Let me stress this again for the thousandth time - No one who thinks skeptics who are religious should be embraced is suggesting religious claims should be considered a no fly zone. We're merely suggesting that we're a lot more concerned about recruiting people who fight Nigerian spam scams, homeopathy, YECism, PSI, Ufology, conspriacy therories, etc. who happen to be religious believers than in smacking them down for believing in something that is outside of the perview of the scientific method which, at it's heart, is skepticism.
Please don't take this the wrong way, I still don't quite understand. When you say "we" here is this the JREF
forum, or the JREF organisation on the whole? I am honestly confused about what the actual purpose of the forum really is. It sounds as if all people who are members here should have this concern about the things you mention, foremost in his or her thoughts?
Don't get me wrong, I am also concerned about these things, and yes, I think that what we can do about it here is good. Personally though it isn't my first goal and reason for being here. If I can do good in that direction I am glad, of course, but I also come here, (and that may be my first reason) to read things that are interesting, to exercise my brain a little (such as it is
) to talk about things of common interest with like-minded people, and to see what non-like minded people think about things.
It does say that the forum is
"a place to discuss scepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way". The friendly part can sure always be worked on, but it does not actually say that the forum has a cause, and that you must actively work for that cause if you want to be a member. If some of the members have a cause and wants to work for it, that's good, and personally I both admire and applaud some things that is done around here. But my impression has been that it is foremost a place for free discussion (the actual forum that is, it might be different for the organization on the whole).
I am not saying that the following is what you actually mean, but when I read your post here, I get the feeling, again, that we should, prefferably, rerfrain from discussing certain things, or at least be very careful in how we do it, so that we don't annoy valuable members of this cause (and I agree they are indeed valuable.) I might be mistaken, but if that's the case, I don't quite like the sound of it. Some discussions sure could have been executed better, of course, but I can't see why the chosen topics in themselves must be "good" or "bad" ones, or if they are proper to a cause or not. I really think that even if a discussion here is not very compatible with the things you mention above concerns us the most (and it does concern me too) it can still be discussed, or it is not a free forum. I guess what I am trying to say is that a free forum must put up with stuff being discussed that has the potential to go against the fight against the things that you mention concerns us the most. It's not necessarily the same thing as knowingly working against the organisation.
I am not suggesting that you are saying we can't discuss these things, but you are saying that we shouldn't "smack" people down for their beliefs if they are good at fighting stuff that are of concern to us all. I guess, the whole point is that I can't see that that is what is done. I can't see the "smacking down" when the inconsistency is pointed out. I realize I might be wrong, but I am honest when I say that I can't see it. And so, it still becomes a "no fly zone" to me, I'm afraid. And I can't see it would hurt the fight against the things that do concern most of us here (but that all people are not prepared to fight in the same way).
