View Full Version : Religion, taboo or not?
Niall Fernie
29-Sep-06, 10:05
Vote in this simple poll and then discuss your reasons for why below...
brokencross
29-Sep-06, 10:16
I vote yes.
I am not a religious person, however religion does play a big part in society and therefore is worthy of discussion.
It is a sensitive subject, but as long as the debate is carried out in a positive manner, where views are expressed without knocking, belittling, or ridiculing another persons beliefs or religions in general.
Yes, religion should be discussed, but only in a sensible manner - unlike what has gone previously (IMO). If someone gets personal, then it should be an automatic ban for the person.
'I feel' 'my views' are all fine and well, but nobodies beliefs should be ridiculed. They have them for personal reasons. Once a thread gets too personal, it should be locked.
I believe that religion is a subject very close to the heart which sometimes makes it difficult to remain level headed, but if its a 'talk sensibly or be banned' scenario, then hopefully people can be more mature & less personal about it.
IMO on previous threads, arguments on opposing sides have both ended up being OTT.
Keep the org friendly :D
Whitewater
29-Sep-06, 10:19
Religion is not taboo, whether you are religious or not it can be a very interesting subject to dabate. It gives millions of people all over the world hope and belief. Whether God is God as depicted in the bible and other holy books, or whether God is nature, as many people believe doesn't really matter. Both have codes which many people centre their lives around. Good or bad practice? Does it matter? It gives us hope. We all want to find out the truth about this great mystery, is there anything wrong with that? or finding out other peoples points of view if that gives a bigger picture and helps our understanding?
Niall where is the poll?
Oh!! Just found it
pultneytooner
29-Sep-06, 10:28
How can you ban the discussion of a subject that is an integral part of a lot of peoples lives?
Everyone believes their religion is the only one worth bothering with but that doesn't mean people can't discuss the merits or otherwise of a certain viewpoint.
Discussion provides understanding provides tolerance, surely that is worth something.
Whitewater
29-Sep-06, 10:28
Niall, thanks for the Poll. Your job is difficult, I understand that. The topics discussed are all OK, it is the personal swipes and battles that offend people and cause some threads to be closed (they have to be), not the subject matter.
Mister Squiggle
29-Sep-06, 10:31
I think religion is always a good topic for discussion, which should be encouraged. I think forums like this are a great place to discuss and debate something so fundamental to people: what we believe and why.However, I don't think villification and sniping should automatically be part of that discussion. I think most people can have a sensible debate without sledging, but as world events show, often things degenerate pretty rapidly. So no, it's not a taboo topic, but one that needs a lot of self-control and respect for other opinions.
discussed sensible and calmly I dont have a problem with it but yesterdays poster in my eyes posted in a bid to upset and flame a situation, it really wasn't a very nice post at all. I am not a religious person but to celebrate the closure of churches is just sad.
i say yes it should be allowed as well
in the past i have had very good convo's about religious beliefs or lack of..
as long as it dosent turn into a slagging match they are great.. very informative.. and you can usually see into another persons perceptions.. and views.. and as long as you are open.. and not demeaning.. that is what makes it work.
i myself have become very defensive in the past for the simple reason my thoughts and beliefs were ridiculed.. and i struck back.
but that is the fight or flight instinct.
we just have to try and not to demean people.. and accept that others do not belive as we individually do.. and get on with it..
i personally love talking to people of other faiths and beliefs... and comparing the differances and similarities..
without the incriminations..
wow i hope that makes sence!
Niall, thanks for the Poll. Your job is difficult, I understand that. The topics discussed are all OK, it is the personal swipes and battles that offend people and cause some threads to be closed (they have to be), not the subject matter.
Yes, I agree with Whitewater. No point in writting it twice and you say it so much better than I could have.
No subject should be banned, only bad posters.
Gleber2 took the words right out of my mouth. There is a more than adequate infraction system in place on the board (which should be able to deal with those who post inappropriate comments), so I feel there should be no need to ban specific subjects for discussion.
Yes, as long as there is an understanding and respect of other peoples beliefs
Yes, as long as there is an understanding and respect of other peoples beliefs
With you 100% on this one, respect of beliefs or lack of them.
crashbandicoot1979
29-Sep-06, 11:54
Agree with everyone else on this one - as long as its a proper discussion and not comments made to deliberately upset people.
Yes, religion should be discussed, stopping reasonable argument (without personal attacks) is akin to censorship and more towards "my God is better than your God, and if you don't agree I'll kill you" ok I'm a Humanist but everyone should be allowed their personal beliefs such as 'cargo cult' which was as relevant to the believers as Catholicism is to it's followers. Keep the personal attacks out and it's fine
I've voted yes. There's no reason why the topic should not be discussed with respect, as others have said, for everyone's viewpoint. Same goes for any other topic under the sun.
Lolabelle
29-Sep-06, 12:24
I am a christian and think that yes, it should be allowed. I have my own experiences and beliefs, and I really enjoy reading the different opinions and experiences that are posted here. I have never had anything said to me that I have found offensive, but there have been things said to others that raise an eyebrow occasionally. I have not been around for the last week, so have missed the latest topics. So I have no comment on them.
