I am allowed to give feedback so I will use the opportunity. A personal hopefully constructive view of what is in my view wrong with this forum. I will post my thoughts in a number of posts.

Ethics
I hope we can agree that any forum that defends religion should take the highest ethics as a lead. The whole purpose of ethics is defending peoples human rights, basically ethics comes down to defending the rights of people of less power to people of more power. Nobody needs to defend people with power, they can do that themselves. Ethics directs at protecting those with less power.

Any system that purposely tries to create a situation in which people are made powerless against rulers is unethical. leaders who want to oppress others will create rules in such a way that that the people have no other rights than to respectfully obey. Any disobedience is interpreted as breaking the rules, and disrespect to the system. In such a system leaders often will not listen to protests. Such systems are very low in democracy, they are autocratic. And they are by their very nature unethical, even if the rulers claim to be inspired by the highest ethics.

One who says: I need to make you powerless to force my high ethics on you, lives in delusions of his own grandeur. Love can not be enforced on people. Respect can not be enforced on people. Compassion can not be enforced on people. Happiness can not be enforced on people. Turning people into obedient servants is not ethics but the opposite of ethics.

Democracy
Democracy can only exist if several other conditions are met like: Freedom of speech, tolerance, division of power. People must be allowed to voice their opinion and they must be allowed a space to be different, even if this greatly disturbs others. This is best expressed in the words describing the views of the great philosopher Voltaire:

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Freedom of speech
The US is a country where this ideal is held very high. In the US extremist can say almost anything, even things others may see as very hurtful, as long as the do not call people to do hurtful things that break the law. So a neoNazi can say: I want a country without blacks, but he can not say, lets kill the blacks.

Why is this? Why not forbid them to say hurtful things? Because that quickly ends the freedom of speech. Then we get things like in Russia and China, when criticism on the government is punished as an insult to the state, or an insult to the head of state. It makes political opposition effectively impossible because any critique can be interpreted as insult to the rulers. If the government is corrupt, you can no longer say that because that is an insult. That is why freedom of speech should not be restricted by outlawing disrespect. What you then get is an autocratic rule that denies people the right to criticize.

The same is with tolerance. Respect is only a value if it works both ways. The people in power must show the same kind of respect to the ones they rule as the demand from them. That means, allowing people rights that restrict the power (constitution) of the rulers and respect those rights. For instance people should be able to go against the state by having an independent justice system that checks the actions of the government against the constitutions. Only if people are given rights that they can be enforce, there is democracy.