Forum Rules Review

[Hellrazor]

[QUOTE=Sawduster;297835This is just the same sort of intolerance displayed by those who crashed airplanes into the towers in NYC, but I wonder what would have been the response had I posted Allah Akbar in my sig line?
[/QUOTE]

Jerry,

Each and every person on this planet has his or her own idea of religion. We are all gathered on this forum to promote some variety of woodworking. Every one of us was asked to refrain from religious or political topics because it lands up causing problems with someone of a different opinion. This isn't attacking your religion, it is a request for respect for everyone else here. Your comparison of 9/11 to a request to edit your signature shows intolerance on your part, not ours. This is nothing personal against you or anyone else and I hope you can see that.

[crokett]

Personally, the sig line "Infected with the God of Drums" bugs me. Frankly, I consider it heretical. If one of my children were to use it, I would correct them in no uncertain terms. But, in the public square, I wouldn't dream of complaining about it.

I wonder though, if my sig line read: "Infected with the God of the Universe" would that be OK? How about "Infected with the God Who Died for You?"
Why is one OK but another isn't?

There is a context. The context for 'Infected with the God of Drums' is that as far as I know no one on this forum really believes there is a God of Drums. I'm pretty sure Drumpriest means it toungue-in-cheek, just as 'worshiping at Rod Kirby's bench' is also toungue-in-cheek. That is the context. Sawduster's sig was espousing a religion that:

a) He has previously professed to believe in
b) is generally accepted as a religion

Neither point is true of Drumpriest's sig. However those points are true of 'Infected with the God of the Universe' since 'God of the Universe' is a generally accepted term for Allah, God, Jehova or whatever you choose to call him.

[radhak]

I think Sam's original idea was (in hindsight) very far-reaching in foresight. And I think the mods have followed it truely in spirit and word, and I am thankful for it.

It is very difficult to "walk in somebody's shoes" unless you have actually worn those shoes . So it's sometimes incomprehensible why somebody else might take offense to something that's totally innocuous to us. The example of taking the name of 'your' god in a sig-line is very apt, as brought out by Gwyneth above. You may not know why it's offensive to me, and this may not be the pulpit for me to explain : suffice to say, history is not easily forgotten .

The sig-line says something about you, and the less 'in-your-face' it is, the easier it is to concentrate on asking questions about DCs and what not .

And since this forum has it's own glorious agenda, I am happy to partake in it, trying to ignore small irritations, hopeful that the larger ones are taken care of by the mods (successfully all this while, I might say).

[jking]

Unfortunately, you can't legislate tolerance - eventually you will ALWAYS end up being intolerant towards some group. I think of it like a sandbox - eventually you are going to run into a cat turd. You could choose to get out of the sandbox. You could insist that everyone get out of the sandbox, that all toys and kids be thoroughly disinfected and the sand hauled off to the dump. Or, you could get over it, and dig in a different spot. I can understand all three reactions, but choosing the 3rd one will be a lot more fun for everyone.

Now that's just plain funny...



I apologize for my part in getting this discussion moving. My questions posed to the mods seem to have opened a can of worms that probably should have remained closed.

[scorrpio]

I have this to say:
Last weekend I happened to be in Washington DC, and there was a rather large anti-war demonstration going on in front of the Capitol.
Most of the people present sported 'stop the war now' slogans, with some going one further with placards like "Impeach Bush".

However, there was a number of people showing their support for our continued troops presense in Middle East, stating that combating terrorism is important - and so on.

It could be clearly seen that the two sides are not exaclty seeing eye to eye, but there were no shouting matches, no shaken fists.

Police were out there in force, content to remain to the side, observing. They were not in a particular hurry to interpose between the two parties "just in case". They apparently trusted that both sides are quite capable of remaining civil towards the opposition without intervention.

