Posted by Mitchell on September 5, 2001, at 23:43:26
In reply to Re: Religion Board, Jah Cam, posted by JahL on September 5, 2001, at 21:36:39
Two distinct views of advocacy seem to evolve in this thread. In one view, recognition of merit is seen as advocacy. In another, advocacy begins at the level of recommendation. Some would prohibit an assertion that "God is good," and especially would prohibit an assertion that a good god hates some people. Another view would allow "God is good," but might disallow the statement "You should beleive God is good." One says "I believe this to be true..." the other says "I believe you should..."
Dr. Bob hinted in a recent thread that he is contemplating role of motivational language in his limitations of the board.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20010718/msgs/1888.html
There, he hints that "promotional" speech is innappropriate in this setting. In the FAQ on civility, posted sometime this summer, he now says "Please don't ... put pressure on others."
Of course, determining what is promotional can be complicated. If promotional speech were regulated here as strictly as it is in sponsorship messages of U.S. public broadcasting outlets, it would not be permissible here to say "You should try Prozak." Acceptible statements could include "I tried Prozak and it worked for me," or "many people have tried Prozak and it helped them." But that is not the rule that is in place here, at least not at this time.
In the "Let's take drugs" thread mentioned in this thread, one person says "I smoke cannibas," and others advocate research into benefical effects of some illegal drugs. That could be considered promotional, too. In general, pressure, promotion, ridicule and accusations have been tolerated at this site as long as they are not directed at other people who post at the site. The real rub with this religious discussion, for many people, seems to be that it is perceived as an indirect attack on the traits of some people on the board. If it were a discussion of Bhuddism, it might not be so offensive to so many people. If we were all united against some common enemy, maybe a civilization from space, as Pres. Reagan said, intollerence toward an accepted enemy would probably not raise any questions, (except from a few peace-niks).
For whatever reason, the board administrator has favored, by the design of the front page and by other means, a focus on pharmaceuticals. That is fair enough, all discussions need to be focused. Another set of rules could be drawn more narrowly, allowing only a focus on legal doctor-prescribed drugs, though such a focus would tend to hamper an intelligent discussion of co-morbid substance and psychiatric problems. But when the discussion expands beyond the focus of psychopharmaceuticals, and approaches the vague concept of human rights - which is what we are really talking about here, human rights not civil rights, the boundaries become vague. But then violations of human rights might account for a major proportion of whatever cognitive components underly mental diseases in our population. If we cower from the discussion, defense and advance of human rights, there will never be enough psyhciatric drugs manufactured to cure all the ails that will continue to afflict our species.
Do I have a recomendation, regarding religion and drugs on a medicine board? Far be it from me... there's a war going on - a war on drugs. My lips are sealed. I'm just sharing my observations.
poster:Mitchell
thread:1870
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20010718/msgs/1985.html