# Religion on ENWorld



## GentleGiant (Oct 10, 2005)

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:


> Thankfully, I now live at peace with myself. No more stress. Stress happens when you think about the pressures of life too often. If you let them go and *have faith*, life becomes much easier. I know from experience.



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.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 10, 2005)

Faith does not alway equal religion.  The quote is out of context so I can't be sure which way it is meant.  

But the rules of the boards are really not written in stone, and the mods don't see and read everythings.  So, I bet its not being commented on because no one reading it cares.  I imagine most problems are reported and the mods learn about them that way, no one reports it odds are the mods won't see it.


----------



## GentleGiant (Oct 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Faith does not alway equal religion.  The quote is out of context so I can't be sure which way it is meant.
> 
> But the rules of the boards are really not written in stone, and the mods don't see and read everythings.  So, I bet its not being commented on because no one reading it cares.  I imagine most problems are reported and the mods learn about them that way, no one reports it odds are the mods won't see it.



Well, this poster has previously posted more clearly religious (Christian) influenced posts. As I said, the above is fairly "innocent" in this regard, but still an indicator of something that irks me. Especially since it's such a "small" reference.
And the fact that I'm commenting on it is clearly a statement that someone cares, namely me in this instance


----------



## Crothian (Oct 10, 2005)

then you need to use a report the post button if you find a post that bothers you.


----------



## GentleGiant (Oct 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> then you need to use a report the post button if you find a post that bothers you.



Or use the Meta forum, which is what I'm doing.
"Post comments and questions about the messageboards and other parts of EN World. *If you have a problem, this is where to go.*" (yes, I know it's mostly meant as technical problems, although it doesn't specify it as such).
Also, I think it's something that needs to be pointed out to a larger audience. Reporting single posts doesn't accomplish that.


----------



## Alzrius (Oct 10, 2005)

I think GentleGiant raises an excellent point. I recently had my sig file altered without my knowledge or approval by moderators, who informed me by email after the fact that it was causing problems. Kai Lord's sig file, which is also religious, has never been clipped, though I find it offensive.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 10, 2005)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> I think GentleGiant raises an excellent point. I recently had my sig file altered without my knowledge or approval by moderators, who informed me by email after the fact that it was causing problems. Kai Lord's sig file, which is also religious, has never been clipped, though I find it offensive.




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


----------



## Crothian (Oct 10, 2005)

GentleGiant said:
			
		

> Also, I think it's something that needs to be pointed out to a larger audience. Reporting single posts doesn't accomplish that.




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


----------



## Morrus (Oct 10, 2005)

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.

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!

[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].


----------



## GentleGiant (Oct 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

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



Because someone else might have the same problem with such posts that I have.


----------



## Alzrius (Oct 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 10, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> 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).



			
				Morrus said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Morrus said:
			
		

> [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 (Oct 10, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> [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 (Oct 10, 2005)

GentleGiant said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 10, 2005)

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 (Oct 10, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 10, 2005)

GentleGiant said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 10, 2005)

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 (Oct 10, 2005)

GentleGiant said:
			
		

> 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:
> ...






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


----------



## Henry (Oct 10, 2005)

GentleGiant said:
			
		

> 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
> ...




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.
> ...





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


----------



## DragonSword (Oct 10, 2005)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 10, 2005)

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 (Oct 10, 2005)

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 (Oct 10, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 10, 2005)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 10, 2005)

Dagger75 said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 10, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 10, 2005)

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 (Oct 10, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 10, 2005)

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?


----------



## Truth Seeker (Oct 10, 2005)

*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 original_message_ 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.



			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 10, 2005)

Dagger75 said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 11, 2005)

> 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 (Oct 11, 2005)

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 (Oct 11, 2005)

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:


			
				Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> 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:


			
				Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> 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?




			
				Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> 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.


			
				Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> 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.




			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 11, 2005)

GentleGiant said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 11, 2005)

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 (Oct 11, 2005)

GentleGiant said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 11, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 11, 2005)

Nifft said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Belen (Oct 11, 2005)

GentleGiant said:
			
		

> 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).
> 
> 
> 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.
> ...




As long as he is not preaching at you and trying to get you to convert, then why do you care?  You come off as being offended that he has faith rather than what he is saying.

If ENWorld every gets to the point where they have to participate in thought control, then it will not be a place to hang out any longer.  There is nothing wrong if someone says "God bless" or "You are in my prayers."  I may not share those beliefs, but their intent is to provide comfort etc.  They are not preaching in this sense.

The passage you quoted is in no way inflammatory and I will loose a lot of respect for the mods if they say something to someone for it.


