Quick note: the NB forums are having some issues on the tech side so they are disabled temporarily.
That's coincidental given the huge flamewars we've seen develop on them over people arguing for/against various religions in forum posts. I don't like the divisiveness that we've had from this and am half-way thinking that perhaps we should just not have religion discussions here on NB considering the mission of the site is about media bias, not promoting or attacking various religions (or lack thereof).
Update 07-10 15:47. After giving an amount of time for those interested to comment. I've settled on the policy.
- Religion threads within the forum will not be allowed.
- Comments attacking particular religions/sects on blog posts addressing media bias against that religion/sect will not be allowed. Certain small, cultish groups including (but not limited to) Westboro Baptist Church and Scientology are still permissible to criticize.
- Since radical Islam is often a topic of discussion here, it will be OK to criticize it, however, extended disquisitions on how it is affiliated with evil supernatural powers is not OK.
- Persistent "calling out" of others within the forum will not be allowed.
- Persons who abuse the private messaging system to harrass other users who do not wish to talk to them will have their user privileges suspended upon first offence and revoked upon second.
We will not tolerate people attacking or promoting their religions on this site. Those who continue to do so will be suspended or banned as circumstance warrants.
This decision is final so those who don't like it can look elsewhere if they wish to talk about religion in different ways.
—Matthew Sheffield is the creator and editor of NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
Good idea Matthew
July 9, 2008 - 16:10 ET by Conservative VoiceI would support that decision. When the media attacks religion, it shouldn't be an open door to join the media and claim that religion to be the church of satan either.
Obama had the idea first; he doesn't like religous discussion
July 9, 2008 - 20:52 ET by Daniel BakerIt doesn't include the poor haters of religion.
Religous reasons for liking or disliking a policy are as important as some moral relativism argument.
I don't like those who state their religion and then tell you about what religions other than theirs supposedly believe. These are very deceptive people.
Obama's Real Religion Too bad McCain is a fellow worshipper
very deceptive indeed
July 9, 2008 - 21:04 ET by Conservative Voicevery deceptive indeed
Right Daniel - that was the biggest problem
July 9, 2008 - 21:06 ET by Dee BunkPeople claiming to know what other's believed. Even when the people would correct them and say - "no that's not what I believe" the other person would continue to tell them they were wrong and they knew more about what they believed than they did.
It was crazy.
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
Mission creep
July 9, 2008 - 16:21 ET by Cool ArrowYou're right, of course.
I apologize for my part in the flamewars. They're unnecessary.
forums
July 9, 2008 - 16:22 ET by candanceI enjoy discussing religious issues but agree it usually results in a fight.
NB should be whatever you guys want, so if you make a policy against religious arguing I'll respect it.
Also CV brings up a good point that articles dealing with religious bias usually spill over into the woodshed, so you would have to be more vigilant about sticking to the media in those threads as well.
Thank you Matthew!
July 9, 2008 - 16:33 ET by Dee BunkI could not agree more.
I wish there were some way to keep people from turning media bias stories about various religions into arguing about what religion is the right one also.
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
That is also
July 9, 2008 - 16:37 ET by Matthew Sheffieldsomething I very much dislike. I hope people will resist the urge to do this better.
There is no real way to
July 9, 2008 - 17:07 ET by tracheostomyThere is no real way to point out the MSM bias without simply stating it as so.
Let's say GMA runs a spot the RCC, SBC, or whatever denomination finds "offensive."
Okay. They're offended. How is this MSM bias against religion again? Since many in the MSM aren't practicing members of the religion they report on, then should the MSM even attempt to report on religon at all?
There is also a double standard in play when it comes to criticism of Christianity versus criticism of Islam.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
this must be why Jesus call
July 9, 2008 - 17:11 ET by TruthMongerthis must be why Jesus call us all hypocrits!
NB does a fantastic job at
July 9, 2008 - 17:34 ET by Conservative VoiceNB does a fantastic job at uncovering the bias, they do more than just simply stating it is so. The problem is certain posters take the liberty and use the opportunity to bash that religion. They don't take the side of the media, they go pass the bias of the media and into their own hatred of that religion. And that is the issue. Fact of the matter is, the media is bias against all religions except global warming...but they won't air their bias on Muslims out of fear, but certain posters take the opportunity to attack that religion that is being misrepresented in the media. Or they take the opportunity if a candidate of a certain religion ever pops up here ( R-O-M-N-E-Y )
And I know of several posters here who are rather turned off by the religious wars here.
I have seen everyone attacked inappropriately
July 9, 2008 - 17:40 ET by Matthew SheffieldMormons, Catholics, Baptists, atheists, etc.
