Why institute a blog comment policy that prohibits preaching?
Here at Dangerous Intersection, I recently instituted a new wrinkle to the commenting policy. The new policy prohibits comments to the extent that they constitute “preaching.”
It goes against my grain to censor. I want conversations at the site to be vigorous and from the heart, even when they get contentious and unwieldy. Equally, however, I want conversations to be substantive. Our recent experience with a commentor named “Erik B” convinced me that allowing preaching is counterproductive to the free and vigorous exchange of ideas. For starters, here’s the new policy with regard to preaching:
Additional note on “preaching“: As used at this site, “preaching” is an attempt to announce what “God” thinks or what “God” wants, as though there is no legitimate alternative viewpoint as to what God “thinks” or “wants.” At DI, we have no objection to any person expressing what that person believes, himself or herself. And, admittedly, his or her comments might well be motivated by that person’s religious beliefs; it is no cause for editing that one’s own beliefs are motivated by religious beliefs. Expressing what one believes is not “preaching.” Directly indicating what “God” thinks or wants, however, is preaching. In our experience, preaching invites an endless and unproductive back and forth sharply focused on the authenticity of such claims: entirely predictable debates of whether “God” really thinks or desires “X.” Presenting one’s own religious views as incontestable facts is preaching. Discussion that is starkly presented as “God’s” opinion, or any quotation to any passages from any religion’s Sacred Literature, to the extent that those passages are intended to be unquestionable on any ground, are subject to pruning pursuant to this commenting guideline regarding “preaching.
What is it about preaching that stifles the free and vigorous exchange of ideas? I tried to capture this problem in the above definition. When a person makes a claim about what God “wants” or what God “commands,” it is a claim that goes beyond that person’s opinion. I’ll give two illustrations: I have never had a problem with anyone posting a comment such as this: “I am a believer in God. It is my belief that God requires X. Is my belief that those people who don’t do X will go to hell.” Now compare that to this version: “God requires X. Any of you who don’t do X will go to hell.”
In the second example, the person posting the comment is claiming to speak for God. Further, that person is trying to endow himself or herself with infallibility by speaking for God. Anyone contesting what “God” commands is, by definition, incorrect, immoral and delusional. Compare the second example to the first example, where the person writing the comment is clearly stating his or her personal beliefs. The first example is not preaching, whereas the second example is preaching.
Preaching causes great heat and little light. When a person preaches, it asserts as absolute truth numerous things that are, in reality, highly contested. For instance, is there really a God? Does the God really require X? How is it that this particular person making the comment is an authorized spokesman of this “God”? Every time I see preaching, I am dismayed because if I don’t answer such a comment, this will imply that I agree with all of these implications. On the other hand, to respond to such a comment fully and properly will require revisiting numerous topics of numerous posts that have examined these issues. I don’t want to keep doing the same work over and over.
Having a comment policy that prohibits “preaching” makes me feel awkward. I wish it weren’t necessary. On the other hand, I do think that anyone who wants to convey an idea can do it without “preaching.” I’m sure that Erik doesn’t see it this way. He has clearly expressed that he feels censored and that I ran him off the site. He feels that if he is prohibited from speaking as God’s infallible agent, he has nothing much to say. He has accused me of censorship, even though I only deleted portions of a few of his comments (though I warned him about 10 times), and I allowed anything that did not constitute “preaching” to be published.
Another thing that became obvious to many of the authors at Dangerous Intersection over the past week or two (I’ve corresponded with several of them via e-mail) is that a fundamentalist who is allowed to get away with preaching gains undue confidence and tends to ignore sincere and basic challenges to their explicit and implicit claims regarding that which God allegedly wills. I found this aspect of Erik B’s comments to be especially frustrating. Mark Tiedemann spelled out the two conflicting genealogies found in the Gospels, yet Erik refused to acknowledge the obvious conflicts. I challenged Erik to explain how he could be so certain that a word commonly translated to read as “fear” in the Bible could actually mean something other than “fear.” Numerous other factual challenges were made to Erik, but he ignored these challenges. Instead, he changed the topic, usually back to preaching.
I’d be interested in anyone else’s opinion about how to handle this sort of situation. When I founded this blog, I wanted it to be a place where anyone could feel free to contribute his or her ideas. For that reason, the commenting policy has been extremely liberal. I am the one who approves the comments, and I can tell you that (other than spam comments), I’ve only prohibited a few comments over the past two years (and there have been more than 10,000 comments approved). The comments I did not approve constituted clear personal attacks. This discussion comes full circle: it seems to me that preaching constitutes a personal attack. Preaching is a way of saying “I am right because I speak for God and you have no right to challenge what I am saying because I’m God and you are not God. Your choice is to shut up or to violate the will of God.”
That’s how I see it, and that’s why I instituted this policy. If anyone has other ideas about how to handle the situation, let me know.