Kaishowing
29-Sep-06, 12:37
I voted 'yes', but realise that it is a very contentious issue for some people.....But without frank and free exchange of views, how can an understanding and respect for other people's beliefs be reached?
The trouble will be in stopping a difference of opinion becoming too heated leading to attacks.
Freedom of speech with responsibility.
No subject should be banned, only bad posters.
Absolutely spot on
Chobbersjnr
29-Sep-06, 12:40
respect of beliefs or lack of them.
I've kept up with the Gee Whizz thread & I voted yes for discussion of religion on the board
Golach, I respect the fact that people have beliefs OK.
I'm curious as to what you mean by lack of "belief"??? I'm not religious in any way other than name but I believe in the laws of Karma. I believe fire is hot. I believe if you cut me I'll bleed
I'm just curious what you mean by lack of "belief"
Whitewater
29-Sep-06, 12:44
Just read through this thread again, seems strange that every comment is a positive one, yet the vote is only 75%(approx) vote for. Why are there no comments or reasons from the people voting against it.
porshiepoo
29-Sep-06, 13:19
Course it should be talked about!
IMO I think it's absolutely ridiculous that a forum would even think about dictating what it's members can and can't talk about.
We're all capable or choosing whether or not to take part in such discussions and inevitably things can get a bit heated on such an emotive subject but is banning them really the answer?
Personally I think if a topic starts to get out of hand and a person gets persoanlly offensive to another person then there should be a warning - but there has to be a explaination, you can't simply have people getting antsy and threatening moderator action - then if it's warranted as the offensive remarks don't subside then there should be banning action.
Everyone believes their religion is the only one worth bothering with
I am not sure that is quite spot on. There are people who are most comfortable with one religious expression, but quite accepting and even feel worshipful in another expression of faith.
For the record, I voted "yes".
highlander
29-Sep-06, 13:40
I voted yes we should be allowed to talk about religion, what everyone has said so far, i have agreed with them, the only thing i dont like is to see someone bible thumping, or disrespect that i have my own views, i think its great to have these discussions to see different out looks in life, some i have agreed, and some i dont, as long as thier is no personal spites taken, it will be a difficult thread to moderate as folk has such strong views on this subject, but as long as it does not desend to a all out crazy slanging match, let the thread stay, but as one person put it already, look before you hit the submit button, and treat people as you would like to be treated.
.
connieb19
29-Sep-06, 14:13
I've voted yes, I've found reading other peoples opinions on the org have on more than one occasion, made me question my own thoughts and how I've come about them, and actually changed them, for the better.
People should be able to give their opinion, whether others agree or not. It would be a pretty boring world if we all thought the same.
I think the decision to ban religion was taken too hastily. It speaks volumes that those voting no in this poll have made no comment on why they voted that way. God is immune to criticism, surely those who follow him should join in and look at the bigger picture. True faith should be totally unshakeable in what is a mere blink of existence compared to the supposed eternal life that follows.
Shame to think that God would forgive a critic but his followers cannot seem do so.
I voted no, for no other reason that IMHO no way can a discussion about religion end in anything other than tantrums and disagreement, regardless of people being all adult and pc about it, I believe because it is such a personal thing it is hard to discuss it rationally. And you will find as in most postings it will only be a few dedicated orgers who actually participate, so I don't know if it would work. But, hey who am I to say yeah or nae. No doubt there will be a part of this posting quoted in another, thus proving my feelings exactly.
Alice in Blunderland
29-Sep-06, 14:23
I have voted yes on this one.I was raised christian and my husband was raised muslim as long as the posts do not stoop to personal attacks then it can make for a good discussion.I agree ban the posters who get out of control not the topic.:D
Kingetter
29-Sep-06, 14:46
It seems to me that while folk talk about talking about a topic, all seems peaceful and reasonable, but and a very big BUTonce the talk gets to the topic itself - in the case of religion for instance - reasonable flies out the window, and with it manners, understanding and common decency, not from everyone agreed, but sufficient to make this matter an issue.
This begs the question why, which, once answered, might just help determine if it is possible to have reasonable discussions about a range of subjects without rancour.
Ifdiscussion is intended to stimulate the acquisition of knowledge all round, and information/opinions are to be floated as personal observations and not to be thrust down someone else's throat, then that discussion will be meaningful.
The moment one or more individuals is unable to accept that there's more than one side to a coin, end of peace and harmony, start of angst and end of dicussion as the aftermath becomes a boorach.
Now I don't expect everyone to agree with the above, and I will take note of any reply that contradicts what I've written.
pultneytooner
29-Sep-06, 15:20
It seems to me that while folk talk about talking about a topic, all seems peaceful and reasonable, but and a very big BUTonce the talk gets to the topic itself - in the case of religion for instance - reasonable flies out the window, and with it manners, understanding and common decency, not from everyone agreed, but sufficient to make this matter an issue.
This begs the question why, which, once answered, might just help determine if it is possible to have reasonable discussions about a range of subjects without rancour.
Ifdiscussion is intended to stimulate the acquisition of knowledge all round, and information/opinions are to be floated as personal observations and not to be thrust down someone else's throat, then that discussion will be meaningful.