We are not interested in determining which faith (or lack thereof) is correct on this site. Such arguments don't usually solve anything even when they are allowed, they just get folks angry at each other.
I prefer leaving the bile to HuffPo, DU, Kos and other left-wing sites, thank you very much.
Vague guidelines to make Churchianity happy and sedate. . .
July 9, 2008 - 17:51 ET by tracheostomyCan you define "inappropriate" please?
Then why feature "media bias" pieces on Christianiy when you're not even keen on what or who is being attacked?
How do you even know for sure why NBers are angry at each other?
-PJ
For purposes of this site
July 9, 2008 - 18:11 ET by Matthew Sheffielddiscussions on religion being attacked will not devolve into whether or not said religion is true or false.
If you don't like it, you don't have to participate in those threads.
Edit: I also do not want discussions about whether what particular sects of a religion are true/false. They are irrelevant to what the mission of NewsBusters is.
Matt, be reasonable.
July 9, 2008 - 18:15 ET by tracheostomyThe connections to the candidates in question warrants it.
If it's Obama's church, you can call it "unChristian" any way you want.
But if it's Romney? That's a no-no.
Also, how come you can't seem to discuss this on the same level that say Noel does with Balboa?
How much time have you given to thinking about this?
-PJ
We aren't really
July 9, 2008 - 18:25 ET by Matthew Sheffieldinterested in whether Obama's religion is true or false. Nor are we interested in whether Mormonism or anything else is true or false.
Everyone has opinions about particular religious groups that are not likely to change because of someone else. The continual rehashing serves no purpose but to drive people away everyone else not in the argument.
I've been thinking about how to handle these questions for quite some time.
Then take it out across the
July 9, 2008 - 18:38 ET by tracheostomyThen take it out across the board. This includes all religions. You'll have to include Obama's church, the episcopal church, and Islam as well.
CA's hypocrite statement is very-very relevant.
Either give them all a voice or none at all.
And I don't think you're truly able to do either. . .or willing to, for that matter.
Let's come clean here. In order to throw in with this group, you have to leave your convictions at the door (even your tagline trophies).
Making liberal members no more than mere figureheads or punching bags.
-PJ
This site is not meant to be fair and balanced it's not FOX
July 10, 2008 - 09:19 ET by Dee BunkIt has a specific mission and goal that does not include your agenda.
The owners of this site have every right to put a stop to trollish behavior. What constitute trollish behavior (hijacking Newsbusters with other agendas) is up to their subjective judgment.
No one has any "rights" here. Not me, not you, not anyone. If you don't believe in the mission and just want to derail then you shouldn't be here. If you want to have some influence on changing the agenda then I suggest you contribute heavily with boku bucks.
Your concern for liberals is touching, I noticed a couple had the same concerns for you despite the fact that they are not religious. It's not surprising that groups with agendas contrary to this site's would stick together.
Newsbusters probably THE BEST blog out there for allowing different opinions, but they should not allow AGENDAS to be forwarded that are not in line with this site's purpose, especially for FREE. If you have an agenda you want to push then advertise here.
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
He is being more than
July 9, 2008 - 18:33 ET by Conservative VoiceHe is being more than reasonable. If Romney went to church for 20 years with the bishop saying the same anti-American hate that Rev Wright said, then you might have an argument...but since Mormons tend to be one of the most pro-American churches out there, your homework assignment will be futile.
Getting stuck on which church is the true "Christian" church has never been the focus of any thread started by NB.
Reverend Wright is not just
July 9, 2008 - 18:42 ET by tracheostomyReverend Wright is not just accused of being Anti-American. He is also accused of being "Anti-Christian."
But according to who's standard?
And "hate" here is a doctrinal statement as well.
"Pro-American" means what again? Pro-freedom of speech?
-PJ
Accused by NB as
July 9, 2008 - 18:47 ET by Conservative VoiceAccused by NB as anti-Christian? Or certain posters? If its NB, then I would like to see the article, because I am betting they defined exactly what they meant by it, and that it was a definition that is generally understood and accepted.
Rev. Wright is most
July 9, 2008 - 18:48 ET by NL207Rev. Wright is most certainly a racist, a bigot and a communist. I cannot recall having heard anyone accuse him of being a Christian recently. One might suspect that being a racist, a bigot and a communist excludes him from being a Christian, might it not?
you would think NL...it
July 9, 2008 - 18:50 ET by Conservative Voiceyou would think NL...it certainly makes sense to me
Pro-American, do I have to
July 9, 2008 - 18:49 ET by Conservative VoicePro-American, do I have to really spell it out for you trach?
Here is a hint, the largest celebration for the 4th of July is found in a little town called Provo Utah.