One last observation. I have to wonder whether the founding fathers had these sorts of problems in mind when they enacted the First Amendment’s Separation Clause (which is one of five basic freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment). Perhaps they too saw that when preaching was allowed from a person who was supposed to be a mouthpiece of government, that it caused great commotion and distress for the exact reasons that we just saw here at this site. Perhaps the founding fathers also knew that allowing government officials to preach would destroy any chance to have a meaningful dialogue among the citizens and their leaders.
Erich, it was in a post that you made about 6-10 months ago. I commented upon the “delusional” remark at the time, on line and personally to you. You didn’t say it here but, it has been said. When all else calms down, I’ll look it up.
I think it is good to have the rules in case you need them. EriK is/was brave to post, if he actually believed all that he claimed to. Many of the most devout might think that even engaging in discussion of certain topics (such as bible fallacy) would be seen as an act of sin by their god.
(anti-spam word, empathy)
Actually EB has his own blog, and I took a look at it. Curiously, it seems that he receives few,if any, comments on his articles, and in an article on the movie “Expelled” which had 3 comments, the first by Erik himself, the second by Erik explaining that he had removed a comment because it was propaganda for those that wanted to coverup the movie and a third post from someone who agreed with him.
BTW, I just took a peek at EB’s blog and he has added a new post, obviously inspired by many comments here at DI. He attributes the edited comments taken from DI to “an anonymous commentor”. It is an interesting read, if you know what actually transpired, as it exposes EB egotistical view. I would post the url to his site, but that might encourage others to go feed the troll under his own bridge. He is easy enough to find if that is what you want.
When Erik Brewer first slammed into this blog with his wordy and predictable comments, the near total lack of critical thought in his comments had me believing him to be not a person but a program, a keyword driven responder such as “Eliza” or “Racter”. I was surprised to find that he was a real person.
As for a no preach policy, I think EB’s real offense is harping, not preaching. I think getting a sample of the mental processes of a real live fundie an interesting experience, but once EB had established his stance, rather than add any valuable insight to the discussions, he kept repeating the same thing over and over and over…. ad nauseum.
Not what I was mentioning before but, what I found.
http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/01/19/50-atheist-aphorisms-and-bumper-sticker-slogans/
Erich:
I think the bottom line here is that as a blog admin, you have no requirement or responsibility to provide ‘free speech’ or anything resembling a democracy to those who choose to comment here. A person’s blog simply isn’t a democracy and commenters have whatever rights the blog admin chooses to give them (see Ray Comfort’s site for a great example of actual comment censorship).
It’s clear to me that, far from being religious persecution, this new DI comment policy was instituted because of ONE particularly determined troll named Mr Brewer, who, after its inception, repeatedly & knowingly breached it in an impotent & pointless act of defiance (and who no doubt now cries persecution and claims martyrdom - however, he should realise it’s not persecution when you’re actually in the wrong. Just because everyone’s against you it doesn’t mean you’re Galileo). I’m sure if Mr Brewer continued posting on-topic comments (in his inimitably condescending fashion) but without constantly claiming to know what God thinks/wants/hates/loves et cetera ad nauseam, we all would have been fine with that. However, he made a free & conscious choice not to do so and kept the preachometer turned to 11. He experienced the consequences of his actions and seems to have flounced off to sulk, which is no great loss in my humble opinion.
I’ve had many rewarding and interesting exchanges with religious people of all shapes and colours, but the absolutists & extremists of this world, whatever their religion, simply can’t comprehend an opposing point of view (or even properly acknowledge its existence; eg the fallacies “atheism is a religion” or “you worship science”) and as such it’s pointless to engage them. Religious moderates/non-religious people/anyone who can disagree but still express themselves maturely are better off without them.
The comment policy disadvantages noone except those who refuse to participate in adult, respectful exchanges of ideas!
Erik B. Update:
Since his disappearance from DI, I have been continuing my conversation with Erik over at his blog. I was able to do this by first promising not to cuss (his requirement) but also by tacitly accepting his paradigm for the sake of the conversation (the bible is the Word of God) in order to get him to open up and learn more about him. I find his absolute certainty intriguing and I had to know more about him.
We’ve gone back and forth a bit of there usual stuff and of course he was unyielding in his opinions, as always, though polite throughout and even pleasant. There is no gray for Erik although I must admit I pushed gently. He never admitted to even a fleeting doubt. No “progress” was made as far as I was concerned.
I did find out one thing that was interesting. It turns out that Erik B is a preacher or pastor of some kind. Many of his blogs mention the sermons that he writes. So it is no surprise to me that he steadfastly refuses to accept any bit of information that cast some doubt as to the authority of his “boss”, if you will.
I hope if he reads this that he doesn’t see this post as a betrayal, as if I am coming back to DI and tattling on him! I just felt the need to mention that his BUSINESS is being an employee of God, hence there is an underlying reason for him to accept the bible as true. He’d be out of a job if he didn’t!