Discussion

My Initial Comments on Sept. 23:

The Rules of Conduct includes the following: "You agree not to make negative personal remarks about other Beliefnet members, including negative remarks about their ... religion, sexual orientation..."

Could you please clarify this? I, for example, believe faith in Christ as the only way to heaven, and those who don't have this faith are going to hell. Does that mean I break the Rules of Conduct regarding religion whenever I share this? This is the core of my religion, and sharing this with others is a requirement of my religion. Am I therefore banned because of my religion? Also, I believe homosexual activity to be "detestable" (the words the bible uses). Do I, again, break the Rules of Conduct when I share this? Certainly I don't mean it to be hateful, but it is my religious conviction.

If I do break these rules, then the Rules of Conduct should be changed to allow for better dialogue. Many people feel as I do, and if we cannot share our true feelings, how can we have an honest and open discussion?

------

Their Sept. 26 Response:

Thank you for your email.

I believe this page answers most of your questions in greater detail than the Rules of Conduct: http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/hate.html

You can scroll down the page to learn more about how to state your opinions about homosexuality without violating our Rules of Conduct.

Please let us know if you have any further questions or concerns.

BeliefnetGrace
Community Manager
http://www.beliefnet.com

------

My Sept. 29 Response:

I read that before and it was still ambiguous. Is the only restriction, then, speech that might incite violence? For instance, if I believe homosexual acts to be a perversion similar to beastiality, this constitutes an "analogy or comparison". Is this only wrong if I use it in a manner that encourages violence? Also, if I believe God will punish those who participate in this behavior, does that not constitute saying that "violence is deserved"? Is it only wrong if I indicate that humans should carry it out?

My previous questions are also not answered by this section. The Rules of Conduct say what I quoted before in Section 1. Hate speech is in Section 2. Thus, my aforementioned beliefs may not constitute hate speech, but they do violate Section 1.

I hope you can see the ambiguity of such a policy. It would help to have better clarification on your website.

Sincerely,
Chris Hill

------

Their Oct. 6 Response:

Thank you for your patience.

“if I believe homosexual acts to be a perversion similar to beastiality, this constitutes an "analogy or comparison". Is this only wrong if I use it in a manner that encourages violence?”

I think that what you may not be understanding is that comparing homosexual acts with bestiality is enough to incite violence all on its own. It does not matter how you choose to phrase it. It is a comparison that dehumanizes homosexuals thereby making it possible for others to feel as if violence against them would be acceptable. So in short, no, you may not state that you feel homosexual acts are a perversion similar to bestiality.

“Also, if I believe God will punish those who participate in this behavior, does that not constitute saying that "violence is deserved"?”

From our rules regarding hate speech:

~~You may discuss whether or not the Bible or other sacred text says that something is wrong or sinful.~~

Having read a post of yours that was removed, I feel I might be able to clarify some of your questions more fully. The main problems with the post copied below are not that you state that the Bible says that homosexuality is sinful and punishable by death. The problems are 1) you used, as a comparison, someone who robs or kills and 2) you made an attempt at the bottom of your post to convert others to Christianity.

I hope I've been able to help you better understand how you may post your views about the Bible, homosexuality and sin while still honoring our Rules of Conduct.

BeliefnetGrace
Community Manager
http://www.beliefnet.com

Your post:

They should not legalize gay marraige, never once did God allow homosexuality, He strictly forbid it, in fact it was punishable with death in the Law, Leviticus 20:13 And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. They should at once turn from that course, there is freedom and free will, but just because you CHOOSE to do something does not make it RIGHT, I ask, is someone who robs, steals, or kills right? They are breaking God's laws, homosexuality is breaking God's laws. In fact Paul says, Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: Romans 1:27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due. And earlier, Romans 1:24 Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves. God is trying to save people from their sinful course, let all take heed, Christ loves ALL, but parents punish their children when they do wrong, as does God. Praise be to God that Christ died "for all men" and everyone who ever lived will have a chance to recieve everlasting life through him, "whosoever wills." With love and prayers, in Christ's name.

------

My Oct. 12 Response:

I don't know who wrote that, but it wasn't me. I don't mind being quoted, but please at least quote me, not someone else.

I must say after reading it, however, that you really don't allow for open discussion of views. Your policies are quite intolerant, since they prohibit one from even quoting the bible (since the bible compares homosexuality to other sins). I do hope you noted (and I believe you did) that, although this person didn't put quotes around the verses, they were quoting the bible throughout their post.

You mention the comparison to other sins as being a reason for removal of the post. The only comparison this person made was to lawbreaking (they also compared robbing to killing, if you'll note). Your analysis shows little regard to understanding this person's point.

Regardless, your policy is flawed in that I cannot compare homosexuality to beastiality, when the two are mentioned back to back in the bible. They are certainly not the same. But I believe they are of similar moral standing. Besides, beastiality is legal in some states, and would it not also be against your policies to compare beastiality to something like murder, since that would discriminate against a sexual preference?

In addition, this person didn't try to convert anyone, but said what he/she believes is the way to salvation. If we are prohibited from sharing what we believe is the way for salvation for everyone (for instance, I believe the only way to salvation is through Christ, and this applies to everyone), then your policies restrict one of the most vital aspects of Christianity. Is this not intolerant?

Is it not more valuable to err on the side of allowing discussion versus restricting it? Freedom of speech does have its consequences (although I certainly understand restricting calls to violence).

I would request that you revist these policies that would prevent such a post as below being posted. If this is not possible, please refer me to someone who can do something about this.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Chris Hill

Pictures