The moment one or more individuals is unable to accept that there's more than one side to a coin, end of peace and harmony, start of angst and end of dicussion as the aftermath becomes a boorach.
Now I don't expect everyone to agree with the above, and I will take note of any reply that contradicts what I've written.
That's one helluva big BUT.[lol]
percy toboggan
29-Sep-06, 15:23
In my opinion religion should be discussed, lampooned, caricatured, ridiculed.mocked,praised, championed , lauded and respected in equal, or not so equal measure. Any religion worth its salt can withstand any of the above and no followers of any religion are above what has been commonplace in Britain for decades - remember Dave Allen?
Only ban any of the above on this forum if you want to take away some of its' bite and relevance. The world is currently at odds due to religion. This nation is currently undergoing a kind of seed change whenever religion is mentioned. I for one do not take kindly to it.
Golach, I respect the fact that people have beliefs OK.
I'm curious as to what you mean by lack of "belief"???
I'm just curious what you mean by lack of "belief"
This is exactly where mis-interpretation comes from. IMO as the topic is 'religion', Golach merely means religous beliefs or lack of them.
One simple word omission :roll: can make the difference between a simple statement and one which needs questioned.
No subject should be banned, only bad posters.
Well said totally agree.
In a free society surely people should be entitled to free speech.
As religion is so important to society how can it be banned?
you will always get differing views.. thats normal.
yeh discuss religion if you want, just keep the heid about it.
Buttercup
29-Sep-06, 15:50
I voted in favour of Religion being discussed because I can't see why it shouldn't be. If someone gets "out of hand" heaven knows there's more than enough moderators to "sort it out". If your going to ban a subject just because it might cause trouble you'd be as well shutting down the forum now! What is a forum for if it's not to discuss things? :confused
pultneytooner
29-Sep-06, 16:52
Tolerence for anothers viewpoint is what we need and this cannot be acheived by banning religious discussion. An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.
Dreadnought
29-Sep-06, 17:10
In my opinion religion should be discussed, lampooned, caricatured, ridiculed.mocked,praised, championed , lauded and respected in equal, or not so equal measure. Any religion worth its salt can withstand any of the above and no followers of any religion are above what has been commonplace in Britain for decades - remember Dave Allen?
Only ban any of the above on this forum if you want to take away some of its' bite and relevance. The world is currently at odds due to religion. This nation is currently undergoing a kind of seed change whenever religion is mentioned. I for one do not take kindly to it.
Very well said. I also am getting fed up with the politically correct telling me what I can and cannot say or think about religion/politics/race etc. Political correctness is just mind control and this forum does not need the Thought Police.
martin macdonald
29-Sep-06, 17:15
religion and faith is a great topic. respect for others and an open mind at all times is a must.[SPEAK YOUR MIND. BUT MIND HOW YOU SPEAK] i would like this topic to stay. i am a christian and have been active in other religious discussions on the org, i have not been offended at any time :Razz
I too believe in free speech. :)
mostlyharmless
29-Sep-06, 18:20
Yes.....
Freedom...
Alot of pain death and suffering have past to give us the chance we have now for freedom of expression.
As soon as a society begins to break up and fails to speak and work together as a community then laws and counter laws are introduced to 'protect us!'
Laws are good to help us function as a society but laws to compel or stop us from saying what we want to say give us no freedom and no expression.
I've often heard this forum being called a community then perhaps its should function as one rather than become a political party where steps away from the common consensus are punished.
Colin Manson
29-Sep-06, 19:12
I voted no, for no other reason that IMHO no way can a discussion about religion end in anything other than tantrums and disagreement, regardless of people being all adult and pc about it, I believe because it is such a personal thing it is hard to discuss it rationally. And you will find as in most postings it will only be a few dedicated orgers who actually participate, so I don't know if it would work. But, hey who am I to say yeah or nae. No doubt there will be a part of this posting quoted in another, thus proving my feelings exactly.
I voted no for the same reason and from the Admin point of view that I'm fed up getting complaints about these types of posts. :)
Just one point, the decision was taken by an Admin not a moderator, Moderators have only agreed with everyone else. Their views were aired in the moderators section and Niall decided to do the poll, I fail to see why people can't understand the difference between the Moderators and the Administrators.
Religion, and the right to discuss it, is that very fundamental freedom that Christ fought and died for, and that the Romans tried their best to quash. We wouldn't want to be judged as Pontius Pilotes, would we? Things just need to be kept in order to avoid discussions getting too personal or too heated.
Thanks for asking us our opinions, by the way. :D
I voted no for the same reason and from the Admin point of view that I'm fed up getting complaints about these types of posts. :)
Just one point, the decision was taken by an Admin not a moderator, Moderators have only agreed with everyone else. Their views were aired in the moderators section and Niall decided to do the poll, I fail to see why people can't understand the difference between the Moderators and the Administrators.
I agree with you, Colin, about the difference between the two. I would have thought it was quite clear that Moderators do just that - shush people down, warn them to behave... moderate affairs. Administrators wield the knife.
