Dr Rick

Brighid, don't you think it's time you told us what you think?

Is it immoral to exclude theists as mods, and if so, why?

seebs

And the non-theists won't?

Come, now. Anyone who has strongly-held beliefs of any sort will be prone to these same errors.

By your logic, you should prohibit strong atheist mods, requiring all mods to be somewhere between weak atheist and agnostic.

cheetah

1. Yes, it is, because it is consistent with the Mission of IIDB, in my interpretation. But, I'll admit my interpretation is not absolute at all. it comes down to my opinion that the best way to help a community achieve the Social goals, is to remove possibilities of intimidation. Many of us have spent years being intimidated or surrounded by theists, and to have an atmosphere where theists are not in authority positions is freeing in many ways and may allow us to better achieve those social goals. Now, frankly, I feel that is pretty weak. Let’s boil it down to the fact that, if I ran things, I would find it moral to do so because it is, in my estimation, a better way to encourage freedom of expression in timid or reluctant members. I have to further admit that it was very hard for me to stay away from "logic" reasons and what I ended up with was "feelings." Is there a better context in which to evaluate this?

2. I think having a theistic belief does in no way interfere with any of the other requirements to be a moderator. Anyone may embody those traits and skills, and getting to know their online personality is the best way to assess and is, IMO, not always correlated with their beliefs. However, #1 stands on its own to me, and it is not presented that you must achieve b-h therefore you cannot be a, since we all know a's cannot do b-h. a is independent of b-h, just like having a good GPA to get into college is independent of how well you did in sports, but are both criteria that may be used.

3. I think many could be compatible. But, I wouldn't want to put it in writing. I think that if II changed the rules and allowed theists, it should be on a case-by-case basis (as it is with non-theists) and the current administrators and mods would find theists who are not extremists and DO embody b-h, etc. I think allowing certain kinds of theism, but not others, is more immoral, because the line drawn is even more arbitrary. Plus, we all know people of any faith or non-faith can be jerks and poorly fit for the duties, so it wouldn't be helpful to define certain faiths as acceptable, rather certain people (which the current rules address, I think).

Anyway, I am looking forward to seeing the other side of the issue as I am very interested in seeing in what sort of moral context others interpret this in.

Grad Student Humanist

There is no moral question here. It wouldn't even be immoral if the people who own and operate the site decide that only their close personal friends could be moderators. It's their site and they set the rules.

The IIDB is not a public accomodation like a restaurant or a hotel. Heck, if the administration wanted to change the rules and allow only atheists to post here it still wouldn't be immoral since participation in this forum is nobody's right (and certainly nobody has the right to be chosen as a moderator). Thus there is nothing immoral about requiring the moderators to be non-theists and excluding theists from this job.

cheetah

But, GSH, isn't that more of a legal interpretation? The question is not is it right, but is it the right thing to do? We are often "allowed" to exclude people in many things, but it still isn't always the right thing to do.

Gurdur

I disagree. The case for naturalistic metaphysics is often made in ethical terms; even in many of the docs expounding on the SecWeb site, relgion is criticised mostly on ethical terms, and after that on purely-internal-coherency logical terms.
It would be contradicting the mission statement of SecWeb; advocating a site devoted to promoting naturalist metaphysics, and then making it a nepotism affair ?
Something would be wrong there. Ethically so, too, IMHO.
But it would most certainly be contradicting the mission statement, and it would be IMHO counter-productive, and in terms of the mission statement, possibly immoral.
There's an interestiing angle to this: two current mods of SecWeb do not suscribe to strict naturalist metaphysics.
They're not theists, but they're not consistant in naturalist metaphysics either.

ex-xian

What about deists and panentheists? Are they excluded also? Or someone like Martin Gardner, who holds to credo consolons (please forgive me if I misspelled the Latin), or, "believes because it is comforting"? More and more, I am beginning to consider myself a panentheist for this reason.

As for the questions in the OP, as is stated in the link referenced above, the purpose of II is to promote metaphysical naturalism. Anyone who would be in conflict with this agenda should be excluded, IMO. And this exclusion would not be immoral.

I strongly disagree with those who seperate logic and morality. To me, morality is based in reason and the goods of the social community (I'm not an Objectivist, but I tend to think like one ). It is logical to exclude those who would not be able to promote the stated goals of the community. To have a theist (as defined in the OP) attempt to promote naturalism would be to force them to become cognitivly dissonant.

That said, there are some who have belief in god who would still be able to fully support the Sec Web, including those listed in the OP.

Although I have no desire to be a moderator, I'd like to think that you're talking about me...but I know you're probably not

Gurdur

Possibly. Possibly not.
The non-specific nature of "his/her belief in a God(s)" makes the question too imprecise to answer well.
No.
And there you have the exceptions to strict naturalist metaphysics.
Fideists, often confused with theists.

Daleth

Interested in a noob's perspective?

No, I don't think it's morally permissible to exclude people based solely on their theism, although that seems like a very weighty term to hang on a relatively minor slight. I'd sooner call it, maybe, mean-spirited than immoral.

If a theist honestly meets requirements B-H, then excluding them because they are theists is... well, bigotry. Some of the other posts on this thread have started with the assumption that a theist would have to be a biased moderator, but if the theist were so, they wouldn't meet requirements B-H so requirement A wouldn't matter anyway.

IIDB certainly has a right to give preference in any way they choose, but I don't see barring theists from being mods as more moral than barring people merely for being under 21 years or from different countries or too tall.

Any kind at all, assuming that individual met the rest of the criteria. An individual should be judged as an individual.

Dal

The Other Michael

Hi Brighid,

It looks to me that there is a certain lack of "situation"in your OP which prevents answering some of the questions in a meaningful fashion.

Just as MF&P has seen various threads on many different ethical/moral subjects, we've also seen how the "correct" answers in those threads can vary as the situations vary.

Example:
Q: Is it moral to steal - A: no.
Q: Is it moral to steal to keep your family from starving - A: well, that depends . . . .

If there is insufficient data to evaluate the situation, you are going to end up with a lot of "that depends" as answers.

This could wander into relative vs absolute morality territory, and we all know how torturous a discussion that can be.

I'd appreciate some more highly defined scenarios to evaluate. Who or what is harmed, what is the amount of the harm, and are there benefits that offset any harm to a greater or lesser degree?

It may well be that in Situation A it is quite ethical/moral to preclude all theists from IIDB moderator positions, while in Situation B it isn't.

Otherwise, my answer to your questions would probably have to be "that depends".

cheers,
Michael