Beast Academy Facebook discussion group

[sweetpea3829]

Not sure if this is allowed and if not, please delete!

 

Last night, the admin of the Facebook Beast Academy Discussion group decided to censor and forbid any discussion of any faith-based math curriculum that folks might want to use alongside Beast.

 

Obviously, that kind of handicaps the discussion and not for nothing but, there are some pretty solid faith-based math programs.

 

The admin then deleted people who spoke up.

 

So I created a Beast Discussion Group where folks can come and not have their hands tied with what that can say.

 

If anybody is interested, it's here: https://m.facebook.com/groups/121220141919460?ref=m_notif&notif_t=group_comment

 

I'm not looking to profit or anything, I just want folks to be able to freely discuss without being censored for mentioning LoF or something innocuous like that.

 

Again, if this is not allowed here, please feel free to delete!

[Syllieann]

Is the FB discussion group administered by AOPS or just some person using their curriculum? I mean the one where that happened, not the one you just made?

[sweetpea3829]

It's administered by a private individual. Beast has not endorsed it.

[Xahm]

I recently joined that group. When I joined, it was already a posted rule that only secular curricula were to be discussed or recommended.

It's nice you made another group for those who would be open to religious options.

[sweetpea3829]

I recently joined that group. When I joined, it was already a posted rule that only secular curricula were to be discussed or recommended.

It's nice you made another group for those who would be open to religious options.

 

Yeah, it was something that head never been enforced as far as I can remember.  But somebody mentioned LoF and the admin shut it right down and then reposted her "rules".  

 

Whatever her reasons are, it's silly to state people cannot discuss any faith-based math curriculum because Beast is a secular program.  Some of those are excellent options and correspond well with Beast.  And what constitutes a faith-based curriculum?  A diagnostic tool that had been mentioned on that page stated MUS was faith-based.  But I have used MUS and don't recall anything faith-based at all.  

 

It's her page, and its clear she has a problem with faith-based stuff.  I'm guessing she probably has a problem with faith-based anything.  

 

No matter though.  Now there is a place where people can discuss it without having to worry about being kicked off because somebody mentions LoF.  

[deerforest]

Well, LoF is absolutely not secular. If you're a secular homeschooler, it's incredibly easy to spot non-secular curricula. If the group states it clearly, then I don't see the problem with them following through on the guidelines.

 

We're past BA so I don't have a dog in the fight, but as a secular homeschooler, I can definitely sense where the group is coming from if they made it clear.

[Xahm]

From the comments she made this morning (which, if she kicked you off, you wouldn't be able to see, I think), it seems like discussions about Life of Fred, in particular, have grown heated in the past and distracted from the mission of the group. She also clarified which programs were of limits, though I doubt it was an exhaustive list.

 

 

Yeah, it was something that head never been enforced as far as I can remember. But somebody mentioned LoF and the admin shut it right down and then reposted her "rules".

 

Whatever her reasons are, it's silly to state people cannot discuss any faith-based math curriculum because Beast is a secular program. Some of those are excellent options and correspond well with Beast. And what constitutes a faith-based curriculum? A diagnostic tool that had been mentioned on that page stated MUS was faith-based. But I have used MUS and don't recall anything faith-based at all.

 

It's her page, and its clear she has a problem with faith-based stuff. I'm guessing she probably has a problem with faith-based anything.

 

No matter though. Now there is a place where people can discuss it without having to worry about being kicked off because somebody mentions LoF.

[sweetpea3829]

From the comments she made this morning (which, if she kicked you off, you wouldn't be able to see, I think), it seems like discussions about Life of Fred, in particular, have grown heated in the past and distracted from the mission of the group. She also clarified which programs were of limits, though I doubt it was an exhaustive list.

 

 

 

No, I can't see any of the posts.  

 

From what she said last night, she has a difference of opinion on politics with the author of LoF.  Which...cool.  Maybe he's the most awful person ever.  

