Forum feedback

smacl wrote: »

Following on from some off-line discussions on this I'd like to take the opportunity to clarify precisely what I meant by the term sectarian in this context. I was specifically using the term as per the broader dictionary definition previously provide, i.e. "caused by or feeling very strong support for the religious or political group that you are a member of, in a way that can cause problems with other groups", as opposed to the more specific usage the term has garnered in the context of Northern Ireland as defined by the PSNI. I had not intended to imply you were guilty of any "hate crime", in this or any other jurisdiction, and my apologies if you construed it as such.

Note that I would not accuse you of being a jerk as to do so would be an unacceptable and ill defined ad hominem attack. My comments were in relation to a specific paragraph in one of your posts, were not directed at you personally and were explicit in terms of what I considered to be unacceptable.

Smacl, I am glad we are able to clarify this. On reflection I can understand and see how what I wrote can be construed as inflammatory, certainly unnecessary, and even insulting by people who would not share this viewpoint, even though I had not intended it to be so. This is particularly egregious when what I posted regarding the north had little to do with the topic of the thread. I regret that I displayed poor judgement here and will reflect more in future to ensure that my rhetoric does not run away from me again, to the extent that it obscures my intention, and indeed my point.

I am glad we have clarified that you were not and are not accusing me of anything criminal, or of having posted hate speech. I hope we can put a line under this now and move forward productively in a friendly manner, while continuing to have interesting discussions on the forum.

smacl wrote: »

Mod warning: Less of the condescension please. Given this thread was not tagged as [Christians only] it is open to all posters. In this context it is entirely reasonable for a non-Christian to discuss well understood and documented Christian beliefs without sharing this beliefs once they do so in a civil manner.
Any response via PM or to the feedback thread only

Regarding the above, I was not being condescending, it was a genuine question. Nowhere did I say that it was unreasonable for anyone to discuss it. I was asking if the discussion should be held under the pretense that the poster was a christian - i.e. that God is real and has a plan, which the poster alluded to.

The poster was broaching a discussion of whether the Crucifixion of Jesus was inevitable - which necessitates discussion of the nature of the fall of man, and reference to free-will and God's plan. I am happy to have this discussion, I don't think it unreasonable to clarify the "ground rules" first - if Locksee wishes to discuss it from a Christian perspective, that for the sake of discussion he/she takes as given, as truth, certain things which they do not believe that's grand with me, this could be an interesting discussion and one which I am interested in.

It's also 'grand' with me if someone turns around and essentially (more politely perhaps) claims that antisemitism has it's roots in a religious belief, and that said religious belief is not true - and that religious conflict is one of the "fruits" of superstition. From such a perspective any discussion about responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus, the Son of God is irrelevant. That's a different discussion, albeit one I am not particularly interested in having.

What I don't want is to spend time and effort discussing the former, only for it to switch to the latter later with some version (more politely I'm sure) of "sure it's not true anyway". I don't think it unreasonable to clarify the basis of the conversation at an early stage, especially with someone who has expressly stated that they do not believe in God, believe it to be nonsense, and in fact damaging. (To be clear, this is a legitimate position and everyone is entitled to their opinion.)

For those looking to better understand things it is perfectly legitimate to me to say something like "I am not a Christian, but I am interested in "x" please explain it to me and address my questions as if I were a Christian". I have no issue here - but I wanted to clarify things before going down that road. So to reiterate, I was not being condescending - the opposite in fact, I was being respectful of the poster in question, and their stated views by asking on what basis they wished to have the discussion.

smacl wrote: »

This is unreasonable as it relies on a non-existent future bad faith argument, "sure it's not true anyway", where the poster has no history of making such arguments nor do we have any reason to believe that they may do so in the future. This also borders on backseat moderation. Should anyone make an argument of the form "sure it's not true anyway", the moderating team would deal with it as they have done in the past. When someone posts in breach of the rules, report them. Speculating they might do so in the future without strong supporting evidence constitutes a personal attack.

I would have considered the fact that they do not believe it to be true as suggestive that this fundamental belief may form an intellectual foundation of what they post. I don't see how I could assume it does not without being grossly disrespectful to the individuals beliefs. It seems reasonable to ascertain at this stage before going further what basis they wish to have the discussion on.

