Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Banning Evangelists??
Transmetaphysical
Veteran
Why? This section is meant for other religions to discuss. An evangelist is doing just what the Bible asks them to do (which I disagree with, but won't stop him). Preach the gospel to the 4 corners of the Earth. I think banning them gives off the wrong impression, as if we're insecure about our philosophy and intend on silencing, rather than giving them "a run for their money."
.
.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I agree wholeheartedly with banning Z and anyone else who wilfully breaks the rules and/or disrespects the site and members.
Contrary to what people tend to think about the internet, there ARE owners and mods of sites who can ban people for going against site rules. This is a BUDDHIST site Trans. People can come here and discuss the Buddha's teachings, debate things (just look at how you push the envelope with the whole drugs stuff) and the like. But this is STILL a Buddhist site first and foremost. I for one do not appreciate people coming here, and trying to "sell" me their religion and tell me I'm wrong for what I believe.
And as a side note, the Bible does not tell people to convert the four corners of the universe. In fact, Yeshua was really not that clear at first. I'm sure the newer translations have been twisted to fit whatever agenda the modern day church has. Secondly, if people don't like what they read or learn here, there are plenty of other sites they can go to. We don't have to prove or "give them a run for their money" That's NOT what Buddhism is about. That's ego talking.
Respectfully,
Raven
I read with some disappointment that a new member on this forum had been banned this morning for proselytizing. Though he was warned about doing so, he did defend his relationship with God through Jesus. Others answered him with mostly balancing remarks about what Buddhism teaches. At times it seemed that the discussion drifted into personal ridicule, of which for me is a waste of time and does no one any good at all.
With all this said I do not think that a born again Christian is going to change their mind because they enter a debate on which religion or "way" is the correct or best one. And the same goes for the Buddhist that has come to understand the nature of their own mind. For me when it comes right down to it, these "debates" are like mixing oil and vinegar, and then adding a few spices . Makes a great salad dressing, but is not the salad itself, and is rarely drank by itself. When these debates occur they are like this dressing. There is nothing real to apply the words to. People use their practice to address real issues in their lives. Whether their practice is Buddhist, Christian, or Muslim, or Taoist, etc.....
It is too bad that this type of intellectual diversion occurs. But so many of us get side tracked into the dialectical sparring that writing, and the internet lends itself to. I do think that both paths warn their followers to cease from such useless activity. At least, in my own experience, this type of dialogue leads to much speculation and defensive posturing, which in turn leads a person away form their intended practice.
It is also true that I have a visceral rationalism, if that is not a contradiction in terms, which arises from an awareness, acquired no doubt in childhood, of unfairness, injustice and oppression, either to myself or to others. Thus, I came to a serious study of Buddhism, some decades ago, through exposure to the ideas of "engaged Buddhism", a form of Buddhism that prioritises our encounter with one another and the world around us.
Whilst I appreciate that there are people who would rather see what separates us and our ideas from "them over there" with their ideas, both Christian and Buddhist writings have convinced me that common ground is safer than disputed ground. By "safer", I mean more conducive to benevolence and a grateful mind, which appear to me to underpin wise compassion. Thus, over the years, I have brought here, to a Buddhist forum, echoes and accounts of my travels in Christianity, in Earth religions, in science and medicine, in psychology, in history and archaeology. I have shared Christian prayers and celebrations, and have never been sanctioned for so doing.
Western Buddhists live as a minority within wider societies and need to face the same questions as other minorities. We are lucky that we live when and where we do. We are unlikely to go to the stake or the gibbet for practising in our chosen way - so long as we remain within an over-arching, socially-imposed, local code. And it is not as if this benefit is available to everyone, even here in the West. The limits of this permission are currently being redefined by new laws and precedents: some overt religious talismans may be banned by employers and the state may make laws about dress codes, just like a nightclub or bar.
But we really should remember that "when they came for the communists, I was not a communists and I did nothing". In the end, if we permit oppression and censorship, we shall be oppressed and censored ourselves.
Which is not to say I hasten to add that the regime here at New Buddhist is harsher than elsewhere. On the contrary, I have found few more liberal fora, particularly among religious/spiritual/philosophical sites (You should try the philosophers if you want really nasty conversations) The problem is more fundamental.
