Board re-structuring

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Sorry smkolins, this was originally posted in the Baha'i board, so I've moved it here where I can address the points raised:...

Ahem - all the religions here need to be placed on a neutral footing. While people of a specific faith may necessarily have an elevated opinion of their own faith, the aim is to try and be objectively fair to all. )

Excuse me? Since when should the Baha'i Faith be on an equal footing with Matrixism, Orange Catholocism, the daVinci code. Why are we excluding the Jedi? At least it has an official following.

I stand by my statement. Why is the Baha'i Faith being lumped together with clearly man-made religions?!

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

The trouble is, it's hard to find a technically correct term that is exclusively encompassing.

For the sake of calling it what it is, why not call it "Judaism, Christianity and Islam" which only gets you in trouble with a static order of names while avoiding other monotheists, and obeying the realm of popularity.

This reminds me of the argument over what is a planet.

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Well, from my own position, these faiths with Baha'i are much closer together in terms of numbers of adherents. Additionally, they are all relatively small and recent. Generally, far more similarities together as a set than with the larger more established religions.

really?! Do tell....

Size..., recent history..., what else?

More established religions - perhaps that's the characteristic you should name? Judaism, Christianity and Islam are established religions. Hmmm - but then there is Buddhism and Hinduism. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "established".

What do you mean by on the one hand wanting a neutral place among religions and segregating the established religions from the rest?

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

We've never actually had a Zoroastrian board, and although I've been asked to create one, I'm actually very unsure of where to add one. It doesn't make sense to add it to the current Monotheism section, for as indicated earlier, I'm trying to reserve that to cover Judaism, Christianity, and Islam specifically, not least because there is a lot of connectivity between these three on socio-political as well as theological grounds, and all spanning centuries and millenia.

All three of them have profound, even scriptural sometimes, relationship to Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism is older than Christianity and Islam. Zoroastrianism also has connectivity with Hinduism. It just doesn't fit into a scheme. It's saving grace with respect to any simple segmenting scheme is that there are almost no Zoroastrians left.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

As for the Baha'i faith having more members than Judaism - no, I don;t see that sustained, but Judaism remains the major platform for the belief systems of around 30%-50% of the world's population, and remains a very influential religion, both socio-politically as well as theologically.

You don't see it sustained that there are that many Baha'is (question of evidence and believability) or that Baha'is haven't had that number over a sustained period (it being so young and growing - and we could quickly disappear.)

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I guess the unsaid point is that some Baha'is may feel that their position on the forums has been somewhat demoted - that isn't my intention at all

What was your intention? I didn't see this coming and thought the older structure worked reasonably. Were you getting criticisms from others about the placement of Baha'i and other religions in whatever sections? I missed that, except for a thread about "Do we all beleive in the same God(Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.)" though even there not so much.

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by smkolins

All three of them have profound, even scriptural sometimes, relationship to Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism is older than Christianity and Islam. Zoroastrianism also has connectivity with Hinduism. It just doesn't fit into a scheme. It's saving grace with respect to any simple segmenting scheme is that there are almost no Zoroastrians left.

Now here's something - where will Mormons be placed in the new order?

New Religion? Monotheism? Is it small or part of Christianity?

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by thipps

From a muslim perspective, "People of the Book" applies only to Jews and Christians.

I'ld like some subtantiation of this point of view (even if it is something not so much of concern in light of recent events.)

Example 1

Example 2

I will agree only that most people accept Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as of this category, but that some accept others, while some don't accept them.

[I, Brian]

Hi smkolins -

Certainly feedback is welcome, but it does help to bring together responses under one single post.

Originally Posted by smkolins

Excuse me? Since when should the Baha'i Faith be on an equal footing with Matrixism, Orange Catholocism, the daVinci code. Why are we excluding the Jedi? At least it has an official following.

I stand by my statement. Why is the Baha'i Faith being lumped together with clearly man-made religions?!

Oh, it isn't being put on an equal footing with Matrixism, Orange Catholicism, or the DaVinci Code - they do not have their own boards, for a start.