→ Unfair
July 9, 2008 - 18:43 ET by Cool ArrowBut this is a conservative blog, so I won't elaborate.
CV,
July 9, 2008 - 18:04 ET by tracheostomy(This comment originally contained an inappropriate "callout" of another NBer and has been deleted.)
MS
double standard
July 10, 2008 - 03:17 ET by BritcomThat is an understatement.
---
Sen. John McCain (2003):
"...I am proud to say that I was born in your country"
Except when the media
July 10, 2008 - 04:18 ET by Conservative VoiceExcept when the media actually attacks a fellow Christian Church, you and others are right there saying YA! Not realizing when they attack one religion, they are attacking all religions that believe in God. Their religion is Global Warming and Liberalism, and with that religion you have the permission of NB to fire away.
Dee, thats an easy one ...
July 9, 2008 - 17:21 ET by Dan The Man 2Dee, thats an easy one ... mine is the only true and right one. LOL. I dont get tooo into the dicussions because they do turn into shouting matches, but the two topics religion and politics will and tend sometimes to turn into shouting matches.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Dan
July 9, 2008 - 18:55 ET by Dee BunkI'd just like to say that you were a model of good behavior about religion. You have very strong religious beliefs and I think everyone knows what they are, but I never saw you attack anyone else's. Very admirable. That kind of thing is what draws people to rather than away from your religion.
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
Yes, there is a way, ignore
July 9, 2008 - 18:17 ET by futbolisgreat1Yes, there is a way, ignore all those that for whatever reason are obssesed with attacking the religion of others.
Isolate them, ignore them and they eventually implode and leave. I know, I have been guilty of saying that I will do this and then I get sucked in.
Everyone needs to make a pledge and keep it, that they will no longer attack others because of their religious beliefs.
Also, as it has already been suggested "hall" monitors can be assigned.
True of false. . .
July 9, 2008 - 18:30 ET by tracheostomy"Religious attack" as a catchphrase is so broadly defined that it can be manipulated according to the whim of whoever wants to play the victimization card.
Say I can't debate, but I wanna keep my pride intact. Well then, I simply call it a "religious attack" and help mob the admin.
-PJ
I don't understand
July 9, 2008 - 18:32 ET by Matthew Sheffieldwhat the attraction is anyway in trying to promote one's religion or denigrate others on here.
If someone else doesn't share your opinion, so what?
But Matthew, isn't that
July 10, 2008 - 11:03 ET by bradbenj5952But Matthew, isn't that what this site is all about. You perceive the world through your beliefs. You judge what is right and what is wrong in the MSM primarily by your religion, do you not? Your religion is not based on your conservatism, nay, your conservatism is based on your religion. And using your own perceptions of right and wrong, based on your religious upbringing and/or conversion, you, and others at NB make judgment calls about what is right or wrong in the media.
It is also very clear by the articles concerning religion that NB chooses to post about are primarily concerning the media's attack on the Roman Catholic Church or one of its doctrines/dogmas. Or if the media attack is on religion in general, your counterattack is from the beliefs and positions of the RCC. I don't find this surprising considering that seems to be the religion espoused by nearly every commentator at NB. Was not L. Brent Bozell III, founder of MRC, parent organization of NB, educated at the University of Dallas, the Catholic University for Independent Thinkers? Is not the MRC and NB first and foremost an apologist organization for the defense of the RCC and its beliefs? Therefore, just about everything in media upon which you pass judgments in the form of articles posted in this medium is based on your religious beliefs. Are you not, therefore, being just a little hypocritical in this matter? How do I know this? Define for me please the meaning of the phrase I see often used by NB posters "orthodox Christianity". Do you not judge the MSM by your view of what "orthodox Christianity" is? And is not your view of "orthodox Christianity" that of the RCC?
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis
Wrong Bradbenj - Ken Sheppard is a proffessed Charismatic
July 10, 2008 - 11:52 ET by Dee BunkMark Feinkelstein is Jewish, Warner Todd Huston is Evangelical (not sure of the denomination) and I'm sure they have some Atheists even. Newsbusters is not about forcing one religion on anyone. It never has been.
Ken Sheppard just today is defending the Conservative side of in a Religion that isn't exactly like his.
Catholics like any other Christian faith can be divided into Liberals and Conservatives. The liberal Catholics are the one's who have problems with the Pope.
The MSM never gets into whether or not Catholics should worship Mary or the practice of Veneration of Saints. They attack the Catholic church for it's conservative positions on Abortion, Gay Marriage, premarital sex and birth control.
Catholics don't like the media trying to turn their religion into Liberalism any more than any other Conservative Christian would.
Matthew isn't telling anyone they can't ever mention anything about religion. He's saying that excessive attacks will not be tolerated.
