The following is a place-holder, originally written for doing this on social media. That seems too unwieldy so I am starting this page. There will probably be little change to the guidelines so I just pasted onto here so anyone stumbling upon this has an idea of what to expect.
/* Note to Self: Create link for this to open up the guidelines on a different page to avoid home-page clutter. And to others that may stumble on this site, this section is NOT from the original template
*/

Most recent update: 2025.12.21
Original public version: 2025.12.21


This is going to be somewhat long but I want to be clear. If you want to post a comment / response, please at least read the guidelines section – at the ~very~ least, focus on the bold text. I will put the guidelines first. Anyone wanting to understand my intent (or motivation) for this project / series and background can read on – I especially encourage you to do so if you choose to actively participate.


You do not need to restrict your discussion to this forum – discuss these things with real people: friends, family, religious leaders, politicians. Re-post my questions within your circles – online and IRL, if so inclined. However, only do so with people who you know will be safe to discuss such things with.


One of my general philosophies which I find helpful to assess a source (or the source that someone is using) is: If you need to lie to justify your position, your position is not justifiable! I’m not going to reject you if you say anything that seems wrong to me. I will probably respond with something like, “It sounds like you’re saying, … Is that right?” And I encourage the same approach for everyone else! From here, we can start to develop an understanding of where we stand and how we got there. I don’t see how that can be a bad thing but if someone out there is convinced it is a bad idea, just stay away. Or better yet, quietly observe and see if there may actually be some benefit in understanding each other.




Guidelines for Responses & Comments:
> I expect to mostly ask questions to learn about the views of particular groups (mostly MAGA supporters and the new wave of evangelical Christians (they aren’t what I remember from my “youth” (i.e. <~30 years old)). I will say that, at this time, the difference between modern evangelicals and MAGA seems to be almost non-existent, to me. Please do NOT respond to ~my question~ if you are neither OF the particular group or position I am addressing NOR close enough to the group or position to have actual ~knowledge~ or insight of their views and ~why~ they hold the position they do. In other words, I do NOT want someone to present their conjectures or random guesses at to the motivations behind the group’s position. Either way, please clarify if you are speaking as a member of the group I am addressing or if you are someone adjacent enough to have insight into their position. I will feel free to delete answers from “outsiders” as they do nothing for the goal of trying to understand the position of the group. And yes, I understand that no one can speak for an entire large group. However, people within the group will typically have a more direct insight to the group’s thinking and motivation than an “outsider” would have. Also, an “insider” will at least reflect a ~portion~ of the motivation or thinking within that group.

> If you want to work / plan ahead, I expect that many of my questions will center around how people consider conservative / MAGA positions to be consistent with Christian values (as Christians are the largest supporters of MAGA politics). I have a very hard time understanding this.

> While I don’t want “outsiders” to answer the initial question, I’d like to encourage you to ~respond~ to the answers – do not speak for another person or group or hypothesize as to their motivations or line of thinking. In short, speak for yourself instead of stating as fact something you only ~think~ someone else thinking. If the person you’re responding to was ambiguous, ask for clarification – don’t just assume you know what they meant. The more open you are as to your understanding and intentions, the more open and honest we can be in our discussion. I consider discussion to be a good thing; it is only through a back-and-forth interaction that we can develop a clear understanding of each other’s position. To state a primary goal: the purpose is to understand ~each other~ – not attack or change ~the other~.

> Be respectful! If you don’t agree with someone, think about why you don’t agree with them (this requires that you be self-aware of ~why~ you hold your own views). At that time, you can respectfully explain why you think the way you do or, better yet, ask the other person why they hold their view or position.

> I may, at times, make statements (state my opinion or call attention to a current event) instead of asking questions. I will make it clear at the outset if I simply making a statement (i.e. standing on my soapbox) – if I fail to do so, please call me out so I can correct my mistake and re-post appropriately. I can imagine that I may find the compulsion to do so more often. For now, however, my intent is primarily to have an open dialogue. And if I do make a statement instead of asking a question, still feel free to respond (as I’m sure you will).
/* given the blog / web page format, this will probably become a different section (the Soapbox section)
*/