A Change of Protocols for the Tol Eressëa Forum

[truehobbit]

Yov, I hope you're right - I also think that if a threadstarter asks for a discussion to be of a certain type that should be granted. And you're right, too, that we failed to honour the request you made in your opening post.

But I'm glad about the change, not just because I've been uncomfortable for similar reasons as Pearl, feeling like the bad guy, but because I noticed that I don't want to be forbidden to express my opinion on any subject - as long as I do so politely, I want to be able to say it if I disagree with someone's arguments, for example - I think a bit of respectful discussion is healthy.

Also, I'd hope that the forum might attract other subjects than religious ones now - I think there are many questions of philosophy or ethics or so that would have looked as out of place in a "special protection" forum as in a political forum like Lasto, so maybe it'll be a good thing in that respect, too.

[Jnyusa]

Friends,

I have moved back to Tol Eressëa four threads that were begun in Tol Eressëa but moved or split to Lasto Beth Lammen.

There are some other topics still in Lasto that have something to do with religion (e.g. the Vatican directive thread) but the threadstarter placed them originally in the Lasto forum and I will leave them as placed unless the threadstarter asks me to move them. They are arguably as much about current events as about religion, and we will leave it up to the threadstarter where to place a thread unless there is an obvious misfit.

A shadow has been left in Lasto so that the threads can be accessed from either forum.

Thank you!

Jn

[Cerin]

This forum, I think, was meant to be a place where it was okay to express that sort of belief. But if one person is right, everyone else is wrong. That's why it doesn't work.

You can still treat a person respectfully, regardless whether you disagree on matters of faith. So I can't agree that that's why it didn't work.

I believe the promise of a 'safe haven' meant to some Christians, that they would be able to share this very personal aspect of their lives without being dumped on. That's essentially what I thought the forum was about; allowing people to express their religious beliefs without being assailed by those who believe differently. That's what it seems to me people weren't willing to do: people who find various aspects of Christian belief distasteful weren't willing to refrain from entering into those conversations and expressing their distaste for and disparagement of those beliefs.

I haven't seen anyone go into non-Christian belief threads and express distaste for or disparagement of those beliefs. The people who believe differently from the principles elucidated in the heathens thread, for example, refrained from commenting, so that the people who espouse the beliefs expressed in that thread could enjoy discussing them together without feeling despised and condemned. That's what I thought a 'safe haven' was meant to be, so I'm very glad that we've now gotten rid of that false expectation.

"...I'd really like this to not be about criticisms of the belief (as I used to do once upon a time in Manwë) but more about exploring other's perspectives of God and seeking a greater, mutual understanding."

yov, that to me is just about the best summation I've seen of what I thought Tol Eressëa was supposed to be. But people aren't willing or able to refrain from criticizing Christian belief. That much is clear to me now.

[nerdanel]

Cerin --

You know that my original understanding of the forum paralleled yours. And yet I feel compelled to point out (again) a fundamental difference between the other beliefs (or lack thereof) you are referencing, and the Christian beliefs in question. The former (heathens, Jews, African spirituality, etc) have had nothing to say about what non-adherents, including Christians, must do to reach salvation. Christianity, OTOH, addresses non-adherents and is very specific about what they must do to reach salvation here on earth: among other things, believe as Christians do. Because THAT belief was being discussed, non-adherents felt more interested in expressing their sometimes-strong thoughts on it, than they might have if the Christians were, say, talking about a belief in transubstantiation or the history of Pentecost.

Although I nonetheless shared your understanding of "safe haven" and am sorry that it has proved unworkable here, I do not think that the comparison you make is completely fair. Christians simply did not have the same impetus to post in the non-Christian threads here, as far as I can tell. If adherents to some other faith were discussing a belief in an afterlife that (potentially) condemned Christians and others to hell, or even simply a belief that invalidated-by-implication Christianity as a path to the Divine - and Christians refrained from commenting despite finding these beliefs highly distasteful - then I would find your comparison more apt. Of course, there would still be no one-on-one comparison, as Christianity's influence and history as the dominant religion in the West gives it a unique status, IMO, in these discussions.

[Jnyusa]

I believe that my Hell thread was part of what made people start thinking about whether Tol was a working well.

Yov, I wish I had addressed this comment of yours earlier. It was not the events in your thread that prompted this decision. We were finding the same kind of problem in multiple threads.

In addition to problems with threads in Tol Eressëa, there were four threads that had topics broken off and sent to Lasto, or else the entire thread was moved to Lasto. It was never crystal clear to us exactly what criteria we ourselves were using for such splits and moves, other than second-guessing that the topic might lead to too much debate. We heard from one member, at least, that this made the conversations hard to follow.

