The Religion word

[Hud955]

HollyHead wrote:

Has it not struck anyone that McD and Circle City Bob (and their like)  practiced their own form of "censoring"?They repeated their "objections" ad bloody nauseum. They asked the same questions over and over despite having long and detailed answers. As a result they discouraged the genuine enquirer and caused subscribers to the WSM Forum to leave.In effect our efforts were censored just as effectively as the shouting down of a speaker at a public meeting.

Hi HH, yes I think it struck pretty much everyone who saw what was going on very forcibly.  Quite a number of our own members simply stopped posting or even visiting the WSM site and active visitor numbers dropped.  But because of our deep-seated reluctance to ban anyone, we let the situation drag on for years.  Eventually it got to the stage where the talk was of closing down the forum, and some action had to be taken if we were going to save it.  Just at that time a new moderator was nominated and voted in.  He took a tougher line, and if his reasons for banning Bob and McDonah were as Robin states, then he possibly banned them for the wrong reason, though we need to understand first what he meant by saying that it was not acceptable to attack the party.  If he meant that it was not acceptable to argue against the party case, then, in my view, and I'm sure party members would agree with this, that's not a valid reason. Discussion and debate are what we are all about.  But first we need to understand what his intentions were.  It seems unlikely that he meant to suggest this since he is, of course, aware of our traditions and has not to my knowledge banned others for arguing against us.When we opened this forum there was a great deal of heartsearching and discussion about the issue of moderation and censorship but a general consensus emerged that, though there was no possible way we would want to stifle debate, we couldn't let the same thing happen again here. When Bob turned up on the new site posting the same old stuff he was immediately moved out of the general discussion section and into another.  I think at the time there was talk of disposing of his post after a certain period.  I'm personally uncomfortable with that.  In his own thread, he won't have the opportunity to block (or, as you say, effectively censor) other discussion on this site as he could so easily on the other, so I would be quite happy to let him repeat himself ad nauseam there for as long as he likes – if anyone is prepared to listen to him. Our decision to moderate the new site more strongly but without censoring valid contributions to the debate produced a situation we hadn't had to deal with before.  Despite the party's venerable age, this move is a new one for us and we – and no doubt the moderator – are still getting to grips with it.  Historically, we were very inconsistent in enforcing the rules on the WSm forum, and that worked after a fashion because we permitted a free for all and enforced them so rarely.  So, while acknowleging the strength of feeling that this has generated and the perfectly natural concern for a fair outcome, can I make a plea for everyone to give the moderator a break.  I don't want to make any kind of premature judgement now, in case anyone takes this complaint further (and I really hope someone does, so we have the opportunity to look at what has happened and learn from it). Whether the moderator has treated people fairly or not and in line with general guidelines and the spirit of party democracy can only be established objectively away from the forum.  Then, whatever the conclusion, we need to strengthen the guidelines or at least our practice so that everyone is treated fairly and consistently in future, without jepordising the open and democratic purpose of the forum.  Yours for socialismRichard 

[Anonymous]

[quote-alanjjohnstone]I'll go with option 3, too, socialist punk

HollyHead wrote:

No. The Administrators decision should stand.Reverse it this time and  every future decision will result in an endless arguing of the toss.The complaints procedure has been outlined. Those suspended (not banned please note) can use it if they wish.

[/quote]Absolutely right HH.  And moderators from other forums should look after their own affairs.  After all, we wouldn't be telling them what to do, now would we?

[steve colborn]

No bridge building, no consensus making, on  and on and on yada, yada, yada. We are brothers and sisters in the fight for Socialism, for a better world, aren't we? Lets get to that business, eh?

[ALB]

I entirely agree that moderators should be allowed to moderate. In this case a technical error appears to have occurred (somebody's been given two final warnings). It's up to the moderator to decide how to correct it. But it does have to be corrected. Let's see what he decides.

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

I entirely agree that moderators should be allowed to moderate. In this case a technical error appears to have occurred (somebody's been given two final warnings). It's up to the moderator to decide how to correct it. But it does have to be corrected. Let's see what he decides.

Then I suggest a formal complaint be lodged through the appropriate channels as has been repeated ad nauseum instead of everyone talking about it endlessly on this and other threads.  It really is incredibly boring and off-putting to those folk visiting the forum but nobody seems to be the slightest bit concerned about that.  We certainly can't have petulant kindergarten tantrums every time someone gets suspended.  It may be mildly injurious to the individual's pride but it doesn't inflict any permanent damage.

[ALB]

OK, but it is not a question of a "complaint" (even less of a tantrum) but only of pointing out that an error has occurred. I have now pointed this out "formally" as you suggest.

[PJShannon]

MODERATION NOTICEFollowing a formal complaint to the moderator, user 'Ed' has been suspended for 7 days. Personal abuse or insinuation will not be tolerated.The users account will be re-activated on the 21st October

[steve colborn]

gnome wrote:

" It really is incredibly boring and off-putting to those folk visiting the forum but nobody seems to be the slightest bit concerned about that. We certainly can't have petulant kindergarten tantrums every time someone gets suspended. It may be mildly injurious to the individual's pride but it doesn't inflict any permanent damage."

To whom, exactly, are you referring to when you talk of people having, "kindergarten tantrums" Gnome? Also, do you include yourself in the claim that, "nobody seems to be the slightest bit concerned about that." ?I ask this for clarification only. As it would be educational to know how wide you are spreading your net!By the way, defending a comrade, who one deems to be in "the right", is not throwing a kindergarten tantrum, if indeed your reference was made towards me! it is merely what one does when one sees an injustice, here, or in any facet of life. Could you please clarify?

