Religious Intolerance

I am not asking for policy to be changed. All I am asking is that if an open dialogue is being brought up in MS how to curb ignorance and intolerance that an issue I feel strongly about be made aware of.

 

rather than demand a solution, can you suggest you would tackle your perceived problem?

I struggle to understand how you could ever tackle ignorance, other than to insist that any submit a 200page thesis to prove they are knowledgable in a given subject prior to posting.

 

How about we just be nice to each other. Then we don't have to worry about problems.

 

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just remember where we've been before with this as an administration. There are so many lines (if you're being fair) that can be drawn.

What about Scientologists? Atheists? Muslims? Women? Conservatives? Liberals? Southerners (in the US)? People who love the PT? People who thought Battlefield Earth was a good movie? Anyone who doesn't agree with me...? Etc?

I don't deny that we should all respect each other and the tone we use in our disagreement can mean the difference between simple disagreement and flaming, but there will always be "groups" that disagree with the other "group". Let's be honest, some people even get offended that someone is disagreeing with them. Hence the slippery slope that I think Malkie is referring to. IMO, it becomes harder and harder to be objective as the groups get larger. I think the rule should always be treat each other with respect, absolutely, and the rules as they stand pretty much support that. You can't call a member an idiot for thinking a certain way, and the current rules allow for moderator judgement on when a user is baiting a group to get to a user, at least the way I read them they do.

 

You misinterpret my intentions. I don't recall ever demanding anything at all. This isn't a problem that can necessarily be solved and I certainly don't have any solutions as I have already stated. All I am saying is that an open dialogue can sometimes go a long way to making people aware. If this is already being brought up in MS, why not ask that my concerns be addressed to some degree? I really don't see the harm in discussing it.

 

yes, exactly - your post hits the nail on the head.

 

I'd just hate to continually answer the question of religious tolerance with the same notion that the current rules pretty much covers all we can cover. Do they? If they do, why are we here talking about it every six weeks? Is this subject just so passionately defended that we always hear from all sides at all times?

Although, I don't think there's an easy, one-time solution either. Maybe we should just keep it to defending members of this site, but allowing users to say what they want about a certain group, as long as it's not viewed as trying to bait one user by using a group reference. We'll have context for that.

 

The reason it keeps coming up is because religion is one of the only areas that I seem to see where people don't shrug off negative comments towards it as a whole. Someone that might just ignore a person that says "Star Wars is stupid" would turn around and react strongly to a comment that "Belief in God is stupid". The second is an idea that people hold a lot closer to themselves and has more to do with who they are as a person than almost anything else, so things are taken a lot more personally. For me, just as if someone was to say "Homosexuality is sick", if a person was to post "Not believing in God is stupid and will fail to save ones soul" they'd get the internet equivalent of this:

In regards to the baiting thing, I think that this should be done already. There is a marked difference to airing an opinion in a thread upon a subject, and deliberately posting about something partially related and using it as a swipe to get a rise out of known posters. This sometimes does happen and it doesn't need any context of religion to single it out for action, it should be the case of baiting of any type of group based upon religion, nationality, gender, sexuality, movie/book/TV show has a response.

 

There's a word for that, and it's "trolling."

 

ObiWan506 posted:

Is this subject just so passionately defended that we always hear from all sides at all times?

I think this is the crux of it and the answer is "yes". People have been willing to die, and kill, for their religious beliefs since time immemorial. Religion is deeply personal, far more personal than politics, and so criticism of those beliefs produces predictable results. It's like a stranger talking about your kids and finding faults. Having said that, I've found in the Atheism and Christianity threads in the Senate that there is such a broad spectrum of theistic and atheistic beliefs that generalisations, ie, all christians are..., all atheists are..etc, cause most of the trouble.

 

I agree on with Dingo and Lost, it's that religioun is SO passionately held as a belief to some (and is part of their belief system to defend it as passionately, as well as even convert others - I grew up Church of Christ, I know), that it tends to get more heated. I think we've seen the opposite end of the spectrum here lately as the folks who are on non-theist side of the argument stand up for their beliefs and ideas just as loudly (some may say even louder, IDK). I admit, those are definitely the two "loudest" types of serious discussions, but my point above is to be fair, you can't just single out religion as a group that is protected from debate, IMO.

There are so many types of threads that were to be fair, would need to be "moderated for intolerance". In the first five threads on the JCC, you could find these two threads that if one were easily offended they could complain.



In a community situation, you're going to get generalizations and people will find themselves "generalized" in some way everyday, it's just the nature of community. This isn't an excuse to treat each other with disrespect, and mods should absolutely watch religious or any other controversial topic closely (and fairly - objectively) to be sure. But, I just don't see an easy way of changing the policy without either being unfair to other groups aside from the "religious" or watering the conversation down so much that the JCC isn't an interesting place to come.

And I'll also agree with Dingo on any type of soapbox thread that seems to be aimed at getting a rise out of a group of users, you can usually tell. There are users in JCC that will post threads aimed at Christianity, and users that do the same for Athiesm, and there are always "The trouble with women/men/etc" type threads that you have to watch. Even in Lit, certain users know how to proclaim their dislike for a certain author by using cleverly worded threads and proclamations to get their point across, and fly under the radar. The task becomes for the moderator to learn how to spot and deal with these kinds of situations and say, "I know what you're doing, and you need to stop."

 

It's the illogical / irrational degree of the passion that is the problem. However the same can be said about sports team supporters, gaming-console owners, premium-car owners etc.

 

Absolutely.

And in an election year in the US, you can bet there will be all kinds of "Conservative", "Liberal", "Right Wing", "Left Wing", etc. type threads that will be just as intolerant of each other.