 

Does it matter though?  It's a Beast Academy discussion page.  People use all kinds of different curriculum alongside Beast Academy.  Secular and non.  

 

If it's a problem for people to discuss LoF, for whatever reason, than as the moderator, shut down that comment thread.  But to tell people there will be absolutely no discussing faith-based math curriculum because Beast Academy is secular?  

 

Nope, sorry.  That's micromanaging and controlling.  

 

We're all adults.  I'd expect to be treated as such on a homeschool curriculum group.  Like I said last night...this is math.  Not politics.    

 

 

 

ETA: Like I said earlier...it's her page and she's free to run it however divisively she chooses.  I think it's ridiculous but...such is life.  

 

Edited October 2, 2017 by Sweetpea3829

[Arcadia]

Does it matter though? It's a Beast Academy discussion page. People use all kinds of different curriculum alongside Beast Academy. Secular and non.

 

If it's a problem for people to discuss LoF, for whatever reason, than as the moderator, shut down that comment thread. But to tell people there will be absolutely no discussing faith-based math curriculum because Beast Academy is secular?

As a secular homeschooler who isn’t interested in politics, I appreciate a safe place where I don’t need to see faith based curriculum being recommended as an alternative to whatever is being discussed. Also if it is a curriculum discussion page, I do expect alternative suggestions to be done offline through private messaging. It is about staying on topic so it would annoy me too if someone decide on a lengthy discussion of Math in Focus or MEP math for example.

 

It is annoying to comb through recommendations and realize that all (or most) are not feasible because my husband wants strictly secular curriculum. He doesn’t want to white out on bible verses just to use a curriculum even if it is really better than any secular curriculum out there.

 

I don’t see secular vs faith based curriculum as a political issue. I am in a few secular math providers Facebook and Yahoo groups and it would be annoying if people keep suggesting non-secular alternatives.

 

Beast Academy is used by afterschoolers as well. It is not a homeschool curriculum. AoPS is used in some public schools as their curriculum. It won’t be surprising if Beast Academy is used in some public and private schools.

Edited October 2, 2017 by Arcadia

[YodaGirl]

If she created the fb group, she's free to dictate the rules. Posters, likewise, are free to join the group or not.

 

If the rules state strictly secular, it really isn't surprising that they restrict the discussion if anything that isn't strictly secular. From what you've said, they're pretty up-front about it. It really doesn't matter if you think it's silly.

 

We're Christians. I obviously don't mind curriculum that is overtly or subvertly Christian-based. At the same time, I wouldn't want something that overtly taught something I disagree with. I don't believe in the Big Bang, nor do I believe in macroevolution. I wouldn't a science curriculum that taught those things - and only those things - as fact. If I had a fb page created for Creationist homeschoolers, I'd be irritated if someone kept suggesting evolution materials because they felt it was okay.

 

I'm a member of a fb group for a specific vacation destination. One of the rules is no advertisement or travel agent posts. The two admins are travel agents and plug their businesses when the opportunity arises. They also allow advertisements from people who are friends of theirs, but they delete other advertisements without warning. I'm not a travel agent, nor do I sell anything, but I still think it's a double-standard. I have 2 choices - stay in the group or leave. It's their group. They can do what they want.

[8filltheheart]

I don't join FB discussion groups and I would never consider joining any elementary age discussion group (I also strongly dislike LoF ;) ), so this is just out of curiosity. Is MUS Christian?

[sweetpea3829]

I didn't think so! But then, I didn't think LoF was terribly Christian either. I've seen it mentioned on secular forums and it was regarded as *mostly secular with a few God references here and there.

 

But the admin stated the author had made disgusting comments about the LGBTQ community and that's why LoF couldn't be discussed. I tried finding info on that and came up with nothing.

 

MUS came up as a Christian option in the survey that had been posted on that original Beast group by someone trying to help someone else. You answered a series of questions and it would rank which math curriculum were good options.