[Hud955]

Before this goes any further, Steve and Dave, can I suggest that you agree to settle any further differences by personal message rather than taking up more space on the forum.  As I'm sure you both realise, it is a public space, not a private one, and personally I don't need to see the ongoing details of anyone's private disagreements.  (I can only speak for myself here, but I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this.)   Further public argument  will just keep hooking people back in when we really need to be turning attention to other issues. Once again, if anyone does have a grievance, or identifies an injustice then please take a deep breath, step back and take it up with the moderator.

[steve colborn]

Hud, I read what you are saying and have tried offering an olive branch before but how does one respond to comments like, "We certainly can't have petulant kindergarten tantrums every time someone gets suspended." I am a 50 year old male and will not be referred to in this way, by anyone, if indeed comrade Chesham was referring to me, which he has neither confirmed or denied.It is as if individuals need to have the last word. If no more "snide asides" are posted, as far as I'm concerned, the issue is closed.Cheers Hud : )

[ALB]

At the risk of re-igniting this boring subject that's been flogged to death, I can't help recording the views expressed in a speech on Wednesday by the new Archbishop of Canterbury (as reported in the Times yesterday);

Quote:

Religion has moved from being regarded as a matter of truth and authority to being seen as a "leisure activity" with grave possible consequences for society, the future Archbishop of Canterbury said last night …. he said that the change from "religion as truth" to "religion as lifestyle" was well documented…. Recalling his previous career with an oil company, Bishop Welby said: "One of my better memories of the oil industry was my boss saying at one point, when he asked what I was doing one weekend and I said I was going on a church weekend, 'Ah, fascinating, the different hobbies people have in this company.'"

I would say this is a good development that Archbishop Canute won't be able to turn back. In other words, the battle against "religion as truth" has been won.

[Tom Rogers]

ALB wrote:

At the risk of re-igniting this boring subject that's been flogged to death, I can't help recording the views expressed in a speech on Wednesday by the new Archbishop of Canterbury (as reported in the Times yesterday);

Quote:

Religion has moved from being regarded as a matter of truth and authority to being seen as a "leisure activity" with grave possible consequences for society, the future Archbishop of Canterbury said last night …. he said that the change from "religion as truth" to "religion as lifestyle" was well documented…. Recalling his previous career with an oil company, Bishop Welby said: "One of my better memories of the oil industry was my boss saying at one point, when he asked what I was doing one weekend and I said I was going on a church weekend, 'Ah, fascinating, the different hobbies people have in this company.'"

I would say this is a good development that Archbishop Canute won't be able to turn back. In other words, the battle against "religion as truth" has been won.

I recall Christopher Hitchens coined the term 'belief in belief' which sort of covers the "religion as leisure" idea.  But I think it's pretty widespread that people will adhere to, accept or co-opt beliefs they know not to be true for social or cultural reasons.  Although Archbishop Welby uses the term 'leisure', a word that has maybe slightly different connotations, I suspect that's what he really means.  In a slightly different germane, even Dawkins – a firm non-believer – has claimed to be a 'cultural Anglican'.Christopher Hitchens' brother, Peter Hitchens, is a very cogent apologist, but when you strip down his polemic it really boils down to an assertion that everyone else should participate in the Church (or some similar religion), not so much because its belief system is true (though Hitchens himself professes faith), but because it's a good thing for society.  In fact, if I've got this right, he once wrote words to the effect that people who do not believe in it should pretend to do so for entirely utilitarian reasons.Whether this is cause for optimism among socialists, I'm unsure.  I must admit, I am a bit of a 'cultural Anglican' myself in the sense that, while I am and always have been a strong atheist, I am also quite wedded to some of the civic, social and moral ideas of Christianity and I am enchanted by old churches.  Whenever I hear or read of some old church being converted into a block of apartments or a mosque, a part of me dies inside.  That doesn't prevent me recognising the backwardness of belief in the supernatural.  Is that a contradiction?  I wouldn't say so, but it is an inconsistency.

[SocialistPunk]

ALB wrote:

At the risk of re-igniting this boring subject that's been flogged to death, I can't help recording the views expressed in a speech on Wednesday by the new Archbishop of Canterbury (as reported in the Times yesterday);

I wonder if 6,800 hits on a subject can justify the use of the term "boring". I believe this topic often got several hundred hits in single days, on a number of occasions.If a subject that has and still does generate so much interest, is considered "boring" then I would suggest that mode of logic can be used to consider most of the other topics on this forum as, relegated to somewhere in the dead zone.Dismissal is unfortunately not quite the same as "Dealing with It!".

[Mike McDade]

I notice that this thread has been asleep a while, but I need to resurrect it to get some answers and guidance, please.

I have recently submitted my membership form to join SPGB and have attended a local branch. As far as I can tell my membership has been accepted, after I clarified a matter concerning people’s freedom of religion and spirituality being a personal matter. However, I am a little concerned that I may have missed something.

At this stage in my understanding (largely due to upbringing and life course), I have not been able to completely discount the claim that we were created. This may well be as a result of the gap in my knowledge, and I am working on it (!) having availed myself of all the information I can get my hands on. I simply do not have a wealth of knowledge for the argument of evolution.

Is my present point of view really not in line with what is need to join the SPGB? Because if it isn’t, I may have made a mistake.

[jondwhite]

This is called 'The March of Progress' and is the most famous scientific illustration.While it shouldn't be as linear (or deterministic) as depicted it is nevertheless useful looking backwards from the present to see the similarities to us from earlier creatures.An interesting article on it can be read here.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_of_Progress#Original_intent

[Author]

Posts