There were a number of members who expressed unwillingness to enter Tol Eressëa at all because they could not figure out whether their comments would be objectionable or not, and it seemed that we were demanding they make this determination in advance. Christians said this, Jews said this, agnostic/atheists said this. There was no group that we failed to frighten away from the forum.

We were very uncomfortable with this criterion that if no members of a particular religion were members of HoF, then discussion about those religions would not be protected. Yet it was obviously important to Christians to get out their message that Mormons are not Christians, and equally important to Jews to get out their message that JFJ are not Jews, and neither of those messages were quite in keeping with a strict interpretation of the rules of Tol Eressëa.

We talked about the possibility of keeping all non-Christians out of Christian threads, all non-Jews out of Jewish threads, etc. You asked for Christians to explain their view about Hell. Should we have kept all non-Christians out of the thread? This seemed to us absurd and unnecessarily divisive, but how else could contradiction of Christian belief be eliminated from a thread in which Christians have been asked to answer?

We could not solve this problem, you see, of how to implement a standard which seems so obvious in principle. And yours was not the only thread in which this was an issue. Every single religious group on the board - I kid you not - every single one, felt that their safe haven had been violated by the others.

But people aren't willing or able to refrain from criticizing Christian belief.

I want to make one thing really, really clear to the members: it was not bad behavior by our members that prompted our decision to change the protocols for the forum. We disagreed among ourselves as to what constituted appropriate criticism or disagreement. Complaints were brought to us, or raised by the founders themselves, against every religious group on the board. In trying to decide among ourselves which of these were justified, we found our own selves dividing along religious lines, and that was something to be avoided at all cost.

We had (at that time) eight founders professing six different religions. Each of us judged each situation from our own perspective and sensibility. It was not working.

On the whole, I think our members made a valiant effort to figure out what that forum was about, and the bottom line was that we ourselves could not figure out what the forum was about and so we became unwilling to inflict it any longer on our members.

We were, by the way, unanimous in our agreement that the expectation of safe haven had to be eliminated because we could not offer one to the satisfaction of ourselves or the members.

Jn

[halplm]

Cerin's right, and that's why I thought it was such a great idea. There are few if ANY places on the 'net that allow people to discuss Christianity without fear of attack of those beliefs.

Yes, Christianity has been the dominant religion in the West, but that means there are even more misunderstandings and misconceptions about Christian beliefs, as well as more people who want to attack, and more assumptions about christians.

No, you can't go into other religious belief threads or ideas and attack those opinions, because that's bigoted and oppressive... but Christianity? that's the majority, and it's done so many evil things through the centuries, it can be attacked and it's members ridiculed for their beliefs.

I'm not saying anyone here has done this, but this is how I feel... and thus most minor disagreements and attacks seem to be a buildup or strategy for larger ones... I've been defending Christianity in my own way for a long time, and it's never been a very fulfilling argument... so I'm tired of it.

However, a place where beliefs could be discussed, even if they were not entirely agreed upon, but only discussed, and not argued about... THAT was appealing...

[Cerin]

Christianity, OTOH, addresses non-adherents and is very specific about what they must do to reach salvation here on earth: among other things, believe as Christians do.

'Christianity' isn't a poster on this board. I've not seen any Christian on this board address non-adherents about what particular individuals must do about anything. The Christians on this board merely tried to talk about what their beliefs meant to them. Christians are not responsible for what other people assume the Christian's beliefs say about others.

]Christians simply did not have the same impetus to post in the non-Christian threads here, as far as I can tell.

Certainly they have the same impetus to enter a non-Christian thread and express their disagreement with the beliefs being discussed. They declined to do so, presumably because they knew it would be rude and would disrupt the supportive atmosphere required for people to reveal deeply personal aspects of their lives. (At least, that's why I declined to do so.)

If adherents to some other faith were discussing a belief in an afterlife that (potentially) condemned Christians and others to hell, or even simply a belief that invalidated-by-implication Christianity as a path to the Divine - and Christians refrained from commenting despite finding these beliefs highly distasteful - then I would find your comparison more apt.

I wouldn't care one whit about what another person's religious belief that I didn't share had to say about my afterlife or by implication, my path to the Divine! I simply do not understand why non-Christians give a hoot about the implications for their spirituality, of beliefs which they consider to be a load of bunk at best, and a pile of dog doo at worst. I find it totally bizarre.

Of course, there would still be no one-on-one comparison, as Christianity's influence and history as the dominant religion in the West gives it a unique status, IMO, in these discussions.

The prevalence of Christianity has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, which is the different level of respect discussions of non-Christian spiritualities are accorded here, compared to discussions of Christian beliefs.

But people aren't willing or able to refrain from criticizing Christian belief.

I want to make one thing really, really clear to the members: it was not bad behavior by our members that prompted our decision to change the protocols for the forum.

I want to reiterate what Jn said, lest people thought that was the implication of my remark.

