Arowner makes some good points I will certainly admit that.

He was one of the posters in GD that God used to make me consider my backslidden position. Had God not placed him and others there, perhaps I would still be doing as I was before.

I do appreciate a place to fellowship and edify one another while I also see the problem of the supression of truth in GD. Its a hard line to see as to what discussion should stay in GD and those to be moved here. I figure this is a secular site related to guns and not religion so its completely understandable that it would have a separate section.

I still see it as an opportunity by a Sovereign God and I feel it a shame to waste the opportunity. God is in control and what He wants He gets. I am positive His will is going to prevail here contrary to our opinions.

Quoted: I still see it as an opportunity by a Sovereign God and I feel it a shame to waste the opportunity. God is in control and what He wants He gets. I am positive His will is going to prevail here contrary to our opinions.

Let me begin by saying I have (thus far) complet and total confidence in the motives and desires of the staff here - that they DO NOT wish to ram the Christians into their corner.

That said -

NO ONE can EVER silence the Word of God. Many have tried. All have failed.

If that is their intention, they will fail.

I too look at this as an oppritunity given by God. I intend to seize upon it.

Did you read my original post???  Who said anything about my inability to defend my beliefs?  You completely miss my point.

The issue is censorship, making "religious" people go play in the corner so the rest of them can live their lives free from the influence of ideas they disagree with and cannot defend against. And it's mainly Christian beliefs that get segregated because Christian beliefs do not allow for compromise.
Folks that have a relativistic moral system cannot tolerate anyone telling them they are wrong, especially when the judgement is correct.


"go play in the corner so we can live our lives of lies and not have to face the conviction of truth"


Call me slow this A.M. you have a good point. Was not my point to slam anyone.

Quoted: We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.

That is a Deep Thought...

Quoted: Atheists interject thier relativistic religious values into any discussion anywhere, but those of the judeo-christian persuasion are told to "save it for the Religion forum"

Where do you see atheists interjecting their "religious values" (wtf?) into any discussion anywhere?

I haven't noticed it, so I'd like to see what posts you're talking about.

Jim

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Atheists interject thier relativistic religious values into any discussion anywhere, but those of the judeo-christian persuasion are told to "save it for the Religion forum" Where do you see atheists interjecting their "religious values" (wtf?) into any discussion anywhere? I haven't noticed it, so I'd like to see what posts you're talking about. Jim One of the beliefs that athiests hold to is moral relativism, that says that what's right or wrong depends upon the individual and/or the situation.  What's right for me is right for me and it is wrong for me to impose my morality on you. You decide what is right for you.

****Edited****<va-gunnut> thats your cardboard cutout version of an atheist

Saying someone is an atheist tells you NOTHING about their moral beliefs.  I'm an atheist and my values are much the same as any mainstream member of Christianity.  Atheism is amoral.

Do not lie
Do not cheat
Do not steal
Do not murder
Do not rape

I think those values are universal, not because God said so, but because they are common to many (if not all) religions.  Those values have nothing to do with my atheism, but everything to do with my belief system.  

That is far from moral relativism my friend.  

Every atheist I know is a moral universalist

I have never met anyone who is a moral relativist.  

You can make anyone appear to be a moral relativist by making amoral issues into moral issues and using it to attack others.

If I declare something ****Edited****<va-gunnut> like abstaining from pork  to be a moral issue, but you say "my beliefs don't require me to abstain from pork" does that make you a moral relativist?

Quoted: Quoted: I'm mostly referring to the ongoing texas-sig vs sgtar15 stuff that bleeds over into almost every thread in here, wether it is relevant or or not. Other than that, I agree...most of the pure trolling comes from a couple of people who are really just in here TO troll. Oh please!  This just shows how little you know! Him and I have GREAT arguements at times, but we also have solutions.  You don't see everything that goes on you know.  SOmetimes people communicate VIA IM also. SGat1r5

You're right, I don't see what happens via IM.  So I can only give my thoughts on what I DO see.  And I see a lot of bickering between the two of you in almost every thread.

