Religion on ENWorld

[Truth Seeker]

*sigh* Okay, I was trying not to say something, but...*stepping into the gravel pit*

Now I must...Ryan, this high colored quotation, speaks of censoring one view on one side. No mod. here, does not want to be accused of favoritism, for censoring one view, when the originalmessage in question might be a bit hot in the virtual halls of disccusion. the Freedom of Speech, is a indaring and beloved double-edged sword.

To moderate those, who take offense to the message, who wish to make their view known...will cry censorship bells across the net. And something like that, can damage the rep as for a place like ENworld (use as a example)

I use to be a mod, for another site, awhile back and trust me, walking that tightrope, is not for $#%@ and giggles.

A mod cannot side with a one-sided preference view, if that seen, it might produce a bad taste down the road.

Sometimes, the closing of a inflame thread, may it be a good thread with decent intentions going the bad way...of course, or the reverse, with a bad thread going good (a miracle to me )

If the intergity of the site is gonna get tarnished, in some fashion.

Thread closed.

End of disccusion.

Recommend, if they want to discuss it further, go to e-mail or IM...a much better controlled and more private environment *but be careful with AOL, they have censor cops online*

Sometimes intergity will be the rule of survive, over free speech...it is a gray area.

I understand that, but what I'm trying to say is that sometimes it is better not to moderate the message, but rather to moderate those who take offense to the message.

 

[Jdvn1]

And its just as offensive when someone says there isn't a god. So who is right? Who trumps who?

And if you get offended over something, thats your problem, not mine or anyone elses.

Exactly! That's why we avoid the issue altogether.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Most EnWorld-members live in US. Many people in US are religious. I don't think it's a fallacy to claim that there will be more reports (as in "report a post") from religious members than, eh, non-religious members.

I don't think it's just that. I'm an atheist, but I'm not bothered by people who post something religious, and I would never report such a post. However, I think (and this is my guess from real life anecdotal evidence) that there are probably more religious people who are bothered by anything atheistic than there are atheistic people who are bothered by anything religious.

Where it makes me a bit uneasy is where some people in this thread have said that if an atheist is bothered by religious posts, it is their fault, whereas it is not the case for a religious person bothered by atheistic posts. This seems to be a double-standard, although it is not the one I have seen in general on ENWorld, and indeed, from what I've seen, moderation is usually quite fair and balanced in both directions, though admittedly I haven't seen it often.

In an ideal world, all atheists and religious folks would be like me, and everyone would be open to all other religions and none of us would be bothered by posts about others' religions, but sadly, we do not yet live in this world. The people who run ENWorld know this, and they know that religious differences can lead to flamewars, and thus they have made the rule banning religion.

I think we should support them in this, and leave it to the individual posters who are upset to report the offending post. I know it probably won't be me, and perhaps something that nobody reading the thread finds offensive will slip by, but that's okay.

 

[mythusmage]

Banned: My God can beat up your God.

Allowed: He drank a six pack of Fosters in one sitting? Don't know if it'll help, but I'll include him in my nightly prayers.

 

[GentleGiant]

Let me try and explain my reasoning again.
I have absolutely no problem with anyone around here being of certain faiths or not. I have friends who are deeply religious and I have some that are not. To each their own.
What I have a problem with isn't really that people post religious messages in their posts either. No, the problem lies in the fact that those messages often slip by, while posts of the opposite opinion are often squashed and seen as "bad" by a lot of people. That's the double standard I'm objecting against, what with the apparent "no religion" rule being in place.
In fact, I wouldn't mind going into some deep discussions about religion and faith, but if I can't express my point of view, then what's the point? :\
And I think Rystil Arden is quite right in the following statement:

However, I think (and this is my guess from real life anecdotal evidence) that there are probably more religious people who are bothered by anything atheistic than there are atheistic people who are bothered by anything religious.

And I think, and I'm only guessing here, since I don't know Plane Sailing's personal view on religion, that this quote of his is an example of the above:

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.

And let me reiterate: My initial quote with the words "have faith" irked me because the poster in question has repeatedly posted other messages about his faith and how he as found religion and now everything is good (although he has also complained about being lonely, but that's an aside). So, no, the quote, taken out of context, doesn't necessarily have anything to do with religion, but when it's that particular poster, then it clearly is a religious reference.
I'm sorry for maybe using an example that wasn't all that clear, I just copied the latest example of what annoyed me.
This should be a place where you are entitled to give your opinion, no matter which side of the fence you're on, but if you can't do that, then neither side should be allowed to express their specific opinion.
That's only fair, right?

1) I thought The Rules were guidelines, rather than strictly taboos, and were more about having respect than about a specific set of do's and dont's.

I fully agree. I'm on the side, though, that feel that proclaiming your deep devotion to God (or whatever) and that everyone who does so will feel much better isn't respecting my point of view.

