Psycho-Babble Administration | about the operation of this site | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou-C

Posted by Lou Pilder on March 22, 2007, at 7:55:03

In reply to Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou-B, posted by Lou Pilder on March 21, 2007, at 20:19:14

> > > > you write that you think that the statement is good, by the author prefacing it with {I believe}, I think that then there is the potential for members to think that the administration is approving the statement and that the approval is because it is {by adding the preface}
> > >
> > > But that is in fact one of the approved ways of posting religious beliefs here:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Dr. Hsiung,
> > You wrote,[ of the approved ways of expressing religious belief here...(is to preface it with {I believe}...]
> > That is one of the approved ways as long as the statement in question follows your other statement in the same post:
> > [...if the foundation of a faith {puts down} those of other faiths, its not in my view supportive...discussed elsewhere...].
> > Then in your other post titled [Re: guidlines and exceptions] for the faith board, you wrote on October 25, 2002 the following and I have not seen a change in your policy since then:
> > [...Yes. And it is fine to talk about {what you believe}-->as long as you don't |put down| other beliefs<...].
> > Your post and that statement by you is the second to the last paragraph in that post.
> > Then your last paragraph in that post is that [ to what I think will be good for the community as a whole...].
> > I feel put down when I read the statement in question because of the grammatical structure of the statement in question and the guideline here is that it is fine to post what you believe {as long as you don't >put down< those of other beliefs}. If I feel put down when I read the statement in question, because it could be IMO be interpreted to contrast a foundation of my faith, the law of Moses, with a foundation of a Christian belief with {but} and the use of {came by}. The statement brings in IMO a foundation of Jewdaism and a foundation of Christianity in contrast by the author's use of the law given by Moses. I feel put down when I read that contrast posted on a mental health forum that has the owner's guideline to not post what {could lead one of another faith to feel put down}. When two things are contrasted, and there is the potential for the contrast IMO to be interpreted as that one is lacking what the other is claiming to have, then that IMHO could lead those that do not accept the claimes of the one to feel put down.
> > Lou Pilder
> >
> > Dr. Hsiung,
> You wrote that one of the approved ways to post on the faith board is to preface with {I believe}.
> Looking at the example cited, we find that an acceptable statement is:
> [...I believe in the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost...]
> And in the same list of examples you write that it is fine to post what you belive as long as it does not put down those of another faith.
> I agree with you that the example of [..I believe in the Father...] is a civil statement. For it is only when, according to your TOS here, when the belief puts down one of another faith that the statement is uncivil. And I find no uncivilness with the statement that you give as an example. This is because the statement,[...I believe in the Father...] does not {put down} those of another faith in as much as if someone posted that they belived in their God that was different from the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost. The mission of the forum is for posts that are concerning the service and worship of God and different people could have different Gods and that is not uncivil here. Having a God that is different from amother's God is not uncivil here. Nor would it be considered here, according to what constitutes here what could put someone down, for someone to post that they believe in more than one God.
> I do not feel put down because someone is of a different faith than I. I believe in religious freedom. But it when the statement of belief puts down another faith, then that, according to your TOS, is not covered to be acceptable here by just prefacing the statement with {I believe}. If that was the case, one could post anything that could have the potential to put down those of another faith and preface it with {I belive} and it would be acceptable here, but you have posted that your idea of civility is that to you [... it does not matter if someone believes something--if it is uncivil, they shouldn't post it...]. And, [...if a belief puts down those of another faith it is not supportive...].
> A ststement of what a person believes puts down another faith by particular generally accepted criteria. One of those criteria has the potential to cause those of another faith to feel inferior when they read the particular statement. This is generally done historically by claiming superiority of their religion in some way toward another religion. The statement,[I believe in the Father...] I do not consider to invoke any superiority unless it is contrasted to another faith so that the other faith could be contrasted as lacking what the other faith claims to have.
> In the statement in question, the law of Moses, which the Jews cherish to them, is in contrast. That statement IMO has the potential to be considered to be different from someone posting that they [...believe in the Father...]. Believing [ the Father the Son ...] does not put down Jews or anyone else IMHO because one believes that, for to respect other's faiths here is part of the civilty code. It is when a statement could have the potential to be considered to not respect another's faith, then that IMO has the potential to be considered to put down those of that other faith.
> Another criteria for determining what could have the potential to lead one of a faith to feel put down is if { I would like to this one by email if anyone would like}
> Lou Pilder
Dr. Hsiung,
In regards to your statement here that one of the ways that a statement could be approved is to preface it with {I believe}, that is one of the ways as long as, according to your policy of civility here, it does not put down one of another faith.
This is further exemplified by you in that you posted on the opening page of the faith forum what Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote about Christians and that it said in some way (or belief) here. The statement was one that I objected to you about on the grounds that it could have the potential IMO to arrouse anti-Christian feelings and put down Christians. You agreed because you wrote that I has a rightfull objection and it was directly to the text and took it off the page and placed it in a table of contents that required one to click on a link to to see it. The overiding issue here is that what you cited from Rousseau's writings was in some way said by you as reflecting a belief or thinking here. Since you agreed that the statement about Christians was not acceptable, even though it had the potential for one here to think it was said to be in some way the belief here, it was placed in a manner so that one could not see it directly without clicking to another part of the page to a table of contents, even if it was a belief.
As to that it is one way to post something about your faith by prefacing it with {I believe}, that could also be understood in the light that you also have on the opening page of the faith forum that [...tolerance should be given ...>as long as<...(and one duty of citizenship is to be civil)...]. So I see that one way a faith could be posted in by prefacing it with {I believe} is that the statement prefaced is {tolerant} to other faiths and civil.
Then in your list of what is not acceptable here, you write that one can not post that[...]. It is understood IMO that if a faith-based group teaches somethng, that those that are members of that group IMO have the potential to generrally {believe} what is taught because it is a tenet of that group's faith. In other words, would it be required for one to say that they believe something if it is a tenet of the faith that the member is saying that they are members of? So I see in your example to use the preface {I believe} to have the potential IMO to mean that the person writing such is saying that they are a member of that faith that has that tenet ( or foundation of that faith) that they believe, and that I agree with you is indeed civil [as long as that tenet (or foundation) does not put down those of another faith as in your example of your agreeing in regards to the statement in question by you by Jean Jacques Rousseau.].
The statement from Jean Jacques Rousseau that had the potential IMO to arrouse anti-Christian feelings was taken off the direct text. I guess if we use that example as a precedent here, it could also be acceptble here to place the statement in question in a table of contents. But if you did that, could not also all other statements that have been notated as being uncivil here also be tranferred to a table of contents to be fair?
Lou PIlder

> >




Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post

Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.


Start a new thread

Google www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Administration | Framed

poster:Lou Pilder thread:737093