Religion on ENWorld

[Alzrius]

And have you reported it? This is an issue to take up with the mods who edited the sig really.

I did. When Dinkeldog edited my sig, I pointed out this very issue to him. When he emailed me back that no reports had been received regarding Kai Lord's sig, I replied that I was now reporting on it (in that reply email) and that I found it offensive and would like it removed. I have since received no replies from him, and said sig file still remains.

 

[GentleGiant]

These things need to be reported. These days I have zero tolerance for "why have you allowed this?" questions regarding things I've never seen or heard about. Even with the example above, I'm none the wiser, because I don't have the faintest idea where you saw that.

In this case, it was, of course, because I didn't want to name anyone publically, like you mention further down (although if someone really wanted to find the post in question, I'm sure it's not that difficult).

That said, the words "have faith" do not equate to religious discussion, unless there's more that you haven't posted. It certainly wouldn't ring any "religion alarm bells" with me on its own. I have plenty of faith in plenty of things, none of which are religious!

Like I said above, this particular poster has "proclaimed" his (newfound?) faith in several other threads, hence why it rang my "religion alarm bells." Granted, the quoted text above isn't as egregious as others, which I also pointed out.

[And, incidentally -- that wasn't a request for a link in this thread. When we moderate someone we do it privately if possible, so as not to embarrass them or create a public spectacle. Please report the post and we'll deal with it if it seems necessary].

Of course, I wouldn't put a direct link here. I shall report the posts I find the most "offensive" to me.
And then hope for "equality for all"

Edit: Well, I'll report them when I've gotten some sleep... Zzzzzz

 

[Alzrius]

[And, incidentally -- that wasn't a request for a link in this thread. When we moderate someone we do it privately if possible, so as not to embarrass them or create a public spectacle. Please report the post and we'll deal with it if it seems necessary].

I don't like naming names either, but as I said, I had a back-and-forth email exchange that resulted in nothing happening.

 

[Morrus]

Of course, I wouldn't put a direct link here. I shall report the posts I find the most "offensive" to me.
And then hope for "equality for all"

Edit: Well, I'll report them when I've gotten some sleep... Zzzzzz

Thanks. We'll take a look at them.

 

[RangerWickett]

If I may risk offering my views here, I've always felt the intent of the board guideline was to prevent arguments and flame wars. I personally think it's silly to be offended by someone stating their own religious beliefs, as long as he's not derailing a thread.

For instance, I'm a non-demoninational Christian, raised Lutheran, with Baptist leanings. So what? I'm neither judging your beliefs nor belittling them by stating mine. If a thread in off-topic is just talking about how people cope with stress, I would think that being offended by someone mentioning religion is being a bit too touchy.

Likewise, Kai Lord's sig . . . it's a Tolkien quote. How does it offend you?

I don't recall what your previous sig said, Alzrius, but I know I've seen it a lot lately, and I don't remember ever being offended. I will say that changing someone's sig without asking them is rude (unless you had something like, 'I hate groups X, Y, and Z' that is blatantly offensive). At the very least, give the person a chance to change it himself. It's the difference between a cop telling you to move your car and a cop towing your car away.

Back to the original point, though, the guidelines are intended to prevent attacks against religions, not to excise religion from the world of EN World.

If I can draw an example from my life, one day in high school I was joking about how the west coast sucked, and as one example I said that Seattle had the highest suicide rate in the states. I was not a Nirvana fan, and so had no idea why two of my friends ranted at me for being a complete a-hole. Once someone explained that Kurt Cobain (lead singer of Nirvana, from Seattle) had killed himself, I apologized for the misunderstanding. What I said was not inherently offensive, but the people I said it to got offended.

Should I be prevented from talking about Nirvana on the boards?

The band, I mean, not the metaphysical state. That'd be religion, and religion is bad.

*grin*

 

[GentleGiant]

If I may risk offering my views here, I've always felt the intent of the board guideline was to prevent arguments and flame wars. I personally think it's silly to be offended by someone stating their own religious beliefs, as long as he's not derailing a thread.

For instance, I'm a non-demoninational Christian, raised Lutheran, with Baptist leanings. So what? I'm neither judging your beliefs nor belittling them by stating mine. If a thread in off-topic is just talking about how people cope with stress, I would think that being offended by someone mentioning religion is being a bit too touchy.

Maybe I haven't stated my "beef" properly.
It seems to me that someone can say something akin to: "The way to get better is to embrace God in you life" and nothing happens. While if someone else goes out, e.g. in the same thread, and says: "Embracing God isn't going to help you Bud, ain't no way a non-existant being is going to make your depression and money problems go away" that poster would get semi-flamed, warned by moderators, if not directly banned for a short while.
THAT is where I have a problem. The apparent acceptance of talking about religion as long as it's in a "good" way and as long as it's not critical of religion.
Saying that my above example (don't embrace God) is offensive to religious people is fine, as long as you also agree that the "embrace God" statement is offensive to someone who's opposed to religion (either that particular religion or an atheist). I don't need anyone to prod me in the chest with their religion, just as I'm sure someone religious would rather that I don't critize their religion around here.
Quid pro quo, no?