Newsbusters contributors do not make judgments about what is the one true religion or the one true Christian religion. When Newsbusters does articles it's about how the media tries to liberalize the different religions. Catholics are the ones most often attacked in the media because it's the largest and liberals want to rule it.
There have been plenty of other stories about other religions and Evangelicals in general. There has been a couple stories about Angelican's in the last couple days. I'm sure if you know of a bias story and you e-mail it to Ken Sheppard, or Warner Todd Huston - they will do an excellent job covering it. So would most of the other contributors but those two especially understand the Evangelical perspective.
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
Fut - it worked prett good that way for over 2 years here
July 9, 2008 - 19:33 ET by Dee BunkReligious flamers didn't last long here because everyone pretty much shunned them. It just wasn't working anymore.
I think Matthew and who ever can decide if threads are being hijacked for purposes beyond the scope of what is appropriate to this site.
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB (that's me)
arguing about what religion is the right one
July 9, 2008 - 18:33 ET by heldmywLacking proof, one can only ride along on faith, hope, study and thought. A good thing, I think. Works for me, anyway. Doesn't really provide a good foundation for rushing out and persecuting someone who believes differently.
So, I muddle along, doing my best, content to wait for that day when the heavens split and a great booming voice announces "YOU, YOU __________, YOU ARE THE TRUE BELIEVERS. I HAVE NO IDEA WHERE THE REST OF YOU GOT THAT NONSENSE, BUT KNOCK IT OFF".
That'll pretty much settle it.
I must admit, I kinda hope it's not Judaism or Islam...
I really like bacon.
I support the religion shutdown, but for different reasons. . .
July 9, 2008 - 17:01 ET by tracheostomyI think it's a final admission that the Emperor indeed has no clothes.
Liberal morality goes something like this:
1.There is no absolute morality or absolute truth.
2. Everything is relative to the individual. Secularism is a virtue.
3. Everything is reasoned subjectively and/or inductively.
Conclusion: Liberalism exists because it's unwilling/too afraid to stand for anything specific. It is individualism for the individual's sake.
Conservative morality goes something like this:
1. There is an absolute truth of some kind, but that is determined by the relative individual or the institution that does the thinking for that individual (objective probing is a no-no).
2. Moral relativism is wrong, but only according to the standard of #1. Secularism is wrong, but only as far as declaring it as such. The application of opposing secularism is a logistical nightmare because of #1.
3. Everything is reasoned objectively and/or deductively to a certain point, just so long as it does not offend any number of moral majorities.
Conclusion: Moral conservatism exists only as a superficial counter to moral liberalism. Or, "Liberalism is wrong, but we cannot go too deeply into the 'why' of it without eroding our base (institutionalized moralists)."
So if you want to strip away the veneer Matt, then please. . .be my guest. I was proud to help.
-PJ
→ Good post
July 9, 2008 - 17:07 ET by Cool ArrowGood to see you again, Trach.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Some of us want to put God
July 9, 2008 - 17:20 ET by tracheostomySome of us want to put God in a collective political box to do our bidding.
We want a Christian-conservative moralism without all the extras that make us uncomfortable. . .such as settling on objective source material, defining objective faith, or coming to agreement on the sine-qua-non(s) of the faith, such as the Trinity.
You cannot target "anti-Christian bias" without defining Christianity. And several of you here are too scared to go that far.
So pull the plug on it. Get it over with already.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Defining Christianity is beyond the scope
July 9, 2008 - 17:26 ET by Matthew Sheffieldof this web site. Our goal is to create a broad coalition of people who are interested in seeing fairness in the news media toward center-right viewpoints. That is all.
To whatever extent that we have discussions about other subjects, it is entirely for the amusement of the members of this community. Flamewars, vicious attacks and rants for/against religions or sects are the antithesis of this which is why we need to take measures to ensure that they do not take place.
My reply was arbitrarily
July 9, 2008 - 18:06 ET by tracheostomyMy reply was arbitrarily deleted.
-PJ
Resurrect one nugget
July 9, 2008 - 18:17 ET by Cool ArrowThe question does arise whether we have any business questioning the "Christian values" of public figures.
We do hit Obama on his religious views quite regularly.
I thought that part of the post was relevant.
This blog would be a little less exciting if we excluded Liberals, so do we need to scale back on Obama's beliefs too?
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
you are just asking for
July 9, 2008 - 18:23 ET by TruthMongeryou are just asking for it, aren't you:(:(:(?!?!?
→ Sorry Truthie
July 9, 2008 - 18:30 ET by Cool ArrowI just don't want us to seem hypocritical in the eyes of the liberal posters.
