Posted by Lou Pilder on December 8, 2013, at 16:17:21
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on December 8, 2013, at 15:28:44
> > As to if readers could know why you and those former deputies did not post otherwise for years, readers could still have to speculate about the reason for that.
> > But be it as it may be, that is another aspect of all of this, so if you post your proposed post in that thread, it could be better for Jews and Islamic people and ... others ... For people then could see that originally the post was something that was not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and so others might not post the same thing or anything analogous to it after you post your proposed post there.
>
> Thanks, I appreciate your willingness to compromise. And your devotion to civility.
>
> --
>
> > let us go on to the another post. This is the one that says something like:
> > [...One of the top ten worst reasons for organized religion ia if they have their agenda not centered in Chrsit...]
> > I am looking for in this case, that you could post to show that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and it is not in accordance with your rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths.
>
> I think you mean this statement in this post:
>
> > > top 10 worst reasons for organized religion:
> > > 5. to foster any agenda that is not centered in Christ
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20040729/msgs/378930.html
>
> I propose I post to that thread something like:
>
> > The above could be read as saying an agenda not centered in Christ is a bad reason for an organized religion. It would've been more civil to say:
> >
> > > top 10 worst reasons for organized religion:
> > > 5. to foster any agenda that is not centered in Christ or other scripture
> >
> > Follow-ups regarding this should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. Thanks.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
We are using a two-part test:
1. Does the remedial action tell readers that the original statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community. 2. Does the remedial statement show that the original statement puts down those of other faiths.
Let us examine your proposal to see.
The above says that a subset of readers could read the original statement as,[... an agenda not centered in Christ is a bad reason for an organized religion...]I would be more civil to say....
Now that does show that the original statement does not pass the muster for being in accordance with the rules for your use of {a bad reason} could show that the statement is not supportive.
Let us look further at your proposal that says:
[...to foster an agenda that is not centered in Christ or other scripture...]
In your statement there, the question becomes how could a subset of readers think about that?
The question becomes as to if there are {organized religions} that do not have scripture at all. And then if there are organized religions that have scripture, that also use other means to arrive at there agenda that could contradict scripture of theirs. If so, then those religions would still be put down by reading your proposed remediation, could they not? For they say that scripture is not the only basis for establishing doctrine, or that the scripture of other groups has counterfeited passages.
I do not see your proposal in that respect to eliminate a subset of readers from seeing that also as a statement that could put down those of other faiths.
Here is my proposal. Just leave the second part out and say something like:
[...The statement does not reflect the posting policies here for we do not condone statements that categorize one faith to be better than another...].
Lou Pilder
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:1050116
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1055732.html