How it relates to subject matter? Well, I was always of a mind that a guideline to refrain from certain topics was not because topics themselves are taboo - but rather because these topics might result in a heated conflict. However, is it wrong to discuss nuances of politics and religion if those present can do so in a polite, civil manner?

[cabinetman]

I wasn't going to post on this topic. But, after reading the thread so far, before I speak, I've got something to say (quote from a comedian). OK a little levity.

No, seriously, I don't really appreciate religious or political content anywhere in a post. The way I see Jerry's sig line may be pushing the line, but my interpretation of the first part is like the saying "I heart New York. You know the one with the picture of the heart. It's like a play on words, maybe not necessarily religious in intent.

The second part I take as a moral, like anything worthwhile is worth working for.
In any group of this size there will be those that are more sensitive than others. I feel that to be part of that totality, one must "fit" in to the consensus. All it takes is a little prethought about content before making a post.

[crokett]

However, is it wrong to discuss nuances of politics and religion if those present can do so in a polite, civil manner?

It is not wrong. However I am currently a member of 6 forums and an active member of 3 of those. At one time or another I've been a member of oh, a dozen, give or take. 10 of those allowed discussion of politics/religion. Without fail, discussion of politics/religion was never polite or civil for very long. It eventually led to the death of half of those. There is a reason the rule is there. There are forums on the web where you can discuss both of those as much as you want. BT3Central is not one of them, and has lasted as long as it has because of that.

[Brian G]

I have my preferences set so that neither signatures, nor avatars show. My doing so has nothing to do with being offended by their content. I just find them darn annoying in general.

I've never had any trouble avoiding opening into a discourse that Sam prefers we leave out of BT3Central. It takes more effort to post about those things than it does to avoid posting about them.

I just don't understand the motivation for even skirting around the edges.

[DUD]

We have Mods here? Bill

[dkerfoot]

There is a context. The context for 'Infected with the God of Drums' is that as far as I know no one on this forum really believes there is a God of Drums.

I am finding it hard to follow your reasoning. Are you suggesting that the tagline "God is a big pile of rat droppings" would be OK? So long as no one here believes it, it must not be a religious statement?

How about "Hillary Clinton is Sexy" - would that be allowable? Surely it can't be political if "as far as I know no one on this forum really believes" Hillary is sexy, right?

It seems to me that you are agreeing that "...sarcasm and sacrilege are..." to be "...tolerated but honest, thoughtful expressions of heartfelt conviction are not." I just have to question whether we are keeping the baby or the bathwater when tongue-in-cheek is allowed, but earnest statements of belief are not.

Now, I could suggest to you that most Pantheists do indeed believe in a god of drums (as well as of rat droppings, so to speak). And of course, we shouldn't forget poor overlooked Lingadua, the one-armed Fijian god of drums.

The truth is, people do worship drums, and cars and tablesaws and the woman in the magazine. I read drumpriest's name and sig and I absolutely accept it as a statement of what he worships. I find it sad, but it would be silly of me to want to see the mods step in. Changing his name or sig would not change him. Alex Franke's post is filled with wisdom.

Once again, I am NOT suggesting that anyone or anything about the forum change. I simply think it is helpful to carefully consider our own assumptions from time to time.

[Stytooner]

God is not at issue here. Nor is religion or the unbelievable thought that Hillary might be sexy. It is the discussion of them. The provocation of thought about them is also at issue. Jerry's sig line is fine for a bumper sticker, but here it basically instructs everyone in the world to become a christian. While many will agree with this sentiment, it is not playing by the rules. I am certain that even though some aren't offended, others are. This is why Sam had the forethought to have these two topics placed off limits for discussion here. This means that the forum should remain as free of these topics as humanly possible. There will always be slips and topics that easily offend or lead into these two areas. This is what the mods are for. To remind and help keep these topics at bay when they do crop up.

If you think about it for a minute, religion and politics have caused more death and destruction in the history of the world than anything else. Not to say it's all bad and can't be discussed with civility, but if history has shown us anything, it's that these two topics can get very heated very fast. This is not what Sam intended for this forum.