I can go along with the rules. Posting here is subject to terms of membership.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Getting used to this new NB here. . .
July 9, 2008 - 18:26 ET by tracheostomyCA: The question does arise whether we have any business questioning the "Christian values" of public figures.
First, I guess the new rule is I can quote you only if I agree with you. And since I do, I'd also like to add where the public figure begins and ends with regards to this blog. We have no idea how many "public figures" are here or not.
There seems to be an unwritten rule that we can bash someone's religion, but only if they're using a different media outlet. . ."What the. . .?"
It's totally confusing. Doesn't make any sense at all.
Conservative NBers can argue with liberals, yet sometimes we assume they are because of a particular POV.
Conservative NBers can argue with liberals about "anti-Christian bias" but not to the substance of it.
Can conservative theists argue with conservative atheists?
Where do Scientologists fit into all this?
-PJ
You can quote someone
July 9, 2008 - 18:30 ET by Matthew Sheffieldif you disagree, just not in your signature.
Conservative NBers can argue with liberals about "anti-Christian bias" but not to the substance of it.
That is correct.
Can conservative theists argue with conservative atheists?
Not if it involves attacking or apologizing for either side.
Where do Scientologists fit into all this?
Scientology is a business and an obviously false scam.
"Scientology is a business
July 9, 2008 - 18:36 ET by Roger the Shrubber"Scientology is a business and an obviously false scam."
Hatemonger!
Matt I have some questions
July 9, 2008 - 18:39 ET by shawn228What if someone says something about your relgion that is false or even some accuses an individual of something that is false and baiting at the same time. Does one have the right to defend themselves? Or do they just take it??. Do different rules apply to liberals than conservatives on NB?
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
Are you laying the
July 9, 2008 - 18:44 ET by Conservative VoiceAre you laying the groundwork if someone challenges your liberal philosophy, you can claim its an attack on your religion?
Not at all CV
July 9, 2008 - 18:49 ET by shawn228Its not just about religion, Matt also said we should not call people out. I just want to know if we are allowed to defend ourselves if we are accussed of something we know is false.
I realize this is a conservative site, I just want to know if the rules are the same for liberals as conservatives.
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
I don't think Matt ever said
July 9, 2008 - 18:54 ET by Conservative VoiceI don't think Matt ever said you couldn't defend yourself where politics are concerned.
CV
July 9, 2008 - 19:05 ET by shawn228I'm not going to use a real example, because I don't want to accussed of calling somebody out.
Lets just say a poster insults another posters mother. The poster 1 takes offense and asked poster 2 to apologize. Poster 2 denies that he/she said anything about poster 1 mother.
If poster one found the the incriminating post and decided to cut and paste or post the link where poster two said this, would that be considered calling somebody out? Will poster 1 get in trouble for being the aggresser if though it was in self defense?
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
I would say, as long as you
July 9, 2008 - 19:10 ET by Conservative VoiceI would say, as long as you weren't being a jerk back, or a jerk in the first place, but simply called him on his cheap shot, you should be ok. I don't think this is what Matt is talking about in this thread though.
Correct
July 9, 2008 - 19:13 ET by Matthew SheffieldCorrect
CV... I think it could
July 9, 2008 - 19:26 ET by Clear thinkerCV...
I think it could also be considered a promise. An example would be... "I promise to never call j. frank wilson an as*hole".
Calm down everyone, I'm just playing.
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
LOL,.....Clear..........
July 9, 2008 - 20:41 ET by BEGRUNT"If a man does his best, what else is there"?
General George S. Patton Jr.
stop worrying and living in the past Shawn - Your
July 10, 2008 - 09:22 ET by Dee Bunkbehavior has been exemplary lately and I can't imagine why anyone would accuse you of anything.
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
Shawn
July 9, 2008 - 18:49 ET by Noel SheppardDo different rules apply to liberals than conservatives on NB?
Shawn,
That's confidential. I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. :-) ns
Noel
July 9, 2008 - 18:52 ET by shawn228Uh-oh, I better be careful of what I ask, because you live within driving distance :-)
Good thing I am in Seattle right now.
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
Matt. . .
July 9, 2008 - 18:53 ET by tracheostomyMB: if you disagree, just not in your signature.
Despite the fact that I had it over a year? Did someone redefine it for you? It's okay if I quote someone from the old media or a liberal site though, right?
MS: [PJ: Conservative NBers can argue with liberals about "anti-Christian bias" but not to the substance of it.] That is correct.
Then the liberals win.
Matt: [PJ: Can conservative theists argue with conservative atheists?] Not if it involves attacking or apologizing for either side.
This reply doesn't even make sense! How can you argue a point without "attacking" or "apologizing"?
