What say you to these few sentences?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

Cut directly from DU discussion forums rules page :


With regard to religion (or the lack thereof), Democratic Underground is a diverse community which includes Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics, and others. All are welcome here. For this reason, we expect members to make an extra effort to be sensitive to different religious beliefs, and to show respect to members who hold different religious beliefs. Members are welcome to discuss whether they agree or disagree with particular religious beliefs, but they are expected to do so in a relatively sensitive and respectful manner. As a general rule, discussions about ideas are usually permitted, but broad-brush bigoted statements about groups of people — either religious or non-religious — are not. If you are easily offended by discussions about religious beliefs, or if you take pleasure from offending or ridiculing people with different beliefs, or if you consider progressive people with different beliefs to be your enemy or your inferior, do not participate in religious discussions on Democratic Underground.


DU is a community and as such sets its own rules for polite discourse. Obviously, certain rules are more open to interpretation than others. This one rule seems to be the focus of much debate here and I have been one to engage in that debate. What constitutes make an extra effort to be sensitive to different religious beliefs, and to show respect to members who hold different religious beliefs? Would calling someone who is religious 'simple' be ok? What about calling someone's religion a 'fantasy' or 'delusion'? What if someone who was a-religious or of a different religious bent were said to be 'wrong'? Where is the line? Heck, is there one?

Please understand that I am not requesting a review of the rule...nor a change. I would simply like to know where the community as a whole (if such a thing can be identified) draws the line. Or is the admonition to stay away from those discussions if you are easily offended sufficient (the stay out of the kitchen if you can't take the heat rule interpretation)?

Thank you for your kind indulgence should you choose to respond.

subjectProdigal

[rubberducky]

1. Respect for other`s opinions....

should trump radical opinions. IMHO

[mrreowwr_kittty]

29. Respect for other's RIGHT to their opinion

But that doesn't necessitate respecting opinions themselves. If I disagree with your opinion, then by definition I am not respecting it. I should still respect you, though. Big difference. One that a lot of people don't get. I do not have to pretend to think that your beliefs are worthy in order for you to be able to practice them.

[fishwax]

43. respect for others' opinions should trump opinions

Isn't that circular? I guess I don't see what you mean.

[immoderate]

2. It's simple...

Allowed: "I disagree with that epistemological notion."

Not allowed: "You are a stupid schmuck!"

See? :)

--IMM

[ProdigalJunkMail]

3. ahhh if it were only that simple...

thanks for the smile :-) back at ya.

sP

[Nickster]

6. That's an ecumenical matter! Sorry, channeling Father Ted. n/t

[bluerum]

4. What passes for cordial in my house may be downright rude in yours.

Another way of saying that there are many beliefs and ways of expressing them here. Who is to say which is right and which is wrong if they can be said to be abiding by the house rules?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

7. therein lies the rub

The house rules attempt to lay out a right and wrong but the issue is where is the line? Calling someone's religion a fantasy seems to be ok...but that is very belittling. At what point is someone's offense valid and at what point are they just being too touchy?

sP

[bluerum]

27. Well there is certainly nothing wrong with being offended when

deeply held beliefs are belittled, negated, or otherwise invalidated. Should you feel the need to defend your beliefs, simply present your facts and supporting data. Having a thick hide helps too.

[trotsky]

5. Here's another pair of examples:

Allowed: "Christianity is based on some really stupid concepts."

Not allowed: "Christians are really stupid."

The key is generally the phrase broad-brush bigoted statements about groups of people.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

8. my key issue is with terms like 'fantasy'

and the like. Calling someone's faith a superstition or a fantasy or any number of other derogatory terms is acceptable for the most part here. That is cool by me, but it seems to go against the rule. To say that 'Christians are stupid' and 'Christians live in fantasy-land' are to me equally offensive. But the one would get a pass and the other would likely not...I'll leave it to you to guess which is which...and your first guess doesn't count.

sP

[genie_weenie]

9. I agree with your comment unfortunately

I have been written to that Islam (the idea as a whole) is not to be critiqued even though my statements have been worded exactly as your opinion.

[Blackthorn]

10. That seems to be the best place to draw the line

Attacking the religion itself, rather than the person who believes it. I mean, if I say "Christianity is stupid" any Christians taking personal offence are reading more than what I am saying. I'm not saying you're stupid, just the belief system you subscribe to.

It's a fine line no doubt. This wouldn't be a problem if people were a whole lot more comfortable with their beliefs, and weren't so defensive and reactive when people question, or heaven forbid, disagree.

