Could I suggest that for the religion sites (Biblical Hermeneutics.SE, Buddhism.SE, Christianity.SE, Islam.SE, Judaism.SE, and the like), this language is going to cause confusion or consternation:

Be civil. Attacking or harassing individuals based on gender, sexual orientation, disability, gender identity, age, race, or religion – and any and all other types of personal attack – is unacceptable.

I know there is going to come a point when someone who simply disagrees with something somebody has written is going to say "The mods are suppressing me." Islam.SE has its Sunni-Shia problems, Christianity.SE has its users who particularly "oppressed" and it is very easy to get one's nose out of joint. Furthermore, we are all sick of jabs that some people want to take in the guise of a question or answer, no matter how disingenuous.

At our best, the religion sites work very hard to remind everyone that we are secular (even if most of the members are believers) and that we are actually NOT interested in debate. On Christianity.SE, in particular, we regularly tell users that we are different from other sites.

Even with all of that, users will feel oppressed. They will feel their ideas are being singled out and attacked. For our religious sites, in particular, this language may be helpful:

Please note that Stack Exchange seeks neither to promote nor discourage any viewpoint. On religious sites, in particular, we do not wish to encourage ongoing arguments amongst religions or within sects thereof.

 

Questions and Answers should be neutral in tone, supported with historical and verifiable resources, and not used for proselytization or denigration. Evaluating the merits of ideas or behaviours within documented established traditions of the scope of a given site is not an attack. Demonstrating that a particular argument is outside the expressed tradition of the site is not suppression or oppression. Without exception, Stack Exchange religion sites seek to be academic resources and conform to norms of behaviour one would find within the academic environment that studies them.

 

If your professor would call you out for a statement, it is out of bounds.

Could I suggest that for the religion sites (Biblical Hermeneutics.SE, Buddhism.SE, Christianity.SE, Islam.SE, Judaism.SE, and the like), this language is going to cause confusion or consternation:

Be civil. Attacking or harassing individuals based on gender, sexual orientation, disability, gender identity, age, race, or religion – and any and all other types of personal attack – is unacceptable.

I know there is going to come a point when someone who simply disagrees with something somebody has written is going to say "The mods are suppressing me." Islam.SE has its Sunni-Shia problems, Christianity.SE has its users who particularly "oppressed" and it is very easy to get one's nose out of joint. Furthermore, we are all sick of jabs that some people want to take in the guise of a question or answer, no matter how disingenuous.

At our best, the religion sites work very hard to remind everyone that we are secular (even if most of the members are believers) and that we are actually NOT interested in debate. On Christianity.SE, in particular, we regularly tell users that we are different from other sites.

Even with all of that, users will feel oppressed. They will feel their ideas are being singled out and attacked. For our religious sites, in particular, this language may be helpful:

Please note that Stack Exchange seeks neither to promote nor discourage any viewpoint. On religious sites, in particular, we do not wish to encourage ongoing arguments amongst religions or within sects thereof.

Questions and Answers should be neutral in tone, supported with historical and verifiable resources, and not used for proselytization or denigration. Evaluating the merits of ideas or behaviours within documented established traditions of the scope of a given site is not an attack. Demonstrating that a particular argument is outside the expressed tradition of the site is not suppression or oppression. Without exception, Stack Exchange religion sites seek to be academic resources and conform to norms of behaviour one would find within the academic environment that studies them.

If your professor would call you out for a statement, it is out of bounds.

Could I suggest that for the religion sites (Biblical Hermeneutics.SE, Buddhism.SE, Christianity.SE, Islam.SE, Judaism.SE, and the like), this language is going to cause confusion or consternation:

Be civil. Attacking or harassing individuals based on gender, sexual orientation, disability, gender identity, age, race, or religion – and any and all other type of personal attack – is unacceptable.

I know there is going to come a point when someone who simply disagrees with something somebody has written is going to say "The mods are suppressing me." Islam.SE has its Sunni-Shia problems, Christianity.SE has its users who particularly "oppressed" and it is very easy to get one's nose out of joint. Furthermore, we are all sick of jabs that some people want to take in the guise of a question or answer, no matter how disingenuous.

At our best, the religion sites work very hard to remind everyone that we are secular (even if most of the members are believers) and that we are actually NOT interested in debate. On Christianity.SE, in particular, we regularly tell users that we are different from other sites.

Even with all of that, users will feel oppressed. They will feel their ideas are being singled out and attacked. For the religion sites in particular, this language may be helpful:

Please note that Stack Exchange seeks neither to promote nor discourage any viewpoint. On religious sites in particular, we do not wish to encourage ongoing arguments amongst religions or within sects thereof.

Questions and Answers should be neutral in tone, supported with historical and verifiable resources, and not used for proselytization or denigration. Evaluating the merits of ideas or behaviors within documented established traditions of the scope of a given site is not an attack. Demonstrating that a particular argument is outside the expressed tradition of the site is not suppression or oppression. Without exception, Stack Exchange religion sites seek to be academic resources and conform to norms of behavior one would find within the academic environment that studies them.

If your professor would call you out for a statement, it is out of bounds.

Could I suggest that for the religion sites (Biblical Hermeneutics.SE, Buddhism.SE, Christianity.SE, Islam.SE, Judaism.SE, and the like), this language is going to cause confusion or consternation:

Be civil. Attacking or harassing individuals based on gender, sexual orientation, disability, gender identity, age, race, or religion – and any and all other types of personal attack – is unacceptable.

I know there is going to come a point when someone who simply disagrees with something somebody has written is going to say "The mods are suppressing me." Islam.SE has its Sunni-Shia problems, Christianity.SE has its users who particularly "oppressed" and it is very easy to get one's nose out of joint. Furthermore, we are all sick of jabs that some people want to take in the guise of a question or answer, no matter how disingenuous.

At our best, the religion sites work very hard to remind everyone that we are secular (even if most of the members are believers) and that we are actually NOT interested in debate. On Christianity.SE, in particular, we regularly tell users that we are different from other sites.

Even with all of that, users will feel oppressed. They will feel their ideas are being singled out and attacked. For our religious sites, in particular, this language may be helpful:

Please note that Stack Exchange seeks neither to promote nor discourage any viewpoint. On religious sites, in particular, we do not wish to encourage ongoing arguments amongst religions or within sects thereof.

Questions and Answers should be neutral in tone, supported with historical and verifiable resources, and not used for proselytization or denigration. Evaluating the merits of ideas or behaviours within documented established traditions of the scope of a given site is not an attack. Demonstrating that a particular argument is outside the expressed tradition of the site is not suppression or oppression. Without exception, Stack Exchange religion sites seek to be academic resources and conform to norms of behaviour one would find within the academic environment that studies them.

If your professor would call you out for a statement, it is out of bounds.