Matt: [PJ: Where do Scientologists fit into all this?] Scientology is a business and an obviously false scam.
Sure, it's obvious to those who oppose it. That makes you as "bad" as I am.
Roger's comments are hilarious because they're true. If this site started with a majority of Scientology adherents, you would be in the same fix you're in now.
-PJ
Can conservative theists
July 9, 2008 - 19:17 ET by Matthew SheffieldCan conservative theists argue with conservative atheists?
Not if it involves attacking or apologizing for either side.
This reply doesn't even make sense! How can you argue a point without "attacking" or "apologizing"?
You can state your opinion, and then state that you know others may not agree and then leave it at that.
Roger's comments are hilarious because they're true. If this site started with a majority of Scientology adherents, you would be in the same fix you're in now.
NB would never have that because scientologists are all libs!
a broad coalition of people
July 9, 2008 - 18:20 ET by TruthMongera broad coalition of people who are interested in seeing fairness in the news media toward center-right viewpoints. That is all?
people of faith partnering together on this?!?!?!?
radical dude, I am with you
"Fairness" for those who can't debate maybe.
July 9, 2008 - 18:32 ET by tracheostomyYes, very broad indeed.
Isn't this a fairness doctrine of sorts?
-PJ
trach, maybe someday you
July 9, 2008 - 18:37 ET by Conservative Voicetrach, maybe someday you will get the clue that this site isn't for you, and find a site that suits you better.
It's for him
July 9, 2008 - 18:38 ET by Matthew Sheffieldto the extent he abides by the rules and wishes to participate. Same as everyone.
Just saying, he seems to
July 9, 2008 - 19:01 ET by Conservative VoiceJust saying, he seems to most bent about this, where as everyone else is like...its 'bout time.
*GASP* An exclusive "ism" club? NO! Rly?!??
July 9, 2008 - 18:46 ET by tracheostomyMaybe someday I'll get the clue that liberals might have been pointing out something I hadn't previously noticed.
I guess some ideas/ideals are just too dangerous to be discussed.
-PJ
not trying to exclude you at
July 9, 2008 - 19:03 ET by Conservative Voicenot trying to exclude you at all, rather inviting you to go where you can freely discuss your ideas / ideals, since you seem to have a difficult time with understanding what NB is all about. Hint, it isn't Mormon Busters.
We got this thing
July 9, 2008 - 19:22 ET by SemperrightWe got this thing lawyered to death yet?
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The MARINES don't have that problem."
President Ronald Reagan - 1985
CV, Well said, this site
July 9, 2008 - 20:13 ET by futbolisgreat1CV,
Well said, this site is not Mormon Busters, or Catholic Busters, or Southern Baptists Buster, etc.
It is about media bias, thus Newsbusters! :-)
LOL!
July 10, 2008 - 02:35 ET by BritcomDouble plus good.
---
Sen. John McCain (2003):
"...I am proud to say that I was born in your country"
I was adored once
July 9, 2008 - 17:10 ET by TruthMongerI was adored once too:)
also used to take American free speech for granted
naughty me
komrades, I am with you for the collective good, and mother Russia!
Welcome back!!!
July 9, 2008 - 17:28 ET by SyriusPJ,
You are correct. It's too bad you need to split it into two camps. Compartmentalization of thoughts runs into distinct problems of divisiveness. There is no right or left, red or blue, etc. There is divisiveness in structuring opposing forces to battle amongst themselves. Confrontation is needed for the war to continue and battles to be waged. Morality and its defining parts in society are decided by those who can best show their morality is far superior and able to squelch any opposition to the main tenets of said superior morality. Allow people to find their own morality and I think you'll be surprised at how we all can come together. We are all Americans first...
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Dang
July 9, 2008 - 17:11 ET by the strugglerFirst it was no name-calling,now no ripping on people's religion.
What about calling people's girlfriends ugly?
Were you talkin' to me?'Cause I think you were talkin' to me.---Hispanic dude on Seinfeld
I agree. I've been on
July 9, 2008 - 17:16 ET by celatorI agree. I've been on various forums (on and off) since 1988. What I've noticed is that whatever the formal topic of the forum whenever it turns to religious debates, it ruins the forum. The moderator must step in and "makes a rule" to take religious debates elsewhere. They ALWAYS quickly morph into "Who knows Scripture best?" or "Who's going to hell and who's going to heaven?". NB is NOT the place for these types of discussions. There are hundreds of other forums designed to debate religion.
That's bad enough, but even worse, these religious debates create very bad feelings, ad hominem attacks, and warring camps among those who, before, shared good insights about whatever the forum was created to address--media bias, etc.