It is not back seat moderation - people can post whatever they want as far as I am concerned. Whether I wish to have a discussion with them is surely up to me. It is you who are stretching this out and over-egging things - I did not accuse the poster in the thread of making bad faith arguments. I asked a question about what basis they wanted to have the discussion on - i.e. within the bounds of Christian theology, which necessitates putting aside stated positions for the purposes of discussion. If the poster responded "yeah answer as if I were a Christian" then that's fine with me and I'm clear on what basis we are having the discussion. If they said otherwise, then that's fine too, but any answer I may give would be different.

Given you already pointed out that the poster is an atheist, suggesting they need to state that they are not a Christian is patently superfluous. Likewise that they are discussing Christian beliefs in a Christianity forum indicates interest in the subject matter. That you are clearly aware of these things yet still felt the need to declare them reads as condescending.

I did not say that they need to state that they are an atheist. Nor did I say that they do not have an interest in the topic at hand. Not sure where you are getting that from. (Although on this point the Charter does say that it is important to be honest and clear about your faith (and presumably lack thereof) where this is relevant to answers/discussions).

What I am asking the poster to clarify (at no stage did I say they have to, or should not post if they do not) is what basis they wish to have the discussion on - the basis of their actual, stated beliefs, or one within the boundaries of my beliefs, whereby they would need to accept as a given certain things they fundamentally do not believe.

Really, this was a quite straightforward question, I do not understand your objection. If you and I were discussing Christianity face to face and you asked a question I would not insult you by presuming that you are automatically taken as given the truthfulness of a whole myriad of things you have given great thought to and rejected. We would clarify the basis of discussion first and proceed from there. You might well say to me "suppose I were a Christian, how does x work".

Now it may well be that the basis of discussion is already set by virtue of the particular forum, but I am not clear on this so you might explain this to me... am I to take it that if an atheist (or a Muslim, or a Jew or whomever) asks a question it should be immediately understood that this question should be answered as if this person were a Christian, with no reference to their actual beliefs and with no attempt to be made to clarify what basis they want to have the discussion? And if the poster subsequently deviates from this pretense (i.e. Christian perspective) by saying they don't believe it to report the post? This would certainly make things clearer, but would seem an unreasonable imposition on non-Christians.

Or is it the way I worded my question that is the issue (or something like that)?

I would appreciate some clarity here, as I do not want to be taking up time (both yours and mine) unnecessarily.

smacl wrote: »

You should properly respond to any post based solely on its content, not who has made that post nor on your assumptions of how their beliefs or lack thereof might impact on what they have said or their understanding of the subject matter. So for example, while Looksee may no longer be a practising Christian that does not imply they're not as knowledgeable on the subject as anyone else here, having practised for more years than many.

At no stage did I say or imply that anyone was not as knowledgeable as anyone else? One's level of understanding of something does not necessarily bear any relation to whether they believe it is true. But whether they believe it to be true most definitely has a bearing on how people can discuss it, and where to start.

When someone talks about Christianity who is not a Christian, you can assume it refers to their understanding of Christianity and it teachings. Your repeated suggestion that there is any pretense taking place is both unfounded and uncivil.

Is their understanding of Christianity (if they are an atheist for example) not that it is untrue? For someone with this understanding I would not expect any discussion or answer starting with the fall of man to satisfy them.

I did not suggest that there was any pretense, I asked the poster if one should be adopted for the purposes of discussion, this is altogether different and, I would think, quite normal in discussions of this type.

I hope this clears it up for you.

So if someone (lets say you seen as we are the ones talking) asks a question about Christianity, lets stick with "Was the Crucifixion of Jesus Inevitable" I should discount my knowledge of your position on the religious question, and take it as default that you are asking this question within the Christian "sphere" (i.e. tacitly accepting for the purposes of discussion that Christ exists, God exists etc.) and answer accordingly?

Thank you for taking the time to get to the bottom of this. I would say at this point that it appears you have interpreted my question to Locksee as being in some way insulting, it was intended as the opposite, to respect their well thought out and considered position - to precisely not make any assumption about their beliefs but rather to clarify how they wished to proceed. I mean, if I just proceeded and engaged as if they believed a bunch of things that they have said before that they don't, by giving an answer that makes sense within my belief system but not theirs, without first asking if this is how they wanted to proceed, I mean, that would be disrespectful and insulting. I try not to treat users on forums as faceless entities met anew with each post, but rather as the individual human beings they are; whereby over time through discussions we get to know each other and thus have more informed, productive discussions within a community. Perhaps this approach is misadvised, but it always appealed to me, never moreso than during the pandemic.

