Clarification on 'Religious discussion' rule.

[lovemachine]

Wait, you mean that people act like children over something that WARS have been fought over for centuries? Say it ain't so!

Surprising, isn't it?

 

[Roadie]

Actually, from what I've seen, it is not the irreligious people that cause most of the problems. It is people of different religions causing problems. In other words it's the, "I want to peacefully talk about my religion, but bash other religions," crowd that causes the problems.

That's not my experience. I was here before "religious discussion" was banned..

 

[Deadly Z Driver]

I think we should have a religious forum with a warning that says "your butt may get hurt if you enter..." If you can't take the heat of the religious forum stay out of it. Make it a anything goes sort of thing.

 

[WC Deer Hunter]

Ok a few notes here. . . .

We didn't ban God, or Jesus, or Buddha, or Christianity or any other religion. We didn't even ban "religion". We simply banned the discussion of those topics. Why? Because when we tried the "just debate civilly" route, members couldn't do it. We spent 90% of our modding time dealing with grown adults acting like children about religion. It gets tiring. The folks that want a clearer rule want it so they can get as close to the line as possible without stepping over. We've played that game before and it never works out well for them.

The enforcement of this rule does come with some amount of moderator discretion. Its very necessary. You want to discuss carrying at church? Fine! We didn't ban the word "church". As long as the focus of the topic is carrying, no issues. But as soon as the discussion focus turns to "What does the Bible say about carrying?", then that's when people can't control themselves, and when the ban on religious discussion comes into play.

How do we expect you to know where the line is? First, we tell you in the rules to not discuss religion. Then, if you cross that line because of a lack of understanding, we'll politely remind you with an in-thread warning, or by removing the thread (in such a case where the OP is inherently religion-based). That's how you'll know. If you ever wonder "I wonder if this post is crossing the line?", then my advice is to not post it, because it probably is.

The internet has lots of forums, and I'm certain there are forums out there where religious topics can be debated ad naseaum. This, being a firearms forum for Hoosiers, just isn't one of those places.

Ok if that's the rule then that's the rule and I'm fine with that, but, if that is in fact the rule then why do we have other forums that pertain nothing to guns since this is a gun forum? FYI I'm not trying to get in an argument but you made the statement and it is conflicting to what already exists considering we have a political forum and others.

The internet has lots of forums, and I'm certain there are forums out there where religious topics can be debated ad naseaum. This, being a firearms forum for Hoosiers, just isn't one of those places.

 

[esrice]

where can I go to discuss gun ownership and how it relates to religious beliefs, carrying in church, the Founder's beliefs, etc?

And this is where "Moderator discretion" comes into play.

Like when you started that thread where you linked a story about a pastor that was shot inside his church in the Carry Issues forum. It was a good thread, and such matters are very pertinent to many of the members here, whether they attend a Baptist church or a Jewish synagogue or a Muslim mosque. But some people couldn't help but drift into a discussion on what the Bible says about carrying, complete with scripture versus. The thread was therefore removed. I was then asked to consider reinstating it. So I took 15 minutes of my time, read every reply, and removed the ones that fell outside of our "no religious discussion" guideline. I then put the thread back with a warning for everyone-- don't discuss religion or the thread will have to be closed.

Thirty posts later and it was closed. Grown adults that couldn't heed a warning and follow a simple rule.

Discussing carrying in church is fine-- as long as the focus is on carrying.

Discussing the Founding Fathers is fine-- as long as the focus is on them or the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Scutter01]

Wow. "Mods taking power trips", "the whim of the mods", "sandy vaginas", "nanny state of a forum", "trolling", "offended little sissies". You can't even discuss the rule about religion without resorting to insulting the site, the staff, and each other and you really expect Fenway (remember, it's not the mods' rule, it's Fenway's rule) to take you seriously when you say that you can discuss religion like adults? This is how adults behave? Good luck with that. You're gonna need it. Based on this thread alone, I'd say you've already proven why the rule exists.

Actually, from what I've seen, it is not the irreligious people that cause most of the problems. It is people of different religions causing problems. In other words it's the, "I want to peacefully talk about my religion, but bash other religions," crowd that causes the problems.

You're right. It was religious people fighting with each other, not the non-religious people trolling threads. In fact, here's a little cartoon that came up during the discussion. You can substitute any two groups (religious or otherwise) for the ones written on the shirts and the cartoon still works.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Wow. "Mods taking power trips", "the whim of the mods", "sandy vaginas", "nanny state of a forum", "trolling", "offended little sissies". You can't even discuss the rule about religion without resorting to insulting the site, the staff, and each other and you really expect Fenway (remember, it's not the mods' rule, it's Fenway's rule) to take you seriously when you say that you can discuss religion like adults? This is how adults behave? Good luck with that. You're gonna need it. Based on this thread alone, I'd say you've already proven why the rule exists.

I feel like Hayseed when he has to agree with me...

It is pretty obvious that no civility will exist here on INGO about this. I was just hoping for a pass on using scripture as text and not a basis for religion. It seems there are too many people here that cannot make that distinction.