 

You had to indicate if you preferred secular or faith-based and the questions asked were very different depending on which you identified as your preference.

 

That's kind of how the whole thing got started.

 

But no, I personally wouldn't consider MUS to be religious at all.

[AdventuresinHomeschooling]

A Christian author, to me, doesn't necessarily mean a curriculum is Christian.  My secular charter in CA that forbid religious materials to be purchased had no problem stocking and ordering and recommending Life of Fred to us, and I am pretty sure MUS was also available.  (Now I don't know that they were a standard bearer or anything.)

 

In my opinion, I also do not believe a mention of church in a story necessarily makes it a religious curriculum either, just as I would expect history curricula, for example, to include discussion of other religions.  But I can see where others may feel strongly otherwise.  

 

Being a conservative, even a social conservative, also does not necessarily make one religious.  LOF can be perceived to have a more conservative slant.  But even if Schmidt did make a LGBTQ comment, that does not make his curriculum Christian or conservative any more than a book written by a racist has to be racist.  There are certain books and curricula I choose not to purchase because I dislike the author or company, but that does not mean the product itself is inferior in criteria.  The work should be evaluated on its own, imho.

 

SWB had a discussion on her fb page a week or so ago about Roald Dahl and his deplorable racism and social history and whether that made his works of children's fiction something that should or should not be read.  I may choose not to let my kids read Roald Dahl, but it does not mean that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is automatically racist and should be taken off any list.  The book should be evaluated on its own.

 

Just my $.02.

[8filltheheart]

A Christian author, to me, doesn't necessarily mean a curriculum is Christian.  My secular charter in CA that forbid religious materials to be purchased had no problem stocking and ordering and recommending Life of Fred to us, and I am pretty sure MUS was also available.  (Now I don't know that they were a standard bearer or anything.)

 

In my opinion, I also do not believe a mention of church in a story necessarily makes it a religious curriculum either, just as I would expect history curricula, for example, to include discussion of other religions.  But I can see where others may feel strongly otherwise.  

 

Being a conservative, even a social conservative, also does not necessarily make one religious.  LOF can be perceived to have a more conservative slant.  But even if Schmidt did make a LGBTQ comment, that does not make his curriculum Christian or conservative any more than a book written by a racist has to be racist.  There are certain books and curricula I choose not to purchase because I dislike the author or company, but that does not mean the product itself is inferior in criteria.  The work should be evaluated on its own, imho.

 

SWB had a discussion on her fb page a week or so ago about Roald Dahl and his deplorable racism and social history and whether that made his works of children's fiction something that should or should not be read.  I may choose not to let my kids read Roald Dahl, but it does not mean that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is automatically racist and should be taken off any list.  The book should be evaluated on its own.

 

Just my $.02.

 

I agree with everything you said.  I am a very devout Christian, yet the curriculum I wrote is completely secular.  FWIW, I should clarify form my post above that my reasons for disliking LoF have everything to do with the fact that I don't like the books as curriculum or the storyline contained within.  It has nothing to do with anything about politics or religion.  I just think they are blah.

[sweetpea3829]

Yeah, I agree as well.  I have the first few books of LoF and didn't find anything "religious".  

 

To be frank...I'm not buying the idea that, "Oh, we want a "safe" place to discuss secular Beast Academy without having to worry about religious curriculum coming up in the discussion."  Seriously?  

 

No.  Sorry.  I mean, it's pretty standard with Beast, that it's used alongside other programs.  Who the heck cares if one person uses a secular program with it and one person uses a faith-based?  And if you're specifically looking for advice and wish to exclude faith-based because that's not your thing....then I imagine you would say so in your post, kwim?  Plus...it's MATH!  How religious can a math program get?!  (I know, I know...Abeka and some of the Mennonite/Amish curriculums can get pretty preachy but...aside from that...it's not like a math curriculum would typically be espousing religious doctrine).  