It seems despite my sincere efforts, my words have been interpreted - perhaps because of my own failings - in the worst possible light My apologies to Locksee if she felt insulted, it was not my intent.

smacl wrote: »

I have deleted a bunch of covid restrictions posts from the church buildings thread. Given the covid thread has been locked, please consider covid related discussion currently off topic for this forum. Boards has an excellent and detailed Covid-19 should you wish to discuss this topic in depth.

That's some champion censorship of discussion of probably the most significant thing to happen to faith communities in Ireland in centuries. I had thought the point of this forum is to discuss things from a Christian point of view, something which is impossible in the forum you suggest.

looksee wrote: »

If it had been a discussion that might be a valid point, however it was just repetition of one point of view with any alternate opinion, even Christian opinion, being dismissed as being in some way irrelevant, or with a refusal to engage. It had descended into soapboxing, personal abuse, promotion of illegal activity and rules lawyering.

Threads are often closed on Boards when a topic has been discussed to no conclusion, this is not unusual. The grouping of topics is also normal practise. Throughout Boards it is accepted that, unless a thread has been specifically marked to the contrary, all and any posters may contribute, provided they post within the Charter.

There is a specifically Covid related thread here on the topic and in this forum.

Will you lock that thread too if I discuss the latest developments such as the Gardaí interrupting a Mass, and the related response, or suggested response to it? Or the responses of many of the faithful such as the various rosaries outside churches and comments from international religious leaders?

Or discuss the comments from the church in general about imminent reopening?

If I start a new thread about the last point above will it be locked?

This should be clarified, as Smacl says any Covid related discussion is off topic in the forum entirely (and presumably will result in further censorship).

That's very cool, I didn't know there was such a directory, very handy. Thanks for this, I think it is a fair compromise all round. Taoiseach has promised the Bishops that Mass will be allowed from the start of May so hopefully the ban on worship will come to an end soon in any case.

CAB is the Criminal Assets Bureau btw! I hope we can all agree they should not be involved here

One last piece of further context, from the initial post I made that you took issue with I said the following: (emphasis added)

Where is the expertise that demonstrates that confirmations or baptisms are more dangerous than say, thousands attending a GAA double header? Or hundreds a regular sporting event? The same kids can meet up for GAA matches and training with parents watching and there is no issue, but if a sacrament is involved it's deadly? How does this make sense?

If it is not the law it should be roundly ignored, if it is made law it should be challenged in court and priests should act in accordance with their conscience.

This is the context. For the removal of any doubt, GAA matches and training are outdoor events. So the exact same scenario (outdoors, less that 100) without the sacrament is fine, but with it, is against the guidance. As per your own post here, while it is against the guidance, it is not illegal. They are not the same thing. I did not advocate illegal activity, by your own post. Indeed, I said it should be taken to court if it was illegal, or ignored if not. You may object to saying guidance should be ignored, which as I said is fair enough, but that is miles away from advocating illegal activity. Hence my proposed compromise language.

And from a previous comment of mine again:

There is no reason why confirmations cannot be held with sufficient precautions, outdoors if needs be. They should offer two ceremonies, one now, and one later in the year for those who don't feel comfortable now or want to wait for pubs etc to be open to 'enjoy' it as a social occasion. If anything, it makes more sense to have the ceremonies when people cannot book function rooms, pack into restaurants etc.

The church had to up the pressure to defend the Mass earlier in the year and successfully got that over the line. They have to do the same here.

Important to note however that the alleged prohibition on confirmation, communions and (for the first time) baptisms are merely guidelines with no basis in law for the time being. Any "breach" of these, or support of same is not a breach or support of the breaking of any law. The Gardaí exceeded their authority previously in enforcing a non-existent ban on the Mass and harassed and intimidated that priest in Cavan, so people won't fall for that tactic twice, nor is it fair to put Gardai in that position by telling them something is a law when it isn't.

Of course, should these "guidelines" be made law, that does make a material difference.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=117552699&postcount=149

Come on guys. One moderator asks for specific legal reference/refutation, and when I give it the other says it is a soapboxing, rules lawyering monologue. How is this fair. It is clear it needs to be escalated so there is no more for me to say here, so lets wait and see.