I think religion should be a topic for discussion. I rarely participate in these religious discussions on more than a superficial level as my own relationship with God is a little confused shall we say but i beleive that people should be allowed to discuss religion and the issues around it in a sensible and ..
Im stuggling with the word i want to use here - i cant figure out what word i need. What i mean is where a post is designed to provoke outrage it should not be allowed. Pussycats post was inflammatory and appeared to be designed to annoy people. On another thread there have been some really strong things said but they have been said in the context of an ongoing discussion and whilst they have been provocative they havent simply been stuck in to get a rise out of people
see i hope that made sense IM not very coherent tonight:~(
I must say it must be the most talked about first post ever on the org.
highlander
29-Sep-06, 20:50
And the most agreed with unicorn lol
And the most agreed with unicorn lol
Not quite Highlander. I thought the original post was inflammatory & designed to cause upset - I certainly didn't agree with it. Neither do I agree that the "religion" topic should be banned from these forums. However, I do agree with the way it was dealt with. The Admin have taken into consideration the opinions of the posters here & also of the Moderators - a poll has been set up to record these. May good sense prevail ....
highlander
29-Sep-06, 21:27
Moira when i said "the most agreed with" i meant this thread started by naill
So sorry Highlander -
Does this mean we have agreed to agree? :roll:
There's a lot more to the Mods job than meets the eye - we even argue amongst ourselves in order to keep the Caithness.org message boards acceptable & alive for the majority of posters. Long may it be so ......
I don't think anything should be banned from being discussed. It's a family forum so obviously some things are out but things like religion, politics and sport should be fair game.
Banning topics is bizarre imo, I just don't understand how it benefits the forum. Surely it would make more sense to censure/ban the folk who can't discuss things like a grown up?
edit: Gleber2 said it better :cool:
I voted no for the same reason and from the Admin point of view that I'm fed up getting complaints about these types of posts. :)
I realize that we cannot vote twice, but maybe we can post twice on this thread. I think that Colin has a point here about the complaints. If there are a great number of them coming in then perhaps another way needs to be found to allow the religious discussions that are helpful to us all, but to limit the profoundly controversial ones. If I had some suggestions as how to handle this problem I would make them.
However, with limited resources to deal with the complaints, then perhaps there does need to be some restrictions on topics that generate those complaints. It is not a solution that most of us would like to see, but it may still be the only option.
sassylass
30-Sep-06, 01:07
yes, as long as people are tolerant of other viewpoints and do not resort to ridicule.
Yes, because at the end of the day, it's very interesting to hear other's views on some personal subjects.
Kingetter
30-Sep-06, 02:24
Folks, this is page 3 of "the discussion" and I figure none of its contributors know any much more now than they did when the topic was launched. Granted, conduct has been good, no infraction points awarded (that I'm aware of), in other words, things have been as we would wish them to be. So, why is it so difficult to discuss religion and other topics in the same civilised manner?
What's been missing in these three pages of chat? Could it be that people are just being nice to each other? Has anyone come up with a recipe for 'peaceful co-existence'?
I'm a cynic, and these three pages of chat tell me nothing new. Sorry, multiple protestations of 'Thou shalt not lose thine heid' really don't convince me. Words are easy to type - behaviour much harder to control.
Good intentions? Great to start with, but where's the staying power?
Religion is such a "touchy" subject - I don't think there is anyone qualified with the necessary tact and impartiality to decide: who is right or who is wrong, who is upsetting the balance of the argument or who is upsetting the rest of the forum, when it comes to a heated religious thread. There will be too many tears and tantrums to deal with. Better left alone, methinks! Religion has the happy knack of turning normal, level headed individuals into ranting aliens. All the posters comments ,so far, seem calm and measured, but in the context of a real debate - who knows!
1. It's a subject where people HAVE to agree to disagree and when it's believers versus non-believers that ain't gonna happen!
2. Someone always goes too far, there is ALWAYS someone who can't resist stirring for stirring sake.
3. Then you get the people who are easily wound up and feel the need to complain (btw who does that? It wouldn't even occur to me to make a formal complaint about something on a forum, hello! just don't read it jeez!)
Actually, that kinda bugs me when I read on here how many people complain - grrrrrrr! When it's a decent debate yes, you will probably get annoyed, wound up and probably a little offended by the other views (that's the point) but don't complain about it, ("Sir, Sir, he doesn't agree with me, expel him NOW!") I just read my myself complaining about people who complain (the worlds gone mad!).
It seems to me that it is because of the sheer number of complaints that they get about the subject that they want it scrubbed. It's the slanging matches they are trying to stop, and that seems inevitable with religion! I'm sure they have better things to do than sit all day trawling through screeds of complaints about a religious debate (myself, I would rather poke my eyes with forks - oooops I wouldn't really - DON'T complain!). What's the betting they would allow slanging matches if no-one complained about it! (I sometimes quite enjoy a good old slanging match! They create and release tension - it's good for you! heh heh)
Personally, being a non-believer, I feel it's a waste of time debating this subject (lets face it, we all believe what we believe) but it is sometimes interesting to hear other peoples views on the subject, it can tell you a lot about someone! It's a shame about all the complaining, ok, I've stopped complaining now.........
