Goodbye Perhaps?

[Spice]

It doesn't make sense.

For instance, I'm also on two fora dedicated to discussing the Jack the Ripper crimes. 90% of it is devoted to JTR, as that is the aim of the forum.

There are miscellaneous subfora, and these make up 10% of the discussion.

As it should be.

This is not an 'everything' discussion board. It has a focus.

Huge difference between what it's suppose to be and what it is. There are a tremendous amount of threads that have nothing to do with religious topics. I have absolutely no problem with that, but let's clean the lens.

 

[Alien826]

Wanting to ignore Religion on Religious Forums is really bizarre, though.

This is not an 'everything' discussion board. It has a focus.

Interesting. To your first remark, it was intended as an example that would demonstrate that all options would be open, however unlikely.

To your second remark, I'm not sure I agree. Things change. It may have originally been intended as a "religion only" or "mainly religion" site (anyone been around long enough to know?), but I don't see it as that now. The very fact that there are many areas that relate to non-religious subjects seems to suggest to a new comer, for example, that these subjects are available to all.

I actually came here from a site that I had spent some time on years back. It was very much like RF is now and I enjoyed it a lot. Later I went back and found that it had become totally right wing Christian and right wing political. The few non-religious people still there were hanging on grimly. It was a really uncomfortable place to be for those that were not in the first two categories. I really hope that the staff, when deliberating on this, will give due weight to diversity for its own sake.

Added: I agree that some forums are and should be restricted to a given subject. If it's about stamp collecting, that should be the main thrust. I just don't want to see RF become so limited.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

...
This is not an 'everything' discussion board. ...

Would you prefer that those of us active in the non-religion forums leave?

 

[Rival]

Would you prefer that those of us active in the non-religion forums leave?

I would prefer the tone to be 90% religious discussion and 10% other, as the forum was originally designed.

 

[Secret Chief]

This forum is largely liberal and most of the people saying they don't want to discuss politics are conservatives. From the poll it seems those who want to discuss it are liberals. Logically that means such a forum would only be used by the liberals who say they want it.

Not seeing a problem with that?

I see plenty of political opinions on here that are distinctly rightwing/reactionary. I wouldn't expect an echo chamber at all.

 

[Spice]

I would prefer the tone to be 90% religious discussion and 10% other, as the forum was originally designed.

This is a screen shot of activity a few moments ago.
1 of 8 religious
3 of 8 North American Politics
4 of 8 "other" non-religious.
50% not meeting the preferred nor noted issue category

Sorry, but analysis I guess is still in my blood years after retirement. LOL And still without using algorithms!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I would prefer the tone to be 90% religious discussion and 10% other, as the forum was originally designed.

And how do you define "religious discussion?"

For example, isn't it true that the Southern Baptist Convention has just voted for a resolution opposing in-vitro fertilization (IVF) at its recent convention? One might be glad that they voted down a motion that only men could be pastors, but only narrowly (actually, 61% voted that women shouldn't be pastors, but they needed 2/3 majority. That's pretty sad.) Are these about religion, or are they about medicine and gender? Or, perhaps not medicine, but actually politics, since stopping IVF would involve making laws respecting what people can and can not do with their bodies and in their efforts to have children?

Does religion play no part, do you think, in the animosities in the Middle East, or in the America's unyielding support for Israel?

Religion weasles its way into every aspect of human life, including food, dress, the arts, politics, international relations, science, whether or not we should make an effort to save our planet (and thus ourselves), whether we should have tatoos, or if people who are naturally "different" ought to be killed, imprisoned or just shunned.

Much of the knives out nature of American politics today is the result of religious ideologies attempting to force themselves on the body politic, viz. Christian Nationalism.

As Christopher Hitchens says, "There are four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum of servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking."

That is how religion meddles in absolutely everything, and sadly often to the detriment of millions of people. Religion, because it believes itself inerrant without the necessity of proof, insists on its right to impose itself on everyone, whether they happen to be believers or not. "Our religion doesn't believe in same-sex marriage, so nobody, not even atheists, should be able to marry a same-sex partner." Is that a religious statement or a political one or a social one?

 

[Secret Chief]

This is not an 'everything' discussion board.

That's right. I just checked on the front page. RF offers folk the opportunity to discuss "Everything but the kitchen sink."

So, no discussions about the kitchen sink folks - wrong forum!

 

[Secret Chief]

I would prefer the tone to be 90% religious discussion and 10% other, as the forum was originally designed.

Things change.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That's right. I just checked on the front page. RF offers folk the opportunity to discuss "Everything but the kitchen sink."

So, no discussions about the kitchen sink folks - wrong forum!