As I tried to point out, I merely moved those threads to the Modern Religions area because it seemed the least unsuitable place to move them - but I expect things to very much develop in that area.

There was an explosion in theological development in the 19th and 20th centuries, and a specific section to capture something of those developments and the religions that have endured from that period, could be a very interesting section indeed. It's worth realising that the Baha'i board is in what could potentially become the most dynamic section of the forums - but it is early days, and it does require developing.

As for equal footing - well, Rastafarianism and ISKCON are both relatively new Faith's that all have both good geographic distribution as well as numbers of adherents in terms of hundreds of thousands or low millions. In that regard, they have far more in common in terms of socio-historical positioning.

What was your intention? I didn't see this coming and thought the older structure worked reasonably. Were you getting criticisms from others about the placement of Baha'i and other religions in whatever sections? I missed that, except for a thread about "Do we all beleive in the same God(Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.)" though even there not so much.

Hopefully explained above - I haven't actually received any complaints about Baha'i members (though I had concerns regarding the actions of Diamondsouled highlighted by non-Baha'i moderaters).

I do, however, receive periodic complaints, especially from newer Christian and Muslim members, about my allowing non-mainstream members to post in those Faith areas, while also being restrictive about evangelising across the boards.

I assure you, there is no easy middle ground to take, but I do try to be fair to each Faith as much as possible, and be inclusive as possible regardless of theo-political leaning.

Personally, I think it is somewhat remarkable that we can have a set for forums addressing the explosive discussion topics of religion and politics - and yet maintain not simply an extraordinarily diverse membership, but also a membership which is, for the most part, entirely civil and respectful about even the most contentious of subjects.

Hope that helps.

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

.

For the time being, I've reverted to Monotheism, and awaiting howls of protest from other monotheistic faiths about being excluded from a category whose intention is primarily set up to address Judeo-Christian-Islamic issues, but remains badly named.

perhaps you could call the section the Abrahamic faiths?

metta,

~v

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

perhaps you could call the section the Abrahamic faiths?

metta,

~v

Which could still include Baha'i, and even Zoroastrian (though perhaps not a tradition pov. I am not aware of any mention of Abraham in Zoroastrian scripture, but Abraham's third wife - Keturah, traveled back to the Median/Medes region which is likely where Zoroastrianism arose shortly thereafter - which bring some interesting dynamics to the prophecy of the inheritors of Abraham....)

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Oh, it isn't being put on an equal footing with Matrixism, Orange Catholicism, or the DaVinci Code - they do not have their own boards, for a start. )

Sure - let's look around a bit:

Monotheism
-Christianity
-Judaism
-Islam
Eastern Thought
-Buddhism
-Taoism
-Hinduism
-Sikhism
Paganism
-Esoteric
-Neo
-Magik
-Myst
Modern
-Bahai
-Hare Krishna
-Rastafarian
and non-religion areas

Looks pretty good - lot's of religions at the same level.

Let's look at the thread counts
In Monotheism - C 350/8k, J 106/1k, I 145/2k, 478 non board
In Modern - B 66/1k, HK 4/146, R 4/69, 48 non board

Christianity is not very far from the other Mono religions - around twice the threads and 4 to 8 times the replies, and no more than half the non board posts compared to the least of the thread counts of a boarded religion.

Baha'i faith is far from the other Mod members- more than 10 times the threads of the others, and 10 or more times the replies, and the non-board count is close to the least of the boarded religions.

So the Baha'i Faith gets around 10 times the traffic than the rest of the members of Modern - with whom it is put on an equal basis - while the Baha'i Faith gets more than half the least of the Monotheist boarded religions and a comparable number of posts. The non-boarded members of the Mod group get comparable posts to the least of the boarded members if you ignore than a good fraction of those posts are actually about the Baha'i Faith in relation to that other idea.