Im past caring! :rolleyes:
btw who does that? It wouldn't even occur to me to make a formal complaint about something on a forum, hello! just don't read it jeez
Personally, being a non-believer, I feel it's a waste of time debating this subject (lets face it, we all believe what we believe) but it is sometimes interesting to hear other peoples views on the subject, it can tell you a lot about someone! It's a shame about all the complaining, ok, I've stopped complaining now.........
I'm going to put my hand up here and say that I did report the post that is so talked about. My reasoning?
My statement was: a disgraceful post for a first time posting by a new member.
Being fairly new myself, I like to think people build a respect for the strangers (or friends) posting on these pages.
I do not have a problem with people discussing religion - I myself would find it interesting to read, although unlikely to change my own thoughts on the matter. I have seen I have seen in other threads people saying 'I'm right, you are wrong' while I don't agree with (IMO) the forcefulness of the argument, if the people involved in the argument see no offence, then fine.
BUT (there had to be one!) for someone to join the forum, not build up a 'rappor' with people initially, then post a distasteful post aimed to get peoples backs up, I find it unacceptable.
I stand by my decision and feel that I have been totally impartial on these forums. I have a great deal of respect for many on this forum (the rest I have not encountered) and like to think that my good rep means that others feel the same. I have spread good rep around - even to those I have not agreed with.
My problem was not with the sucject, merely the content of the post and the fact that (IMO) it was posted to aggrivate people. If they merely wanted to pass comment, they would have posted on the thread that was ongoing - they had obviously read it! I am obviously not the only one who felt this.
Had the post been an 'in your face' "this is my religion you WILL believe it" I would have done the same thing
please note: I voted yes religion should be discussed.
Kingetter
30-Sep-06, 11:41
Does all this not boil down to perception? perception of what discuss really means? If this is true, then perceptions need looked at rather than the topic.
If you allow Religion to be discussed here, then some people will get Hurt.
It's obvious from other threads that folk sit at their computers and type the first thing that comes into their heads, regardless of how it may be received by others. Perhaps with eye contact the same thing could be said with less
damaging results.
Religion is a very personal thing....... Go into your Closet etc etc.
Even within the same Church or Group people will have different ideas.
This is not the place for such a discussion.. Imagine someone in great need of spiritual solace, and some clever so and so spouting his homespun philosophy and then leaving that person in great despair, indeed crisis, doubting his/her beliefs and with no one to turn to.
This is not the place for such a discussion ! Eye contact is needed and a caring, sympathetic atmosphere must abound.
This is not the place for such a discussion - but by all means do it elsewhere !
Kaishowing
30-Sep-06, 12:34
I've often heard this forum being called a community then perhaps its should function as one rather than become a political party where steps away from the common consensus are punished.
Excellent point which I agree with 100%....and it not only applies to religion as a topic!
Surely, it's healthy to question faith on a regular basis? If personal beliefs can't stand some close examination and satisfy the individual when forced to look at things from another point of view, then you weren't that solid in your convictions in the first place?!?
Still, as none of us know (and won't for sure until we shuffle off our collective mortal coil,) but of course that's where the faith comes into the mix.
I have my own personal beliefs as regards religion and so far have been unshakable in them over the years, but I like reading other people's points of view.
I see no reason for any subject to be censored as long as there is respect shown, perhaps not for the beliefs themselves, but rather the other person's right to have different beliefs (- a freedom that people have laid their lives down to ensure we retain.)
i did vote yes. its good to have a lively discussion but some people do go a bit far. fair enough there is some posts you can disagree with but i usually turn to the hubby to moan about them and not go to admin. strikes me as being a bit petty to do that. if you dont like the discussion ignore the thread.
Gogglebox
30-Sep-06, 17:16
No subject should be banned, only bad posters.
Couldnt agree more.
Its a slippery slope when subjects start to get banned - where do you draw the line
Every subject can be discussed offensively its not the subject its the posters that need to be held accountable
Nobodys opinions are wrong if its what they believe its how they are presented.
The wording and the tone intimated by the poster and taken by the reader that makes them offensive or not
Saying that though it must be a nightmare to police.
If these forums continue to be contentious maybe the administrators will shut them down and spare themselves the grief
If they become too diluted and over censored maybe posters will go elsewhere
Dreadnought
30-Sep-06, 17:16
If you allow Religion to be discussed here, then some people will get Hurt.
It doesn't matter what the topic of discussion is, someone, somewhere, will 'get hurt' and then complain. Pretty soon all topics would be banned.
Ive never complained about a poster :roll:........yet! Wonder if anyones complained about me.......mmhhh :cool:
cuddlepop
30-Sep-06, 17:39
Yes it should be allowed to be discussed.Its the content of the posting that should be moderated not the subject.
I'm as guilty as the next person for typing something and then realising that wasn't what i meant when i've read it on the org;so maybe we should take a little more thought to our postings before we send them and then perhapse no subject will be banned.:eek:
I'm going to put my hand up here and say that I did report the post that is so talked about. My reasoning?
My statement was: a disgraceful post for a first time posting by a new member.
Being fairly new myself, I like to think people build a respect for the strangers (or friends) posting on these pages.
