I. The Principle of Categorization

All contributions regarding religious or spiritual phenomena must be translated into their respective secular disciplines. Participants agree to abandon ecclesiastical terminology in favor of academic inquiry.

• Subjectivity vs. Objectivity: Speak not of what “God says,” but of what “the text claims.”

• Experience vs. Analysis: Personal testimony is treated as psychological data, not as a universal truth.

II. The Linguistic Standards

To ensure clarity and prevent proselytizing, the following linguistic shifts are mandatory during formal sessions:

III. The Rule Against Proselytizing

The Circle is a space for observation, not conversion.

• No Solicitation: Attempting to recruit members into a belief system, lifestyle, or sect is grounds for immediate redirection.

• The “Neutral Chair”: When discussing theologians (Augustine, Aquinas, Al-Ghazali), they are to be treated as philosophers. Their logic is subject to critique, regardless of their perceived sanctity.

IV. Intellectual Humility and Rigor

• The Anthropological Lens: Participants must respect the cultural significance of traditions without validating their supernatural claims.

• The Burden of Proof: Any claim presented as a fact (rather than a myth or psychological state) must be supported by empirical evidence or logical deduction.

The Moderator’s Pivot: A Cheat Sheet

1. The “Theological” Override

Scenario: A member cites a holy text as an absolute authority or divine truth (e.g., “The scripture tells us how we must live.”)

• The Pivot: “Let’s pause there. To stay within our framework, let’s examine that text through a philosophical lens. What is the underlying ethical argument being made, and how does it hold up to logical scrutiny?”

• The Redirect: “In Anthropology, we’d ask: How did this specific command help stabilize the society that produced it?”

2. The “Testimonial” Trap

Scenario: A member begins sharing a deeply personal “spiritual awakening” or a claim of a miracle.

• The Pivot: “That’s a compelling narrative. From a Psychological perspective, how does an experience like that alter an individual’s cognitive map or sense of self?”

• The Redirect: “If we treat that as Mythology, what common archetypes or ‘Hero’s Journey’ elements do we see playing out in that story?”

3. The “Proselytizing” Pulse

Scenario: A member begins trying to convince others of the “rightness” of a specific path (e.g., “If everyone followed these tenets, the world would be fixed.”)

• The Pivot: “You’re touching on Sociology now—specifically the study of Utopian movements. What are the historical outcomes when a group attempts to scale that specific social contract?”

• The Redirect: “Let’s keep our focus on observation rather than advocacy. What are the observable social mechanics of that belief system?”

4. The “Sectarian” Skirmish

Scenario: Two members begin arguing over whose interpretation of a tradition is “correct.”

• The Pivot: “We aren’t here to determine the ‘correct’ version of a faith. Let’s look at this as Anthropologists: Why do these two distinct interpretations exist, and what cultural or geographic factors caused them to diverge?”

Quick-Reference “Soft-Correction” Phrases

The “Hard Stop” Clause

If a member persists in preaching after two pivots, use the Secular Mandate:

“The Circle’s mission is to analyze the human phenomenon, not to practice the tradition. I’m going to ask you to set aside your personal conviction so we can return to the academic inquiry. Can we move back to the [Sociology/Philosophy] of this topic?”