But hey, if the two of you enjoy it, I'll just skip over those posts.

Quoted: So any question of "is this right?" will provoke two kinds of answers. 1. Atheists: well, I think it is right/wrong, but that's just my opinion, you decide for yourself. 2. Christians: that behavior is definitely right/wrong, and here's the reason why (ususally rooted in a direct or indirect reference to scripture, the record of the Creator's moral code) both are "religiously" held positions.  but only one gets labeled as such, and often gets dismissed as invalid, BECAUSE ONLY ATHEIST'S BELIEFS ARE WORTHWHILE

Hmm.  I'm not an atheist, but I do have opinions about right and wrong that are not based in scripture.  In fact, I can't think of any of my opinions of right and wrong that are based in scripture, though there are parallels between some of my opinions and some scripture.

So for me, discussing many issues of rightness or wrongness can be done without bringing religion into the discussion.  For another person who sees the vast majority of their concept of rightness and wrongness as directly defined by scripture, I can see where virtually no argument of right and wrong would be possible without reference to scripture and religious tenets.

This does not presume that my beliefs, supported by scripture or not, are more worthwhile than, say, your beliefs, if yours stem exclusively or mainly from scripture.  

Jim

Quoted: One appears to have a consistent and sustainable moral system, the other just appears to.

I know that doesn't read how you meant it, but it's amusing.

Quoted: A lot of things here are not black or white, so we are left to use our best judgement.

Would that be moderator relativism?

Quoted: We seem to be trying to "compartmentalize" religion apart from other topics. So I see the danger of this forum becoming the quarantine for "unapproved" arguments and perpetuating the nonsense that "religious" values have no influence outside their own little "box"

You were 100% right. I was  100 % wrong.

I now have the proof.

I guess my hope and optimism clouded my better judgment.

****Deleted****<va-gunnut>

****Deleted****<va-gunnut>

Quoted: To move such threads here is to CENSOR those that value the input of scripture and shove us over in the corner, so the "unreligious" humanists don't have to consider our arguments.  "Oh, that's not important.  That's just the religious whackos going at it again"  Do not try to marginalize those with views that conflict with yours- engage the argument with a better one.

I find it interesting that you find the creation of a forum expressly for Religious topics an attempt at marginalization.  Your selection of "religious whackos" as a descriptor (all on your own) is equally illuminating for anyone who's studied a bit of psychology.  Let's see how it sounds with other special interest groups:

"Just those Ammunition whackos again."
"Just those Woman Shooter whackos again."
"Just those Mod Only whackos again."
"Just those Hunting whackos again."
"Just those Survival whackos again."

Uh... ok maybe that last was a bad example.

Why is it that the Religion forum is the one that we are supposed to be shocked at this marginalization when none of the others seem to have the same issue?  Cloaking yourself in the blanket of a protected class works fine until you use that as a mandate to force feed others your rhetoric.

Perhaps your dislike of being shuffled into a focused forum is a subtle (even unwitting?) admission that it's no fun playing in the "religious fight" sandbox with the color of the moral high ground if you can't constantly introduce the topic of religion to an audience far more interested in, e.g., Ammunition?  Kind of steals the thunder of "converting the heathen" if the heathen can tune out easily, yes?

I'm just waiting for the horrifyingly ironic assertion that the founders meant "freedom of religion" not "freedom FROM religion."  Fortunately, someone here actually thinks atheism is religion so maybe that will skate by as the mandatory expression of religious orientation to be required from all posters on all topics.  (Until the ar15.com clerics declare that atheism isn't a proper religious expression).

What does this say about the "benign" nature of religious discussion, that it has to be forced upon the unwilling to succeed?  (Certainly most modern religious have viral like properties, like the requirement to witness or worship in fellowship or... etc.)  Or that religious rights are being infringed if it isn't given, by right, a wide voice into every aspect of life?

