The 'experiment' was, allegedly, to 'allow' free expression, the free exchange of ideas.
That didn't happen, as anticipated. There were all sorts of 'cautionary rules' stipulated prior to opening up the topic(s) for discussion. That was an obvious clue that it was never intended to 'allow' members to "have the freedom to express their beliefs", just the appearance of doing so. The results were predictable, and predicted. At least by some.
The 'experiment' failed, not because of the members that did, in fact, express their beliefs but because those that set forth the 'cautionary rules' weren't really wanting members to have that 'freedom'. Otherwise, 'cautionary rules' wouldn't have been set forth.
When anyone "opens up the playgound", they should anticipate that the "usual players" will cause the "first dust up". It's known as "pre-planning". Common sense. Therefore, it's not the fault of the 'usual players', as alleged. It is the fault of those who neglected to plan for that obvious circumstance. There was no 'surprise', not when there's prior knowledge that the "usual players" are already present.
'Management 101'.
This is how you see this. really.
All kinds of cautionary rules. You are either blind or just so self centered.
Civility was called for. How is that cautionary.
Forum rules to be followed.....caution......where.
We never ever said free rain say what you like. Never.
Civil discussion concerning religion. That was the premise. It has yet to fail. Still ongoing just you are not allowed on the play ground anymore.
I know you are reading this. That is why I am commenting. Looks like another Mod had enough and set you free to do as you please.
-CM-