I do not have a problem with people discussing religion - I myself would find it interesting to read, although unlikely to change my own thoughts on the matter. I have seen I have seen in other threads people saying 'I'm right, you are wrong' while I don't agree with (IMO) the forcefulness of the argument, if the people involved in the argument see no offence, then fine.
BUT (there had to be one!) for someone to join the forum, not build up a 'rappor' with people initially, then post a distasteful post aimed to get peoples backs up, I find it unacceptable.
I stand by my decision and feel that I have been totally impartial on these forums. I have a great deal of respect for many on this forum (the rest I have not encountered) and like to think that my good rep means that others feel the same. I have spread good rep around - even to those I have not agreed with.
My problem was not with the sucject, merely the content of the post and the fact that (IMO) it was posted to aggrivate people. If they merely wanted to pass comment, they would have posted on the thread that was ongoing - they had obviously read it! I am obviously not the only one who felt this.
Had the post been an 'in your face' "this is my religion you WILL believe it" I would have done the same thing
please note: I voted yes religion should be discussed.
The fact that it is the person's first post has no relevance whatever. There is no rule that says you have to post 10 or however many "neutral" posts before saying what you really feel. You have judged this person on one post, unless you know who it is you have not shown much respect for a stranger. Respect is a two-way deal after all.
The way I read the "facts" of the original post is that the person does not see God as a benevolent and helpful figure to mankind. This was based on the terrible things which happen in our world and the seeming lack of intervention to make the world a better place. These are perfectly understandable, if perhaps naive, arguments. No-one can deny that much evil exists in our world and there is little evidence of God or Gods working to change that fact. The poster goes on to be happy about churches closing down. Again, this is a simple truth in the UK, less people are going to church. Since the poster put forward that, based on the evils of the world and lack of doing anything to help, God was more likely to be the enemy of man, then it is logical that the poster be pleased to see that more people have turned away from religion. It is a very logical argument in my mind that if mankind takes more responsibility for its actions here and now, then that is more likely to make the world a better place, than waiting for a figure (whom we have no definite evidence exists) stepping in to save the day.
I maintain that if you cannot accept criticism of your belief, or bear to have your faith questioned then your faith isn't very true. That stands for any religion and nobody is going to be proved correct in this lifetime.
Scorrie, I can bear to have my faith questioned, but I find it hard to have someone I love dearly insulted, ridiculed, mocked. I never felt like this until I became a Christian, and would have joined in with all the mockery then, but not now. I suppose you could tell me to just not read the posts, or even leave the org, but I don't want to.
I hope we don't stop discussing religion on the org - life is all about laughing, crying, disagreeing, being hurt, forgiving, loving, being part of the community around you. All life is represented here, on the org, long may it remain so.
I have never intended to hurt anyone with stating my opinions, or make anyone uncomfortable, or ram religion down anyone's throat, and I respect everyone's opinion on this subject.
Sorry to see Saveman is going too!
Scorrie, I can bear to have my faith questioned, but I find it hard to have someone I love dearly insulted, ridiculed, mocked. I never felt like this until I became a Christian, and would have joined in with all the mockery then, but not now. I suppose you could tell me to just not read the posts, or even leave the org, but I don't want to.
I hope we don't stop discussing religion on the org - life is all about laughing, crying, disagreeing, being hurt, forgiving, loving, being part of the community around you. All life is represented here, on the org, long may it remain so.
I have never intended to hurt anyone with stating my opinions, or make anyone uncomfortable, or ram religion down anyone's throat, and I respect everyone's opinion on this subject.
Sorry to see Saveman is going too!
God cannot be insulted, ridiculed or mocked, those are human emotions which have no way of affecting a perfect being. When followers can realise that and react with a smile to naive criticism, then they will be a step closer to understanding true faith. Many people I have known who were regular church goers did not practice what was preached and they do not have the faintest idea about true belief.
I would recommend checking out Panorama's Sex Crimes and The Vatican on Sunday to see the double standards that exist within religion.
brokencross
30-Sep-06, 20:59
For what is supposed to be a poll (and the reasons for voting yes or no) about discussing religion; it has proceeded to be a discussion about religion. Who would have guessed?
Cedric Farthsbottom III
01-Oct-06, 00:02
Yes,religion should be discussed.Everyone has their own beliefs,so they should.Does reading the religious threads change my own views,No.Its good to see folk blether about their own beliefs cos ye can see the differing views of folk.
This forum on a whole is the best in Scotland.The org site for promoting Caithness is excellent and Niall and crew are the guys!!!!But forums on a site are different.Ye have the folk in that county blethering from lost cats to the end of the universe......to me thats good cos then every orger will have something to talk about.
Here's a message from Cedric,an orger and proud.If theirs a tourist or web addict oot there wi an addiction to this forum.What dae ye think?:D
God cannot be insulted, ridiculed or mocked, those are human emotions which have no way of affecting a perfect being. When followers can realise that and react with a smile to naive criticism, then they will be a step closer to understanding true faith. Many people I have known who were regular church goers did not practice what was preached and they do not have the faintest idea about true belief.