Well, let's explore that.  I don't think it holds up to even the most basic scrutiny.  Funny how the tables term when homosexuality is the "view that conflicts" and homosexuals are the supporters for "we're queer, we're here," "in your face" advocacy.  Suddenly it seems ok to have a separate forum, yes?  Can't have Will and Grace on television can we?  All kinds of laws separating or "marginalizing" these views are justified on the grounds that the "parents have a right" to shield their children from these views that conflict with theirs.  Could it be that a group on AR15.com actually wants it done "for the children"?  Gag!

So why isn't "it's just those homo whackos again" marginalization?

Why is their view to be cloistered when yours is to be spread far and wide to be shouted in the ears of even those who have a headache already?

One of the high principles of freedom of speech in this country is the ability to avoid speech you don't want to hear.  (It's generally enforced under nuisance law).  This includes not wasting time by being forced to "engage the argument with a better one."  Occasionally, I will, whatever the topic is, but to assert that there is something wrong with someone who doesn't "engage every argument with a better one" because they have something better to do than argue with people who have nothing better to do isn't really a strong position to be taking.  We don't permit bull horning into private residences at night except by consent.  Why do you think this is?

Is organized religion so small, so weak, so lacking in it's own identity and so unable to make a case for its ready and widespread adoption that it can only succeed, low budget, 30 second, used car commercial style, if pounded into our heads from every possible angle and snuck clandestinely into every possible topic complete with catchy jingle?

The great thing we can say here is: "Don't like the program?  Change the channel."

Looks like you want to take the batteries out of the clicker.  It doesn't get much more un-American than taking away a guy's clicker.  What's next, banning beer and the Rose Bowl?

Quoted: in my personal opinion..... Threads in GD were getting overrun by the religion issues. Almost no thread could go more than 2 pages with pagans bashing christians, or christains wanting to preach to the sinners. Preaching is fine.... in the proper context of a thread. A discussion of 9mmvs45 doesn't need to end up in a sunday sermon or scientology lesson. Members complain, things get done. mike

Then move the Colt vs Others threads in here too.  Those are about as religious as it gets!  

****Deleted****<va-gunnut>

Quoted: Quoted: ****Edited****<va-gunnut> thats your cardboard cutout version of an atheist Saying someone is an atheist tells you NOTHING about their moral beliefs.  I'm an atheist and my values are much the same as any mainstream member of Christianity.  Atheism is amoral. Do not lie Do not cheat Do not steal Do not murder Do not rape I think those values are universal, not because God said so, but because they are common to many (if not all) religions.  Those values have nothing to do with my atheism, but everything to do with my belief system.   That is far from moral relativism my friend.   No it's not, and we can get to the heart of the matter with one question.  You say you hold to the moral values stated above, WHY? your answer to that question provides the basis for my argument.   my argument is not what values we agree are moral, but WHY we hold those values as true.  An atheist can believe just the same about every moral issue as a christian, but the reasons why will be worlds apart, and when push comes to shove, somebody will crumble.  One appears to have a consistent and sustainable moral system, the other just appears to.

Your comparing apples and oranges, atheism is not a religion.  My religion is Unitarian Universalism.  My moral code is limited to actual moral issues.  

Some morals are universal, like the ones I mentioned above

Other morals are cultural, like eating pork (or dog, or horse), or attitudes toward homosexuallity.

Atheism doesn't provide a set of morals, if an atheist has morals (and the vast majority do) then they come from somewhere else.   Usually from a non-theistic belief system or a philosophy.        

When it comes right down to it the only thing stopping me from raping, killing, and stealing my way through life  is my own sense of right and wrong.   It comes down to faith on my part.  I don't know for sure that my morals are the right way to live and that living a good life is its own reward.  If I'm wrong, then I've lived a good life regardless, so I am satisfied with that.

Your faith is in God and that requires you to obey him.  My faith is the moral code I live by is universal to all human cultures and is the best way to live my life, regardless of the existence or non-existence of a God or Gods.   Its faith either way.