 

Again though...it's her group....she can run it however she pleases.  I don't choose to be a part of that.  I think adults are capable of communicating clearly what they're looking for and not looking for.  To exclude the mere mention of a curriculum because you don't like the author's opinion of the LGBTQ community is bunk.  And to boot people off the page because they questioned it...yeah.  C'est la vie though.  Have fun with that.  

 

 

 

 

[fralala]

While I do think that perspective can be very limiting-- as a secular homeschooler, I think it's important that we're not erasing discussions of faith from our homeschool but rather free to choose the best resources for us and be frank about their biases with our children--  the author of LoF clearly made a conscious, reasoned decision to include aspects of his Christian faith in the books even though they're not strictly necessary to the texts' math instruction (and knowing that it might alienate some readers). That was his choice, just like the group moderator in this case was free to make the choice to exclude all discussions of books with references to Christian beliefs, regardless of the fact that it might alienate some members of her group.

 

However, I do think math and religion are a really interesting topic, FWIW, and I imagine you math could get pretty religious because math is one reason I'm agnostic and not an atheist!

 

 

[deerforest]

Yeah, I agree as well.  I have the first few books of LoF and didn't find anything "religious".  

 

To be frank...I'm not buying the idea that, "Oh, we want a "safe" place to discuss secular Beast Academy without having to worry about religious curriculum coming up in the discussion."  Seriously?  

 

No.  Sorry.  I mean, it's pretty standard with Beast, that it's used alongside other programs.  Who the heck cares if one person uses a secular program with it and one person uses a faith-based?  And if you're specifically looking for advice and wish to exclude faith-based because that's not your thing....then I imagine you would say so in your post, kwim?  Plus...it's MATH!  How religious can a math program get?!  (I know, I know...Abeka and some of the Mennonite/Amish curriculums can get pretty preachy but...aside from that...it's not like a math curriculum would typically be espousing religious doctrine).  

 

Again though...it's her group....she can run it however she pleases.  I don't choose to be a part of that.  I think adults are capable of communicating clearly what they're looking for and not looking for.  To exclude the mere mention of a curriculum because you don't like the author's opinion of the LGBTQ community is bunk.  And to boot people off the page because they questioned it...yeah.  C'est la vie though.  Have fun with that.  

In one of the very first LoF books, he uses "God" to represent a set of "one". Look at any Horizons samples. That's religious. I could go on, but it's pointless. If it doesn't matter to you, you won't notice it. And, YES, secular homeschoolers DO want a safe place whether you buy it or not.

Edited October 4, 2017 by deerforest

[sweetpea3829]

In one of the very first LoF books, he uses "God" to represent a set of "one". Look at any Horizons samples. That's religious. I could go on, but it's pointless. If it doesn't matter to you, you won't notice it. And, YES, secular homeschoolers DO want a safe place whether you buy it or not.

 

No, you're right, I never noticed it.  But that kind of makes sense I guess.  I'm not so easily offended that the mention of someone else's beliefs would stick out to me.  

 

And just for the record...despite the fact that we are christians, I actually school my kids with all secular materials.  To each his own.  

Edited October 4, 2017 by Sweetpea3829

[nixpix5]

I am Christian and I can see where they are coming from. When I wasn't Christian I would have lost my mind over something as simple as a Christian curriculum. I just didn't want it anywhere near my kids. Now that I am Christian I seek out safe places to openly discuss my beliefs with like-minded individuals. I would be frustrated to have a secular party crasher if the rules were set up beforehand as such.

 

Now, I also get that math seems inocuious and it shouldn't matter but if it isn't BA running the discussion and ostrasizing a portion of their population and their business earnings, then I would say whatever. I love that you started one yourself. That is great and probably will attract more Christians to a safer place to discuss all curriculum.

 

MUS doesn't have Christian wording anywhere in it at all but Steve Demme is unapologetically Christian and has Christian curriculum so that might be where that is coming from.