[trotsky]

13. Excellent point.

This wouldn't be a problem if people were a whole lot more comfortable with their beliefs, and weren't so defensive and reactive when people question, or heaven forbid, disagree.

Well stated.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

14. oh come now...

splitting hairs, as you admit, but you can't have it both ways. You can't say that a fundamental part of someone's life is 'stupid' while at the same time claim you are not saying they are stupid. Belief in 'stupid' is 'stupid.'

I just think people ought to be respectful...and stupid is not a respectful term. If someone wants to say, "I believe paganism is fundamentally flawed" then that is fine...but saying "Paganism is a stupid belief" is not...

sP

[Blackthorn]

21. Fundamentally flawed = stupid?

So it's not so much what we say, its how we say it. Are you still not implying that the individual is "fundamentally flawed". You're just playing semantics.

We have two options. Assault the concept, not the person. Or just ban all references to religion full stop. Rewording things to make them seem less offensive when they are making exactly the same point is not a solution.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

30. but where this is concerned

it is all semantics. And you make the point well. I don't believe we should ban discussion on religion...simply trying to find out what is ok. As I have stated before...is calling someone's religion a fantasy (or any other number of intentionally derogatory terms) acceptable to YOU? I know what the board allows...I am trying to get at what YOU think.

Personally, I don't get much offended at this other than to say that there are people here who violate this rule with utter impunity and THAT ticks me off. Say what you want...as long as it is within the rules...so be it!

sP

[Blackthorn]

35. It's fine by me.

In fact, I welcome people challenging my opinions. And I think that is the underlying problem. People aren't comfortable with having their opinions and beliefs challenged because most people don't know why they think what they do. Most religious people have been raised that way and have never questioned it. When someone does, they have no rational explanation for why they think that.

That's the underlying issue, not how people say things.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

11. wow...perfect example

I give you this thread as an example...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2167018

Locked or let run? Yes, it mocks Landover Baptist...but hey, that IS someone's religion.

sP

[trotsky]

12. Landover Baptist is fictional.

It's a satire site.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

15. i get that...

but it is obvisously pointing at a belief structure that exits...there is that whole family that lives and breathes some of this stuff out there in Kansas somewhere....

sP

[trotsky]

16. Key point: those folks aren't likely on DU. n/t

[ProdigalJunkMail]

18. true...

it is still a mockery of religion (christian to be specific) and that would seem to be ag'in' the rules, as the rubes might say (and yes, I have seen a thread where a particular religious sect was referred to as rubes).

sP

edit for rube-speak

[trotsky]

23. A mockery of a certain narrow interpretation of a religion, yes.

I think if you want to take this any further, you should contact the mods.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

26. i am not trying to change anything

just trying to figure what is ok among members. The mods have spoken in the rules as they are written. I am curious as to the community standard interpretation of the rule...that is all.

Thanks for your input...

sP

[hyphenate]

38. If someone REALLY, TRULY

believes Landover Baptist is a true belief system, they really ARE stupid. Period.

[independentpiney]

17. Landover Baptist is real n/t

[ProdigalJunkMail]

19. well, it is a real website

don't know how many parishoners though...

sP

[independentpiney]

20. Isn't that the Phelps clan?

I thought Landover was Phelp's church

[ProdigalJunkMail]

24. you're thinking Westboro...

easy slip...

sP

[independentpiney]

28. Yep, i had a brain fart n/t

[sweetheart]

22. A colon before the enumerated list. nt

[CBGLuthier]

25. I know exactly where you are coming from

as an atheist I am disgusted with those that feel they are only validated if they make fun of other's beliefs.

Smug arrogant people offend me far more than what some would choose to believe that I amy not agree with.

I use the word antitheist to describe those who I find to be mroe obsessed with disproving god than any believers are with proving the same. I am reasonably comfortable with my non belief but I have no problem at all with those who find comfort in religious beliefs.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

32. i am not so much offended by the smears

as I am that someone is breaking the rules. I have a faith in something bigger than I am...it is strong...and withstands slings and arrows well. However, there are rules in place for this board that are eagerly enforced by the community and some that are not...or at least some that are looked on with some abeyance.

Thanks for the input...

sP

[Kali]

39. I believe religion is a fantasy.

I don't have a huge problem with people who indulge in it unless it crosses into my space. I don't go into a church and spout off MY beliefs, but on an internet forum? Sure, I use some of those terms you are labeling derogatory. I believe them.