----------



## RangerWickett (Oct 11, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> If ENWorld every gets to the point where they have to participate in thought control, then it will not be a place to hang out any longer.
> 
> Now, if you pardon me, I'm going to go drink some cold, refreshing Mountain Dew. Mountain Dew, it's what gamers drink!





*steeples fingers*

Excellent.


----------



## Belen (Oct 11, 2005)

GentleGiant said:
			
		

> 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.




Have you ever considered that the posts supporting the opposing position are actually inflammatory or militant?

If someone starts to get preachy, then I may get angry; however, if someone makes a statement that they "personally" believe in God, then no big deal.  Also, no big deal if someone says "I do not believe in any higher power."

If someone says "I believe in God." And the opposing post is "You're an idiot, or God sucks, or how can anyone fall for that crap?" Then we have a problem.



			
				GentleGiant said:
			
		

> embrace God" statement is offensive to someone who's *opposed * to religion (either that particular religion or an atheist).




Someone who is "opposed" to religion wishes to practice thought control.  They want to force people to think and believe in the "acceptable" way.  There is something wrong if someone gets offended just because someone else has a different belief.  And I would be just as mad if someone wanted to make/force someone too believe.


----------



## the Jester (Oct 11, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Someone who is "opposed" to religion wishes to practice thought control.  They want to force people to think and believe in the "acceptable" way.  There is something wrong if someone gets offended just because someone else has a different belief.  And I would be just as mad if someone wanted to make/force someone too believe.




I suspect that you misinterpreted GentleGiant's meaning here... I think by 'someone opposed to religion' he prolly meant someone who isn't religious and doesn't like having religion pushed in his face.  I can relate to that (though I am religious, I am not a Christian, and I hate having religious advocates preaching at me).


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Oct 11, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> 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.






			
				I think we all know the reference... said:
			
		

> I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective.
> 
> HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!




 Sorry, Admiral.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Oct 11, 2005)

> Have you ever considered that the posts supporting the opposing position are actually inflammatory or militant?
> 
> If someone starts to get preachy, then I may get angry; however, if someone makes a statement that they "personally" believe in God, then no big deal. Also, no big deal if someone says "I do not believe in any higher power."




It is of my opinion that if someone posts something like:

"Don't worry so much.  Stress can make your problems worse.  Just have faith and God will deliver you from your troubles as he does for all his children."

And then there is another reply:

"There is no God, so you're going to have to take this problem into your own hands.  I suggest, first of all, that you start getting your resume out to as many people as possible as soon as possible.  Use websites to find job opportunities and keep a look-out in the paper too.  You'll find a job eventually if you just keep trying."


I believe that neither post should be moderated, or at least, I wouldn't report either of them.  I think what Gentlegiant is saying is that he's found that the second post would be moderated and the first wouldn't.  

For what it's worth, in my experience, I have not found this to be the case, and I think the moderators have been fair to all points of view.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 11, 2005)

the Jester said:
			
		

> I suspect that you misinterpreted GentleGiant's meaning here... I think by 'someone opposed to religion' he prolly meant someone who isn't religious and doesn't like having religion pushed in his face.  I can relate to that (though I am religious, I am not a Christian, and I hate having religious advocates preaching at me).




But nothing quoted here is puching anything into someone's face.


----------



## GentleGiant (Oct 12, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> But nothing quoted here is puching anything into someone's face.



Au contraire, but because you agree with the religious viewpoints being given, then you apparently can't see it from the other side, i.e. how it might seem pushy and offend someone.


----------



## GentleGiant (Oct 12, 2005)

Okay, I had these thoughts mulling around in my head and couldn't sleep, so I had to jot them down and share them.
I'll respond to some of the other posts at a later time.
Here's what kept me awake   :

The "no-religion" should be renamed "you cannot openly disagree with or express sentiments that are contrary to any real-life religion (especially not Christianity) on these boards" - yes, it may sound harsh, but frankly I feel discriminated against because I do not share the, apparent, majority's religious beliefs and therefore can't express this difference of opinion..

One of the problems is that any counter post to a post about e.g. the good of religion is going to sound as an attack. While at the same time a post about how e.g. religion does everyone good is actually also an attack on the belief system that it (i.e. religion) doesn't. It's just more subtle because it takes it standpoint in an established, more widespread and accepted belief system.
So, basically, any kind of religious post is automatically going to annoy someone, but they can't give a reply because of the fear of retribution (whether from moderators or from religious posters who take offence by the "attack" on their beliefs). Hence it's actually the original religious post that's responsible for igniting any kind of no-no posts and therefore noone should be allowed to post such messages in the first place.