We could both be wrong and the Asatruists are right.  If that is the case we both lived our lives as we saw fit and we'll go wherever Christians and UU's go according to Asatru.

eta:  What is your view on non-theistic belief systems like some forms of Buddhism and Taoism.  They are religions with moral beliefs, but they don't believe in a personal God.  Do they have a consistent and sustainable moral system?  

Originally Posted By Dino with comments by MRW In Red eta:  What is your view on non-theistic belief systems like some forms of Buddhism and Taoism.  They are religions with moral beliefs, but they don't believe in a personal God.  Do they have a consistent and sustainable moral system?  No.  but that is another topic of discussion

thats all I needed to know actually, if you believe that then we don't have room for discussion

thanks for the discussion

Quoted: after your fist paragraph or two you babbled off into the realm of confusion.  I'll answer the only coherent point I can find.

Actually, my argument was rather well designed, if I don't say so myself, and I used logical constructs to form it.  I made a point of it.  I will buy that you had a hard time following (since your own line of argument has an issue distinguishing premises from conclusions) but, though English is my third language, still, I find it hard to imagine that it was really that poorly articulated.

I assumed you were familiar with the standard logical format of argument, i.e.:

Premise ->
Inference ->
Conclusion

...and its inductive and deductive forms.

Still... let me help with some translation.  I will even provide suggested rebuttals to my points.

Quoted: I find it interesting that you find the creation of a forum expressly for Religious topics an attempt at marginalization.

Translation:  I am going to challenge your conclusion that there is something wrong with a religious forum.

Your selection of "religious whackos" as a descriptor (all on your own) is equally illuminating for anyone who's studied a bit of psychology.

Translation: I believe you are suffering from something like an inferiority complex on the subject.

Logical Hint:  You could ask for more specifics on what theories of psychology I mean here, since I left it veiled.  The risk is that I will actually have a list of them and then you will be drawn into arguing those.  You might accuse me of making argumentum ad hominem here, but that would only have thin validity as my theory on the psychology here is central to some of the logical inconsistencies I bring up later.

Let's see how it sounds with other special interest groups: "Just those Ammunition whackos again." "Just those Woman Shooter whackos again." "Just those Mod Only whackos again." "Just those Hunting whackos again." "Just those Survival whackos again." Uh... ok maybe that last was a bad example.

Translation: You begin with the premise that having a separate group is an attempt to marginalize religious discussion.  Here are several examples of other focused forums here that don't have the complex you seem to and might tend to cast doubt on your premise.

Logical Argument Hint:  If you wanted to counter this you should have done it via attacking the analogies.  The best thing to try would be to assert that religion and religious discussion is more important in the "marketplace of ideas."  The problem is that you'd have a hard time making this assertion without diminishing pursuits others find interesting and therefore alienating yourself from your audience.  As with the psychology trap, I didn't box you in this way accidentally.  I also open the door for you to step in this "oops, I offended my listeners" bit later.  I'll show you were.

You actually took the bait here too with your reply:

"you are erroneously equating religious identity with other categories. None of those categories forms the philosophical basis for the others. Religion does, and therefore it is a separate consideration."

Now I would just attack your heavy handedness, your attempt to make religion a "protected class" somehow superior to the interests of, e.g., Woman Shooters.  (It wasn't accidental that I included them).

But then you step in it:

from here down you tend to have many words, but few logical and organized thoughts, so I don't know how to respond to them

You simply sidestep the argument, despite my excellent english and many solid points.  What happened to coming up with better arguments, rather than just evading viewpoints that run counter to your own?  See, you've really branded yourself a hypocrite now, as this was a major premise for your conclusion that people shouldn't try to "marginalize" other viewpoints.

This lends a lot of weight to my argument that your position is internally and externally inconsistent.

Why is it that the Religion forum is the one that we are supposed to be shocked at this marginalization when none of the others seem to have the same issue?  Cloaking yourself in the blanket of a protected class works fine until you use that as a mandate to force feed others your rhetoric.

Translation:  You use this premise, notwithstanding examples to the contrary, to assert that you are being marginalized and it seems silly.

