OUTLINE:

Introduction.

How this Flame-Catchers' Guide Might be Used.

Flame-Catchers as Discussion Leaders.

Communications that Will be Filtered Out by Flame-Catchers:

1. Obscene responses.

2. Attacks on the person rather than the idea.

3. Tribal/partisan responses.

4. Irrelevant or detailed responses—bickering, nit-picking.
 
5. Obsessive reiteration of a the same point.

6. Anonymous responses.

7. Silence-the-author responses.

8. Dogmatic thinking.

9. Global dismissal.

10. Labeling.

11. Pre-Existing Anger Misdirected.

12. Dismissing someone as not having authority.

13. Orthodoxy.

14. Ideological conformity.

INTRODUCTION

     When secular sermons address controversial subjects,
strong responses are expected.
Most of these responses are well considered and thoughtful,
but—as with any open forum on the Internet—
a few responses are more destructive than constructive.

     Flame-catchers are not censors.
The First Unitarian Universalist Church of the Internet
welcomes vigorous disagreement.
The members who volunteer to serve as flame-catchers
do not enforce any preconceived ideology.
Instead of censoring out unpopular ideas,
the flame-catchers will help responders
to focus their comments more rationally.

     The role of 'flame-catcher' might be compared to the person
who reads thru the letters to the editors at a newspaper or magazine
to determine which will be printed in the publication.
Only a small portion of letters to the editor are published.

HOW THIS FLAME-CATCHERS' GUIDE MIGHT BE USED

     Besides guiding the flame-catchers' selection process,
this guide is published on the home page of FUUCI,
so that potential participants in the discussion will know in advance
what kinds of responses will be filtered out or deleted.
And when flames are return to the senders for good reasons,
the flame-catchers might refer the flame-thrower
to the appropriate sections of this Flame-Catchers' Handbook,
which explain more fully why such flames were quashed.

    (The reasons for returning messages have numbers (1-14),
which makes it easy to refer the flame-thrower
to the specific characteristics of their messages
that caused their comments to be filtered out of the discussion.
And the fact that the principles for constructive discussion
were laid out years before the particular response was rejected
should further assure the responder that the particular reason for rejection
was not dreamed-up as a way of rejecting his or her ideas.)

     Flamers sometimes have some valid points,
but if they have couched their responses in offensive language,
such messages will be deleted as a whole.
However, this gives responders an opportunity
to rephrase their comments and post them again,
this time as constructive contributions to the discussion
rather than (for example) as attacks on some person.

     Sometimes the mere passage of time
will give the flame-thrower the opportunity to cool off.
He or she might regret the first response
and be happy that it was not published or was quickly deleted.
And the flame-thrower can reformulate the critique
in a more rational and persuasive way.

     In other words, the Flame-Catchers' Guild
can be used by would-be responders
as a guide to formulating their ideas
so that they will be more constructive rather than destructive.

     Something about the Internet
seems to bring out the worst in some people.
In a face-to-face conversation they would not say such things,
but when they sit down at their keyboards,
they sometimes get carried away by their angry responses.

     Because this Flame-Catchers' Handbook is available
for all potential responders to read,
some people who might otherwise be tempted to start a flame-fest
might think better of the first response
and couch some of the same ideas in more constructive ways.
Just before they click the "send" or "post" button,
they might remind themselves that their comments
will be read by flame-catchers,
who will be using the principles published in this handbook.

    And such self-restraint reduces the sheer volume of messages
that the flame-catchers must read.
Some people will decide to save their flames
until their minds have cooled off a bit,
when they can be more rational and persuasive
about their point of view.
In other words, the process of editing
can begin at the source of the writing.
Potential flame-throwers might be encouraged
to keep a draft of their response
for at least 24 hours before sending it or posting it on Facebook.
Revising the draft a day later might help them
to make their arguments more forceful and better directed.

FLAME-CATCHERS AS DISCUSSION LEADERS

     Face-to-face discussions are difficult to control
because the facilitator does not know
how long a certain comment will be
or how relevant it might be to the real theme of the discussion.
But flame-catchers can read the whole comment
before deciding what to do with it.

    See 10 more paragraphs on
flame-catchers as discussion leaders.

1. Obscene responses.

     When writers resort to the use of vulgar and/or obscene language
as a means of expressing themselves,
their communication should not be taken seriously.
Such e-mail should be returned to the sender unread.
And such postings on Facebook should be deleted.

2. Attacks on the person rather than the ideas.

     Such responses might begin with the claim
that the original author is
an idiot, mentally ill, retarded, brainwashed, brain-dead,
or a member of a disfavored group.
Such attacks on the author have no place in rational discussion.

3. Tribal/partisan responses.

     Readers of communications on the Internet
might feel that their own group has been unfairly criticized.
If so, their first response might be to defend their group.

     Political differences give rise to most common partisan responses.
Political partisans have decided in advance which side they are on.
And when members of their party are attacked,
they respond—using whatever 'arguments' they can muster—
to defend their man (or woman) or their position.

