Religion on ENWorld

[DragonSword]

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.

Seconded.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

My 2 cents:

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.

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.

 

[Psionicist]

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. Personally I don't mind much, although it would be interesting to discuss sort-of-religious topics once in a while. I do have a passion to question pretty much everything.

 

[Jdvn1]

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

It's religious in nature. Just because it's a quote doesn't make it non-religious.

If I put a quote by Brad Pitt saying, "I love God, he is the god of humans" in my sig, that'd be offensive to some people. It implies a) there is a god (which offends atheists) and that he his the god of humans (which offends two groups: people whose god differs from his and aliens).

 

[Dagger75]

If I put a quote by Brad Pitt saying, "I love God, he is the god of humans" in my sig, that'd be offensive to some people. It implies a) there is a god (which offends atheists) and that he his the god of humans (which offends two groups: people whose god differs from his and aliens).

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.

 

[Crothian]

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.

ACtually that last bit isn't true here. If something offends you, then you use the report a post option Let the mods deal with it.

 

[Darkness]

it would be interesting to discuss sort-of-religious topics once in a while.

You could try Nothingland. Lots of folks there are even (sometimes former) EN Worlders.

 

[RangerWickett]

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.

If the quote was "Women aren't important," that's judgmental and offensive. But if person A can't hear person B state that he has different religious, political, social, or sexual views than person A, then I believe person A is the one at fault.

 

[Morrus]

If the quote was "Women aren't important," that's judgmental and offensive. But if person A can't hear person B state that he has different religious, political, social, or sexual views than person A, then I believe person A is the one at fault.

In an ideal world, that would be the case. But people aren't like that. They fight wars over such things, have done throughout history, still do now. In our case, they start flamewars over them.

We're not moderating the boards in a way to attempt to change society or make a social statement. We're just trying to stop arguments from happening.

 

[RangerWickett]

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. If the large majority of the board feels that a statement is non-inflammatory, and a few people complain, I think it might be better to tell them, "Sorry, but you're making a mountain of a molehill."

If I don't believe in ghosts, and someone says he saw a ghost, if I report the post, will the moderators tell the person to stop talking about ghosts as if they were real?