A specific proposal for a rule change re charity to atheists and non-believers

[Rainaldo]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

... 3. Messages should be short. Do not post lengthy replies (including replies that consist largely of quotes from an earlier message). ...

I think this should be rule number one for the whole website

[sw85]

Faithful and orthodox Catholics are routinely banned for being "uncharitable" toward heretics, atheists, and people of other faiths. CAF's rules are already so stringent that they would have banned several Catholic saints. What more could an atheist possibly ask for?

[Fiasco]

saveusfromhell:
sorry for ignoring your suggestion, but these two had to be responded to:

Originally Posted by Rainaldo

I think this should be rule number one for the whole website

Dead right!
Dozens of lines are often quoted when only a few words are actually required. Some posters may not know how to edit quotes? Hardly likely.

Originally Posted by sw85

Faithful and orthodox Catholics are routinely banned for being "uncharitable" toward heretics, atheists, and people of other faiths. CAF's rules are already so stringent that they would have banned several Catholic saints.

"......several Catholic saints." Including Saint Nicholas? If only GK Chesterton could return!
i`m glad you have the intestinal fortutude to say that. i agree totally.

What more could an atheist possibly ask for?

How about instant banning of any believer who challenges an atheist/agnostic.

[Hokomai]

Originally Posted by sw85

Faithful and orthodox Catholics are routinely banned for being "uncharitable" toward heretics, atheists, and people of other faiths. CAF's rules are already so stringent that they would have banned several Catholic saints. What more could an atheist possibly ask for?

I am not asking for anyone to be banned. I am proposing a change to the rules to ensure they are quite clear in covering everyone.

[Lochias]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

I am not asking for anyone to be banned. I am proposing a change to the rules to ensure they are quite clear in covering everyone.

They already are.

[Leegal]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

I was indeed a Catholic. I would be interested to know which of my posts you have seen in the way you describe, so I can understand better the effect my words have. I have no interest in creating the impressions you mention, and am worried to hear that it has been your experience.

I found this one to be snarky, and I only looked quickly. It's one thing to disagree; it's quite another to use saracasm to misrepresent our beliefs.

http://forums.catholic.com/showpost....92&postcount=4

Oh, in answer to the question on babies -- we don't know what happens to babies. We know that God is Love and trust that He understands, better than we do, that babies are a special case -- as are the mentally ill. That answer shows scorn for us and a misrepresentation of our belief.

If you expect to be treated with deference, then you might want to rethink the sarcasm that misrepresents our beliefs when you post. Afterall, this is a Catholic site to begin with so, you might be reminded so it's not likely you will find much agreement to begin with.

You are already covered by the rules as many have pointed out already.

God Bless.

[Sailor Kenshin]

I thought they shut this thread down already.

Demands from special interest groups = censorship. That's how free speech was killed.

[robwar]

In careful reading of the rules and this proposal, I tend to agree that the current rules cover everyone, Catholic or not. It is just a good reminder about civility in disagreements with others. I would hope the OP would reconsider and return to faith. It is sometimes difficult to divide discussions about ideas and beliefs we disagree with from being uncivil to persons who may support and believe in something else. Again I would rather see OP return to faith.

[Michael Francis]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

Michael, can you tell me please where in the present rules it is 'quite clear' that

• non-Catholics must be respectful of people other than Catholics
• Catholics must be respectful of non-Catholic people as distinct from 'belief and practice
• all must be respectful of those who express no belief

I specifically address these in my OP.


In addition to the lack of clarity in the rules, a review of threads about atheism will show that, even if the rules are clear, the outcomes for believers and non believers (and for that matter Jews, Muslims and JWs and Catholics) are different. Does CAF ever conduct formal reviews of such things, based on evidence?



Thank you

Atheism falls under the non-Catholic belief and practice. If anyone...is posting about other members as opposed to their respective beliefs and practices, then that post needs reporting and we mods will certainly deal with it.

Sticky: Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads

One reason that there is a current ban in place on Atheism is because of the persistent train wreck of virtually every thread that comes along about it. It seems that neither side of the topic can rationally, calmly, and respectfully dialog on it and the staff & admins have decided it's not worth the amount of time and hassle it take us mods to police them.

I am in no hurry to see their return, as I have seen the problems up close and personal.

Atheists are as welcome here at CAF as Catholics are and the same rules apply to all alike.

I think there are far too many rash assumptions made by people on both sides about the people on the other side.

Based upon the rules & guidelines as they stand, if one feels a rule has been broken they need only submit a complaint (), citing the specific rules/guidelines violated and we mods'll be all over it.