Edited October 8, 2017 by nixpix5

[Runningmom80]

Well, LoF is absolutely not secular. If you're a secular homeschooler, it's incredibly easy to spot non-secular curricula. If the group states it clearly, then I don't see the problem with them following through on the guidelines.

 

We're past BA so I don't have a dog in the fight, but as a secular homeschooler, I can definitely sense where the group is coming from if they made it clear.

It’s not incredibly easy. At all. I used Ellen McHenry Cells and later found out it uses a form of classification that supports Creationism. I had zero idea. Edited October 9, 2017 by Runningmom80

[deerforest]

It’s not incredibly easy. At all. I used Ellen McHenry Cells and later found out it uses a form of classification that supports Creationism. I had zero idea.

 

I thought we were talking about math?

[Farrar]

I would absolutely consider Life of Fred Christian. Even apart from any other weirdness associated with Schmidt, the assumption of Christianity permeates the books. It's not about being offended at someone's beliefs. It's about knowing what you're getting into. I know many secular families who use Life of Fred, but I would never suggest it to one without first making it very clear that there are religious elements to it, even if they're ones that many secular families are okay with.

 

I haven't used MUS, but from everything I've read about it, I would consider it a secular program from a Christian company - like most of IEW. However, when I've mentioned it on secular groups, I always add that there's a religious supplement, which is the financial literacy component or whatever it's called.

 

I'm not a huge fan of being banned from discussing a program - some Christian programs fit some secular users. However, in a secular group, I would expect those exceptions to be clearly labeled and stated. And sometimes that's just impossible to police as a moderator. You don't know every resource. Also, when the discussion becomes bickering about the specific religious aspects of a book - like, say, Life of Fred - then the whole group is derailed. So I get why they did this. If you don't, it's probably because you don't have an issue with using religious materials and don't see how pervasive they are in homeschooling.

 

ETA: But also, it's good that there's another group where you can discuss religious programs. So, I think that's great that you founded one for people who want it.

Edited October 10, 2017 by Farrar

[sweetpea3829]

But Farrar that's the thing. This discussion had not gotten heated or anything. LOF was mentioned, in passing, presumably because it had come up on the OPs suggested maths questionnaire.

 

The moderator/admin shut it down stating LoF was not to be discussed. She then quantified her comment in a second post stating the author had made disgusting derogatory comments about the LGBTQ community.

 

It was obvious that her beef was with the author's view of the LGBTQ community, which is why I said it was political and that I don't buy at all that that particular discussion had anything to do with having a safe place to discuss curriculum free of religious based programs.

 

It totally wasn't about that at all. I can respect that need. But this was different.

 

It's done now though. Folks have a choice now. Seems silly, especially when issues of faith really don't come into play when we're talking about Beast (unless you consider those folks that won't even use it because OMGOSH BEASTS!!!). But that's why I started an open group where adults can moderate themselves.

[SanDiegoMom]

As loaded as the term safe space has become, I interpret it, as a secular homeschooler myself, as a place where you know everything recommended will be straight up not incorporating religion whatsoever. I love using the boards for recommendations, but it is exhausting trying to track down reviews of every resource and figure out how much religiosity is incorporated into the materials.  It can be frustrating. I say this as someone who owns a ton of Life of Fred based on their reviews and their ability to match my son's ability at an early age.  I just handed them off to my son without pre-reading and am now regretting this -- at one point I did read with him (he was K or 1st grade) and I read a part which taught exponents (I think? I can't find it now!) through a robot that kept magnifying until it got so large the mayor called up the marines who sent an f-18 to drop an atomic bomb.  I was like, woah. 

 

And Ellen Mchenry materials... some of which we love and I which I thought were secular... until her latest unit on rocks and minerals she states that it disproves plate tectonics.  