     In national politics in the United States,
such partisan debates often take the form
of attacking or defending the President.
A person who is thinking rationally is able to acknowledge
some good and some bad in every person and every position.
The partisan thinker can
only think of good things to say about one side
and only bad things to say about the other side.

    See Examples of Tribal Responses:
gun-control, ethnic and religious loyalties,
theists versus atheists; racism; sexism; sex-and-gender minorities.

4. Irrelevant or detailed responses.

     Some responses to Internet communications
are not really 'flames' in the sense that they attack someone
for reasons beyond what was contained in the original contribution.

     Bickering results when a responder takes a passing reference
and makes it a central issue of debate.
Such responses need not be returned to the sender,
since they might include some meaningful response
to what the original author said.
But they probably should not be shared with the whole readership.
On Facebook, the response can be deleted with a message to the poster
that this reason number 4 rendered the response inappropriate.

    See 6 more paragraphs about nit-picking and 'left-field' comments:
picky, picky, picky

5. Obsessive reiteration of the same point.

    Some responders have a private crusade they want to share
no matter what subject others are discussing.
They will take every opportunity (however implausible the connection)
to explain once again why their point should be acknowledged by all.
Whenever a discussion begins, they inject their issue,
whether it is relevant to the discussion or not.
Usually these responses will be harmless,
but if they are allowed thru by the flame-catchers,
the original thrust of the discussion might be lost.

     Examples of single-issue thinkers:
advocates of population control, women's rights,
opponents of male circumcision, gun control.

6. Anonymous responses.

     Some flame-throwers do not want to sign their responses.
What are the reasons behind not identifying themselves?

     Perhaps they know that their responses are foolish
and they would not want their friends to know
that they have such narrow-minded ideas.

     Perhaps they fear that the original author
will be an even more effective flame-thrower,
who will publish an even more scathing flame
in response to the original attack.
(Incidentally, this does not seem to be a good idea
to publish these flames and counter-flames on the Internet.
This could give the general readers the feeling
that all they will read at this location is flames and counter-flames.)

     Maybe the flame-thrower wants to remain anonymous
because he or she knows
that the response will be perceived as tribal or partisan
—and the flame-thrower does not want to be identified publicly
as part of a particular political party or a disfavored group.
For example, this could be the case with a homosexual
who is still 'in the closet'.
If the response is nevertheless rational and thoughtful,
it still might be worth publishing or passing on to the original author.
The flame-catchers will have to decide whether there are good reasons
for keeping the identify of the responder a secret.
(Some letters to the editor are published without names
for reasons the editors believe are valid.)

     In situations in which there is a high volume of responses
(such as letters to the editor of a large publication),
anonymous responses might be automatically returned or deleted.
This could serve as a first-filter:
If the responders do not want to be identified,
they will know in advance that their ideas will not be read by anyone.
When a publication has such a policy,
it should be announced along with the information on how to respond.
This will save some useless attempted communication
because the anonymous flamer will not even bother to write
if he or she knows in advance
that anonymous flames will not be read.

     When such a policy is in place,
the person who was tempted to send an anonymous flame
might take the time to write a more temperate and rational response,
which could be published with his or her real name attached.
And if the writer has a good reason for remaining anonymous,
this could probably be explained in the first part of the letter,
so that the response would will not be automatically disregarded.

7. Silence-the-author responses.

     Some flamers are so angry at ideas they read
that they do not want to criticize the ideas,
but they want to prevent that author
from ever expressing such ideas again.
Editors of large publications are familiar with this kind of response:
Whenever a columnist writes a controversial piece,
a predictable number of people
will ask for that column to be discontinued.

    See 9 more paragraphs of discussion and illustration
of the silence-the-author response,
including suggested policies for protecting freedom of speech.

 8. Dogmatic thinking.

     Some responses will be based on strongly held views
that are not open to thoughtful analysis.
The mark of a dogma is that
no matter what additional evidence appears,
the pre-existing belief or position does not change.
It is nearly useless to try to conduct a rational discussion with a dogmatic thinker.

     Often dogmas lie very close to a person's identity.
This is usually true of religious beliefs
—from which the idea of 'dogma' comes.
People who were raised with a firm belief in the Bible, for example,
will not tolerate any criticism of that sacred text.
They might feel that any error or weakness in the Bible
could lead them to doubt that whole collection of writings.

    See Examples of Dogmatic Thinking:
the earth is flat; alcoholism is a disease.

9. Global dismissal.

     Some people who respond to secular sermons
will tend to dismiss the whole sermon
because they found one statement very offensive or wrong-headed.
There is probably no way to get around this reaction.
It is the initial way some people's minds work.
They read along until they find something they disagree with.
And thereafter they will not find anything worth reading.

10. Labeling.

     Global dismissal is very closely related to labeling.
If the writer can be labeled as a misogynist or a Nazi,
then that person deserves no further attention.

     Labeling of persons according to convenient categories
arises in our minds
because we tend to think of people as belonging to groups.
And once we believe that we have classified some individual,
then we think that we know everything he or she believes
because we know the beliefs of others in that group.