Ban the topic unless it somehow pertains directly to media bias. I think we all agree that the MSM does a perfectly disgraceful job at explaining even the basic tenents of religion. That's something we can all point out and is a legitimate topic on this forum.
I'll agree...
July 9, 2008 - 17:14 ET by SyriusMatthew,
The tough topics will always be the ones where the separation of church & state at issue. Abortion, Faith-based initiatives, Social conservatives opposing Fiscal conservatives, Poverty, etc...are going to be main topics of discussion in the upcoming election cycle. Where do you start drawing the lines in the sand on how to discuss and debate without offending someone's beliefs and morality based in part on their religion? It will be interesting to see what you will come up with in your decision. Limits on comments to a topic would be interesting...say your piece and move on so to speak, allowing one rebuttal to a comment. Allowing more diverse commentary from all types of POV's. Solutions to problems.
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
That seems pretty reasonable
July 9, 2008 - 17:22 ET by Matthew Sheffieldas it pertains only to a particular issue being discussed.
I do not want people to be mounting attacks or apologies at religion/non-religion etc.
How about just monitoring
July 9, 2008 - 17:24 ET by motherbeltHow about just monitoring it and closing the thread when you think it's necessary?
Shoot 'em all; let God sort 'em out! - Marge Simpson
That'd be nice
July 9, 2008 - 17:29 ET by Matthew Sheffieldhowever, flamewars often continue via PM (which they shouldn't).
We also don't have the resources to monitor every single discussion. If people want to volunteer to help with this then perhaps we could consider it.
Marshal Sheffield, You
July 9, 2008 - 17:33 ET by SemperrightMarshal Sheffield,
You might have to deputize some hall monitors before this thing is over.
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The MARINES don't have that problem."
President Ronald Reagan - 1985
He already did.
July 9, 2008 - 17:45 ET by tracheostomyHe already did.
Just conservatives?
July 9, 2008 - 17:33 ET by SyriusMatthew,
or a consensus of individuals with differing POV's?
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
That's one reason that I don't have PM activate on my account
July 10, 2008 - 08:14 ET by Britcom---
Sen. John McCain (2003):
"...I am proud to say that I was born in your country"
Syrius, there are ways, i
July 9, 2008 - 18:23 ET by futbolisgreat1Syrius,
there are ways, i believe, to question the whole seperation of church and state, to even questions where our beleifs are based on and to attack these, by being cordial, mature and respectful to each other.
I have always said it, let us debate with respect, charity, love, compassion and understanding. You catch more flies with honey than with salt, right?
I agree with Matthew's
July 9, 2008 - 18:09 ET by futbolisgreat1I agree with Matthew's decisions.
If people want to debate religion, be apologetics for religions, let's start our own website, or start your own where people can go and fight it out.
There are plenty of sites that already do this.
the incredible infighting that has happened amognst Conservatives on this site do to attacks on each others Christian denomination has not accomplished anything.
This site is to report media bias, not to debate religion. Let us keep it that way.
→ You're right futbol
July 9, 2008 - 18:20 ET by Cool ArrowI'm sure there are plenty of "hash it out" blogs out there.
And welcome back.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Cool Arrow, Thanks for
July 9, 2008 - 20:16 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow,
Thanks for the welcome back.
Matt
July 9, 2008 - 18:20 ET by shawn228I respect your decision, I just feel that it is unfortunate that the people that are respecful of other peoples POV and religion, have to be punished because of a few with short tempers and tendancy to flame whenever their position is challenged.
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
In my experience, I have
July 9, 2008 - 18:52 ET by Chris NormanIn my experience, I have never found an argument comparing personal religions to be a happy experience. It usually leads to bad feelings among people who would otherwise be friends and allies. I think some of the comments on this thread prove that.
McNotObama '08
Boundaries
July 9, 2008 - 19:15 ET by KC MulvilleThat's OK with me.
I will say, however, that we need to respect a distinction. One of the liberal media's biggest biases is against religion. So, logically, it would go against this site's mission to simply overlook it when liberals attack religion.
I've said this before, but please forgive the repetition. If you're going to post something, you owe your fellow readers the courtesy of explaining yourself, instead of just tossing off political farts. And when you feel the media has unfairly insulted your religion, it seems to me that you owe your readers an explanation of why it was an insult. But leave it at that. If the media distorted your theology, explain what the truth is ... but don't "sell" it, at least not on a website. There's a distinction between explaining and proselytizing.
When Matthew said above that we should stick to the religious issues instead of attacking religions, that sounded right to me.
"political farts"
July 9, 2008 - 20:02 ET by MrShyNot sure what these are, but I like the label because I am an immature adult (but a conservative-leaning one, which makes me better.)