[Dem2theMax]

44. When it comes to religion,

I wish you were running the board. :)

Very wise words. And very heartfelt. Thank you. It means a lot to me to read what you wrote.
I'm a Christian and more often than not, I feel there is no place for me here on DU when it comes to my belief system.
If people could only be as caring as you.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

31. I Say All Those Who Show Religious Intolerance Can Go Fuck Themselves

I call it out whenever I see it and I don't think there's anything more undemocratic and overall destructive as such intolerant behavior and rhetoric. Some of the comments out of some DU'ers mouths are just quite simply disgraceful.

But we have to also remember that those comments stand out more. Overall, DU is an overwhelmingly tolerant and fair community when it comes to religious tolerance. It's just that some of these outlier morons that criticize the beliefs of others make it appear otherwise sometimes. But like I said, they can go fuck themselves in my opinion.

[Blackthorn]

42. BAH! I'm offended by your intolerance of my intolerance.

:sarcasm:

[patrice]

33. Talk about the religion not the person. It's not as hard as you seem to

think it is. I talk about religion frequently. I'm pretty critical and I don't have any trouble with others.

Every now and then someone DOES try to get things started, but I just don't buy into other people's agendas.

You don't have to have trouble unless you are looking for it or don't care enough to avoid it.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

34. for me it is not difficult at all

but for some here there seems to be a disdain that comes through in the choice of words to discuss religion. Calling any person's beliefs a 'deluded fantasy' does not indicate respect for the beliefs or the person who holds them. You don't have to look for that in threads here ... it jumps out and bites you. Where is YOUR line? What would be critical and what would be disrespectful?

sP

[patrice]

36. I taught high school for 10 years. It seems pretty obvious to me

how to talk about thoughts and feelings in an objective way. You have to have a good vocabulary and maybe that's a problem for some people. You also have to be very analytic, i.e. key directly to concrete characteristics, as many as possible, of the topic at hand, be specific and detail oriented.

On this board, I usually try to see the ways that _______________ characterizes all of us to one extent or another and I try to talk about that, the similarities between things that are often thought of as different.

Still there are people here who WANT to be offended, so anything at all will do, if one starts up with me, as one did the other day in a discussion about environmental issues, I put an effort into dealing with his/her problem with what I'm saying up to a point and beyond that I walk away. I don't care enough to let others make me feel angry.

The line? Don't make/take it personal. Short of someone propagating violence, there's no need to criticize the person.

[Kali]

40. Maybe there is no respect for the belief.

Not excusing outright rudeness, but non-believers are subject to way more pressure and constant reminders of their minority status than any believers are. Why should we have to show respect for something that we don't believe in, that likely causes problems in our lives constantly and which many can see as a root cause of much human suffering?

[hyphenate]

37. I honestly don't think you will find

any sincere radical religious righters around here, and if you did, they would only be here to continue their hypocritical imaginings about we "godless liberals."

As far as other religious folks around here, I am all for allowing anyone the right, the free pursuit of and the total immersion in whatever religious beliefs they have, as long as they are not hurting others or themselves in the practice thereof.

However, as a bonafide despiser of the radical religious right, I will not give them any latitude in condemning the rest of us for whatever we believe in, choose to engage in or make up our own minds of what is truth and what is a lie.

As far as DU is concerned, I think that we have pretty much freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and if someone makes generalizations about some other group, posters have been known to take other posters to task for what they might have said, and whether it has been misinterpreted.

People are free to agree or disagree, and if there is a flame war as a result, the mods have always dealt with it well from what I've seen.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

45. awww...bluebear...

you think i am all aflutter? how sweet to be concerned about a mental state that you obviously have not taken the time to discern. I am not aflutter at all. This thread is about finding where people here draw the line...not about me being offended. I get offended at people breaking rules...not at spewing offensive language at the religious...so I am trying to see where the line of 'breaking the rules' sets with the community as the rule has some ambiguity.

And since you have followed my posts for a bit today ... for you I will make some distinctions :

A person being called 'simple' is an insult...a thought or idea being called 'simple' indicates that it is lacking sufficient complexity to reflect the nature of the situation accurately. As was the case in that discussion.
The person who was a poor reader...well, if you read their post and the post to which they were referring you would not be able to conclude that they had either read the post or interpretted its meaning correctly. Both of which would indicate a poor reading skill level. At least I didn't call them a dumbass...
And for the nuts comment...I said the idea was nuts...not the person. And in any religious conversation here (this was not a religious conversation) that would be accepted daily. And, the exchange I was having with the person in question was playful if you read on.