It lies in the delusion of "ownership".
There is an important lesson that we can learn from being 'subjects'. In most Net fora, there is a group with access to editorial tools which we visitors do not have. I do say "most" because I know of at least one which operates on a fully co-operative basis and has done so for many years, to the regular enjoyment of members. The usual format is, of course, aristocratic and elitist in nature: a small, unelected group creating and enforcing their rules. This is usually justified on the basis of "ownership by creation", i.e. that one or more persons had the idea, designed the site and, possibly, spent money. I was amused, some time ago, to have been offered "ownership" of a forum, realising that this intangible mode of communication had now acquired phenomenal existence, it had become a 'thing'. Thus the next argument is "ownership by inheritance or gift".
We may even have seen example of "ownership by invasio0n or conquest", just like the pattern of the business or imperialist world which we have copied into the Net.
And we are back to the delusion that we can own anything but that may be another thread, another topic.
Owners and moderators will edit, delete and ban because they can. That's all there is to it. They will decide, for us, what it is OK for us to debate and how we should 'behave ourselves'. We like them when they are 'on our side'; we dislike them when they aren't. And they do take a lot of tedious work off our hands, like deleting spam, avoiding libel actions, etc.
Truth is: the moderators will decide which dogmatic statements to permit and which to ban, whose behaviours to encourage and which to sanction.
I, too, hope that the way he was treated here does not put him off completely. If so, there is Kamma here too!
Would that not avoid some unpleasantness?
Banning or not banning is a choice of the moderators, but how we treat people is a reflection on our own personal character. I hope our hearts are large enough, our minds clear enough, to relate to people who are not Buddhists. If we can't, who can?
With sadness,
Matt
but I outlined several recommendations in light of previous experience, and suggested he follow a particular course.
On this Buddhist forum.
I was advised I had severely pre-judged him and made assumptions. I was criticised privately for having infused my preambling welcome to him, with prejudice and discrimination.
However, reviewing the threads in which he participated proved my foreboding and suspicions correct.
I did try to warn him - and members - what would happen.
And so it came to pass that all my earnest entreaties were mere barking at the breeze.
I merely followed through and did what I advised I would do.
Don't blame me, I didn't steer things this way.
If what I forecast came to be, those participating have only themselves to blame.
I feel my conscience is clear.
and my Kamma likewise.
It is considered impolite to criticise or comment on a particular action by a moderator. Why? I really don't know: we are quite prepared to criticise politicians, clergy, teachers, etc. but moderators are excluded.
Thus, I shall refrain.
providing it is done skilfully.
I have asked that if people wish to throw the book at me, then feel free to do so. I really don't mind. And I understand, to utilise the hackneyed quotation so beloved by many (With thanks to Abe Lincoln) that you can't please all the people all of the time.
But openly criticising a Moderator on open forum is neither kind nor skilful.
It's actually really bad form.
It belittles and trivialises the role of that person; a role given to them willingly, and freely by the Forum founder.
It demonstrates to visitors or new members that older and long-established members who criticise openly, have scant respect for the efforts of said Moderator to control a forum in such a way as to make it a safe and comfortable place to post in.
I have occasionally received PMs of condemnation and criticism. I have also received letters of support and commendation, and more than one missive asking for help in dealing with the contributions of others.
so I guess at times, I do have my uses then, huh......?
So much as I might try my best, doubtless some will be happy with that, others not.
When I was a parent-elected Governor at my children's' primary school, I received a very good piece of advice from the deputy Head Teacher:
he told me - " I don't always agree with Lesley (the Headmistress at the time). In fact, sometimes we have a right ding-dong in the office, over stuff to do with school and administration. But in public, I would never criticise or contradict her. I mean, what would that tell people about us here? So, never disagree with your boss in public - even though in private, you might go at it hammer and tongs. "
I would never presume, nor assume to call myself anybody's boss, here.
But it's simply a parallel.
If you have a bone of contention to pick with me, about a matter on public forum here, by all means tell me.
But I would ask that you both refrain from barbed comment on threads, (veiled or otherwise), and that you kindly confine such discussion to PMs.
