Avoid truth assertions

**Avoid truth assertions**

We want a site that welcomes people of all perspectives, as our site description says.  
This broadens the appeal of the site (though of course we don't want a free-for-all).

This site focuses on the *text* and the 
process of interpreting it, using the tools of (at least) grammar, linguistics, history, 
archaeology, science, and comparison with other texts.  None of that is inherently 
religious, and that non-dependence on a religious foundation is what 
*distinguishes* BH from other sites in the SE network.

Our goal should be: (a) don't make truth statements unless your argument requires it, 
and (b) if your argument *does* require it, qualify those statements. Saying "according to X" 
instead of just "X" provides important context that may not be otherwise obvious. 
It also leaves room for the same answer to then say "but according to Y" and 
"and according to Z". An answer that can bring multiple perspectives and compare/contrast 
them is a very strong answer.

Because we are focused on the text and the process, not on religious application, 
assertions of religious truth ("dogma") are not helpful in answers: they can't be 
examined, proven or disproven, or dug into the same way that other assertions can be. 
In addition, their presence weakens the answer for any reader who does not agree with 
the truth of those assertions. At best such assertions boil down to "because I say so".
*Answers of this type fundamentally fail the "show your work" site guideline.*

Further, welcoming these kinds of truth assertions drives away some key types of
users, to the detriment of the site.  Two top users (and a third newer one) have
posted about the problematic nature of a site that welcomes dogma, and several knowledgeable
Jews who have declined to participate here have 
[explained](http://meta.hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/592/208) that this is a factor.
Allowing truth assertions makes this a de-facto Christian site due to demographics, 
and contributions bringing the rabbinic, Hebrew-bible-based perspective will be
limited to Christians who have also studied this material. **Allowing religious assertions
of truth reduces the chances of getting the broad content we say we want.**

Opponents will argue that we already welcome all perspectives, and that's true to the extent 
that "welcome" means "accept questions and answers from".  But that's not really welcoming;
that's tolerance.  To be truly *welcoming* we should
be striving to *not unnecessarily make people uncomfortable*.  It's the difference between
saying "sure you can come in" and actually being *hospitable*, which sometimes means voluntarily
restricting oneself *in this setting* (not in every aspect of one's life) for the sake of the
greater good.  It means the online equivalent of not blowing cigarette smoke in the allergic 
person's face, or turning off the R-rated movie when young children are visiting, or saving the
family-specific conversation for a time when only family is present.  That's good manners.

As noted in the question, no matter what we do some people will feel uncomfortable and leave. 
If we move toward this answer's goal then we will lose anyone who feels a strong conviction 
to present religious truth. One top Christian user is on record as saying that if he has
to qualify truth statements he'd feel unable to participate according to his conscience.
This appears to be a minority view among Christians; many other Christians participate
here without making these kinds of assertions.  If a few Christian users leave then,
while that's disappointing, we have not lost their perspective.  On the other hand, if
we allow these kinds of truth assertions, we risk losing some non-Christian perspectives
entirely.

Another answer points out that our traffic is growing, one measure of success,
as support for the current trajectory.  Another important measure is user participation;
if users don't continue to supply new, quality content, then eventually visits will drop
off (nothing new to see).  Area 51 
[lists](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1817?phase=beta&users=mostactive#tab-top)
"top users" based on participation (not just reputation); of the top 10, four are inactive 
and one more has a long record of low-quality posts.  The next 10 don't fare much better; 
more than half of them contribute minimally or not at all now.  *This trend should concern us.*

This is not about individuals. There is no outcome that will please everyone and we need to 
recognise that whatever we choose will suit some and alienate others. This is not the aim of 
course but we must persue the best long-term goal for the site.