I do however disagree with your second part, but I am not going to get into that argument here.

 

[esrice]

I think we should have a religious forum with a warning that says "your butt may get hurt if you enter..." If you can't take the heat of the religious forum stay out of it. Make it a anything goes sort of thing.

In my (and the Site Owner's) experience, the "anything goes, don't come in unless you understand that" model never works on forums. The "butthurt" always spills over into all areas of the site.

then why do we have other forums that pertain nothing to guns since this is a gun forum?

I appreciate your civil response and I'll answer you with a very honest answer-- traffic.

While most subforums that aren't directly related to guns (Cutting Edge, Great Outdoors, etc) do have some loose affiliation with the firearms lifestyle, the General Politics subforum is by far the one that stands out, as we already have a "2nd Amendment" subforum for gun-related political topics.

Much like religious discussion, I have personally lobbied for the removal of the General Politics subforum, but have been denied each time. I can't deny the impact it would make to site traffic, as such an area is very popular and rife with current content. But in the end that isn't my call.

 

[Que]

I feel like Hayseed when he has to agree with me...

It is pretty obvious that no civility will exist here on INGO about this. I was just hoping for a pass on using scripture as text and not a basis for religion. It seems there are too many people here that cannot make that distinction.

I do however disagree with your second part, but I am not going to get into that argument here.

You could have simply asked and avoided all of this.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

You could have simply asked and avoided all of this.

.

 

[TheRude1]

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

I ran into this earlier today and had to change what I was going to say due to this thread.
I'm still new here and don't want to P anyone off that has control of the big boot them button

I dont think we will have anyone with a megaphone trying to convert-condem or bash people ? May be wrong bought that ?

In a group this large there is bound to be some buttmonkeys and d bags
but I have not seen it yet and hope I dont have to.

We can have disagreements but there's no need for BS drama

A section for discussions of religious nature ?

 

[GBuck]

A section for discussions of religious nature ?

"Objection Your Honor, Asked and answered."

 

[Titanium_Frost]

You could have simply asked and avoided all of this.

I have asked before. Several times right after the In-Thread-Warning.

I think I have asked in nearly every thread that gets a 'religious discussion' warning but can we get a better explanation of exactly what 'religious discussion' is? It seems to me to be an undefined term that enforcement of is the subjective domain of the individual moderator.

I believe we may have far fewer incidents if we just had a standard definition to go off of. As I have stated previously it is my opinion that talk about church, the Bible as a text and aspects of it for guiding one's life are not necessarily 'religious' in nature seeing as how many secular books offer the exact same thing to many people.

Are those who live their lives based on secular teachings also banned from talking about them as it could be construed as 'religious?'

Hopefully you can answer these questions.

 

[U.S. Patriot]

Umm... we're not a state. We're a web forum that is privately owned and offered under terms that you accept before membership is granted. I do sometimes feel like a nanny though.



You're flat wrong-- about everything.

We don't have the rule for political correctness. And people can't just "act like adults".

We have the rule because history has proven the opposite-- people, even adults on INGO, can't discuss religion without it breaking down into insults. It takes up too much of our time dealing with these "children" than its worth. If debating religion is important to you, I'd recommend checking out the forums that are specifically dedicated to religious debate. Not a gun forum.

I don't debate relegion. I believe as I do, and that's it. To me it's no different then debating politics.

 

[Classic Liberal]

I don't debate relegion. I believe as I do, and that's it. To me it's no different then debating politics.

Vote for Ron Paul

 

[U.S. Patriot]

Vote for Ron Paul

Chuck Norris

 

[esrice]

I don't debate relegion. I believe as I do, and that's it. To me it's no different then debating politics.

That's fantastic. You should have no issues with the "no religious discussion" rule.

 

[Steelman]

That's not my experience. I was here before "religious discussion" was banned..

...and do you remember not being able to swing a dead cat without hitting a "derty mooslem" thread?


I do....and I was here before "religious discussion" was banned.


It's sad that the bigots still hide behind trashing gays and Muslims on this site. For some reason, those two groups are fair game. I say we get a gay Muslim mod and be done with the whole mess.

 

[GBuck]

It's sad that the bigots still hide behind trashing gays and Muslims on this site. For some reason, those two groups are fair game. I say we get a gay Muslim mod and be done with the whole mess.

I agree, that there is way too much bigotry allowed toward some groups. The problem is, the moderators have their hands tied. The people that do these things, typically, have identified that "line which shall not be crossed" and walk it as closely as possible. In order to weed those members out, the mods would have to create even stricter rules, which I don't think anyone wants. What we are left with is allowing those people to continue walking the line and the mods eventually ban them under the "trolling" clause.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I agree, that there is way too much bigotry allowed toward some groups. The problem is, the moderators have their hands tied. The people that do these things, typically, have identified that "line which shall not be crossed" and walk it as closely as possible. In order to weed those members out, the mods would have to create even stricter rules, which I don't think anyone wants. What we are left with is allowing those people to continue walking the line and the mods eventually ban them under the "trolling" clause.

This is why we need negative rep back Make them pariahs with red badges