RF also offers "Private Forums" which include groups like:

- Eros Room (for discussion of erotica and human sexuality)
- Rainbow Room (for LGBTQ+ folks and straight allies)
- Survivors Circle (for those dealing with or surviving serious health conditions)

Are those "religious" in nature?

 

[libre]

RF also offers "Private Forums" which include groups like:

- Eros Room (for discussion of erotica and human sexuality)
- Rainbow Room (for LGBTQ+ folks and straight allies)
- Survivors Circle (for those dealing with or surviving serious health conditions)

Are those "religious" in nature?

How does one gain access to such?
It would be refreshing to have conversations about LGBT issues without having to rehash the usual ABCs.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

How does one gain access to such?
It would be refreshing to have conversations about LGBT issues without having to rehash the usual ABCs.

Did You Know We Have Private Forums?

Greetings Wonderful People of RF, Did you know that we have a set of "hidden" forums called Private Forums? These forums are for, you guessed it, private discussions between members of that group only. Each of them, and the threads within them, are only visible to the members of that specific...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[ChristineM]

How does one gain access to such?
It would be refreshing to have conversations about LGBT issues without having to rehash the usual ABCs.

Send a pm to a mod requesting access to your chosen forum

 

[Secret Chief]

RF also offers "Private Forums" which include groups like:

- Eros Room (for discussion of erotica and human sexuality)
- Rainbow Room (for LGBTQ+ folks and straight allies)
- Survivors Circle (for those dealing with or surviving serious health conditions)

Are those "religious" in nature?

I would like to see some other "Private Forums" added, to reduce the tedium:

- Evolution isn't Real Circle
- Sex and Gender are the Same Thing Group
- Climate Change Deniers Cabal

 

[Rival]

And how do you define "religious discussion?"

For example, isn't it true that the Southern Baptist Convention has just voted for a resolution opposing in-vitro fertilization (IVF) at its recent convention? One might be glad that they voted down a motion that only men could be pastors, but only narrowly (actually, 61% voted that women shouldn't be pastors, but they needed 2/3 majority. That's pretty sad.) Are these about religion, or are they about medicine and gender? Or, perhaps not medicine, but actually politics, since stopping IVF would involve making laws respecting what people can and can not do with their bodies and in their efforts to have children?

Does religion play no part, do you think, in the animosities in the Middle East, or in the America's unyielding support for Israel?

Religion weasles its way into every aspect of human life, including food, dress, the arts, politics, international relations, science, whether or not we should make an effort to save our planet (and thus ourselves), whether we should have tatoos, or if people who are naturally "different" ought to be killed, imprisoned or just shunned.

Much of the knives out nature of American politics today is the result of religious ideologies attempting to force themselves on the body politic, viz. Christian Nationalism.

As Christopher Hitchens says, "There are four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum of servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking."

That is how religion meddles in absolutely everything, and sadly often to the detriment of millions of people. Religion, because it believes itself inerrant without the necessity of proof, insists on its right to impose itself on everyone, whether they happen to be believers or not. "Our religion doesn't believe in same-sex marriage, so nobody, not even atheists, should be able to marry a same-sex partner." Is that a religious statement or a political one or a social one?

Yes, but one can discuss this in theological rather than political ways. It is fairly straightforward.

People make them political issues.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I see plenty of political opinions on here that are distinctly rightwing/reactionary. I wouldn't expect an echo chamber at all.

Who are we kidding here? Save a few conservative participants, the political forums are largely a liberal playground.

 

[Rival]

RF also offers "Private Forums" which include groups like:

- Eros Room (for discussion of erotica and human sexuality)
- Rainbow Room (for LGBTQ+ folks and straight allies)
- Survivors Circle (for those dealing with or surviving serious health conditions)

Are those "religious" in nature?

They should be part of the 10% discussion.

I'm not sure why folks aren't getting this?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I would prefer the tone to be 90% religious discussion and 10% other, as the forum was originally designed.

I've been here for a long time and somehow don't recall those good old days.

Perhaps there's another way of looking at it. Perhaps appreciation for the multiplicity of forums is one of the main things that has sustained RF over the years. That might suggest that folks like you have been well served by folks like me.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Things change.

Absolutely, but not all changes are positive. Some changes may result in departure of those who sign up for the forum to preach their religion to others participate exclusively in religious discourse.

 

[Rival]

I've been here for a long time and somehow don't recall those good old days.

Perhaps there's another way of looking at it. Perhaps appreciation for the multiplicity of forums is one of the main things that has sustained RF over the years. That might suggest that folks like you have been well served by folks like me.

I said designed. Not actually used.

I mean, look, you've seen the poll results on the other thread. A majority want fewer such threads to none. I'm not alone here.