Clarification on 'Religious discussion' rule.

[Titanium_Frost]

Who else wants a little better guideline for our rule against religious topics? I for one do not have an issue with anyone talking about ANY religion but those aren't the rules.

IMO discussing church policy, Bible verses (Scripture), issues dealing with church buildings etc are NOT religious in nature since we do the exact same thing with secular topics.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

It is multiple choice. I am also not trying to cause a scene or break any rules, just the opposite actually. I have been threatened with being banned on multiple occasions without due explanation as to how I broke or came close to breaking the rules.

 

[Rookie]

It's been this way for a long time. I don't agree with the "no religion" rule, but it's not my site.

 

[strahd71]

it's hard to dance around the religion rules on a lot of topics.

and there is no clear definition as to how far we can go or not go

jake

 

[strahd71]

It's been this way for a long time. I don't agree with the "no religion" rule, but it's not my site.

exactly it is Fenways house

jake

 

[eldirector]

and there is no clear definition as to how far we can go or not go

jake

Well, the FAQ says:

How about religion? Can we talk about that?
Again, a big, resounding NO. And let me be painstakingly clear on this one: ANY discussion of religion will NOT be tolerated. At all. None. If it even hints at being religious in ANY way, the thread will be closed and/or deleted. It is VERY possible MANY infractions will be handed out. In many instances, it is cause for a ban from the site, which may or may not be permanent. Right now, we are being VERY black and white on this. There is NO GREY AREA. This is unfortunate, because like politics, religion has stirred up some very thought-provoking discussions. However, it has also stirred the pot WAY too many times and until everyone can become civil again, Religion Must Not Be Discussed. Even then, it's unlikely to come back. Just. Don't. Do. It.
https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/site_n...ngo_rules.html

But that's just not what happens. I kinda miss the good debates we had in the past, too. But, a few bad apples ruined the batch, as is often the case.

 

[strahd71]

Well, the FAQ says:


But that's just not what happens. I kinda miss the good debates we had in the past, too. But, a few bad apples ruined the batch, as is often the case.

exactly some conversations your amazed by how religious they are and others get shut down quick..... kinda inconsistent

jake

 

[Rookie]

The faq is clear, but, then again, it's not.

IMO, "prayers needed" involves religion. Again, it's not my fight, so the easy answer is God, church, Bible, Christian, etc, are off limits.

 

[pirate]

exactly some conversations your amazed by how religious they are and others get shut down quick..... kinda inconsistent

jake

Id rather see a religious (any religion) topic than a political one.


Hey the FAQ does say that it "could" come back when everyone is civil again. Has everyone been acting civil lately about the topic? I think so. Most of the topics that get locked/deleted about religion didn't seem to get uncivil. Maybe we can get it back!

 

[Titanium_Frost]

The faq is clear, but, then again, it's not.

IMO, "prayers needed" involves religion. Again, it's not my fight, so the easy answer is God, church, Bible, Christian, etc, are off limits.

I disagree entirely. the Church as defined in America is a building used to house worshipers. It is secular in its bricks and motar.

The Bible is a collection of writings spanding thousands of years and has been used as a history book, philosophy, politics, architecture, anthropology, psychology, sociology and the list keeps going.

 

[Rookie]

The faq says unlikely. I don't remember any time we've lost something and got it back. I could be wrong, but I don't remember.

 

[Rookie]

I disagree entirely. the Church as defined in America is a building used to house worshipers. It is secular in its bricks and motar.

The Bible is a collection of writings spanding thousands of years and has been used as a history book, philosophy, politics, architecture, anthropology, psychology, sociology and the list keeps going.

What do you disagree with? You lost me...

 

[mcolford]

If its going to be discussed, the rules need to be cut and dry. Dont leave it to individual discretion of a mod, as I have seen more than one occasion where a mod takes a power trip. If there is an instance where a religious view is being discussed, and the supervising mod happens to not like it, its possible this said Mod could use their power to "win". Wrong? yes. Possible? YES!

Make the rules clear!

 

[Que]

TF, you cannot say that we have been very strict concerning that rule! There have been many discussions about race and even religion, until a member decides to exercise his First Amendment rights and begins to insult the beliefs held dear by others. THAT"S WHEN THREADS ARE REMOVED AND PEOPLE BANNED. How about asking others to be civil, which will allow us to stay out of it.

A while ago, members wanted our moderation to be more transparent. Transparency is great, but sometimes it's just better to ask a question in a PM rather than start threads about subjects that only push us into working harder. For instance, I would bet that someone will start posting things just to stir the pot, just to point the finger and say, "See, they are not fair!"

To answer your inquiry, the rule is not changing at this point. How about we all simply act like adults without the use of rules to keep us in place?