I guess that quantifies some of the feeling of being put off into an obscure area. Add that the minor members of the Mod area are, as I said above, purely fictional religions, adds to the feeling. Then there's being way down the page. Then there's the inaccurate divorce of the Baha'i Faith from the Monotheist category so the avowed form organizationally is simply wrong.

And the only complaints were on the basis of a non-Baha'i?!

And where are you going to get other people to post to the other potential members of the modern area if they aren't already here?

[dauer]

I like that Bahai is included in the other section. Since it has a higher post count than the other two moderns, it will help to bring more people to the board. If Bahai were not there, that section wouldn't get much attention at all right now. The Bahai section seems like it's filling an important role in the structure of the board as it is. But as far as naming the larger boards and grouping, I think that's going to be a mess no matter what. Bahai is definitely monotheist, but so is Rastafarianism. So that leaves the hare krishnas maybe in the Eastern section? But it's a Western expression of Eastern religion, isn't it? Yep, once I begin to think technically, it seems very messy no matter how it's sliced. But, no matter how it's sliced it's still an interfaith board.

Dauer

[arthra]

For what it's worth I think there probably should have been a little more consultation before these changes on the Board occurred ... I think there was an arbitrary quality about the way decisions are made here and a lack of sensitivity.

But whatever benefits or drawbacks that occur will be become pretty apparent over time.

For me personally though I dislike my religion being classed below "magick" and "myst" on a list. Using a model say of the World Parliament of Religions I doubt we would even be where we're at on this Board...

- Art

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by smkolins

So the Baha'i Faith gets around 10 times the traffic than the rest of the members of Modern

CR isn't trying to classify religions according to their current activity here - when first set up, the Paganism section was very much the busiest, and we didn't get any regularly posting Muslims for well over a year. It certainly wouldn't have made sense to set up a structure made on that basis for classifying world religions.

Hopefully Dauer has done a pretty good job of illustrating some of the most problems of setting up a useful taxonomic structure - and also the hope that the current structure will help CR thrive.

I can assure you though that no-one has to scroll very far down to find the Baha'i board. Actually, that in itself raises an interesting point, because it was worth considering opening up the display so that subforums are displayed fully under each category. This would allow each religion to have a clearly more visible presence on CR, but it would mean having to scroll a lot more to reach any specific Faith board.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by arthra

For what it's worth I think there probably should have been a little more consultation before these changes on the Board occurred ... I think there was an arbitrary quality about the way decisions are made here and a lack of sensitivity.

Arthra, I did consult with other staff, the consensus being that there would be complications with any structure, so I had to make a final arbitrary decision.

However, it's worth pointing out that I had made you the moderator of the Baha'i community at CR to give that community a voice in the board decisions - but you made the arbitrary decision to leave that position without any kind of discusion.

So if you try and remove yourself from the communications loop, how am I supposed to make decisions otherwise?

Anyway, the decision is made that we need to develop the Modern Religions section - and as that is where Baha'i as a Faith sits relative to other Faith's, that is where the Baha'i board must needs go. I cannot elevate the position of the Baha'i board on CR when the overall position has to be one of neutrality and equal consideration for the interests of people of all Faith's here.

[arthra]

I, Brian wrote:

Arthra, I did consult with other staff, the consensus being that there would be complications with any structure, so I had to make a final arbitrary decision.

However, it's worth pointing out that I had made you the moderator of the Baha'i community at CR to give that community a voice in the board decisions - but you made the arbitrary decision to leave that position without any kind of discusion. So if you try and remove yourself from the communications loop, how am I supposed to make decisions otherwise?

Comment:

Brian,

You can call me "Art".

For the record my moderating privileges were already removed (unable to edit any posts) around August 27th (See post 32 on 8/27/05 on the "something a friend said...." thread) before I decided to withdraw and no one approached people I knew or myself about these proposed changes or whether they would occur. So there it is from my view point.

As I've written before as Administrator here you decide as you indicate above:

"...I had to make a final arbitrary decision."

By "consultation" I mean an open process where people can make their opinions known before the "arbitrary decision" is made not afterwards as we're doing here.

- Art