Religion is something that often gets out of hand when discussed here. I hate to see people get angry at each other because of religious differences because that is focusing on the areas that divide us rather than what unites us.

I have no interest in doing that. I hope you understand.

That said, it seems to me that you misinterpreted my intent in closing that discussion. It wasn't that you can't discuss religion but rather that this particular religious discussion was not an appropriate one for the site.

TM's making a good point.  I think there is a serious conflict here that needs to be addressed by the staff.

Quote: "NB is not about religion and therefore not the appropriate venue for this discussion."

But the OT forum clearly states:

Quote: "The place to post about topics that are not generally within the scope of NB such as religion or technology"

So then is religion to be kept out of the woodshed as well, or are Newsbusters members/bloggers only allowed to discuss religion when liberals attack it?

IMO, the NB admins are a little torn about what position to take on this topic.  Consider this your friendly wake-up "nudge". 

I don't care what they decide as long as a decision is made.  If that means an across-the-board ban on all religiously-oriented discussion/blogs, I'm totally cool with that.  Shut us all up.  Or conversely, if this means open-season then I'm ready to lock & load.

I just want to see something done, and I want to see some executive leadership in action.  This is getting to be a real problem and needs to be dealt with. Thanks again.

-PJ

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07 

1. Religious discussion is allowed but only in the forums
2. Discussions about religion are not to involve proselytizing or attacking any of the following: religion in general, atheism, particular sects.
3. Posters should avoid using any negative terms such as: cult, satanist, liars, false prophet, etc.

No more bashing the Religion of Pizza?

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

:rant zone ahead, take scroll wheel south for next exit, proceed slowly: 

I'd love to see an example of a friendly; civil "open minded" religious discussion anywhere where there is no conflict or perceived attacks when it gets a little hot under the microscope. 

The problem comes when let's say. . .for example, I represent a religion that is exclusivist in it's framework* and then sign up as a member of Newsbusters pretending to be non-exclusive in my theology. 

If I publicly identify myself with that particular "ism" or "ology", then I should in all fairness be expected to field the hard questions about my faith without crying foul all the time. 

It's like playing baseball with your kid brother, and every time you pop one out in the field for him to catch, it's always another lame excuse, "My glove was too loose, I lost it in the sun, you hit too hard, etc. etc.!!!"  If you don't want to field any tough questions, take your glove and go home.  No one's forcing you to participate.

The admins will eventually have to draw a hard line here sometime and somewhere.  Why do some want to get in the ring, but not expect to take a few real hits to their faith?  Huh?  Any faith that is left untested is no faith at all.  Faith isn't some half-assed mystical association.  Faith by its definition is a total reliance on an object or person.  You have complete faith in the chair you're sitting in right now.  So why attempt to shield or obfuscate the one who allegedly made the elements to make the chair and the universe you sit in? 

That's not faith.  That's sheer-sniveling cowardace!    

Maybe some here are totally content merely being seen as a contender, which is nothing but a religious poseur standing alone in the ring, jumping up and down crowing about his record.     

St. Paul never ran to the "mods" whenever he went out to the synagogue or the open market by himself to debate with the Jews or Greeks.  He gladly fielded questions about his faith.  He wanted people to ask the hard questions about his faith.   

Therefore, it's completely absurd to walk in here and say, "Hi, I am a person of faith "X" or"Y".  Ask me anything you want, but I get to retain exclusive control over the topic, so I can play the hate card if any of those questions are too hard for me to answer."  I call shenanigans, and many here have been getting away with it for too long.  Tumbler and Debra did just that back in their heyday, shucking and jiving along here for an agonizingly long time.  Time for the tired-out tactics to be recognized for what they are and adapt accordingly. 

Some of us here seem to think this is supposed to be some kind of PBS round-table where we get to throw out some of the most inane theological ramblings carte blanche without fear of further questioning.  Some of us think we should be allowed to state our opinions about a particular faith (or others) without any cited research to back it up whatsoever.  

Why should questioning the mechanical components of another's faith be percieved as an attack anyway?  I'm not typing here at the end of a sword or crusader's lance, so why exaggerate it?  You will still have all the rights you had previous to this so-called "interrogation" you volunteered to participate in. 

The one feeling interrogated should see this rather as an opportunity to demonstrate how "solid" their faith is to withstand testing.  If you don't have the answer to the question you get, you have all the time in the world to research an honest answer and then step back in the ring.  You don't have to answer immediately, but if you want to keep playing in the theological sandbox, you must bring an answer here for the hope that is within you.    

Fair-is-fair.  I refuse to play with TWO SETS OF RULES depending on the "ism" you currently choose to follow.  The "weaker" faith doesn't need the soft-bigotry of special rights.  If we're running around attempting to market our so-called product, who's going to play the role of "Consumer Reports" to test it and make sure it's not merely snake oil? 

If that can't happen, then all discussion of religion should be banned across the board. 

-PJ  

 *And as stated before, I can prove that all religions have their point of exclusion. 

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07 

Wait a minute Truther M, you say "highly valuable religious content" and follow with "NB Customer" and " - born out of years of careful study and debate"

I think you/me are NB Consumers, not Customers, don't expect to be treated like a "Customer" in the NB forum, unless you're sending them $$$'s.

As for the other two comments, I would agree with you.  You seem to have more knowledge about "religious content" and I'm sure it's born from careful study. 

But just as I have significant amounts of years and Study of a "Subject", I do not focus on my studies in the NB forum.....I leave it aside until such time as it applies (if at all). 

I consume NB for Information, Information I cannot get elsewhere about the Media, and the inside TRUTH of the Details that the Media either leaves out, or misrepresents.  

So, the NB's spend a lot of time and effort to provide information for Consumers, and while I think that there are BIGGER violators of "Voluminous postings" I would still respect the NB right to shut down, minimize, advise for/against any and all postings. 

I think Popular Tech tries to use the NB site as his personal Web Page to link to his own interests......in Great VOLUME....

I don't think you are in that category, but sometimes you "Gotta Serve Somebody" and on the NB site, it's the NB'ers that do the work, regulate the ownership, and sometimes we just have to adhere to what the NB'ers advise.

It's just a different opinion than yours, about how to use the NB Site.

Peace.