I was offering some personal observations there, according to what I personally had understood the original purpose of the TE forum to be. As Jn says, we were unable to agree even among ourselves how to interpret and implement the stated intent of the forum.


halplm, yes it was indeed appealing. But it is not to be (not here, at least).

[Jnyusa]

However, a place where beliefs could be discussed, even if they were not entirely agreed upon, but only discussed, and not argued about... THAT was appealing...

Yes, it was very appealing, hal. But we could not agree on what was discussion and what was attack. Everyone had a different take on this. That was the problem.

It's one thing for the members to hash out such disagreements among themselves, but what the Shirrifs are trying to decide when we have these discussions is whether a post needs to be edited and certain expressions of belief/disagreement/contradiction forbidden. It would be grossly unfair to the members if each of us did this using a different standard.

Jn

[nerdanel]

hal,

I can only assume that you're construing my post, because I'm the one who just posted, referencing Christianity's unique status and history in the West. If you are, I would request that you not put words in my mouth. I'm reasonably certain that I did not state that Christianity could be "attacked" nor its members could be "ridiculed". Nor did I suggest that Christians posting in other threads, regardless of what they said, would be "bigoted" or "oppressive". And I'm quite certain that no one else in this thread has said or implied any such thing either.

In fact, one possibility I had suggested privately to the Marshals/Shirriffs for the forum a couple of weeks ago was for non-Christians to be required to voice objections to Christian beliefs in a separate thread, so that Christians could have safe haven threads free of those objections in which to discuss their faith. Furthermore, as far as I can remember, I was very careful not to attack, ridicule, or disparage the beliefs of Christians in TE, regardless of whether or not I found those views troublesome.

So, I want to make very very clear that I do NOT believe that Christians should be attacked or ridiculed (or that it is "more okay" if this happens), and indeed, I feel that everything I have said both publicly and privately is very much to the contrary. I very much wanted this forum to feel "safe" to Christians as well as everyone else, and I thought it might be appropriate for non-Christians to make concessions in order for that to happen (with, of course, similar protections in place for their threads). If you were not referring to my post, then I'm sorry, but I can't see who else's post you could possibly have been referencing.

***

Cerin, I think that perhaps our worldviews are too different to mesh, regarding why non-Christians might find Christian beliefs regarding salvation troubling. You and I are both capable of writing long, thought-out posts trying to clarify our positions, and yet, I'm not sure it would help either of us to understand the other's position. So I will leave it at that. FWIW, I DON'T find Christian beliefs to be either a "load of bunk" or a "pile of dog doo" (I wonder if my recent PM to you will help make THAT point any clearer), and yet I am also not particularly troubled by Christian beliefs on the afterlife. But I understand why others are troubled, and you say you cannot understand. I think we might have to leave it at that. I hope I didn't upset you.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I am relieved about this decision. I was beginning to feel that the Christians were indeed being given special treatment, which in turn only made me feel that our Bad Guy status was increasing by the hour.

Thank you for saying this, Di. I think this really highlights the problems that we were having in figuring out how to apply the special rules in this forum. When some people (including some Christians) were getting the impression that Christians were given special treatment, whereas other people were getting the impression that Christians were being treated more harshly then others, it became apparent that it was not going to work.

[yovargas]

Yov, I wish I had addressed this comment of yours earlier. It was not the events in your thread that prompted this decision. We were finding the same kind of problem in multiple threads.

I know, but it was the first thread I saw cause people to question the nature of the forum.

However, a place where beliefs could be discussed, even if they were not entirely agreed upon, but only discussed, and not argued about... THAT was appealing...

Problem is, one person's discussion is another person's argument.

Poster X: I believe in the biblical concept of hell.
Poster Y: I do not believe in the biblical concept of hell.

To some, that's discussion, to other's its attack.

[Whistler]

The problem for Christians, Hal, is that the simple expression of their faith amounts to an attack in the eyes of many.

Christianity is inherently evangelical, and it does not meekly accommodate a hundred other belief systems. Under some people's understanding of the previous policy, it was almost impossible for a Christian to say much of anything substantive. The statement "yes, but the rest of you are wrong" was always there between the lines, and people resented it.

They are still free to resent it, but it no longer violates board policy as long as abusive and intimidating language is not used. Nothing can be suppressed simply because somebody would rather not hear it.

So you see that it works both ways.

[Cerin]

I'm reasonably certain that I did not state that Christianity could be "attacked" nor its members could be "ridiculed". Nor did I suggest that Christians posting in other threads, regardless of what they said, would be "bigoted" or "oppressive".

nel, I think halplm was stating what it feels like as a Christian, in these discussions, not implying that you thought it would be ok to do these things or that that's the way you saw it.