 

Passion is not illogical. Putting religion on the same level as a game-console owner, however, is. That comparison is not fair to each party involved in the analogy. What we have to understand here on the boards is that some people have views like you do, malkie, but others have less secular beliefs as well. I never force my religion on people in real life, and I'm very rarely, if ever, attacked for having a spiritual life by those who do not share my beliefs. That means all the people I come into contact with in real life have the decency and respect for my right to hold those beliefs so that they don't attack me personally for having one.

I'm sure those who do not have a spiritual life respect other relgions in their daily lives. Can't it be the same way here? I'm not saying we shouldn't debate religious topics, but can't we do it on a level that utilizes our knowledge and intelligence instead of our ability to make "witty" attacks on those we don't agree with?

EDIT (accommodating rhonderoo's post): I agree that the issue of intolerance does not stop with religion. And no, users should not be edited for expressing their personal beliefs if these beliefs brink on "intolerance". A gentle reminder either via PM or a post by amod reminding them to be respectful of other beliefs would suffice, I'm sure.

 

I think the point is, to a non-religious person, religion is not as sacred as to those who are religious.

So they may see it on the same level as those who don't agree on gaming consoles. And that's the crux. To the religious, it's blasphemy to put religion or God, or whatever on the same level and to the non-religious, it's not, maybe? Either viewpoint is fair, as it's the indiviual's belief, or non-belief, as the case may be.

 

No one is being banned for being religious. No one is being denied a chance at being a mod because of their religion. As long as people aren't referring to individual users (e.g. so-and-so is stupid because he believes in god) there isn't a problem. If I think that the Bible should be in the fiction section of the bookstore, I'm entitled to that belief and should be able to express it on the JC. Now, if someone was to promote actual hate towards a group or a user, that would be a problem. But I don't think that's what we're discussing here.

 

I don't think the problem is that people are really passionate about Religion. I think the problem is that people don't like being called stupid and dumb. Let's face it. Those of us who have gotten accustomed to the Religious discussions around here have gotten very good at baiting/flaming without it looking like baiting/flaming, and I think that this is the reason for this thread. The thing that I see most often in the religious threads is this:

Party 1: Sweeping generalization that doesn't really look like a sweeping generalization
Party 2: Don't slam on my beliefs, not everybody who believes one thing or the other is the same!
Party 1: I never said they were!
Party 2: Well ur dumb!!!!1!!!

etc. etc. etc.

The thing is, we as a community need to decide to respect other people's beliefs (or at least the right for them to have those beliefs). The administration can't regulate this...it has to be something that the users decide. The fact of the matter is that there are respectful, neutral ways to express your opinions (positive or negative) about any subject, including religion, and I think that the community would be well served if we practiced doing that, instead of walking the line. When you're expressing your opinion about atheism, Christianity, Islam, etc., remember that there's at least one intelligent, kind, moderate person on the other end of your remarks, regardless if the person you're debating with has those qualities or not. Just don't go there. Just don't say that Christians are stupid, or atheists are dumb. You're more than welcome to discuss your opinions on these boards, and what makes the boards so fun is that there are so many people with so many different opinions. But when you're doing so, don't do so to be inflammatory. Don't do so to poke fun. Don't do so to get a rise. This is something that we, as a community, need to decide to do together. It won't be fixed with more rules, and subsequently more loopholes for those rules. It will be fixed by the people here deciding that they want to be generally nice and respectful, and have that be their starting point for all discussion, which is something that atheists and the religions can agree on, I think.

The problem isn't the opinions one holds (though there's always those one or two people who get mad at somebody just for thinking what they think...but there aren't too many of those people here), rather, it's the way one chooses to express that opinion. Let's try to make a change in the latter, not the former.

 

Alright, I see what you mean, and I do completely agree. What I'm saying is, I respect others' right to believe (or not believe) what they want, and I understand that although I don't agree, I won't be condescending towards them, or judge other aspects of their person based upon their religious beliefs. What I don't understand is why I'm required to behave this way. I would behave this way, anyway, because of who I am. But even if I wasn't, I would risk being labeled "close-minded" "illogically passionate" or having my intelligence questioned.



Users who, for example, believe the Bible should be in the fiction section of the bookstore, are supposed to have the right to express these beliefs without judgment. But users who believe they should stick up for their beliefs no matter what, and believe they have the responsibility to propagate their religion are viewed poorly and "should stop being who they are". We should all be equally respectful of each other, even if we aren't equally understanding.

 

I think this right here is the center of the problem.

You cannot properly convey to someone who deeply identifies themselves with their faith how nonconsequential faith is to someone who is not spiritual or religious. Likewise, it's nearly impossible to convey to the person who is anti-religion in all forms just how important and integral religion is in the lives of those who are spiritual or religious.

And so we can go on this forever.

Truth be told, I think religious disputes are covered fairly well in baiting/flaming/trolling rules. If we apply them, without bias, to religious discussions, we'll be okay. If we start adding in more rules to cover *any* faith, we're going down a slippery slope, and I don't want to see us even start to do that.

 

I agree completely.

 

but only in your opinion, which is where the arguement falls down.

 

I agree with this, the more rules we add, the more complicated it gets. For the most part, I just tend to avoid the religious threads that differ with my own beliefs, I know that trolling on the intrawebz and forcefully trying to bash people over the head who don't agree isn't going to change anyone's opinion, it's only going to make you and the religious background you support look poor.

Treating everyone with respect, regardless of differences, is a much better way to get attention of the good variety. Two people who disagree substantially can have rational, civil discussions, but unfortunately, it so often isn't the case.

 

By the same logic, the argument that "Religious People = Game-Console Owners" falls down since it is based off of your opinion.

 

So you've established that both are people's opinions, and therefore of equal standing.

 

lol