This subforum would be run on the same rules, that it is the accepted view for that subforum. This would help keep things neutral within the userbase.

For clarification, this would be an equivalent where things can be examined logically without subjective belief, to complement the existence of a subforum for non-scientific topics.

Questions are invited. In particular, I would like to know the reason behind opposition to this when it has been proposed to keep the forums neutral without implicitly supporting any one view.

Note that this is NOT an official decision, but merely to determine if there is a degree of support for keeping official implicit support neutral.

I am willing to give a spiritual subforum a chance - I just ask that people give I'm willing to help moderate it, even, to prevent arguments. I just ask that people give a chance for an equivalent, even if they will never use it themselves.

A spirituality forum isn't supporting any one view dog.

It's supporting anti-logic views.

Pretty sure having a place for people to talk about their spiritual views, religious or not, without being attacked for them isn't supporting anything except tolerance.

Easiest way to say it.

In my honest opinion, I regretfully say this to those who voted no:
How can you do this in good conscience? You are hypocritical to give all sorts of reasons for why a Spirituality subforum should be implemented and then not allow a secular subforum. I mean it. I really can't believe these results.

What about people being able to talk about their logical views then?

As Moco has said, I am giving the spirituality subforum a chance. I'm willing to help moderate it, even, to prevent arguments. Why are people not willing to do the same for a logic one? You do not need to use it, just let people have somewhere for their views.

I don't have a problem with a secular subforum, I just don't think it's necessary to have one in order to maintain a "balance," as if anything would be offset within the community by having a spirituality forum.

The idea is more for a logic one.
That is, one where people with non-spiritual views can discuss those.

First of all, what about it? It is done freely in many subforums already.

Second of all, having it just for the sake of some perceived balance is silly. We add forum sections because they will productive and active. Next thing I know, someone is going to want a "Pollution" forum to balance Environmentalism.

I voted against it because I don't think it will actually be used, and the only reason it's being suggested is because people oppose the spirituality thing. I don't think it will see any lasting use, and I vote against it both as an user AND an admin, on that basis.

This is exactly what you said could not be done for Spirituality. IMO, this is hypocrisy and I am not afraid to say so.

The plain and obvious difference is, no one wants that except maybe for a troll here and there, and you know it. I find it offensive that you even compare this request to such a situation. This is discrimination, and it's not fair.

Impliment it, and we'll just see if it gets used more than Sports, Role Playing, or Fan Articles. I'd bet any amount of money that it will. We oppose it conditionally, we oppose it if there is no alternative, and above all, we oppose it not because it is for "Spirituality", but because it is for hiding.

If it gets voted for, we will implement it, the same as anything else (within reason and legality). My personal views have zero to do with what happens here, policy wise. I get one vote as an user, the same as you. That should be the same for every admin here.

I am not suggesting that the rules of the vote be changed. I am not suggesting that the final score shouldn't be accounted for. I am only appalled at these results, sincerely. I just can't believe it.

The poll has been up for one hour... it has a full week. Not everyone lives on here, I'm sure there will be more votes, and it's close as it is now.

I agree - it's hypocritical.

I've raised legitimate concerns about the suggested subforum, and this is a suggested way of balancing them out, to neutralise them - it means they people who want theirs get theirs, and people who would have otherwise opposed it still get an arrangement they are happy with.