Board re-structuring

[smkolins]

Re: A Modern Religion yet not a People of the Book

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.

 

[iBrian]

Re: A Modern Religion yet not a People of the Book

Hi smkolins -

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

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]

.

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]

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]

Re: A Modern Religion yet not a People of the Book

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]

Re: A Modern Religion yet not a People of the Book

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

 

[iBrian]

Re: A Modern Religion yet not a People of the Book

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.

 

[iBrian]

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

 

[smkolins]

Opening the discussion of the evolution of the whole board could have opened up some ideas - of course there would be some noise but there could have been some meaningful development.

For example I would have suggested the corner icon be made central and larger to allow for more icons, rather than use any structuralization.

Along the same lines there is the question of the World Religions at left which still doesn't reflect the new structure even as it stands.....

 

[iBrian]

Art, if some of your moderator functions were not working properly, you should really have informed me about this - I have been changing the overall moderator functions across the board, for example, to try and allow moderators to see user IP numbers (this is what immediately proved that Diamondsouled and Gnosticagape were the same person, for example).

Opening the discussion of the evolution of the whole board could have opened up some ideas - of course there would be some noise but there could have been some meaningful development.

Along the same lines there is the question of the World Religions at left which still doesn't reflect the new structure even as it stands.....

Certainly I'm not against feedback - there's an entire board here for that.

I know there are a few suggestions already on the table - Bandit has previously suggested a one-on-one debate board, and there were suggestions elsewhere that the forums that Sikhism should be in the Eastern Section; that we should have a Zoroastrian board; CanuckRasta asked in private for a Rastafarian board, and so on. Suggestions are always welcome, but for one reason or another, not all suggestions can be taken on board, at least, not all at the same time.

As for the structure on the left - indeed, there have been a number of changes for CR planned for some time, to help improve and expand what we can cover (including the long delayed Baha'i section). Hopefully I'll have something to announce on that, though possible later rather than sooner. It seemed important to bring at least some minor changes to the forums first, simply because it is the most dynamic and interactive part of the site.

 

[smkolins]

I'm curious if there is some feedback that can be had about how the board's activities have changed in light of the restructuring.

For myself I've noticed that my input in the monotheist discussion has dropped to almost none at all because I feel alienated from it and limited about what and how I can post. It would be as if I were in a discussion area about a particular religion and wanted to post about other religions even if within the sphere of the topic at hand.

Is this the intent of the monotheist area? So that Christians, Jews, and Moslems can discuss with eachother their own religions?

I have managed for sometimes years at a time in the past to participate in such areas by posts reflecting references in those scriptures. Such efforts are ussually met with some skepticism or criticism but can gain respect over time. Lately I seem out of that mode.

 

[arthra]

Roles can conflict...

Steve,

Let's admit it, our role is sometimes in between and betwixt and ergo unpopular

Generally on another note, I think sometimes the problem maybe with the role of a Moderator/Administrator ...So you post things as a particpant... but your roles can conflict I think. So the roles have to be clear and separated from personal views. On this Comparative Religion Forum you would have to recognize the validity of some posts you might not accept as a particpant with your own view point.

Also I think it should be clear what it is we want to promote in the long run so we maintain a perspective over time.

- Art

 

[smkolins]

Re: Roles can conflict...

Steve,

Let's admit it, our role is sometimes in between and betwixt and ergo unpopular

I rather agree.

But truth must be said rather than assuming it is known. Plans are set forth, and results as well.

Generally on another note, I think sometimes the problem maybe with the role of a Moderator/Administrator ...So you post things as a particpant... but your roles can conflict I think. So the roles have to be clear and separated from personal views. On this Comparative Religion Forum you would have to recognize the validity of some posts you might not accept as a particpant with your own view point.

Also I think it should be clear what it is we want to promote in the long run so we maintain a perspective over time.

All true as well.

 

[iBrian]

Re: Roles can conflict...

CR does a thankless job of trying to ensure that everybody across all religious denominations is given fair and equal treatment, and certainly those who have an elevated sense of self-importance are easily made to feel unwelcome.

I think a big part of the problem is that one or two Baha'is personally feel that CR should be a platform for promoting the Baha'i Faith, and that the removal of the Baha'i board from sitting beside Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, removes something of the high visibility the Baha'i board enjoyed previously.

For the record, my plan was that the Baha'i board was *always* going to form part of a Modern Religions section - we simply didn't have enough content to justify developing that part of the forums previously. That was the entire reason for the move.

I'm especially disappointed in your comments, Arthra - I made you a member of the CR staff, to represent the interests of the Baha'i community here.

However, you never once used the private staff room to communication recommendations, concerns or make suggestions; when Diamondsouled came in to disrupt the Baha'i board it was left to other members of staff to alert me to the problem; you didn't even inform me that you had concerns regarding your moderator functions not working properly; and you simply resigned without providing a proper explanation as to why.

In short, you have shunned every previous open and privileged channel of communication, and then abandoned without reason the responsibilities offered to you – then you turn around and use this thread to complain that we have not communicated with you. Excuse me while I fail to accept this as a valid argument.

Arthra and smkolins, if you feel unpopular, it is not due to any board policy towards Baha'i – and the sort of self-martyring attitude you refer to is frankly petulant and I have no interest in nourishing it from any quarter.

