Skip to comments.Greetings from your Religion Moderator
Posted on 04/23/2006 8:01:06 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
Hello everyone. Pleased to meet you. I am your Religion Moderator.
I have been asked by several posters to let you know any special guidelines which apply to posting in the Religion Forum on Free Republic. Here goes
First, you should know that all moderators have authority on the Religion Forum and we are individuals and therefore what is tolerable to one may not be tolerable to another. However, I have general responsibility for this particular forum and spend most of my time reading your posts and moderating the conversations. And I do hold Religion Forum posts to a higher standard.
The previous Religion Moderator is still with us and other moderators who have served as Religion Moderator may also appear on thread with this handle. In other words, you cannot be sure that I am the person who posted with the handle. However, most of the time, it will be me simply because Im reading all of your posts.
A few guidelines:
Threads which are devotional or church-like in nature (such as daily mass readings) will be protected from challenges to doctrine, etc. Reported challenges will be pulled. The titles of the threads should be clearly designated so other posters and the moderators will know.
Threads which are not clearly designated are open to challenges, like a public square.
Posters should remember they are not preaching to the choir on open threads and take care to be respectful, clear and concise in their arguments. Passers-by will value your demeanor as much or more than the actual substance of your post.
This is very important: meet the offensive challenge to your doctrine on the open thread, do not mash the abuse button. I will not remove a challenge simply because it is offensive to your beliefs. If you cannot defend your own confession, then you are better off avoiding the open threads and leaving the reply to someone else of your confession.
Always argue the issues theology, philosophy, history, etc. and never make it personal.
If I see the conversation turn personal, I will intervene by pulling posts and/or posting a warning. If the misbehavior continues, posters may find themselves having to log back in or they may be given a time-out to cool down.
In the extreme, the threads may be banished to the smoky backroom, locked or pulled. And a hot-headed or defiant poster may be banned.
Banned posters who try to sneak back onto the forum using a different handle are nuked. Trolls are nuked.
I have no tolerance for potty language simply because it inflames other posters and results in unnecessary abuse reports that moderators then have to process. It is a waste of everyones time and doesnt help the posters image either.
Whenever I see a profanity or a reference or acronym for a profanity I will remove the post. If your post was pulled and you remember using such a word, just rephrase and repost and everything will be fine.
As with all threads on the forum hatred and any suggestion of racism or violence will be pulled. Posts which are just plain tacky may also be pulled.
Calling an author a liar is permitted calling another poster a liar is not.
Attributing motive to an author is permitted reading the mind of another poster is not.
Poking fun at a confession is permitted, but be careful when poking fun at another poster. If he doesnt think it is funny, I wont either.
Dont worry, youll get the hang of it. It all boils down to being respectful phrase your challenges as if you were the recipient, i.e. think Golden Rule.
LOL Restornu! Know the feeling....
But the respected traditional culture has been increasingly, progessively trashed by the invidious thugs of mindless Left progressivism, and also by Islamofascist thugs these days. It appears the two work hand-in-hand, on the theory "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." The apparent result is the firm foundation for a just rule of law is being corrupted, eroded, destroyed....
We have the same problem over on our side of the Pond. In recent times, the Constitution itself has been placed under grievous stress by people who choose to read their own novel meanings into the text, eschewing totally the Framers' original intent and meaning, which has been the foundation of our settled law for some two centuries.
Plus like us, you have an immigration problem -- e.g., lots of poor, low-skilled people of different ethnicity who come into the country, and then refuse to acculturate -- that is getting totally out of control. Your unassimilables want Englishmen tried in sharia courts. Our unassimilables recently translated our national anthem into Spanish, rewriting it and changing its meaning in the process. The French and Dutch and Danes can report similar miseries.
Sigh, we do live in interesting times....
Thank you so much for your report from the British Isles, Thatcherite! Very much appreciated.
I am optimistic for both the United States and England. Both countries seem to have a political pendulum that swings left and right - when it hits a certain limit in one direction, it swings back.
Right now the conservatives in the U.S. are eating their own (no doubt spurred on by the Democrats and liberals). When they see the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater, they'll panic and the pendulum will swing back. Of course we might have to endure 8 years of Hillary to get there, but I'm sure we will...
A "devotional thread" does not always make it a devotional, in the same way that an opinion editorial in a newspaper does not necessarily protect the paper from a defamation claim.