Perhaps your dislike of being shuffled into a focused forum is a subtle (even unwitting?) admission that it's no fun playing in the "religious fight" sandbox with the color of the moral high ground if you can't constantly introduce the topic of religion to an audience far more interested in, e.g., Ammunition?  Kind of steals the thunder of "converting the heathen" if the heathen can tune out easily, yes?

Translation: Your marginalization complaint doesn't seem logical, given the other examples that exist, so perhaps there is another cause for your displeasure?  I opine that the cause might be that what is really important to you is to have a captive audience and that having lost it you are upset.

Logical Hint:  This is a toughie because it is a semi-extreme position of your actual point, that religious discussion should be allowed to bleed into all discussion.  You state it rather explicitly.  By painting you in this corner I force you to either renounce that position, or minimize it.  Either one makes you look like your flip-flopping.  You made this easy for me because your argument is not internally consistent.  It requires this very precise balance and depends on the audience ignoring the real meaning of freedom of religion and freedom of speech.  Generally the only way to accomplish this is to puff up the importance of the subject of the speech in question.  Religion tends to get a lot of puffing but here I've made it clear that your premise is at odds with other values held dear.

I'm just waiting for the horrifyingly ironic assertion that the founders meant "freedom of religion" not "freedom FROM religion."  Fortunately, someone here actually thinks atheism is religion so maybe that will skate by as the mandatory expression of religious orientation to be required from all posters on all topics.  (Until the ar15.com clerics declare that atheism isn't a proper religious expression).

Translation: We've seen this before, i.e. the insistence that religious speech is somehow more privileged than other speech and that no one should be free from hearing it.  We also see that when this happens the self-appointed guardians of what is "right" start redefining which religions are valid.  Hence, what started as open freedom for religion becomes freedom for "the correct religion" which is, of course, no freedom at all.

Logical Hint:  Your best course here would be to distinguish yourself from this rather nasty example to be compared with.  The problem is that if you do this you, again, have to backtrack and make some kind of assertion that you don't really want the right to inject religion into everything.  Problem is: You do.  Here again I invite you to alienate the audience.  If you take the position required to counter my point then you will have only the people who already support you on your side.  They are lost to me anyway so I manage to leech away the moderates to my side by casting you as an extremist.

What does this say about the "benign" nature of religious discussion, that it has to be forced upon the unwilling to succeed?  (Certainly most modern religious have viral like properties, like the requirement to witness or worship in fellowship or... etc.)  Or that religious rights are being infringed if it isn't given, by right, a wide voice into every aspect of life?

Translation:  If religious speech is so valued then why do you have to have a captive audience?  And it seems that this captive audience bit has been around for awhile.

Well, let's explore that.  I don't think it holds up to even the most basic scrutiny.  Funny how the tables term when homosexuality is the "view that conflicts" and homosexuals are the supporters for "we're queer, we're here," "in your face" advocacy.  Suddenly it seems ok to have a separate forum, yes?  Can't have Will and Grace on television can we?  All kinds of laws separating or "marginalizing" these views are justified on the grounds that the "parents have a right" to shield their children from these views that conflict with theirs.  Could it be that a group on AR15.com actually wants it done "for the children"?  Gag! So why isn't "it's just those homo whackos again" marginalization? Why is their view to be cloistered when yours is to be spread far and wide to be shouted in the ears of even those who have a headache already?

Translation:  The closer we look at this "marginalization" plea the more prone to hypocrisy this "we are being oppressed" premise seems.  Take this example.

Logical Hint:  You can't really fight this by providing supporting examples.  You have to distinguish my examples.  You're kind of stuck here to fall back on the old standby "homosexuality is a choice" and make the argument that it's private and should be kept that way.  The problem here is that I can counterattack by asking you if religion is a public affair then, and not a choice.  If you admit this you've about killed your argument because you based it on freedom of religion/freedom of speech concepts and admitting that there is no "choice" of religions (only yours is acceptable) destroys your objections.  I know that was complicated, let me know if you need a diagram here.