If either of you have difficulty communicating respectfully with people of other religions in a multi-faith environment, then that is your loss, but I would appreciate it if you didn’t imagine that your personal antagonisms therefore represent an otherwise oppressive treatment of Baha’i here.

As for CR staff suffering a conflict of interests – oh, they certainly do, because most of the time they are berated for their own beliefs when they get involved in discussions, but thanklessly hold from using their own Faith as a standard for judging a user’s contribution.

And should you feel that the Baha’i Faith has been seen critical discussion in some areas, then I strongly suggest you explore a range of Faith boards here and observe the dynamic tensions that often flare up across most every Faith here, precisely because we are held to account publicly for our beliefs, and not everybody shares the same beliefs, and sometimes are quite strongly in disagreement.

There are plenty of CR members and staff who would no doubt love to promote their own faith over others – but they take a decision in humility to accept that we must treat every faith equal here, even if it wildly disagrees with them.

But I will not stand for people of any faith to throw hospitality in our faces because we have provided them with their own board, to act as a safe-haven for discussion of their own faith, and even provided them with their own representative on the staff – and yet they say that this is not enough??

If you have any real complaints then please raise them, but so far all I’m hearing is that a couple of members have a very high opinion of their own Faith yet appear to demand special treatment of it above all the myriad of other faiths represented on CR – and that is obviously not what CR is here to do for anybody.

 

[arthra]

Thanks Brian...

You can call me Art...

It may have helped to have this exchange a little earlier a few weeks ago when or before some of this stuff came down.. I admit to you that I didn't use the "private staff" board that much... I observed it a few times but it didn't seem that interesting to me so rarely checked it. My "bad". I suppose if you had any anxiety about my participating there you could have contacted me?

All I can say from my part is that I've been open to you in the past year or so as a moderator and appreciated some of your comments and ideas. I felt sometimes though there were conflicts in your roles as partcipant and administrator but it sounds like from your view, you were actually trying to be fair...so I give that to you.

My view of the past two weeks and the reason i withdrew was that i didn't feel you allowed me to moderate when i needed to... so what's the use of that?

But hey and whatever..

I noticed a sensitivity you have in some posts that I'm shamelessly promoting my Faith and see the last board re-structuring in a negative light...My only goal is to see that our Faith is accurately portrayed and while unhappy with the change of restructuring ..only recommend that there have been more consultation before hand among participants.

Since you dislike my posting on this thread I'll shutup already. But is that what you really want? I promise not to demand any special treatment from you.

- Art

 

[iBrian]

Art, I'm sure you'll appreciate there are challenges in trying to find commonalities in a community founded on recognising differences and exploring them.

From an administrative standpoint, it's not just about keeping order, but also promoting discussions. I'll try to ask questions to raise topics, and also will argue a point for the sake of balance in the discussion at hand. At the end of the day, though, I neither expect nor demand to be agreed with - but if some questions can stimulate interesting discussion, then that can only be enriching for the community overall.

 

[iBrian]

ADDENDUM: I agree that the past few weeks have been disruptive for the Baha'i community here - hopefully we're moving on from that, as I have nothing against valid feedback and complaints where raised. It does feel that this thread is serving more to communicate those feelings of disruption, though. Hopefully we can move on from that and continue more constructively, though.

 

[smkolins]

Re: Roles can conflict...

I think a big part of the problem is that one or two Baha'is personally feel that CR should be a platform for promoting the Baha'i Faith, and that the removal of the Baha'i board from sitting beside Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, removes something of the high visibility the Baha'i board enjoyed previously.

This sounds so odd to my ears. I have myself, and witnessed many others, defending Christianity to Moslems, among other combinations, and the reverses as well.

The most outrageous behavior I recall was of someone avowadly by the end of the threads not a Baha'i any longer. I have recently reviewed an obscure speech of Khomeini in which someone has bothered to trace various footnotes one of which refers to the Baha'i Faith, and specifically to the machinations of one of those subgroups which do not fall within the generally accepted body of the followers of Baha'u'llah! (Note sideways again on why Baha'is tend to present formal references to answer questions - how would you like to be quoted by someone of such ill repute as a reason for his point of view!? In the words of Capt. Picard from the first episodes of STNG, "If we're to be damned, let's be damned for what we really are.")

CR should and largely is a forum for members of diverse religions to discuss with eachother without becoming too outrageous. While I wish a dignified presentation of the Baha'i Faith I wish extactly the same for all the religions of humanity as a body. Should I find such a forum lacking serious presentation of one of the major religions I would endevour to present a serious review of that religion. I have done it in the past, however rare the major religions of the day would not be presented in such forums.

However, with respect to my own participation, the decision of restructing the board continues to present a divisive influence - it mechancally and legalistically prevents me from participating on a major forum. I was frustrated and as a contributer to the forum I wanted to make my experience seen clearly. As a compliment I, recognizing such difficulties, am striving to participate in other ways.

As another form of the same problem I recently offered a post in the Baha'i section which referenced a paper reviewing issues about armageddon. Most of the paper refers to Islam, Christian, and Judaic references. Such is the measure of which the Baha'i Faith relates to them. And yet such a contribution to ongoing discussions about this cannot have this contribution.