    See Examples of Labeling:
Humanists and Theists.

     Advice to readers of secular sermons:
Try to be open-minded about what you read,
not jumping to conclusions because of what you might have heard
from someone else about the author.
Make your own evaluation based on the sermon you are reading.
And avoid the knee-jerk reaction that might occur
if you suddenly decide that the author is a part of a group
whose ideas you do not share.
Precisely because it is so easy to label people and thereby dismiss them,
resist the temptation to classify the author as long as possible.
And even if someone else has told you something about this person,
be willing to evaluate that claim for yourself
before you believe it or pass it on to someone else.

11. Pre-Existing Anger Misdirected.

12. Dismissing someone as not having authority.

     Trusting in credentials is a more sophisticated form of labeling.
Academic and religious organizations grant credentials
to people who meet certain standards.
But the fact that other people do not have these degrees or titles
does not mean that they have nothing to say.
We all know people who have academic and religious credentials
who do not have much to offer.
This should liberate us to be open to individuals without credentials,
who speak or write without authority.
Perhaps the most original and creative individuals
did not fit the patterns expected by the people
who were granting the credentials.
People who says, "I only read books by people with PhD's
in the field they are writing about"
will severely limit their reading.
On the other hand, we should not dismiss people
merely because they went thru the rigors of getting a doctorate.
Even if they were trained in
narrow academic methods or prevailing dogma,
they might have been able to transcend that background.

     The question of religious authority
is particularly difficult for Unitarian Universalists.
Because we have no doctrinal tests for ordination into the ministry,
we do not regard utterances from the pulpit as having authority.
However, since 90% of adult Unitarian Universalists
were raised in other denominations,
many of us do have vestiges of automatic trust in authority.
If something was said from a UU pulpit
(rather than written in a magazine, for example),
the hearers might implicitly assume that the speaker has some authority.
But this is not our official UU concept.
All UU speakers or writers express themselves without authority
to speak for the denomination
—or even the specific congregation
thru which their ideas were expressed.

    See "The Difference between a Genius and an Apostle".

     In the Unitarian Universalist movement,
everyone speaks without authority.
Thus ideas with which we do not agree
will have to be countered with other ideas.
We can only appeal to reason not to authority.

13. Orthodoxy.

     "Straight doctrine" (the literal meaning of "orthodoxy")
should not be a problem in Unitarian Universalist circles.
We are an open-minded, creed-free, decentralized religious movement.
But most adult Unitarian Universalists (about 90%)
were raised in other denominations,
some of which were quite dogmatic.
Thus, it might be difficult for these individuals
to stop looking for the straight truth.

     Unitarian Universalism does affirm a number of traditions,
from which Unitarian Universalism has historically emerged.
But these traditions in no way limit the freedom of belief
of the individual Unitarian Universalist.
We are free to believe whatever seems right to us.
The only limitation we all affirm is the use of reason in our beliefs.

    See 12 more paragraphs exploring
freedom of belief and tolerance in UU circles,
including how to deal with intolerant views.

14. Ideological Conformity.

     Since the dawn of human thinking,
people have frequently followed trends and fads in beliefs.
Historically speaking, religion tends to be the gathering place
of the strongest unchallenged and unchallengeable traditions.

    See other Examples of Ideological Conformity:
the biological inheritance of acquired characteristics;
toxic shock syndrome; silicon gel breast implants;
gulf war syndrome; Vietnam war.

     Ideological conformity it is a threat to free thought.
People who have views different from the prevailing beliefs
feel prevented from stating their dissent
because they know that the knee-jerk response
will be that they are wrong.

     Flame-catchers themselves
(to get back to the theme of this handbook)
are not immune to ideological conformity.
Often supported by the mass media,
ideological conformity will be a part of our culture
for the foreseeable future.

     But the most intellectually awake and aware flame-catchers
will be able to detect conformist thinking
that has little or no historical or scientific basis
whenever it occurs in the discussion.

     What should flame-catchers do when they receive responses
that reflect ideological conformity rather than careful thought?
Flame-catchers can return such responses
with comments that might encourage the responders
to re-examine the basis of their beliefs:
Do I believe this merely because it is a popular opinion among peers?
Do I believe it because the mass media have told me so?
Do I believe it because 'most scientists' say so?
Or do I have solid reasons for these affirmations?

     In closing this list of reasons for returning or deleting responses,
we should note that the most subtle of these forms of narrow-mindedness
—namely ideological conformity—
is also to be found among UU ministers
and others who might submit proposals for secular sermons.
Thus, the same principles to be applied by flame-catchers
should also be applied by the members of FUUCI
in voting to choose the best proposals for sermons.
It would be a grave error to filter out responses
as tribal, dogmatic, orthodox, ideological, etc.
if the creators of our cyber-sermons have made the same mistakes!

    Everything said above can easily be changed.
(Several changes were made in June 2001.
A few changes were made in October 2008.)
Please send comments and suggestions to the author of this Handbook:
James Park: e-mail: PARKx032@tc.umn.edu

Go to the beginning of this website
James Leonard Park—Free Library