[Alex Franke]

Without fail, discussion of politics/religion was never polite or civil for very long.

This seems to me like a polite, civil, and worthwhile discussion -- and we're talking about politics and religion. I'm sure if it were to become rude and uncivilized it would be locked or removed. I think part of what makes this community so great, though, is that people tend to keep things polite and civilized.

In this case, though, we're really talking about what's appropriate in the forum. Nobody's trying to convert anyone or convince them that their political party is evil -- I think that's the kind of discussion that turns sour quickly.

I think the context comments were spot on. We we were talking about how to build a boat, would I be forbidden to suggest that 300x50x30 cubits might be a good size to consider? I should hope not. But if someone were to respond, "That ark story is absurd." then they have crossed the line because they're changing the context of the discussion from a boat-building one to a religious one.

The context for 'Infected with the God of Drums' is that as far as I know no one on this forum really believes there is a God of Drums.

This is a slippery slope, but I don't think this really matters anyway. Even if people did believe there was a god of drums, or if some of us believed that were wasn't one, I think we're all grown up enough to respect that one user feels he's infected with it. If someone believes he's infected with the god of drums and that doesn't affect me, then so be it. What right do I have to be offended by that? (By the same argument, what right to I have to be offended if you happen to be black or left-handed or Iraqi or a democrat or a skinhead or a transsexual -- or a man or a woman for that matter? I don't.)

So if you're going to write something political or religious, and your intent is to affect someone or argue or convince, then don't write it.

...and if you see something that looks to be political or religious that is clearly not intended to affect you (hearing someone saying "God bless you!" to someone else is a good example), then just ignore it if you don't like it and get on with finding more Amazon bargains.

[Jeffrey Schronce]

I agree with Lee on this one 100%.

The fact is that the owner of this site, Sam, decided on a set of rules. Those rules state I can't swear, insult people or other things I really enjoy. It also says no discussion, promoting discussion or otherwise yammering about religion or politics. This should be strictly enforced. Those who break the rules should have one warning and then subsequent action should result in ban. It's simple.

[Tom Slick]

just the fact that this thread is quickly growing long shows that even R/S/P in your signature is controversial.

I visit this forum to discuss woodworking, tools, home repairs, and a few other topics of life that get thrown into the mix. I don't care what your religious or political affiliations are and I don't want to know. I don't want to discuss them here. I am glad if you are proud of your convictions but I don't think this is the place to display it.
is it applicable to say Woodworking Rules! or Budweiser is Best! at the end of every post on a religious or political forum? it would be out of place.

IMHO the only way to keep everything even is for it to be sanitary. I have been on other forums where the avatars and signature features were turned off because of this topic. that was drastic, I think it should be self-governing and individuals should be sensitive to the fact that maybe others don't appreciate their message. it's not right or wrong, it is just a matter of what is appropriate for the forum's intended topics.

as mentioned previously, this is a priviately owned site, Sam can make up any rules he likes and I agree with him.

[Alex Franke]

Jerry's sig line is fine for a bumper sticker, but here it basically instructs everyone in the world to become a christian.

Are we talking about the "Got sin?" image? I have to disagree with you here. If you're not a religious person in the first place, then "sin" is rather meaningless (and so is the cross image). The statement is clearly directed to those who are already in a religious context (personally).

If you think about it for a minute, religion and politics have caused more death and destruction in the history of the world than anything else.

Now THAT is the kind of statement that can send a topic swirling out of control. With all due respect, you're changing the context here from "what's acceptable to post" to "why religion and politics are evil". I'm not biting, because that's not appropriate discussion for this forum

just the fact that this thread is quickly growing long shows that even R/S/P in your signature is controversial.

On the contrary, I think it shows that drawing a line in the sand is controversial. Nobody here is defending his religion -- but perhaps some are defending the "appropriateness" of his sig line.