Let me preface my comments with an acknowledgment: there is another thread titled “What does religiously neutral mean?” Embedded therein are some posts that are somewhat relevant here.

(This is a long post. Skip it for now and read it when you have spare time. You have been warned!! :-) )

I start this thread to focus on two things

- can GoL be an effective and wonderful means, even if GoL adopts certain code of conduct and restrictions
- how to decide what content is appropriate for GoL

I sense Nir, Oded and others want this debate. Let us then debate it. And lets hope Nir and Oded will do something. Time will tell if they did the right thing. :-)

Here are my thoughts:

1. GoL can be effective and wonderful even if GoL adopts certain code of conduct and restrictions.

I say this while firmly believing that freedom of speech is a very beautiful thing. Instead of burdening this post with arguments from Voltaire to David Hume to many many more, let it suffice to say that freedom of speech and code of conduct are not mutually exclusive. To put it succintly, no means – including GoL – is the only means. There are other forums. There are other web sites. There are other opportunities such as private meetings, hand-written letters, and many more where a person can exercise their solemn freedoms and birthrights such as free speech.

Public forums can not be a substitute to private lives. I may spend limitless time listening and talking to my 4 year old niece, or zillion moments with a woman I am dating, or gadzillion hours reading a book and discussing it with a friend. One does not need GoL to exercise one's birthrights or enjoy the gifts of life or learn from the diversity of others. There are other options.

Is there a possibility that restrictions may prevent some good things from happening while also preventing some bad things from happening? I believe – yes. Yet, that is life. One can not be everything to everybody. GoL would become ineffective if it tries to be everything for everybody.

Are there things GoL can do after adopting restrictions? Yes, absolutely. Here is my opinion: connect people interested in similar activities and interests (from finding a place to live, to finding a play friend for their lonely child, to share the experience of a sport, to go bowling, talk and laugh till cows come home!!). GoL can continue making strangers and old-timers a bit more at-home, in a local community. Instead of listing many more examples, let me stop here with the assertion – GoL can be a means to numerous other ends.

2. On the second question: how to decide what is appropriate for GoL forums?

This can be decided in at least three ways: First, Nir and Oded can reflect on this and set the rules. Second, they can let the community decide (such as by voting that is open over 45 days). Third, they can let it go default, allowing everything and anything. My preference is a combination of first two. (If someone wants to know why I do not favor the third option, send me a private message.)

What would I consider appropriate for GoL?

A. All topics and discussions that offer information and opinions to the following: where, when, how

B. Limit on-line discussions on the following: morality, and personal choices

To illustrate my point:

It would help GoL if GoL moderators avoid discussions such as

- Is science another faith?
- How was the world created?
- What happens after death?
- Who is morally right in the middle east?
- Is pre-martial sex a sin?
- Do non-natives and people of different cultures make poor moral choices?
- Is pro-life morally right or is pro-choice morally right?
- Etc. etc.

If one or more of such discussions start – and they may every now and then – I believe GoL would be best served by deleting those posts and encouraging the participants to form a discussion group and take those discussions off-line.

It would help if GoL respects and participates in furthering local and natural laws, and if someone can freely ask within GoL and get an answer to questions such as:

Where is this religious building? When is it open? How to get there? Are there members who would like to form a group to discuss Bible or Halakha or Koran or Geeta or Dalai Lama, Aristotle, Plato, Spinoza, Kant, Ayn Rand, Maslow, Asimov, Hayek, Socialism, Capitalism, etc etc? Where to meet? When? How to get there?.... and so on, and so on.

If you share some of the above sentiments Nir and Oded, be assured that few will disagree. In my humble opinion, it does not matter if someone agrees or disagrees. You can not make everyone happy. Go with your vision and let the world adjust to you.

Peace and love, everybody. :-)

coloradoJun 13, 2007 @ 21:57