Are you wavering in your beliefs about predestination? ;-)
those banned by the old RM brought it on themselves after plenty of warnings....
no tears in heaven -- they'll get over it
Wayne Rooney has just been injured this close to the World Cup, and you want me to try and think about something trivial? :-)
Seriously: this is a huge topic, and I am no legal expert. And even if I were, it would take a considerable essay to explain British Constitution. One of the particular difficulties is the difference in meanings of political terminology on each side of the Atlantic, for starters.
So just a couple of observations. The British system works--in so far as it does--because it is scaled differently, and because it has come together out of disparate elements over many centuries. This has permitted a certain amount of fusion of precedents that does bump along in a tolerable fashion, sometimes in spite of itself.
There is, I feel, enshrined in the body (written and unwritten) an elemental core of the liberties of the free-born Englishman, and the cornerstone guardian of these liberties is the independence of the judiciary.
I think it was an appeal by the American colonists to those same ancient liberties--which they felt Parliament had overriden--that sparked our little falling out in 1776. Apart from that little matter--we really do share a common inheritance and are natural allies.
The interesting political arena at the moment is the collision between the 'unwritten' British Constitution and the endlessly wrangled-over European written constitution. If our ancient liberties are codifed by Eurocrats, they may become subject to erosion; it is no accident that it is the Left in Britain that favours a charter of 'rights' and surrender of our sovereignty to Brussels.
Unfortunately, there is nothing in Magna Carta to guarantee an English victory in the World Cup, but there should be!
you want me to try and think about something trivial? :-)
I've gone for the, "Well son, England have now got no chance at all, so we can just enjoy the festival of great football without the angst and tears of England under-performing yet again." with my teenage boy. He knows I'm just whistling in the dark, and so do I....
Incidentally, I've been a witness to divine intervention once in my life; I was in the Azteca in Mexico City on that great/terrible day in the summer of '86. The most outrageous cheat, and the best goal I've ever seen, both in the same match, by the same player. All this talk about 2006 being England's best chance for 40 years was nonsense IMO. The '86 and '90 sides were far better in almost every position even before Rooney got injured.
LOL, Alamo-Girl, I'm sure we would, too. I imagine HRC would bring the present disorder to such a head that it would become increasingly audible/visible, even to the deaf and the blind. The decibel level of partisan screaming would likely escalate from its virtually unprecedented present level, and that won't be fun. Though I don't look forward to that, if this is what is necessary to finally driving the silver stake through the heart of the vampire of Left progressivism, then bring it on.
In the end, we all need to remember, God's Will will be done on earth as in heaven.... HRC cannot cancel that, no, not even with Bubba's help.
Thank you so much for your thoughtful reply!
Should be said again.. How quickly Vince Foster is forgotten..
Indeed the republican party might need to have its nose rubbed in Hillarystan politics.. with Bubba as first gentleman.. The smile on Katie Courics face will be poisonous.. If 500,000+ illegals and enablers can come out for a mere rally in L.A. what will happen with voter fraud.. in 2006 and 2008..
You know, the voter fraud that republican officals across the board could care less about.. that voter fraud.. Hillary is swimming just offshore (Jaws theme) and shes hungry, very hungry.. Many of those that Hate Hillary love Bill.. and where Hillery goes so goes Bill..
Hello, how are you doing I hope your not seriously sick I haven't seen your peaceful presents in a long time!
This must be the Sanctum Sanctorum :)
A couple of days ago a thread was pulled and deleted by the Religion Moderator. It was a post about an MSNBC poll on impeachment.
How often does this happen and how do you decide which news articles to censor?
There was no cursing. Nor was there any discussion of violence or hateful speech.
Was this a mistake or a misunderstanding or is it a policy of FreeRepublic to censor certain topics?
And finally, a couple of replys were posted suggesting the post was ‘troll bait’. What does that mean?
I have little to no tolerance for posters who speak disrespectfully of the Commander in Chief in a time of war because we have many Freepers who are either active military, veterans or relatives of military service men and women.
“little to no tolerance for posters who speak disrespectfully of the Commander in Chief in a time of war”
What if the Commander in Chief in a time of war does something disrespectful, like Clinton did. Is it ok to criticize him then?
There is a reason freedom is such a rare occurance in the history of the world. It is very difficult for people who have the power to censor speech to resist using that power.
And of course, thank you for answering my questions.
I had no tolerance for treating Clinton disrespectfully during Kosovo. One can disagree without being disrespectful.