 

[Plane Sailing]

Maybe I haven't stated my "beef" properly.
It seems to me that someone can say something akin to: "The way to get better is to embrace God in you life" and nothing happens. While if someone else goes out, e.g. in the same thread, and says: "Embracing God isn't going to help you Bud, ain't no way a non-existant being is going to make your depression and money problems go away" that poster would get semi-flamed, warned by moderators, if not directly banned for a short while.
THAT is where I have a problem.

I really don't understand your problem, as I don't see these two examples you give as comparable.

If the first example had said "Whatever you do don't fall for atheistic humanist clap-trap, that's not going to be any help to you at all" it is clearly flaming a particular point of view and is thus unacceptable. Likewise if the second example had said "in my experience clinical help really works to overcome depression, and money management can help dig you out of all kinds of financial difficulties - here is a link to something I found useful" then it is areligious and non-flamey and is acceptable.

If you think the first of your examples is equivalent in offensiveness to the second of them, you have your sensitivity dial tuned up too high.

Regards,

 

[Aust Diamondew]

I have noticed similar things to what the thread-maker, GentleGiant, is talking about. While I do not find it offensive it definitly is a double standard.

 

[Psychic Warrior]

I have a couple of concerns about the, in my perception, double standards being enforced about talking about religion on the boards (well, mostly the off-topic boards).
Now, it seems to me that talking about religion in any kind of negative or inquisitory way is a very strict no-no. But apparently it's okay to espouse one's religious views when it's "used for good," so to speak.

This is just a very small and "innocent" example (other examples almost border on "repent and embrace JESUS as your saviour!" bible thumping speeches), but it's something that irks me to no end:
Emphasis mine.

Why is it okay to bless people, say prayers for them (or people they know), "congratulate" (I'm lacking a better word) on certain religious holidays and advising people to embrace faith, while it's not okay to e.g. ask about why someone feel certain things are not okay according to their interpretation of their religion?

It seems like it should be a catch-all rule. No talk about religion, whether in favour or against it.

Or am I totally alone in this way of thinking?
Note: I'm not against giving good advice to people, just keep out the religious context.

"Why is it when I talk about faith you think I'm talking about God?" - Sheppard Book

 

[Henry]

It seems to me that someone can say something akin to: "The way to get better is to embrace God in you life" and nothing happens. While if someone else goes out, e.g. in the same thread, and says: "Embracing God isn't going to help you Bud, ain't no way a non-existant being is going to make your depression and money problems go away" that poster would get semi-flamed, warned by moderators, if not directly banned for a short while.

Good example, and it's the first I've seen this example, so let's examine it.

In the example you used, God, a god, nor gods were mentioned. "Have faith," can mean anything from "keep up good hope," or "trust that things will work out" or "God can help." It's not discussing religion, it's not denigrating anyone's choice, and even more than that, it's a message of support and optimism that doesn't denigrate anyone's choices, and try as I might, I can't read it any other way.

If I saw a message that said, "You must embrace (God/Allah/Thor/Scientology) to be better," then I'd edit it pretty quickly (as soon as I had dowsed any fires at work, and assuming another mod hadn't got it yet).

Please report any time you see something, because we see these, checking reported posts quite regularly.

However, (and this is something that bothers me personally because people make the assumption) one shouldn't assume that because we didn't edit an offending post right away that we

(A) immediately approve of it
(B) don't care
(C) hate the reporter or even dislike them or their beliefs

There are posts that ride the line and get discussed to death ALL the time, on what's the best way to handle it. Sometimes, we have to dig and find out how deep it goes, if there's a grudge involved between two posters, etc. Sometimes, we won't agree, as in the example you posted, which is a large difference between "Have faith" and "Embracing God." If we don't, and if we feel it needs to be addressed, we may post something in the thread to let people know it's been looked at and OK.

We get a wide range of reports, from the obvious that cross the line, to the gray areas where someone skirts the rules, to some reports that we just can't see where someone had a beef.

For Every:

Reported by: Hypersmurf
From: <Thread about how to handle a personal problem>
>Hey,
>You should Embrace God or you go to H-E-doublehockeysticks
>

Reason:
Religious discussion ahoy!

We also get:

Reported by: Morrus
From: <Thread about unusual campaign settings>
>Hey, Julie, long time no see!
>I run a campaign set in an underwater setting myself.

Reason:
Off-topic banter should go in Off-topic! Why do you allow this!?!?!!

and everything in between. (Using exaggerated examples above, but hopefully I'm illustrating the range we see on a regular basis).