 

So, yes, I would be one who would be happy to have only secular materials discussed. Because when I think about the money I have spent on resources that are supposed to be secular or at least not necessarily promoting religion and then I find that they are, or the time I spend trying to track down information on what exactly is in the curriculum -- I would love not to have to work so hard. 

 

And I would not at all resent someone that wants to run a facebook page that only discusses religious materials. I understand that viewpoint as well and don't resent their safe space.  

[MistyMountain]

Life of Fred tries to come off as secular but there are days me very problematic stuff in there like a word problem about a female losing weight for her boyfriend to calculate percentages and his mentions of God are not all innocuous. He also denies climate change and since it is a curriculum based on reading that can be problematic for some people.

 

I see the need to have a place where you only discuss secular stuff and a place where you can mention religious material too. I too though Ellen McHenry was secular but it very much was not and I would not have used it if I knew. I can also see some people having a bigger issue with some religious material over others in something like math. I like having places where only secular stuff is discussed but sometimes I wish you can mention other material and what it contains that is not secular so you can decide if it is something you are ok with rather then not mentioning it at all.

[SanDiegoMom]

Also on the topic of self moderation -- what seems "pretty much" secular to some might not seem the same to others. Case in point, I have a friend whose kids love CYT. I know, Christian Youth Theater, I probably should have known, but she said it's totally run secular, no mention or very little mention of religion. They are the biggest venue around here if you want to do drama as a homeschooler, so I signed my kid up. And lo and behold, they start off with prayer every time and discuss a bible verse halfway through. So what to her seemed secular (they put on secular plays and have a lot of fun doing it) isn't quite the same as my idea of secular. 

[Farrar]

I think if you've never had the experience of being told that a program is secular, only to realize that it's just not. Like, some programs that I've been told were secular that I would not consider secular include Life of Fred, Wordsmith Apprentice, Art of Argument, Ellen McHenry... And there are others too, especially in science. It's especially eye raising to me that Art of Argument and Fallacy Detective are sometimes said to be secular. In the case of Fallacy Detective, it seems to be a purposeful effort to claim that the product is not religious when it blatantly is. As a secular homeschooler, I honestly feel like it's an attempt to peddle "Christian logic" to secular kids under the guise of secularism.

 

If you've never had these experiences, it's because you have the privilege to not worry that homeschool programs might violate your belief or how you want to talk to your kids about religion.

 

While I like a more nuanced approach in real life... I get why online groups like to have clear rules. And to enforce them before they have to worry that anything will even get heated.

[sweetpea3829]

I think if you've never had the experience of being told that a program is secular, only to realize that it's just not. Like, some programs that I've been told were secular that I would not consider secular include Life of Fred, Wordsmith Apprentice, Art of Argument, Ellen McHenry... And there are others too, especially in science. It's especially eye raising to me that Art of Argument and Fallacy Detective are sometimes said to be secular. In the case of Fallacy Detective, it seems to be a purposeful effort to claim that the product is not religious when it blatantly is. As a secular homeschooler, I honestly feel like it's an attempt to peddle "Christian logic" to secular kids under the guise of secularism.

 

If you've never had these experiences, it's because you have the privilege to not worry that homeschool programs might violate your belief or how you want to talk to your kids about religion.

 

While I like a more nuanced approach in real life... I get why online groups like to have clear rules. And to enforce them before they have to worry that anything will even get heated.

 

Seems a bit ironic to mention this when we're considering christians and their navigation through curriculum, no?  

 

I mean...as a Christian, I COULD just stick with BJU, ABEKA, Sonlight, etc., and be totally "safe".  So I guess in that regards I'm privileged.  But branching outside of those particular curricula means a minefield of questions on what's being presented, does it align with what we believe, can I still use it if it doesn't, can I modify it, etc.  

 

Especially in science.  

 

Basically, I can use Apologia which, imo is just awful and actually doesn't represent our family's values at all, or I can wander into the world of secular science, or I can write my own.  I chose the latter of the three for a number of years.  