Let me just say that I realize and appreciate that you have conducted yourself with the utmost sensitivity in the forum.

Of course you have not upset me.

I do appreciate that our intentions were the best, but that our goals for the forum were not practically achievable (as Jn has tried to explain) and ended up causing probably more distress than they were aimed to prevent.

[Jnyusa]

Yes, thank you for bringing that up, Whistler.

If Christians were, as Cerin says, refraining from disagreement because they felt it would violate the rules of the forum, they do not need to do that any longer.

Jn

[Pearly Di]

Thank you for saying this, Di.

Thanks for understanding, V-Man.

I think this really highlights the problems that we were having in figuring out how to apply the special rules in this forum. When some people (including some Christians) were getting the impression that Christians were given special treatment, whereas other people were getting the impression that Christians were being treated more harshly then others, it became apparent that it was not going to work.

Yeah, I know. Tricky.

It was a courageous and honourable experiment, though.

[Holbytla]

There are and have been for eons, religions that are at odds with one another.
There are certainly many different houses of worship on the planet.

Is it not possible to subdivide the forum or initiate separate threads?

[Pearly Di]

Thing is: would you really want a situation in which only the Christians are talking to each other in their own threads, or only the agnostics are talking to each other?

Hmmmm.

It's really very difficult to find a balance between a safe haven and a place where dissension can be expressed. And a bit of dissension is healthy on any internet forum.

I encountered the exact same problem in another thread on another forum on another site - completely different context though, but the tensions were similar.

Not offering solutions, merely thinking aloud.

[Holbytla]

Thing is: would you really want a situation in which only the Christians are talking to each other in their own threads, or only the agnostics are talking to each other?

I think a thread like that would be ok.
I also think that there could be a thread with any and all comers.
Surely there is a solution out there.

[yovargas]

If someone wants to start a Christian-only thread, they are free to do so. I think that if a thread starter makes such requests, the Rangers should try to enforce it.

[Jnyusa]

Holby: Is it not possible to subdivide the forum or initiate separate threads?

Believe me, we thought long and hard about this potential solution!

People can still voluntarily refrain from entering threads where their best guess is that their comments would be .... counter to the flow, let's say.

Thing is ... how do you mod something like that? We'd be put in the position of having kick certain religions out of certain threads. How unpleasant would that be? Undercurrents of favoritism would still be felt, probably. And how exactly do you define who's allowed in and who's not? Say it's a Christian thread - are all Jews excluded, or are Jews allowed in if they have something nice to say, but not allowed in if they are going to express disagreement?

Define what is a "nice" thing to say.

And so on. Everything we could come up with sounded great in principle but would not work in practice, at least not in a consistent way. Like I said to hal, it's not discussion and disagreement among the posters that creates the problem but us trying to be enforcers when there's fog on the ground.

Then ... the other thing that didn't happen yet but certainly had to potential to happen ... when is a belief simply too outrageous in and of itself to be permissable?

Holocaust deniers are, by their own claim, simply expressing a belief. But I would not allow them on this board, and I don't care how firm their belief is or how sacred to them. Ok, that one is easy - let's say so - because history is firmly against them. But we have had discussion of other historical aspects of Christianity here that Christians found immediately offensive because it implied non-veracity of the Bible. Where do we draw the line? How incontroveribly historical does something have to be before it can be spoken and not be perceived as an offense?

What about the noob who joins tomorrow and believes firmly in the Bible phrase, "You shall not suffer a witch to live," and goes into the Heathen thread and tells them they should expect to die a terrible death for their beliefs? Allowed? Hey, it's in the Bible! But would that breach the rule of respect that governs the whole board? You bet it would. Would I edit it? You bet I would. Would I receive complaints from some members that I was discriminating against certain beliefs? You bet I would.

Any way we cut it, this was a no-win situation for us. It may be that things will still have to be edited in Tol Eressëa, but it's a lot easier for us (and more comprehensible to the members) to say that certain kinds of statements would not be allowed anywhere on the board, and if those statement are part of your belief system then you'll have to keep that part of your belief system to yourself. Much easier for us to do that than to start parsing every passing comment in a forum where the rules are extra-special. And the Shirriffs are far less likely to disagree among themselves when the same standard is applied everywhere.

That's our hope, anyway. We're not so naive as to think that religious discussion will never become contentious. But, like Cerin said, we have to create expectations consistent with what we are able to deliver.

Jn

eta: Yov, I think we would be very reluctant to enforce something as explicit as that: no non-Christians allowed. No Blacks allowed? No Gays allowed? But I think that if the threadstarter asked for a particular kind of discussion, and a poster was clearly contravening that request by the nature of their post, we would ask them to volunarily edit or we might do an edit ourselves. This is true throughout the board ... if a thread is osgiliating and we are asked to do a split, or asked to call for order, we do it.