I'm not saying that the boards should be cleansed of any reference to real life religion, nor am I saying that one shouldn't be allowed to express one's differing views. Just as long as it has nothing to do with religion.
If you want to offer advice on something, particularly in the Off Topic forum, you can easily do so without bringing religion into it. And if you can't, then don't post. Simple as that.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Oct 12, 2005)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> I think GentleGiant raises an excellent point. I recently had my sig file altered without my knowledge or approval by moderators, who informed me by email after the fact that it was causing problems. Kai Lord's sig file, which is also religious, has never been clipped, though I find it offensive.



 I think it has to do with tone.

Kai Lord's sig line seems to be intended to uplift and inspire those who read it.

Your previous sig line, on the other hand, was a harsh criticism of the very concept of religion.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 12, 2005)

GentleGiant said:
			
		

> Au contraire, but because you agree with the religious viewpoints being given, then you apparently can't see it from the other side, i.e. how it might seem pushy and offend someone.




Well, don't assume I agree with the religious viewpoint given.  I can judge a pushy post though, and this is not even remotely pushy.


----------



## RangerWickett (Oct 12, 2005)

Think of it this way. Replace each religion - including atheism - with a sports team, and see if the conversation would be rude in that context.

"Ever since I discovered the New Orleans Saints, I've been much happier. They show me what a well-run game should be like."

Let's say the Saints represent Christianity. If you're not a fan of the Saints, you don't come out and say, "I don't like the Saints," at least not in the same conversation, unless the guy asks whether other people like the Saints. If someone's just saying his opinion, it can be touchy to tell him he's wrong, regardless of whether it's religion, or movies, or sports.

Now, say atheism is represented by the Atlanta Falcons. Have you seen people having anti-Falcon sentiment? If you say you like the Falcons, do people get offended?

Metaphors are a bad tool to give to a sleepy man.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 12, 2005)

WEll, the way the Saints played and lost this weekend was defiantly more offensive then the way the Falcons played and lost


----------



## Dinkeldog (Oct 12, 2005)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> I think it has to do with tone.
> 
> Kai Lord's sig line seems to be intended to uplift and inspire those who read it.
> 
> Your previous sig line, on the other hand, was a harsh criticism of the very concept of religion.




Kai Lord's sig line isn't okay and needs to be changed.  After the discussion with Alzrius, we agreed with that.  Things sometimes move at a slower pace than some people would like, but that's mostly a function of how real life interferes with individual moderators.


----------



## Belen (Oct 12, 2005)

GentleGiant said:
			
		

> One of the problems is that any counter post to a post about e.g. the good of religion is going to sound as an attack. While at the same time a post about how e.g. religion does everyone good is actually also an attack on the belief system that it (i.e. religion) doesn't. It's just more subtle because it takes it standpoint in an established, more widespread and accepted belief system.




That is because it is an attack.  If someone posts "Have faith.  That helps me deal with stress."  And then you want to counter that with "Faith doesn't work.  How can that help?"  Then you are flinging a personal attack against someone.

The more constructive statement would be to tell the person what works for you.  Not to "counter" another poster.  It is not a contest to find out who is right.

Also, just because someone throws a generalization does not mean they that are flinging a de facto insult.  A lot of people would say "milk does everyone good."  It does not because some people are allergic, lactose intolerant or get gas, but for the majority of people, the statement would be true.  The person who loves milk is not insulting those people who do not or cannot drink it.



			
				GentleGiant said:
			
		

> So, basically, any kind of religious post is automatically going to annoy someone, but they can't give a reply because of the fear of retribution (whether from moderators or from religious posters who take offence by the "attack" on their beliefs). Hence it's actually the original religious post that's responsible for igniting any kind of no-no posts and therefore noone should be allowed to post such messages in the first place.




Posts about how 2nd edition sucked annoys me.  I liked 2e.  I usually do not respond with a flame because I'll have a bunch of 3e fanboys jumping on the bandwagon and then I will pee off p-kitty and Henry.

The more I read your argument, the more it sounds as if you're offended that anyone has religious beliefs.  You blame someone for offering comfort to another person, then get mad because you cannot "counter" their argument.  The problem is that the other person was not arguing his point.

If you find it annoying that some people have faith and are not afraid to hide it, then you have the option of "ignoring" those people.  This way, you do not have to see their posts as they have the potential to offend your beliefs.

Personally, I do not want to live in a world of Goodspeak and Badspeak where certain thoughts are not allowed because they make people uncomfortable.


----------



## RangerWickett (Oct 12, 2005)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> Kai Lord's sig line isn't okay and needs to be changed.  After the discussion with Alzrius, we agreed with that.  Things sometimes move at a slower pace than some people would like, but that's mostly a function of how real life interferes with individual moderators.