[Hokomai]

Michael, thank you for re-opening this thread, and for your assurance that atheists are as welcome on CAF as Catholics.

But is there nothing in my last post to which you feel able to respond?

Thank you

Originally Posted by Michael Francis

Atheism falls under the non-Catholic belief and practice. If anyone...is posting about other members as opposed to their respective beliefs and practices, then that post needs reporting and we mods will certainly deal with it.

Sticky: Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads

One reason that there is a current ban in place on Atheism is because of the persistent train wreck of virtually every thread that comes along about it. It seems that neither side of the topic can rationally, calmly, and respectfully dialog on it and the staff & admins have decided it's not worth the amount of time and hassle it take us mods to police them.

I am in no hurry to see their return, as I have seen the problems up close and personal.

Atheists are as welcome here at CAF as Catholics are and the same rules apply to all alike.

I think there are far too many rash assumptions made by people on both sides about the people on the other side.

Based upon the rules & guidelines as they stand, if one feels a rule has been broken they need only submit a complaint (), citing the specific rules/guidelines violated and we mods'll be all over it.

[saveusfromhell]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

Michael, thank you for re-opening this thread, and for your assurance that atheists are as welcome on CAF as Catholics.

But is there nothing in my last post to which you feel able to respond?

Thank you

why hokami did you leave out the second part of the moderators sentence

Atheists are as welcome here at CAF as Catholics are and the same rules apply to all alike

why are you still trying to potray that atheists are discriminated against here. no matter what the mods says.

[Hokomai]

Originally Posted by saveusfromhell

why hokami did you leave out the second part of the moderators sentence
why are you still trying to potray that atheists are discriminated against here. no matter what the mods says.

As the OP for this thread I attempted to put the issues as I saw them on an objective basis by making a highly specific proposal for a rule change. Since then, a moderator has offered me very welcome assurances that all will be treated alike. I have not disputed this by referring to events in the past, as I am looking to the future. But I have asked, further, for an explanation of exactly how the present rules provide the equality of treatment supported by the moderators. I have done this because I cannot read the rules as clearly providing this, and also because I know how important words and their meaning are to Catholics. I still hope to engage on the issue of whether the rules as I propose them, and the present rules, better provide for equality of treatment for all who are welcome here. I hope this goes some way to answering your question.

[saveusfromhell]

In addition to the lack of clarity in the rules, a review of threads about atheism will show that, even if the rules are clear, the outcomes for believers and non believers (and for that matter Jews, Muslims and JWs and Catholics) are different. Does CAF ever conduct formal reviews of such things, based on evidence

.

I have not disputed this by referring to events in the past, as I am looking to the future. But I have asked, further, for an explanation of exactly how the present rules provide the equality of treatment supported by the moderators

you say you don't dispute this, then you infer it has happened before, you want to know what stops it from happening again, trying to make a distinction between moderators and rules as though not one in the same


seems again you want a rule to quote to moderator to put them in their place when they don't give atheists special treatment. as moderator has clearly stated your interpretation of rules is wrong. your being dishonest everytime you try and claim everyone not covered by rules.
the moderators write the rules adjudicate on rules, why would they need you to tell them they don't understand the rules as they stand

[Hokomai]

Originally Posted by saveusfromhell

seems again you want a rule to quote to moderator to put them in their place when they don't give atheists special treatment. as moderator has clearly stated your interpretation of rules is wrong. your being dishonest everytime you try and claim everyone not covered by rules.
the moderators write the rules adjudicate on rules, why would they need you to tell them they don't understand the rules as they stand

For avoidance of doubt: this is of course not my opinion of the moderators or their actions. Saveusfromhell: I appreciate that from your point of view I may appear to be dishonest, but please consider the possibility that I am sincere in what I say, and, from your point of view, merely misguided, or slow to understand.

[saveusfromhell]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

For avoidance of doubt: this is of course not my opinion of the moderators or their actions. Saveusfromhell: I appreciate that from your point of view I may appear to be dishonest, but please consider the possibility that I am sincere in what I say, and, from your point of view, merely misguided, or slow to understand.

let me be very clear what i'm saying to you. the moderator has posted 3 times to you between this thread and last that you are covered by rules but you continously repeat your assertion in various ways that your not.

better provide for equality of treatment for all who are welcome here

this infers that moderator does not apply same rules to everyone as quoted below from moderators last post

same rules apply to all

by this your calling into question integrity of the moderators