I'd be a bit concerned that overt specialisation of a sub-forum might cause more of a divide then anything. This forum used to be called Thought and Awareness, which was great at the time, but quite ambiguous when examined. That sort of caught the philosphical and psychedelic thinkings of the period, but the refinement of the forum's discussion topic really explicitly invited religious and spiritual debate, for the first time. May be it is time to branch off, but the forum traffic would suggest otherwise.
Its certainly true that religious topics outweigh philosphical topics decisively. Its pretty rare for a discussion on Kirkegaard to come up; I wonder if that is because not everyone has studied the philosophers; I really know very little formal philosphy (I would love to learn!). Whereas many have been exposed to spirituality since birth (and before
). Just briefly, moving laterally away from splitting to a new sub-forum, would you like to see
more discussion of philosophy, or a changing of this forums overall remit?
FWIW, Foreverafter, you are quite correct in saying that none of the current moderators are
religiously inclined (that I know of, at least- I could very well be) as far as following a specific religion or teaching or attending institutions, but probably the decisive factor in who is chosen to moderate this sub-forum is an interest in spirituality and philosophy. As a stereotype, there don't seem to be many voluntarily-inclined drug users who subscribe to organised religion.
Thank-you for your comments Foreverafter. I was actually hoping you would chime in eventually.
***
More general:
So, what I'm reading a bit of is something like this:
-There is a perceived hostility towards organised religions here, which are erroneously related to all forms of spirituality. I actually totally agree. I wonder how best to approach this? I know that I am highly critical of religous institution but moreso dogma; but I really want to try and explore that in a more welcoming manner, into the future. I will personally make a real effort to change my own behaviour here; for that to have any meaning, perhaps a more 'global' compromise is needed. We need to strike a balance, and it needs to come from the 'believers' and 'sceptics' and 'undecided'. I am wary of censorship though I am value tolerance also. I'm also a big believer in approaching and communicating effectively (or at least attempting to) and tackling issues with the power of many as opposed to the few; I hoped this thread would serve as a platform in which to do that.
So far, it seems to have which is great.
Am I correct in identifying this issue? I'm not too sure how deep this issue runs, and how common this concern is amongst forum members. Its been raised several times though and exists.
Would it be of interest for people to become aware of who the forum regulars are, in terms of who posts the most? I wonder if that would come as a surprise to any on top of the list. Because it might motivate those committed regulars to step up and "be the change".
As I said, I think the best way forward is to modify the flavour of our arguments; this might make the place more welcoming to brief visitors, which I'm sure we would all like...
Peace