EDIT: Also, in the thread that was the reason for your questions, this was the reason for the warning and why the member was dealt with:

And why, pray tell, is that?
Are Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc. somehow unworthy of being trained to provide their own security because they don't buy into the whole "JC is the son of God" thing?

 

[KG1]

The faq says unlikely. I don't remember any time we've lost something and got it back. I could be wrong, but I don't remember.

How bout the FAQ itself?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

TF, you cannot say that we have been very strict concerning that rule! There have been many discussions about race and even religion, until a member decides to exercise his First Amendment rights and begins to insult the beliefs held dear by others. THAT"S WHEN THREADS ARE REMOVED AND PEOPLE BANNED. How about asking others to be civil, which will allow us to stay out of it.

A while ago, members wanted our moderation to be more transparent. Transparency is great, but sometimes it's just better to ask a question in a PM rather than start threads about subjects that only push us into working harder. For instance, I would bet that someone will start posting things just to stir the pot, just to point the finger and say, "See, they are not fair!"

To answer your inquiry, the rule is not changing at this point. How about we all simply act like adults without the use of rules to keep us in place?

Thanks for your response, Que. I will agree that there is not a sense of strictness in this area and I have been shocked at what some have been able to get away with on the subject.

My issue is the lack of definition on what constitutes 'religion.'

Scripture used to back a self defense point? Many people who are not christian still use the Bible as a source of wisdom and philosophy.

Issues with carrying a weapon in a church? A church is just a building after all.

Offering prayers to the rest of INGO in a thread?

Where is the line and how do we (INGO/Mods) define it?

Agian sorry for not using PM but I thought that was what the suggestion forum was for. When I recieved no response I wanted to see if others on INGO were of the same mindset as I or if I was out in left field.

 

[eldirector]

I can't believe I'm going to disagree with Que.....

The rule says no discussion of religion at all. In the above post, you admit that this rule is not enforced unless someone gets upset. We all know there are PLPENTY of religious threads, posts, comments, quotes, and signatures. I think TF (and others) just want to know what the ACTUAL rule is, and how it will be enforced. Right now, it has the appears of "the whim of the mods". If that's the way its gotta be, then so be it. It WOULD be nice if that was communicated more clearly, and the rule matched reality.

BTW: I'd rather we could all be civil as well, and have adult conversations. That would be a nice change of pace.

 

[printcraft]

How about we all simply act like adults without the use of rules to keep us in place?

This. /\

We can agree or disagree.
You can have an opinion you believe is right while I believe it is wrong.
Conversely, I can have an opinion I believe is right, while you believe is wrong.

You can tell me I'm wrong.... I don't care. You may persuade me, you may not.

No harm no foul.

Telling me I'm an ******* because of my opinion won't win any brownie points. (However correct it may be.)

 

[Que]

Thanks for your response, Que. I will agree that there is not a sense of strictness in this area and I have been shocked at what some have been able to get away with on the subject.

My issue is the lack of definition on what constitutes 'religion.'

Scripture used to back a self defense point? Many people who are not christian still use the Bible as a source of wisdom and philosophy.

Issues with carrying a weapon in a church? A church is just a building after all.

Offering prayers to the rest of INGO in a thread?

Where is the line and how do we (INGO/Mods) define it?

Agian sorry for not using PM but I thought that was what the suggestion forum was for. When I recieved no response I wanted to see if others on INGO were of the same mindset as I or if I was out in left field.

If a rule is needed, then I ask you to create something and PM it to me. The mods will discuss it, make any necessary changes, and them post it. I just can't understand why it's so difficult to just be civil without making more rules.

I would only ask that you update the existing rule, so there is some legitimate context. When can you get something to me?

 

[Que]

I can't believe I'm going to disagree with Que.....

The rule says no discussion of religion at all. In the above post, you admit that this rule is not enforced unless someone gets upset. We all know there are PLPENTY of religious threads, posts, comments, quotes, and signatures. I think TF (and others) just want to know what the ACTUAL rule is, and how it will be enforced. Right now, it has the appears of "the whim of the mods". If that's the way its gotta be, then so be it. It WOULD be nice if that was communicated more clearly, and the rule matched reality.

BTW: I'd rather we could all be civil as well, and have adult conversations. That would be a nice change of pace.

Yep, I openly admitted it and to be perfectly transparent, I'm probably the worst offender on the mod team and may be the reason other mods have not taken action at times. They didn't want to look like we were all divided and couldn't present a unified front. Having one mod banning people for saying Jesus and another letting it go would not have been a good thing. So, we all, without any discussion and having MANY other things to do, including living our own lives, decided to allow the discussions as long as they remained civil. That has worked very well, but I guess that's down the drain.

With the help of TF, we will come up with a RULE that is clear and it will be upheld by the mod staff.