Are you serious? How is it 'not okay'?

I mean, there's a poster who has 'better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven' in his sig. That's the closest I can think of to a 'pro-atheism' quote. I don't like the quote personally, but it doesn't offend me, and if someone said it did offend them I'd tell them to get over themselves.

I personally am very squeamish about injuries. I'm kind of revolted by imagery of things like severed limbs. Dinkeldog, could you change your avatar, please?


----------



## Dinkeldog (Oct 12, 2005)

It breaks the no religion rule.

And no, I'm not changing my avatar.


----------



## diaglo (Oct 12, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I personally am very squeamish about injuries. I'm kind of revolted by imagery of things like severed limbs. Dinkeldog, could you change your avatar, please?





you may not agree with him. but he stated his opinion to a mod. and that mod looked into it.

this was all done in private originally. now it is in the open. but still, now you are just mocking *Alzrius*.


----------



## RangerWickett (Oct 12, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> this was all done in private originally. now it is in the open. but still, now you are just mocking *Alzrius*.




How am I mocking him? I don't mean to offend him, but I don't know what you're seeing that could be called mocking.

I am, however, trying to get Dink's goat a bit. The point I was trying to make was that just because someone has a complaint does not mean you have to fix what they're complaining about. Judging by how he ignored my personal trauma and continues to flagrantly display vulgar depictions of human suffering, though, Dinkeldog seems to understand my point just fine, so while I disagree with his decision, I'll not complain. *grin*


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Oct 12, 2005)

GentleGiant said:
			
		

> One of the problems is that any counter post to a post about e.g. the good of religion is going to sound as an attack. While at the same time a post about how e.g. religion does everyone good is actually also an attack on the belief system that it (i.e. religion) doesn't. It's just more subtle because it takes it standpoint in an established, more widespread and accepted belief system.
> So, basically, any kind of religious post is automatically going to annoy someone, but they can't give a reply because of the fear of retribution (whether from moderators or from religious posters who take offence by the "attack" on their beliefs). Hence it's actually the original religious post that's responsible for igniting any kind of no-no posts and therefore noone should be allowed to post such messages in the first place.
> 
> I'm not saying that the boards should be cleansed of any reference to real life religion, nor am I saying that one shouldn't be allowed to express one's differing views. Just as long as it has nothing to do with religion.
> If you want to offer advice on something, particularly in the Off Topic forum, you can easily do so without bringing religion into it. And if you can't, then don't post. Simple as that.




First off I think you can't cleanse the boards of everything that offends people.  There are all kinds of people and all kinds of ways to be offended.  Ranger Wickett brought up sports.  As a Boston sports fan, I am bothered by people who cheer when the Boston teams lose.  It offends me somewhat.  But I realize that is part of the culture, I should let it go, and if it bothers me when someone does that, maybe I should remember that and control myself when the New York teams lose.  It may not stop other from ripping Boston, but at least I won't be making things worse.

Second, I don't understand why you think you cannot repsond to a posting with a religious tone.  An example similar to ones used earlier:



			
				hypothetical said:
			
		

> *Original poster:* I'm so stressed about this, I don't know what I can do.
> 
> *Religious reply:* When this happens, I just have faith in God's plan.
> 
> *Gentle Giant's alternate response:* Or if you, like me, don't feel comfortable with relying on Faith and religion, maybe you could talk to a counselor or a friend.




You have expressed your opinion of an alternative without attacking the faith of the person who replied.  Maybe a Mod could chime in here, but I would doubt that the example above would be edited unless the thread then started onto the path of whether faith works or some such.


----------



## Queen_Dopplepopolis (Oct 12, 2005)

I've been away from the computer for a while, but here's my 2 coppers.  I've had a very long week, so if this comes off as really snippy and bitchy, I offer my apologies in advance:

So - a couple of weeks ago GG said something to the poster (let's call that poster Bobby) that inspired this thread that was not only offensive, but rude.  The mods stepped in and took care of it (*waves*  Thanks mods!).  But then, GG came back and attempted to re-say was he had already said and it got nixed again by the mods because it was uncalled for.

Now it seems that GG has taken it upon himself to super-analyze Bobby's posts to find something offensive so that he can "get back" at Bobby.

There's my perception of what's going on.  Personally, I think the mods do an awesome job of keeping the flame-wars under control.  And, in the future, it's easiest to take care of offensive posts by reporting them instead of carrying them into meta where they can easily become ridiculous personal battles that hurt feelings.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 12, 2005)

Ah, that makes a lot more sense.  I figured there was some major peice missing.


----------