I would recommend checking out Panorama's Sex Crimes and The Vatican on Sunday to see the double standards that exist within religion.
I know that we are drifting from the poll, but I want to comment that I do think that God can be insulted, ridiculed and mocked.
However, my point is that most of the people who insult, ridicule or mock declare up front that they don't believe in God. They must be aiming the insult, ridicule or mockery at something. If it isn't God (because they don't believe in God) then it must be at people. And people do have feelings. Some of the comments made are far more pointed and dangerous than naive criticism. It is hard to smile in the face of insult, ridicule or mockery. In fact it is unhealthy to smile under such conditions.
No faithful church person is without concern about the double standards that bubble up from time to time. We who lament them strive diligently to correct them. To paint Christianity with a white wash of a few power mongers is to miss the enormous good that the organization does.
Gogglebox
01-Oct-06, 07:33
I'm going to put my hand up here and say that I did report the post that is so talked about. My reasoning?
My statement was: a disgraceful post for a first time posting by a new member.
Being fairly new myself, I like to think people build a respect for the strangers (or friends) posting on these pages.
I do not have a problem with people discussing religion - I myself would find it interesting to read, although unlikely to change my own thoughts on the matter. I have seen I have seen in other threads people saying 'I'm right, you are wrong' while I don't agree with (IMO) the forcefulness of the argument, if the people involved in the argument see no offence, then fine.
BUT (there had to be one!) for someone to join the forum, not build up a 'rappor' with people initially, then post a distasteful post aimed to get peoples backs up, I find it unacceptable.
I stand by my decision and feel that I have been totally impartial on these forums. I have a great deal of respect for many on this forum (the rest I have not encountered) and like to think that my good rep means that others feel the same. I have spread good rep around - even to those I have not agreed with.
My problem was not with the sucject, merely the content of the post and the fact that (IMO) it was posted to aggrivate people. If they merely wanted to pass comment, they would have posted on the thread that was ongoing - they had obviously read it! I am obviously not the only one who felt this.
Had the post been an 'in your face' "this is my religion you WILL believe it" I would have done the same thing
please note: I voted yes religion should be discussed.
It really is irrelevant if its the posters first or 1000th post or whether they have built up a rapport or not, the reader might be visiting for the first time so why should they have to tollerate or make allowances for a poster they have no "rapport" with. Posters have the capability to be offensive on their first or thousandth post
Having not seen the original post i dont know what the content was or whether it was deliberately aggrivating or you were only personally offended or a lot of people were offended opinions are opinions whether they are posted in true belief or as a stance taken in an arguement to cause discussion it is how it is presented in the post and the clarity of it that cause good debate or insult.
With posts, and ive made the mistake in emails before , what one person reads and understands something to mean another person can read it from a different perspective and understand it to mean something else.
Its the disadvantage of not being face to face and hearing the tone and inclination in someones voiced arguement - and we can all write something that another can read in a way that was not intended.
I have to say though that i think this particular thread, when it sticks to topic, is one of the most interesting and well discussed ones ive seen for a while and maybe if we were coming up with a more diverse range of topics, away from some of the hearsay and rumours threads that i personally deplore, maybe we would improve the quality of debate and appreciate differing opinions easier. Also it would improve the quality of the forum as a whole
So Im for appreciation of other opinions, less over sensitivity by readers, clarity of presentation and responsibility of posters, but certainly not in favour of censorship of any kind so all subjects are up for responsible discussion - religion, sex, football, terrorism, euthanasia, vivisection etc
The org would just become an advertsing board and a place for posting missing animal notices which surely none of us want
It's a pity that more subjects for discusion are being cut off. Religion impinges on so many facets of life, even if one calls themselves an athiest, that it will become difficult to define cut-off lines for any threads with any kind og religious connotation. Discussion is healthy, what becomes difficult is when things degrade to personal attacks and name calling, which only to often happens.
I would have thought that with the new system of moderation in place with serveral appointed moderators, that it would easier to moderate the "difficult" subjects. Wouldn't it be possible to have a system similair to BBC, where individual posts that raise doubts about their content being according to the forums rules are suspended untill a decision can be made about them, but the thread continues to function?
It really is irrelevant if its the posters first or 1000th post or whether they have built up a rapport or not, the reader might be visiting for the first time so why should they have to tollerate or make allowances for a poster they have no "rapport" with. Posters have the capability to be offensive on their first or thousandth post
Having not seen the original post i dont know what the content was or whether it was deliberately aggrivating or you were only personally offended or a lot of people were offended opinions are opinions whether they are posted in true belief or as a stance taken in an arguement to cause discussion it is how it is presented in the post and the clarity of it that cause good debate or insult.
With posts, and ive made the mistake in emails before , what one person reads and understands something to mean another person can read it from a different perspective and understand it to mean something else.
Its the disadvantage of not being face to face and hearing the tone and inclination in someones voiced arguement - and we can all write something that another can read in a way that was not intended.