:)
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Ok u guys
July 9, 2008 - 19:35 ET by DelsaFirst of all Obama did not got to church on Sundays for 20 years.
He went to Anit-American Political rallies every Sunday for 20 years,that just happened to be held in a Church,presided over by a pastor impersonator, going by the name of Wright, and who happened to be Wrong.
As far as discussing religion or religious issues, I agree with with who ever said we should simply ignore the wise guys and they will have to choice to leave or talk to themselves while we go on as if they were not here.
Should I be on anoter thread???
why are we arguing about this on the policy thread??
July 9, 2008 - 20:47 ET by candanceSince we're talking about religion here anyway, the Bible does say to respect those in authority. Matthew and Noel have the right to make whatever policy they want, and short of us funding NB ourselves we're at their mercy. That's not to be snarky - that's the way it is and I totally accept that.
The others are right - accept Matthew's rules or start your own website.
Right Candance - and people don't even need their own website
July 9, 2008 - 21:19 ET by Dee BunkThey can set up a group over on Yahoo Groups and the comments work very similar to here only you can also elect to have each comment e-mailed to you. I belong to a political one and a film one that people invited me to. I have my options set to not get the emails because I only want to go there and read the comments and participate when I have time. I don't care if I know about everything that is said.
Who ever sets up the group can be the only moderator or they can have multiple ones. It's very easy and people could invite other's over there to argue religion.
They could also set up a chat like Free did. That is realtime so people have to be available at the same time though.
Neither of those two options require any money and they are very easy.
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
Vote them off the island..or feed back ratings like ebay
July 9, 2008 - 21:57 ET by upcountrywatergood comment or bad comment like youtube,
have it at the bottom of ones comment box.
Have fun Matthew, this site continues to grow and GROW!!
Liberals62%
IranianUranium
JJ..JUST THE LATEST NATIONAL DUFUS
July 9, 2008 - 20:50 ET by reelman46There are far too many dumbo comments from national political figures,
far too many apologies and far too few “no comment at this time”… its
ridiculous, its juvenile and its plain dim-witted. Now Jesse J mouths
off about BHO… then apologizes. Why do this at all? Is he complaining
or worrying that BHO is not socialist enough or “class warfare” enough
or not enough of a “victim worshipper”? Have no worry, if elected,
especially with a democrat (secular socialist) dominated congress he
will revert to his true strident secular socialist self as shown in his
voting record. Why should JJ worry a minute?
Maybe its all because BHO is not beholden to JJ or is half-white. Maybe
BHO actually opened the #1 sore of the black folks , (76%) fornication
families. Its at the core of many many problems but apparently noble
men (the Revs) like JJ don’t waste much time on that #1 problem. No
money in demanding marriage licenses and promoting real Daddy behavior.
Too busy running around the country looking for “marching and money”.
Who can say when hearing the blabber from the race hustler year after
year? Maybe he feels less relevant. Hint: He is fading fast anyway…
hey, its been 44 years since the CRA!
Well, at least I lived long enough to hear JJ actually apologize to
someone other than the wife he committed serial adultery against (we
assume he apologized for his “outside family”). What a guy.
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)
Thank you Matthew Sheffield!
July 9, 2008 - 22:40 ET by R D HelmI think banning religious disussion here is a good thing. It has gotten to the point where I can no-longer stomach watching people who I consider friends tearing into each other on what has been practically a daily basis. Some of these attacks are so vicious they literally make me cringe.
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
your call Matt
July 9, 2008 - 22:56 ET by botgmy tag line? we all meet our maker someday. a reminder to myself first of all.
In the End, God will Speak
Matthew - when the forums do come back up
July 10, 2008 - 00:40 ET by Dee BunkI'd appreciate it if you could either lock or delete my two religious threads one is called 2 Peter discussion and the other is something like Questions for religious Newsbusters. Both were unsuccessful attempts to find common ground.
There were some great comments by some great people, but the negativity tended to rule the day in the end and I'd just assume have them gone if possible.
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
I vote for deletion of all religious threads.
July 10, 2008 - 10:27 ET by SyriusMatthew,
By locking out comments would only mean advocation of the substance of the material contained in each thread. If the intention was to have an "open" bible study why would someone want to exclude others? Positive or negative, questions are always raised and hopefully answered. As Socrates said,"An unexamined life is not worth living."
In my humble opinion, they should have never been allowed to propagate in the first place. There are plenty of websites for the religious types to congregate and sing "Kumbaya".
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
I agree
July 10, 2008 - 10:35 ET by Dee Bunkthanks for supporting me on this one Syrius - very big of you.
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
I said delete not lock...
July 10, 2008 - 14:13 ET by