So...go where you want with it because you will.

sP

[BoneDaddy]

46. I think you set the bar

and work out the kinks as we go. This is the mush of life. There is no "magic" rules that everyone is going to abide by all the time. Conflict is part of human life and will never go away. What we should strive for is communication and if you are not satisfied and it falls into the gray zone of the rules, get over it! Just because you have a belief system doesn't mean everyone is going to like it, support it or leave it alone. If the worst of your worries is someone called your religion "stupid", you need to get off of DU and go do something really productive with your life, and stop crying cause some anonymous person doesn't like your spiritual expression.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

47. ok...so it is the out of the kitchen rules for you :-)

But should it be allowed to call someone's life stupid (and some people do have religion as a major part of their lives)? What would be the result to discourse on this board if we just told everyone that doesn't like our derision of them to get a life and get off of DU? There are a lot of good religious people out there and their voices would likely be missed.

Thanks for the input...
sP

[LWolf]

48. What say I:

I grew up with the mantra that good manners required politics and religion to be left out of polite conversation.

I've found that to be true, for the most part. There are respectful conversations about religion here at DU, but generally not in GD, or in a political sense. DU proves the mantra with regards to politics; even the controlled audience and participation here at DU gets heated enough to go beyond the bounds of courtesy many times a day.

It's a good rule. If more DUers came here to engage in thoughtful, in-depth discussion of issues, rather than to vent, rant, or try out their political attack skills or campaign skills on each other, we'd probably see fewer people crossing the line.

The current U.S. culture is not big on respect for others, or for differing viewpoints. DU, as a body of members from that larger culture, reflects that aspect of the culture.

It would probably be easier if DU and DUers openly acknowledged and discussed:

Too many people and organizations currently calling themselves "Christians" bear no resemblance to Christ; they may need a different label when it comes time to vent.

There is a strong thread of anti-semitism and racism, as well as religious bigotry, that runs through the greater culture, and echoes of that can show up here, too. I'm not offended by the idea that I should examine my beliefs for such traces, and make sure my pov is based on clean understandings. I think we should all be willing to do so.

In the world at large, and at DU, "debate" is too often reduced to juvenile ad hominem attacks. I think "simple," "fantasy," etc. fall into that category, myself. Where do you draw the line? Right here:

If you can't express yourself in a constructive way, especially when you are expressing criticism or disagreement, put the keyboard down and go somewhere else. I recently violated this personal rule, and got my first post deleted. I meant what I said, but I knew better than to say it that way. We can hone our communication skills by learning to respond with grace under fire.

[immoderate]

49. Fundamental problem: The arguments are not symmetrical.

Outside of DU, arguments are weighted on the side of theists. "Good manners" allows people to fall back on such nonsensical statements as, "Well, we all worship the same god," and "Though I don't follow them, I respect your beliefs." These notions generally go unchallenged. Differences in gods are historically a major cause of genocide. And how can you profess respect for a belief without believing in it?

Here we practice rational debate in discussing issues. Our political arguments are subject to extreme scrutiny, and that's a good thing. Religious arguments cannot stand up under that kind of scrutiny. They are basically emotional, irrational and anecdotal. Even pointing that out is bound to get some folks offended. Using perfectly good, neutral words like superstition and mythology gives offense. Religious belief cannot stand up under rational scrutiny, but that's what we do here.

Myth:
1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : PARABLE, ALLEGORY
2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society *seduced by the American myth of individualism Orde Coombs* b : an unfounded or false notion
3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
4 : the whole body of myths

Superstition:
1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

Religious DUers, who are all very good people, generally eschew dogmatic principle, and fall back on ethereal notions, as god is love, or god is beauty, or god is the organizing principle of the universe. But these are aesthetic assertions, which don't require the existence of god at all. Beauty, love, and organizing principles work just as well in a godless universe. So god becomes superfluous, and some theists just don't want to hear that.

While I am sometimes charged with being intemperate, I fully realize that none of us has the monopoly on reality, and there will always be things that are beyond our knowledge. That is a (sometimes unstated) caveat to all arguments. But within the boundaries of rational discourse the theist is at a severe disadvantage. Fundamental belief systems are an aspect of personality, and a unique property of the individual, similar to the preference for vanilla over chocolate. With those notions being a part of the self, they must be defended. A criticism of religious belief is perceived as an attack on the ego.

In short, it's a sure thing that some will have their feelings hurt, because it is their feelings that are under discussion. Atheists are in a different position, seeing their views as metaphysically neutral. The way to get them riled up is to charge that atheism, or science, is itself a religion. Another sore point is the frequent assumption that religion is synonymous with a moral or ethical enlightenment. Typical statement: "(Somebody's action) is so heinous that they cannot possibly be a Christian." Okay, so what are they then?

Back to the top. It is difficult to enter into a rational argument, if your premises are irrational to begin with. It's always going to be unfair, and people will squawk.

--IMM