I fear that I am a democrat to my fingertips and find it hard to swallow autocracy or oligarchy. This site, however, was a pleasant place to be - and I hope it may become welcoming again, even to brash, young, ignorant searchers as well as to 'established' Buddhists, that it will come out of a safe, comfortable ghetto-mentality. I shall, therefore, make no further comment about the current rash of closed threads or banned members. It has become too risky for anyone who wants to stay when the rules are not published nor is any appeal possible.
I understand you point....but have you watched the news lately!? LOL!
Best typo ever.
I do what I do to the best of my judgement.
I'm more flexible than others I've come across, elsewhere, let me tell you.
there's a difference between being liberal and being principled but still sticking to the 8FP as best you can.
That the bird of muddled-foolishness fly over my head, I cannot change. That it crap on my shoulder, I can prevent.
fivebells, Thank you.
I appreciate it.
Interesting analogies. I think your point of view comes across succinctly.
Lincoln,
I 'hear' you but I think your analogies would only stand up if, in the first instance, this were a democracy, or, in the second, if this was a 'church', or, third, if anyone here was in a teacher-student relationship.
Why not acknowledge that, without a written set of rules, available to all, any decision taken outwith the sight of all must, of its nature, be arbitrary? Or, if this is not so, why not publish the guidelines that bind us? Without overt rules, you, as moderators, leave yourselves open to criticism - even if you try to suppress it in public. The only rule that is clear and set down is that moderators are above public criticism. What are the others?
A bad Senator can be voted out; except in the C. of E., the law does not protect clergy from congregational criticism; and I have often challenged teachers. It would appear that forum moderators assume rights unavailable to others.
Where I see what appears to be injustice or arbitrariness, I shall continue to speak up. It was one of the aspects of being a citizen (as in France or the US) as against being a subject (as in the UK) that I most admired. Maybe it will mean that you will decide to blackball me, too, despite the support that some of you have sought and received from me over the years that I have been a member here. I should be very sad if that were to be the case: it would demonstrate to me how far we have drifted from the earlier New Buddhist.
As we are guests in another's home, there are subjective requirements that have to be followed. We are not forced to reside here, and so must abide the best we can to the rules of the heads of the house. Even when we disagree with their decisions, it is their house.
Deep breath
Matt
Matt,
I have heard this argument time and again. This is not a house but a forum, we are not called 'guests' but 'members'. None of us was invited here.
Again I say: publish the rules. Only then can we agree, and stay, or disagree, and leave.
The Unitarian Universalists would have to put up with that type of attack. They have to accept every form of illusion and conjured philosophy. If one decides to behave that way, fine. But IMO, it is far from practicing Buddhism and letting others know what it entails.
We disagree, I think, over whether he was treated with compassion and the tolerance we might hope to receive from others. That he may be deluded i grant you so those who wanted him out must now agree that we failed to convince him or to show him his errors by the example of our own kindness.
I hope that, as a result, we hear no more of how 'badly' some here have been treated on other fora - you clearly have only yourselves to blame.
If we are 'guests' here, the ancient rules of hospitality seem to be abrogated at will.
Injustice? Black ball you? What's with all the dramatics, Simon? Remember when you voted against my idea of having some "suggested guidelines" in the Buddhism 202/Advanced Forum because "... I don't think they are necessary and may serve to reduce the scope of discussion. We are very well served by excellent moderation, light-handed and respectful. I see no real reason to ask for more"?
The short answer is, because we never needed them. This site was created by Brian when he started his journey into Buddhism. As a "new Buddhist," he wanted to create a place where other new Buddhists could get together and talk in a friendly and relaxed way. It was never intended to be an "anything goes" arena for debate or anything like that. As Brian so succinctly puts it:
The site was very small for the first few years, and we simply didn't need any rules. We pretty much only had a small group of regular posters such as Fede, Simon and myself. Others came and went, but it seemed like larger sites such as E-sangha drew most of them away.
Interestingly enough, there was a time when things got pretty heated. We had a lot people coming here to debate anatta. At the time, I was adamantly in the camp of "no self" and they were in the camp of "self." We had a lot of debate on the subject, as well as a bit of trouble with people creating multiple accounts who were being abusive and harassing the staff and other members. During this time, they needed some extra help as Fede was the only moderator, so Brian asked me to help out.
