Clarification on 'Religious discussion' rule.

[eldirector]

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.

It doesn't have to be "down the drain". Just be upfront about it. Telling the membership that something is forbidden, and then letting it go on just confuses people. They think the mods are playing favorites, aren't doing their jobs, or other such nonsense.

If civil religious discussions are indeed allowed, just say so.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

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.

Renewing in-thread warning from earlier in the thread. Any further religious discussion will be met with temp bans.

This is an invitation for training. This is NOT to be about religion. If you want the training, then take the training.

This is the in-thread warning for everyone.

We obviously don't get knocks from agencies for religious views, and you are well aware of that fact. The "no religion" rule is already well-explained both in the FAQ and elsewhere on the site and I'm not going into it again.

Que I could go on but I think this makes my point. We get warnings for breaking a rule, I want to know the edge of that rule because I like discussing Scripture and church and I don't like being banned.

 

[pirate]

TF, update the existing rule as: "Religious discussion is allowed among consenting adults. Anyone who doesn't like reading about it can click to another thread."


Which is how it should be in a civil place.

 

[KG1]

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.)

Spoken like a true adult.

Well done.

 

[indyjoe]

I think if it isn't broke, don't fix it.

The comment in the thread that prompted this discussion from TF was most likely a follow up reminder of rules after my post on societal forces around the turn the other cheek.

I think that was all that was needed. It prompted people to be careful on the religion side and I believe no one in that thread was put off by it (religious discussion, not the mod post). My post was mainly an interpretation of the Bible as literature of the time.

Almost all rules on a forum are just about respecting others.

 

[Rookie]

Absolutely. You admit that it was a civil discussion. Someone asks for clarification. Time to crack down?

 

[iChokePeople]

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?

I don't get what's offensive, impolite, or a personal attack of any kind in this ^^. Seems like a legitimate question and doesn't seem to even take a side. I wasn't in that thread and didn't see it in context, but here, out of context... ?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

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?

But there ARE rules in place. If we could do away with them I would be fine but I suspect others would not. I just simply wanted it defined so I didn't have to break them.

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?

IMO if we had a clearly defined rule about it then the OP could have answered this inquiry instead of having to beat around the bush.

His training is not just simply firearms training, it is a ministry and it is geared to the Christian Faith. Otherwise it was a valid question and I found no obvious offense in it.

 

[NavyVet]

I find it most amazing that we can get all bent out of shape when someone tramples our second amendment rights, but we are quick to come in when someone says something 'religious' (loosely defined definition, if at all) and break out the ban hammer.

I for one, believe that religious discussions are fine as long as they do not turn into flaming others because of their beliefs. In fact, it is next to impossible to talk about anything gun-related without touching religion in some manner (eg: God-given unalienable rights, convictions of our political candidates, or security (yes, even at churches, synagogues, mosques, etc).

I personally would recommend relaxing the rules regarding civil religious discussion, and focus the rules more around being respectful of the other members of INGO. It is much easier to determine when someone is being a horses **s, than to determine the level (or intent) of 'religious' discussion.

Maybe a separate thread area for discussions of that nature. Maybe you have to have 50/100/? posts to be able to participate there. If I see an area that I am not interested in, I can ignore it (comes as part of being an adult).

I realize this is Fenway's gig, but everyone learns more through civil discourse and discussion than by making topics 'off limits'. Most recent example is a LEO that wrote about how his interations with OC have changed due to his experiences with INGO.

'Religious' discussions may have the same effect. I may never agree with your opinion or stance, but by understanding the underlying reasons why someone has a particular view is educational.

Just my and thanks for a great forum and the opportunity to opine!

 

[Que]

So, TF, can I expect the rules update from you? I will agree to strictly follow every rule posted in the FAQ, but I would also ask you and other members report anything that is contrary to the rules posted.

 

[Que]

I don't get what's offensive, impolite, or a personal attack of any kind in this ^^. Seems like a legitimate question and doesn't seem to even take a side. I wasn't in that thread and didn't see it in context, but here, out of context... ?

Well, if you didn't read the thread, how can you really say it was not offensive? I posted that so TF would understand why the warning was posted.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

So, TF, can I expect the rules update from you? I will agree to strictly follow every rule posted in the FAQ, but I would also ask you and other members report anything that is contrary to the rules posted.

Say that again? You want ME to make the rule?

I generally report every major violation I see.

 

[Rookie]

Say that again? You want ME to make the rule?

I generally report every major violation I see.

There you go. Religion is good to go.

 

[rgrimm01]

It is definitely an emotionally charged issue. Question: would a person of faith visit a site where their religious beliefs/lack of belief were perceived to be challenged with great enthusiasm? To watch trolls at work on various topics of no great importance and get strong responses, seems like this area would be too easy of a target...

 

[Que]

Say that again? You want ME to make the rule?

I generally report every major violation I see.

Did you not read my reply up-thread?

 

[Rookie]

Here is what has always confused me...

Law enforcement has always been more hotly debated than religion, but no one has thought about banning that. Why?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

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?

I completely missed this in the frenzy.

I will have my suggestion to you ASAP.

 

[Birds Away]

Having to have the rule spelled out with all the "edges" would lead me to believe that someone might want to skirt those edges as closely as possible. That would make it easy to draw another member over the line. I believe the rule is clear and I think the way it is enforced is appropriate. As long as warnings are issued if the offense is not too egregious, I think it is working well as is. Many of us here are adults and, though I am not immune to a fit of bad temper and words spoken in anger, I would like to think that we can all work within the spirit of the rules. If I get out of line then fire a shot across my bow. I will heave to.

 

[edporch]

I chose "Other Suggestion" because there should be a UNIFORM standard that all Moderators follow, rather than "Leave it up to the individual Moderators".

That said...

I see WHY INGO has this "no religion" policy.

As just another forum member, I infer INGO's reasoning to be that in the blink of an eye any discussion can turn into "religious territory" very QUICKLY.

For example, say somebody says "we're just gonna discuss a particular religious book objectively".

ALL it takes to start a religious argument is for one person to quote one part and another person quote another part that appears to disagree, and INSTANTLY it changes to a doctrinal argument which IS "religious territory".

 

[Que]

All, I stand corrected. My assertion was correct that my involvement in some of the threads involving religious discussion was the cause of some of the confusion we are experiencing. Although I was not involved in the thread that is the inputs for this discussion, I have been involved in others.

I thoroughly enjoy civil discussions about the two areas that are not allowed on INGO and I must admit my guild in overstepping the rules and for that I apologize. I can only ask others to follow the same rules that I volunteer to uphold. I will do better.

TF, to answer your question about "religious discussion," that would include anything that involves a deity, places of worship, and the historical writings used in the practice of worship. I hope that helps.

By the way, don't worry about the rules update. I think we have come to an understanding and achieved better clarification.