One of the high principles of freedom of speech in this country is the ability to avoid speech you don't want to hear.  (It's generally enforced under nuisance law).  This includes not wasting time by being forced to "engage the argument with a better one."  Occasionally, I will, whatever the topic is, but to assert that there is something wrong with someone who doesn't "engage every argument with a better one" because they have something better to do than argue with people who have nothing better to do isn't really a strong position to be taking.  We don't permit bull horning into private residences at night except by consent.  Why do you think this is?

Translation: I point out that free speech and freedom of religion doesn't mean you are entitled to be heard.  It's freedom of speech not mandate of audience.

Logical Hint:  Here you could try to find authority or other examples that hint that I am incorrect.  The Supreme Court refusing to restrain protestors in front of abortion clinics is a good example of speech that we are compelled to hear.  The problem is that this example is so unsavory on both sides that it bloodies your argument.  It also makes your position look like a heavy handed one.  The 10 commandments would have been another good one, but it suffers (less so) from the same problem.  I could easily counter by pointing out that you'd likely throw a fit if I wanted to put the holy pages of the koran in state courtrooms.  Again, this corner-painting wasn't accidental.

Is organized religion so small, so weak, so lacking in it's own identity and so unable to make a case for its ready and widespread adoption that it can only succeed, low budget, 30 second, used car commercial style, if pounded into our heads from every possible angle and snuck clandestinely into every possible topic complete with catchy jingle?

Translation: And anyhow why do you need to force people to listen.  Aren't your ratings high enough?  If not then it seems hard to argue that religion warrants a place in every discussion everywhere.

Logical Hint:  You could bring up, say, PBS, as an example why your ratings have nothing to do with the worth of the content you propose.  Technically, my argument here is "argumentum ad numerum" a classic logical flaw.  Still, you never addressed it and had you I could have drug you down into a morass of ratings arguments which would have required you to provide a lot of evidence and me to merely casually admit the point after all the work you did.  It's not central to my argument.

The great thing we can say here is: "Don't like the program?  Change the channel." Looks like you want to take the batteries out of the clicker.  It doesn't get much more un-American than taking away a guy's clicker.  What's next, banning beer and the Rose Bowl?

Translation: The great thing we can say here is: "Don't like the program?  Change the channel."

Looks like you want to take the batteries out of the clicker.  It doesn't get much more un-American than taking away a guy's clicker.  What's next, banning beer and the Rose Bowl?

Logical Hint:  About your only option here is to argue that the american way of life isn't necessarily the best.  You could also go into the classic "god's law" v. "man's law."  However, most astute members of the audience would consider this evasion, I feel.

All in all it was better you pretended not to understand and ducked the confrontation.  The deck was pretty stacked.

Let me know if you need any more help.

I aint reading all of that crap.

Sgatr15

****Deleted****<va-gunnut>


Please read the rules for posting in this forum.

Quoted: Me either,****Edited****<va-gunnut> This thread has gotten off track from my original intent.  I think I made my point, and my concerns are understood, even if some don't agree with them.

Actually, I beg to differ.  I don't think you've made your point.  I think you've badly fumbled the ball.  You haven't addressed even one of my critiques of your "argument."

The thread has gotten "off track" only insofar as it's not going as you planned and your conclusion that the religious forum is a bad thing is looking weak.  I never strayed from that subject.

Original issue:  Religious Forum is bad, discuss.
Current issue:   Religious Forum is bad, discuss.

Yep!  Looks way "off track" to me!

It is becoming a pattern for you to avoid these discussions by claiming that the current challenge to your position is "off track" or "muddled" or confusing or suchlike.  Why is that?  Certainly I could not have been plainer or more deliberate in addressing your many points.  I was downright Swiss about it.  And here I thought you were the champion of addressing arguments rather than avoiding them?

Is my viewpoint too foreign for you to address in direct argument?

What a pity.

Well, now we know, don't we?