It got to the point where I decided that it might be good to have some suggested guidelines, which would have only applied to the Buddhism 202/Advanced Forum that had recently been created to put these often pedantic debates. They weren't even rules, just suggestions that I hoped people would "take into consideration." I even put up a poll to get member's feedback. However, most of the members didn't like the idea. So, accepting that it wasn't very popular, I dropped the matter and things eventually settled down on their own.
But since E-sangha has been down, we've been getting a lot of new members, and the increased traffic is bringing in more people that, like it or not, the staff feels should be banned. I don't know if Brian or Lincoln will ever decide to post any forum rules, but even if they did, I doubt that the criticism of the staff would cease.
I used "attack" losely. I agree that he was abit overzealous. Like I said in my earlier post. He should have took the suggestions of the books and left it like it was, but instead he tried to convert. But from the way he talked, he must have been young. My guess is that he just "found Jesus". I remember that time in my life. It was great for about 8 months then Reality sunk back in. Never really happy. He's honeymoon will end and we may never know what will happen. I just hope that he still will look into buddhism at some point. Maybe not right now but later in life.
Ty
His profile said he is 16.
I know what you mean though. I was quite a zealous evangelical when I first decided to pursue spirituality. It was probably what I needed at the time though.
I have no qualms with a discussion such as this. What I find troublesome is when personal or heated issue is taken with moderating decisions, but then again I find that sort of energy troublesome no matter what it is directed at. As Jason notes, it is posted in every forum under the heading "Welcome to our site." That they are not numbered, labeled, or more explicit is by design. In my experience, formalized lists of carefully-worded rules do little to alleviate criticism and do much to encourage pedantic hair-splitting and second-guessing. I expect nothing less from you, sir. The earlier NewBuddhist with exactly the same guidelines and a staff roster that's barely changed in half a decade?
Collectively, we've only banned 47 real people in 7 years (I don't include blatant spammers/spambots as real people). Federica's share of that is a paltry 16.
We've banned 8 people so far this year, so yes, 2 per month is up a lot from our average of once every 2 months. Consider, however, that in March 2009 we had 80 new members; in March 2010 we got 189. What you see as a rash I see as surprisingly consistent.
As a moderator on another forum, my experience is that the most important function of rules is making it easier for mods to take punitive action. It's easier to delete a post if it violates a specific rule than if it seems vaguely not in the spirit of some general guideline. But maybe that's just me.
It's not that I'm promoting evangelism, but rather promoting some good old fashion debate. Something that apparently has a bad rep around here. Even Tibetan Buddhist Monasteries hold formal debate sessions, take a look:
<object width="380" height="285"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fWAEkOyzG8s&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fWAEkOyzG8s&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
.
christian HEATHEN!!
Yes, yes!
You could read it as:
"burn him at the stake! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
christian HEATHEN!!"
The rest of it appears to be born of your need to protect? Remember Pietro is a Zen idiot...
Trans, nobody is stifiling debate.
And I'm not going to go over all my previous discussion all over again, by way of an explanation. Just read my previous posts. (I'm sure you probably already have, anyway.)
The thing about Tibetan Buddhist Monasteries holding formal debates is an irrelevant argument.
First of all, the monks areall 'debating' Buddhist doctrine.
Secondly, this isn't a monastery full of Buddhist Monks.
Thirdly, nobody can see/hear/face/stand next to/keep company with anybody else on here.
Fourthly, the discussion with MrZ was not so much as a debate, as a slow and painful execution.....:D The poor kid really didn't stand a chance.
The forum for advanced practitioners is an excellent one for free, 'almost anything goes' animated, lively discussion.
You're welcome to start a debate there if you'd like. Feel free.
Rules or respect, civility, courtesy and tolerance apply, as ever. Other than that, debate away.,
Even better, you could set it up so that it's unindexed by search engines, and opt-in for users (you don't even see it unless you're on the ACL.) Small crowd consisting mostly of assholes, less incentive to bring an ego out to ham it up for an audience...
Fair enough.