Re: the ASA email list

On 6/12/06, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:

> IMNHO the single most problematic thing here is topics that are not in the
> science-religion area. Of course in one sense religion, as a matter of
> "ultimate concern" can include everything & some political issues are
> certainly of religious interest. But some practical limits are necessary.
> Political discussions ought to be out of bounds unless they are dealing with
> things like legislation on stem cell uses, nuclear energy &c. & same sex
> unions - yes, I know I've been involved in these discussions - should be
> out. That doesn't mean that all discussions of homosexuality - scientific
> basis, religious treatment &c - should be out. But whether or not the state
> &/or church should allow same sex marriage should be out.

One reason why I believe that political discussions are problematic is
because of the strong temptation to impute motives, e.g. people who
are for banning gay marriage do so because they hate gays. So, if it
comes to discussing politics I would suggest:

1. Focusing on why your position is a good idea and presuppose the
opposing view is done for noble and honorable reasons. This is also
applicable to on topic discussions such as theistic evolution vs. ID
vs. YEC.

2. Give an abstract of a quoted piece of material and then a link.
There is a reason why the e-mail vs. web is problematic, please be
respectful of those who have limited bandwidth.

3. Clearly identify provenance of a quote. Just as a naked quote in
number two is an issue a naked link is also not helpful. Prefer direct
quotes over links into internet discussions or blogs.

4. Get to the point and pick the one or two issues are of importance
and focus on them. Cull the rest in the text editor.

5. Be kind to the minority position (with respect to this list). For
example, most people here appear to be accommodationists. Pummelling
the concordists with many questions with the expectation of an on list
answer is unfair. If it is a good thing to have an on list answer then
extra grace should be given them with respect to the four post rule.
If it has gone back and forth a lot and there appears to be people
talking past each other then prefer the off list response to make sure
both sides truly understand each other. Be a Bill O'Reilly rather than
a Rush Limbaugh and let the other side get the last word.

6. If a topic goes astray ignore it or to use internet parlance don't
feed the trolls. This is the most difficult to do and many of us (and
me) are guilty of this. We also know who has our button and we should
be especially vigilant concerning them.

In summary, this list is unique and it would be a shame that it would
degenerate into yet another politics and religion shouting match.
Let's be good stewards here.
Received on Mon Jun 12 10:01:52 2006