2) IMO, if something bothers you about a thread, you should take a moment to ask yourself why it does so. Does the post offend you because you feel they are somehow attacking you or it actually makes you feel uncomfortable, or is it just because the rules say they can't? I think the first reasons are legitimate reasons to report. If it is just because of the rules, then that is just complianing about "fairness," which I don't think is a legitimate reason to be offended and report a post.

I would say that it's a bit of both. Such posts make me feel uncomfortable because I'm not of the persuasion that religion is the answer to a lot of problems. Hence I'm annoyed that such proclamations can go unnoticed on a board with a no-religion policy, while if I were to give my opposing view, I'd get reported and maybe worse.

I'm sorry, but I believe it's foolish to get offend at someone else stating their beliefs. If they practice a belief, and it threatens you, that's something else, but just saying, "I [or someone else] thinks there is a God" should not be offensive. It's someone's opinion, and it's not intended to denigrate.

This goes back to Rystil Arden's post. Do you also think it's foolish to get offended at someone else for stating that there isn't a god? They are just expressing their belief too. "It's someone's opinion, and it's not intended to denigrate."

Lastly, I'm not accusing the moderators for not doing their job, as some have hinted at, not at all. I know you can't read every single thread. That's also one of the reasons why I started this thread, to make everyone, including the moderators, aware that some of us have a problem with this seemingly double standard.

Sorry if I have repeated myself.

 

[RangerWickett]

This goes back to Rystil Arden's post. Do you also think it's foolish to get offended at someone else for stating that there isn't a god? They are just expressing their belief too. "It's someone's opinion, and it's not intended to denigrate."

Yes, I think that's foolish. "There is a God. There isn't a God. God exists, but she's a woman. There's no one god; there's a pantheon. I used to believe in God, but I don't anymore. I used to be an atheist, but now I'm Jewish. I used to be Scientologist, but I converted to worship lord Cthulhu."

All those things are fine with me. It's the tenor of the statement that makes a difference.

I'm originally from southeast Texas. If someone said, "SE Texas sucks," I might be a little irked. If they said, "The last time I was in SE Texas, I was treated rudely. I don't ever want to go there again," I wouldn't be offended at all.

I really haven't noticed an anti-atheism sentiment on the boards. I mean, hell, I was an atheist from 8th to 10th grade, and I've dabbled in agnosticism. If you have examples of people being unfriendly to atheists who are just stating their beliefs, PM me a link to the examples. I haven't seen it myself, which is why I thought this thread was a little strange.

 

[Umbran]

If we go by strict logic, any statement of any belief in anything whatsoever can be considered "religious", by some definition of the term. This, of course, would be patently ludicrous. Clearly dealing with religion requires judgement, rather than strict adherence to the letter of the law.

What is the purpose of the guideline? To head off acrimony from religion-based flamewars. To do that, they don't need to scrub the place antiseptically PC clean. What we should really expect is that the mods will deal with statements that invite religious discussion or argument. Some statements invite discussion, others don't. The ones that don't invite comment can stay, others have to go.

 

[Crothian]

No, the problem lies in the fact that those messages often slip by, while posts of the opposite opinion are often squashed and seen as "bad" by a lot of people. That's the double standard I'm objecting against, what with the apparent "no religion" rule being in place.

What you see as a double standard is really one type of post gets reported and the other does not. Remember the mods don't see everything.

 

[Nifft]

And it needs to be pointed to a larger audience why?

I'm a fan of informed, reasoned decisions based on informed, reasoned discussion. He's asking us to have one of the latter.

IMHO it's good to decide social norms this way.

-- N

PS: Yeah, religion is a slippery slope. I think people give implicit declarations (e.g. "have faith") more leeway than explicit statements (e.g. "god is dead") -- the former is more ambiguous, harder to isolate from the rest of the message. Thus, if you want to send an athiestic message, send it implicitly. You'll get your message heard without starting a fight.

Athiestic positive motifs (which should be as inoffensive as "have faith"):
- Life may stink, but it sure beats the alternative.
- You are alone in the world except for the people who love you, so share some love.
- Seize the day. Life is a prescious and limited resource.
- Don't justify your actions according to some abstract rule set. You answer to the people who you either help or hurt, not to some imaginary ideal.
- Life is about relationships with other people.

 

[Morrus]

I'm a fan of informed, reasoned decisions based on informed, reasoned discussion. He's asking us to have one of the latter.

IMHO it's good to decide social norms this way.

Just to clarify, while people are welcome to discuss this topic (as long as they don't actually discuss religion or politics while doing so), the Meta forum is not a decision-making-by-consensus venue - and decisions aren't made by consensus round here. There's no decision or policy change on the horizon.