 

So yeah...I would have to say most christians that venture outside of the big three main Christian curricula options do have quite the time navigating programs, trying to figure out what's what, what's "safe", what can be modified and what cannot.  

[AdventuresinHomeschooling]

I agree that it all comes to perspective.  For example, I know Christians who think SOTW is unsafe and secular because they discuss nomads and the possibility of the earth being older than 6000 years in the first book, and Abraham is referred to as a moon-worshipper and not from a strict, Biblical account.  Then there are secular people who think SOTW is religious because it includes a story of Abraham.  To each his own.  

 

If you want a safe space to only discuss what you believe, I understand.  But I also think it is difficult because even in our religious or secular groups, we will have disagreements over our beliefs and what is and is not appropriate.  IMHO, we all see things through the lens of the religious perspective that shapes our worldview, whether atheism, agnosticism, Christianity in various forms, Judaism, etc.  I do not think this is limited to any particular worldview.  I would agree that there are more religious homeschool resources available as a whole, but there are plenty of religious resources that are completely inappropriate for our different types of families.

 

While someone can run their forum or Facebook page however they want, I think it is more productive to allow a grown-up discussion where the mention of a resource that some might disagree with doesn't send people into a tizzy.  This is why I appreciate the WTM forums so much.  Most of the conversations I see involve respectful adults offering advice and suggestions in a manner that appreciates the varied backgrounds and world views of everyone.  I appreciate the perspective of those different from me even if I don't always agree.  If done respectfully, I believe they are more helpful than groupthink.

 

Glad you started your own fb page.  As a Beast user, I may join up with it sometime soon.

[nixpix5]

I agree that it all comes to perspective. For example, I know Christians who think SOTW is unsafe and secular because they discuss nomads and the possibility of the earth being older than 6000 years in the first book, and Abraham is referred to as a moon-worshipper and not from a strict, Biblical account. Then there are secular people who think SOTW is religious because it includes a story of Abraham. To each his own.

 

If you want a safe space to only discuss what you believe, I understand. But I also think it is difficult because even in our religious or secular groups, we will have disagreements over our beliefs and what is and is not appropriate. IMHO, we all see things through the lens of the religious perspective that shapes our worldview, whether atheism, agnosticism, Christianity in various forms, Judaism, etc. I do not think this is limited to any particular worldview. I would agree that there are more religious homeschool resources available as a whole, but there are plenty of religious resources that are completely inappropriate for our different types of families.

 

While someone can run their forum or Facebook page however they want, I think it is more productive to allow a grown-up discussion where the mention of a resource that some might disagree with doesn't send people into a tizzy. This is why I appreciate the WTM forums so much. Most of the conversations I see involve respectful adults offering advice and suggestions in a manner that appreciates the varied backgrounds and world views of everyone. I appreciate the perspective of those different from me even if I don't always agree. If done respectfully, I believe they are more helpful than groupthink.

 

Glad you started your own fb page. As a Beast user, I may join up with it sometime soon.

This is so well stated.

[Farrar]

It's all very well to say that mature adults should be able to be respectful and anything should be allowed generally... but the truth is that many topics are specifically forbidden here because the mods don't want to deal with them. Honestly, I think knowing your limits as a mod in the internet age and enforcing them in as uniform way as you can is about as mature as it gets. One of the reasons that I think the WTM forums feel as respectful as they do is that they're very well policed compared to other forums I've been to. I don't think it's because we're allowed to talk about anything. I think it's because the rules are heavily enforced.

 

I allow anything to be discussed in the inclusive local group I mod. But that's my own prerogative. As long as someone else is clear, I think it's plenty respectful and productive - and I completely understand why someone would want to set up a group where they don't have to think about what's allowed and what isn't by having a hard and fast rule. I don't even think it's that hard to understand.

[Roadrunner]

Our California charter doesn't allow the purchase of Life if Fres with charter funds. Those books aren't secular.