dilemma: either act with prejudice or harm the community. Since the community is more important than the tiny number of theist moderator candidates, the morality of the issue swings the other way. Disallowing theist moderators is the lesser of two evils.

brighid

If you are asking is there direct harm to theists by this rule ... I am not sure if I can define that in absolute terms such as a tangible harm. I honestly think it hurts iidb more to have an ambiguous policy that doesn't allow for the diversity of thought amongst the broad "theist" group. Surely there are theists (as have been mentioned) that can and actually support a secular vision. If we say NONE of them are acceptable because of his/her theism (and despite agreeing that he/she is a fine individual capable of performing all moderator duties appropriately) ... I feel it is really no different then saying that an atheist or homosexual boy scout cannot perform his duties.

That policy MAY harm otherwise qualified, individual theists if he/she applied for the position. I think the principle harms all theists in the sense that it does not judge a theist based on his/her actual beliefs and abilities (which are not necessarily against a secular world vision, even if he/she wishes to maintain a different, personal view of the things.)

I suppose my personal hang-up is derived from the moral principles I attempt to apply to my daily life. I do my best NOT to judge people based on preconceived ideas (such as all Republicans are jerk, all blacks are lazy, all theists are to be feared even is some Republicans are jerks, some blacks are lazy and some theists should be feared.) I personally detest being judged as something I am not (such as immoral) because people have decided what I do or do not believe, what I am capable or incapable of doing without actually taking the time to find out if that IS the case.

I also feel it is important that a secular world does not suppress the freedom of others to decide about matters of conscience by demanding that all people give up their belief in Gods ... even if I personally feel the world would be better off without much theistic beleif.

Maybe I am correlating things with this restriction that may not actually exist, but that is one reason I felt it important to discuss this with a diverse group of people.

Brighid

brighid

I am not sure the goals of iidb are to support a culture where prejudice is need in order to maintain peace, at least I hope it's not. I would be very sad to discover this

In the world outside of iidb we are the vulnerable minority. We are all to often oppressed, overlooked, snubbed, and looked down upon if our beliefs are stated. I know how deeply that harms me, as an individual. I know that is the main reason iidb exists, to have a safe haven from the majority that treats us as persons of ill repute. I know the anger I have with some theist individuals, and many Church Organizations for their callous disregard for the welfare of those unlike them. We discuss those matters at iidb often and with an open, honesty we cannot get at most every theist site because the nature of their position/worldview.

I see the dedicated theists who remain in our community as positive members to be different then those theists who come here to bash us, degrade us, and who harm us in the real world. I hate the idea that some users would react with vilitrol and malice just because one of those otherwise qualified individuals was appointed as a member of a moderating team. Frankly, the idea sickens me because it says some members cannot see a theist as a person and judge that individual on his/her actions. I simply value the individual more then I value the label. I also see that emotive reaction as being the same emotive reaction that harms us (the minority non-theist) on a regular basis. In principle I don't think we should support what I feel to be a double standard, based on an ambiguous label that does not do justice to the individual.

I think an individual theist should have the opportunity to say whether or not his/her interpretation of a God and their developed worldview is not compatible with our mission and not simply label all theists as some homogenous group.

Brighid

HelenM

I think it's true though, based on what some people post.

But to be fair, if IIDB had theist moderators, it might be asking a lot of new people coming here who have had no good experiences with theists to expect such people to feel 'safe' and comfortable here.

Helen

brighid

It is that fear, anger and malice that should not motivate iidb to venture into controversial territory even if it may have a negative impact on some members of our community. There isn't room for that sort of ad hominem fallacies in discourse in our forums and the same sort of things shouldn't be used to justify a prohibition of otherwise good people from moderation (at least imho if it's worth anything.)

I can agree that some forms of theism are obviously incompatible with our goals and if that IS the only authentic justification I can even live with a prohibition on some theists. If the justification is held up by this fear (and much of it is irrational imo) I think that part of the equation is unjust, just as I feel it is unjust for theists to hate and fear me because I am an atheist and this hate, fear and ignorance is supportive of policies they have to justify keeping atheists out of positions of authority.

Brighid

King Rat

I guess for me it depends. If he/she were a Jeffersonian Deist I would be fine with that.

If he/she were a Robertsonesque evangelical I would not be fine with that. I've had enough of testimonies and witnessing to last a lifetime.

HelenM

Actually I disagree. Ad hominems against individuals are addressed but ad hominems against theists as a category often aren't.

I remember complaining about some specific assertions that theists are mentally ill by definition but no moderator action was taken.

But - where do you draw the line between a rant against theists, which I assume is allowed because this is a place supportive of what nontheists have experienced from theists, and an inappropriate derogatory comment about theists?

Helen

brighid

I think you are right, but shouldn't that be overcome with time (since so many lurk for a long time?) If so many of us have had negative experiences with theists and we come to iidb to feel safe and learn that not all theists are hatemongering gobots who wish nothing more but to harm us I think this would make a positive, long-term impact on our goals.

Anecdotally speaking I have many, many traumatic experiences with men (that have been outlined in different forums) and considering those experiences I have some pretty valid justification for feeling all men are a bunch of abusing, lieing, cheating, jerks. If I use the justification given for supporting this safe haven I should also apply that to men. I should fear them all. I should not give them a chance to prove themselves differently and I should support my mental rationalizations (despite evidence to the contrary) that all men are the same as those I have experienced, right?

I say that is wrong. They are all not alike and I would surely miss out on many wonderful individuals if I looked through the world with forever suspicious eyes because some men have hurt me very deliberatly and very badly. I know how much other men hate being held to the standard of the fellow that came before ... and in that respect I attempt to apply a more rational view to those I meet. My husband has literally restored my ability to trust men (even if I feared being harmed.) I think setting the example and learning that all theists are not of the same stripe would help to heal the very real wounds so many of us have with regard to theism. In that sense I feel our community is positively impacted by allowing for the possibility that a theist may come along to appropriately fill the shoes of moderator.

Brighid

brighid

I think that speaks to the heart of what may hold up this policy, in part anyway. I don't think that should be allowed and although I disagree with theism, and some theists (extremists imo) appear to me to be out of touch with reality, I don't feel that sort of thing should be allowed.

So many of us were once theists. I would say the vast majority were theists and some of us for a majority of our lives. This would be to say that we were all once mentally ill and that seems a stretch. I think misinformed and pressured into believing, but mentally ill I would think not.

Brighid