I disagree with this. There are more threads here than any of us can read, so a title has to spark the interest of people who might have something to contribute to the topic. We all want lots of responses to our threads.
In other words, a thread title is “advertising” for the thread. An OP wants to catch the attention of his or her target audience.
Putting “atheist” in the title meant that the OP would draw in people who might have some practical experience in the matter. He was looking for suggestions, and he had to catch the eyes of the people who were likely to have the kinds of suggestions and advice he was looking for.
So a thread title just referring to Catholic readings for weddings would miss everyone who isn’t really interested in that in particular. I wouldn’t have opened that thread. I’m not Catholic and I don’t care much about weddings. I don’t think too many of us are that interested in wedding readings at all, regardless of religion.
But adding in the atheist aspect made the thread more interesting to a lot of people. There are so many aspects to the issue. I personally don’t care about the theological stuff, but I’m always curious to see how the issue plays out in real life so the thread interested me.
Atheism vs. religion is a big topic around here regardless and mentioning was a surefire way to get thread views.
So, the OP is permitted to explain the reasons why he’s getting married in church, but nobody else is allowed to attack him for it. And you think that’s unfair, or bad moderation?
:rolleyes: Geez,I agree that Czarcasm has shown questionable moderation sometimes, but right now he’s right and you’re wrong.
The OP has described a particular situation. Some people have asked him why he’s doing it, and he has given an explanation. This clarification potentially helps people to provide useful advice re his question. It is therefore on topic and does not contradict Czarcasm’s moderation.
It is totally different to the people who object to the situation, and who have chosen to attack the OP for it. Or, for that matter, those who have chosen to attack the Catholic church.
Cool. And whether you, or I, or anyone else thinks czar is right or wrong, he’s still the mod and gets to act pretty much however he wishes. I’m fine with that. (Doesn’t mean I’ll never choose to point out my disagreement, tho.)
But I really take issue with your characterization of people “attacking” the OP. Look at posts 5-12, and show me anything that was not an polite and respectful questioning of matters running directly from the OP. It isn’t until #12 that someone says, “Wow! I’ll bet you sure weren’t expecting all this, were you?” It was only after the polite inquiries were characterized as inappropriate “attacks” that some subsequent posters became somewhat less polite.
Well, if the OP wasn’t expecting anything like posts 5-12, then he’s a fucking idiot, and has no clear idea of what all is involved with his “play acting” a Catholic wedding.
I just think it a pretty damned sad commentary on the level of discussion on these boards for the questions that were asked in the manner that they were asked to be considered impermissable “attacks” warranting a mod warning.
Heck, the first comment I see that is anywhere near objectionable is post #19 where someone said they would “join in on the pile on.” Then, nothing more objectionable until the OP comes back and says “I didn’t expect a pile on” - and then proceeds to discuss the “diversion.” It is only after that that the discussion bcame more “heated” - tho I personally did not think it “extreme” or offensive beyond the scope of IMHO.
(BTW - what exactly IS the scope of IMHO? Whatever czar says, apparently.)
Characterizing reasonable questions or comments as inappropriate “attacks” is reminiscent of Palin’s campaign style.
I apologize for my use of the term “fucking idiot” - and my other uses of off-color language in this thread/forum. Although I obviously do not understand exactly what passes for acceptable conduct in the various forums, I should have known better than to use such language here.
When did I object to them? As I said in my previous post, I think it perfectly acceptable to ask him why he is doing it. Thus your own question in post#6 is a fair one, the answer to which could help picking out suitable readings. Posts #10 & 12 offered suggestions to readings. But post#5 was critical of him, adding nothing very helpful. That one could have been ignored, but there were other much more hostile posts that definitely required moderator action.
I’ll just say that Czarcasm’s “Infraction!” post took me by complete surprise because:
I never criticized the OPer for choosing to get married in the church, nor would I. The OPer’s relationship with God, or his wife, or her family, is none of my business and I’d not offer up my opinion unless or until he invited it. It was that tangential discussion, completely unrelated to the OP’s question, which I believe prompted the warning.
The “Dude” part was addressing a comment that the OPer brought up AFTER the warning to stay on topic. I was simply trying to explain, in a humorous way, that he’d be hard pressed to find scriptures that spoke of hellfire and treacle. If the OPer himself chooses to broaden the scope of the discussion, then what follows should be fair game. ESPECIALLY when the comments are not even remotely offensive or disrespectful.
Finally, and most importantly, I WAS addressing the OP, and my advice would have been the same regardless of whether he was an atheist, a Jew or a Catholic. I’m not a fan of John Steinbeck, but I’m sure there’s a passage in one of his books that I could quote were I to attend an event that required me to pick one, especially an event centered around ME. Just because he doesn’t believe in God doesn’t mean that he won’t be able to find something in the Bible (it’s a pretty big book) that speaks to him. And his choice of reading SHOULD reflect him, as it’s the only part of the very scripted ceremony where he has any say.
If my comments made me a rabblerouser, so be it. But I will say that Czarcasm’s warning has been my only “OFFICIAL WARNING” in over ten years of posting. So I’ll chalk it up to a slight overreaction on his part and forgive him for what he has done, for he does not not know what he does.
I’m seriously confused. Why are you now raising whether or not you “objected” to anything? I have not said as much in my prior posts. Instead, I disagreed with your (repeated) description of posts as “attacks.”
…nobody else is allowed to attack him for it.
…
It is totally different to the people who object to the situation, and who have chosen to attack the OP for it. Or, for that matter, those who have chosen to attack the Catholic church.