Quoted: I aint reading all of that crap. Sgatr15

Oh now THAT's a strong argument against it.  

Quoted: You're right on one thing Aust- I'm ignoring you.

I win.  :)

Quoted: Quoted: You're right on one thing Aust- I'm ignoring you. I win.  :)

Uh.....actually, when people refuse to play your game because it's silly, you lose.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You're right on one thing Aust- I'm ignoring you. I win.  :) Uh.....actually, when people refuse to play your game because it's silly, you lose.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Quoted: And I would consider myself "religious". I am concerned that soon any topic with a spiritual nature or a post advocating a position based on values found in mainstream "religions" will be forced into this area, effectively removed from the common marketplace of ideas. The fact is, there is no such thing as the distinction between "religious" values and "secular" values.  Everyone is "religious", even those who consider themselves atheist.  They believe that god does not exist, which is a theological position.  And their values stem from that religiously held position just as much as the most ardent Bible thumper's values stem from his.  The atheist/Humanist believes mankind decides what is true, whereas the "religious" person believes God does.  But both are "religious" positions. The question is not one of religious values versus secular or "neutral" values, but a question of WHOSE religious values, for all values are religious at their root.  And it's not equally dispersed among the world's different religions.  The conflict essentially boils down to those with Judeo-Christian religious beliefs, and those with Humanist religious beliefs One of the primary tactics in the conflict over values is for the humanist folk to not deal with the merits of the arguments directly at all, but to categorically dismiss the arguments of the "religious" folk as being irrational, emotional, religious mamby-pamby, and not even worthy of consideration.  They stifle any kind of Judeo-Christian expression in the arena of public debate by saying "that's religious, go talk about that in church, but it has no place here, this is the thinking man's arena" Thus those that have thoughtful and rational arguments from the Judeo-Christian perspective are censored and denied access to the debate even before it begins.  We are shoved over into the corner and told to keep our values to ourselves and can only come out if we limit our debate to the Humanist set of rules.  And sadly the "religious" folks have allowed this to happen.  But it's the Humanist set of rules that need to be debated, and I'm convinced that they can't stand up to scrutiny, which is why they have to resort to censorship in order to "win". Is that what is happening here?  Is this the corner that Judeo-Christian folks will be pushed into when the Humanists can't compete with the arguments at face value in the general area? It is essential that people with all views, Christian, Humanist, Muslim, or Whatever be allowed equal access to the arena of public debate, and the public be allowed to choose the superior philosophy.  Consider it the free market of ideas.  It must be free.  A bad argument must not be censored, but countered and proven to be bad by its premise and results. Another problem is that folks tend to "compartmentalize" their lives.  We take the whole of our lives and separate it into neat, isolated boxes such as "religion", "ethics", "philosophy", "relationships", etc, and the values of one area have no influence on the others.  We go to church one Sunday and say we believe in God and consider ourselves good Christians, but on Monday we see no problem cheating our employer at work, or lying to our spouse.  We saw this most expertly displayed when Bill Clinton claimed that his "private life" and his poor judgment and lack of character there had no influence on his "public life" as a political candidate.  But people can't live that way.  We cannot be consistently compartmentalized.  One view or "box" will dominate all the others.  Clinton's irresponsibility, vow breaking, and selfishness seen in his personal life was exactly how he behaved in his public life.  One cannot compartmentalize "religious" values into a secure little "box" with no influence on any of the others.  People's religious values affect every other area of their lives. We seem to be trying to "compartmentalize" religion apart from other topics. So I see the danger of this forum becoming the quarantine for "unapproved" arguments and perpetuating the nonsense that "religious" values have no influence outside their own little "box"

I've had mixed feelings too.

On ONE hand, there are a LOT more "rekigious" Topics (seems like, nayway) AND it's easier to LOCATE them.... on the OTHER hand.... what you said.

Dunno... I'd LIKE to see the "segregation" be more VOLUNTARY than "Regulated"...

While I LIKE the forum, I can also see it being utilized in a less than fair manner...