politics and economics forum?

Hi,There is much discussion on the site of political and economic issues that are not directly related to the main interests of EvC. Lots on the Iraq war, etc, etc.Obviously a bunch of intelligent people who are interested in the living world around them are bound to have strong feelings about political and economic matters, and current affairs in general.I was wondering whether it might help to un-clutter the forums by introducing a "Politics, Economics and Current Affairs" forum in the "Side Orders" section?Just a thought.Mick

I agree. Although I think there are ways to set up politics forums to relate them to the creation / evolution debate anyway, so I think it's not just a "concession" to create them because people are interested. It's a direct result of the nature of the debate.Ben

What's wrong with the [forum=-14]?

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Coffee house to me is for relatively unimportant topics, topics based on opinion rather than facts, and general {chat\ribbing} type topics.While politics in general fits into this description, there are some elements that go beyond that.For example if there were a thread on {The US Christian Nation Myth} about the founding of the US and the {values\politics\history\beliefs} that were part of the input,Where would that topic go? Discussion should be involve substantiated positions rather than blank assertions or the discussion is meaningless in resolving the issue.I suspect that there are a number of political history buffs that could provide a number of good discussions based on facts about the real history of the US, and which do relate to the EvC debate as they affect the real importance of christianity religion to the running of this nation.We see several creatortionistas and religious pundits trying to portray the US as founded on christian prinicples as part of their justification for putting biblical references into school programs, and they are trying to redefine the past as much as they are trying to redefine the present.So I can see some value to having a forum for this kind of discussion.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

To add to RAZD's points, for those who actually like the PNT process, a designated politics/social issues forum could be made subject to PNT oversight.

How about [forum=-32] or [forum=-12]?This message has been edited by Admin, 11-13-2005 02:25 PM

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Social issues yes, but I have trouble calling it {Creation/Evolution} when it is more political philosophy and it's relationship to religion

btw - the topic has been covered by many to great depthOne good version is
The Christian Nation Myth
The Christian Nation Myth » Internet InfidelsI could hope to write as substantive and articulate an article on the topic.As you can see from reading it, this has nothing to do with creationism or evolution, but everything to do with the political reality of a nation founded on principles and not on any one religious belief.Consider that Jefferson was elected in spite of an active campaign by the forfathers of the fundies to portray him as an infidel, and thus the majority of the voters at that time (male property holders all) rejected this early religious campaign.There could well be an active forum participation on topics like this that can also inform participants and lurkers of these truths versus the political revisionism of the fundamentalists.We may find new members willing and able to talk intelligently in such a forum that feel whelmed in the current ones.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Hi guys,I agree with RAZD and chiroptera that part of the value would be that the proposed forum would be moderated and would go through the PNT process. I don't think I'd go so far as to say that the coffee house is for unimportant issues, but it sometimes seems that it is a way of avoiding PNT and moderation.I suppose the main question is whether EvC wishes to host such a forum (i.e. whether it is within the remit of EvC) or whether it should be done elsewhere by people who recognise the value of good moderation. Maybe it is worth somebody setting up an RvL (right versus left) talkboard, and I imagine there might be some migration in both directions between EvC and RvL My personal view is that the EvC debate is inherently tied up with questions of politics and policy, but that these political issues might not always have a direct relevance on the issue at hand.I certainly don't think that discussions of war in iraq etc. harm the forum - perhaps they help us think about what it is to be human and where we get our ideas about the value of human life from.MickPS. The domain name rvlforum.net is available. But I hereby bagsey buying it first!This message has been edited by mick, 11-16-2005 05:38 PM

If you start creating a politics and economics forum, pretty soon someone will want a forum for sports or something else.Coffee house works fine. Put it all in one spot. It's easier that way, and easier to be more wide-ranging. I don't want someone saying, hey, that's not the politics and economics forum, it should more be in elections forum or something like that.

Are we little kiddies that can't have a free-ranging forum for non-science issues without you guys wanting it moderated?Is this symptomatic of the Nanny-state, socialist mindset?Good grief people. If you think it's difficult to maintain objectivity in the science arena, just wait till you have one-sided moderation in politics. I can see it now. Well, you haven't substantiated your position because WorldNetDaily is biased, but hey, NPR and the New York Times, now, they are the equivalent of peer-review.Then, the other side brings up the liberal media.Imo, you make sure no outright nastiness occurs more than the rest of the forum on the coffee house, and let people discuss their views and interests, but somehow I am not surprised to see the Big Government types wanting more control and policing.This message has been edited by randman, 11-16-2005 05:55 PM

quote:

---

Are we little kiddies that can't have a free-ranging forum for non-science issues without you guys wanting it moderated?

---

I agree. I'm not sure why you're responding to my post, though.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

I don't think we need an RvL -- that stuff can be covered in the coffehouse, so those who enjoy spouting opinion without need to substantiate it can play. My experience with such sites is that they do not lead to (a) a real discussion (but people talking past each other) and (b) a discussion of substance. Take randmans recent equation of communism with atheism for example: lots of posts to what avail?What I see is something more substantiative, based on facts. History can be such.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.