This is post #5 in its entirety:
*If you (or you and she) do not intend to do justice to the undertaking that you are going to be required formalistically to commit to – that you will raise any children in the Catholic faith – then I think you are doing both yourselves and the Church an (unnecessary) injustice. Your OP doesn’t touch on that, but if you have such systemic problems with the (accepted) Scriptures – it seems you might have (very-principled) reasons for being unable to make that commitment. I trust your local diocese at least asked if you could make the commitment. If scripture readings at a fancy dress Sacrament pose an issue – how much more would it pose a problem when the time comes to send your kids to CCD for First Confession?
If you don’t intend that you will raise “real” Catholic kids (either of you) – don’t insult yourselves and the Church by an elaborate ceremony based on the idea that you will. That’s okay – we’ll still respect your commitment-love.*
You consider that (inappropriately?) critical and not helpful? When I first read the OP, my first response was that the OPer seemed immature and/or ignorant. I tought post #5 did a hell of a good job pointing out several very important aspects of the OPer’s chosen course a hell of a lot more politely and respectfully than I could have.
As I said, after that, there was NOTHING ELSE even remotely resembling attacks on the OPer or the church until AFTER the OPer cameback and characterized them as attacks.
Hell, I think many of the people questioning his choice are showing more respect for the damn church than the OPer is.
I do not mean disrespect, but I fear you and I are not going to be able to discuss this intelligently. (And, I perceive at least something akin to disrespect in your effort to “try and keep it simple.”)
In my first response to you I questioned why responses in the original thread were considered “attacks” - the word you used repeatedly in the post I was responding to.
Thereafter you responded by asking when you had “objected” to them, and saying what you consdered “acceptable.”
I did not understand why we were now to talk about your personal “objections” - something I consider at least slightly different from whether or not the original replies should have been considered “attacks.”
In your most recent post, you do not explain or define either “attacks” or your “objection”, but instead move the discussion yet again to offer a distinction between “acceptable and unacceptable.”
I apologize that I am unable to clearly comprehend what you are trying to say or discuss. But it seems to me that you keep abandoning your previous terms, and shifting to slightly different language with neither explanation nor acknowledgment.
I just wanted to let you know that I’m not going to pursue this particular area anymore as I’m not clearly perceiving what you apparently intend to communicate. Didn’t want you tho think I was ignoring you.
PunditLisa was reassuring the OP that the deacon performing the ceremony was not going to force anyone to pick out Bible verses including fire and brimstone.
I disagree completely. The OP is concerned about overly religious, especially negative religious, scriptures. He would like assistance finding scriptures appropriate for his wedding, not just any Catholic wedding. That title clearly states the conditions that make his wedding different. It also serves to get the attention of the people most likely to help him - atheists who might know something about scripture and weddings. Without mentioning that point, he might not get their attention. Most atheists aren’t going to be interested in scripture readings for a devout Catholic wedding.
Why should he mod that? The whole point is he is trying to characterize what he wants to avoid in scripture readings. It’s fair to help people find the material he wants.
He’s not posting “I’m an atheist, and you should be too!” He’s stating criteria about finding the material he wants. Dinsdale said:
It’s arguable whether a diversion to discuss why he made the decision he made is relevant to the question he asked, which was finding readings to fit that situation. But then the comments shifted to judging him for the decision he made, and then judging the Catholic church for any of its own sins, and then exchanges between people about that topic that don’t have anything to do with the poster, nevermind addressing his question.
And here is the sticking point:
Bolding added for emphasis. The whole “should you be doing this?” discussion is a religious one, and belongs in Great Debates. This is not just a thread hijack, but a forum violation. Czarcasm was absolutely correct to call a halt to that topic in that thread. That discussion belongs elsewhere.
Dinsdale said:
But he stated that he posted before seeing the mod action. Are you saying the OP is immune from being able to violate forum restrictions? Or that he should be punished anyway for furthering the discussion in violation of the warning? I just don’t see how relevant it is that the OP was willing to continue the discussion. The violation was not that there was a change of topic, but that the change of topic was not appropriate for IMHO, and belonged in Great Debates.
The mod action wasn’t for criticizing the OP, the mod action was for posting a religious debate in IMHO. Religious debates belong in GD, like the main forum page says.
OPs aren’t the arbitrators of the rules - moderators are. OPs are just as likely to be mistaken as any other poster.
Silverstreak Wonder said:
Nope, you’re still projecting.
Dinsdale said:
It certainly would help to have a sticky that explains things. It also would help for moderators to explicitly state the rules infractions when making actions. Vaguely waving “violating the rules” or “not following IMHO protocols” doesn’t help posters keep from repeating those instances because they don’t know what specifically was the infraction. But that’s just my opinion, so I should probably post that in IMHO.
Dinsdale said:
Huerta88 said:
(bolding added) Could be considered a bit righteous and somewhat indignant.
legalsnugs said:
A bit judgmental, don’t you think?
kunilou said:
Righteous indignation right there. smiling bandit said:
This post is just about 100% righteous indignation. Plus, a criticism for the OP “dropping your faith”.
Is that enough righteous indignation, or should I keep going?
Dinsdale said:
Interesting question, what is the scope of IMHO? But whatever it is, religious debate specifically belongs in GD. It says so in the forum description for GD that I quoted above.
But I do agree that Czarcasm was off base on the warning against PunditLisa, and have requested moderator review of that action.
Dinsdale said:
The moderator action did not come until page 2, well after the tone of comments became very judgmental (as cited above), and was not for people attacking the OP, but rather for creating a religious debate outside of GD. Learn the rules and obey them.
Well then why didn’t he just move the darn thread to GD if it is so awful to be where it was, and quit insulting posters who want to discuss issues? Problem solved, just move it.
The reason he didn’t move the thread was because the thread had an original topic and was posted in the correct place for that topic, assistance on picking out scripture for his wedding. The off-topic discussion about judging his decisions belonged somewhere else, first not in that thread, and second in a different forum. So the mod enforced that.