I have to say though that i think this particular thread, when it sticks to topic, is one of the most interesting and well discussed ones ive seen for a while and maybe if we were coming up with a more diverse range of topics, away from some of the hearsay and rumours threads that i personally deplore, maybe we would improve the quality of debate and appreciate differing opinions easier. Also it would improve the quality of the forum as a whole
So Im for appreciation of other opinions, less over sensitivity by readers, clarity of presentation and responsibility of posters, but certainly not in favour of censorship of any kind so all subjects are up for responsible discussion - religion, sex, football, terrorism, euthanasia, vivisection etc
The org would just become an advertsing board and a place for posting missing animal notices which surely none of us want
I wasn't 'personally offended', but found it extremely distasteful that someone started a thread deliberately mocking someones beliefs. IMO no other religious thread has started so distastefully - only ended up that way, but as long as the people involved in the discussion at the time feel it is acceptable, then fine.
I can't have been the only one to have reported the post - and as I said earlier, I stand by my decision. Given the same situation, I would do it again!
I'm all for people having their opinions - I do not agree with people attacking others, but as said earlier, as long as people are happy belittling each others opinions thats fine within a discussion.
I am totally impartial on religion - you have your beliefs, I have mine. However, I would never stoop so low as to say: Ha, you go to church, good thing all the churches are closing and can be put to good use. or: you don't believe in god, rot in hell!
Henry, I agree with you that the thread in question was pretty inappropriate and seemed to be a deliberate attempt to rile people up.
But THIS debate on whether the whole topic should be banned is because it just seems to offend so many people. It sounds like they get hassle resulting from EVERY religious thread, not just that one!
Maybe they should keep all topics on the table and just continue to "jail" people who are deliberately offensive or rule-breaking (mind you that seems to bug people as well - Ye canny win when you're Admin - hey, that rhymes! I feel a song coming on!)
Oh, oh, oh Ye canny wiiiiiiiiiin
when you're admiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin!
la la la lala laaaaaa!
pultneytooner
01-Oct-06, 11:33
I wasn't 'personally offended', but found it extremely distasteful that someone started a thread deliberately mocking someones beliefs. IMO no other religious thread has started so distastefully - only ended up that way, but as long as the people involved in the discussion at the time feel it is acceptable, then fine.
I can't have been the only one to have reported the post - and as I said earlier, I stand by my decision. Given the same situation, I would do it again!
I'm all for people having their opinions - I do not agree with people attacking others, but as said earlier, as long as people are happy belittling each others opinions thats fine within a discussion.
I am totally impartial on religion - you have your beliefs, I have mine. However, I would never stoop so low as to say: Ha, you go to church, good thing all the churches are closing and can be put to good use. or: you don't believe in god, rot in hell!I'm sorry but I can't for the life of me see how the 'offending' thread could be seen as distasteful or mocking someones beliefs and the person did not state,
Ha, you go to church, good thing all churches are closing and can be put to good use that is a total misquote and very misleading for the voters on this poll, try sticking to the facts.
The person started the thread with a very pertinent point
what I cannot understand is how and why ANYBODY could regard this God as a just, merciful or benevolent being.
Given the horrors and slaughter HE presides over, or the misery inflicted daily on the lives of Billions - be it starvation, cancer, poverty, chronic illness etc etc - it beggars belief why people actually worship him. How insulting.:roll:
I maintain that if you cannot accept criticism of your belief, or bear to have your faith questioned then your faith isn't very true.
Well, this is where you appear to have jumped on a bandwagon - as you appear to feel I did.
I have never said this is a criticism of my faith :roll:
My beliefs are personal to me and nobody can criticise them as they don't know them :D
Well, this is where you appear to have jumped on a bandwagon - as you appear to feel I did.
I have never said this is a criticism of my faith :roll:
My beliefs are personal to me and nobody can criticise them as they don't know them :D
I don't think I jumped on any bandwagon. If you look back through the posts in this thread, I think you will find that I was the first to mention that people unable to accept criticism do not possess true faith.
If the poster is not critical of your faith and is unable to criticise your beliefs then what on Earth is there to be upset about? I don't find your thought process to be logical.
ps Little eye rolling icons are not a very Christian thing at all. It mocks my statement, tut tut!!
I know that we are drifting from the poll, but I want to comment that I do think that God can be insulted, ridiculed and mocked.
However, my point is that most of the people who insult, ridicule or mock declare up front that they don't believe in God. They must be aiming the insult, ridicule or mockery at something. If it isn't God (because they don't believe in God) then it must be at people. And people do have feelings. Some of the comments made are far more pointed and dangerous than naive criticism. It is hard to smile in the face of insult, ridicule or mockery. In fact it is unhealthy to smile under such conditions.
No faithful church person is without concern about the double standards that bubble up from time to time. We who lament them strive diligently to correct them. To paint Christianity with a white wash of a few power mongers is to miss the enormous good that the organization does.
I would be pretty disappointed in any God that could feel hurt by the comments made by mere mortals he himself created!!
It is wholly logical that if God created us and gave us the ability to be able to criticise him, then he either made a mistake in the design or is happy to let us say what we want to.
I don't really follow your point that being able to smile in the face of insult is unhealthy. It is true that if you are able to smile in the face of man-made tragedy and evils then you must have become impervious to an unnatural degree. However, when the subject in hand is an immortal being, then any follower must know that all that takes place in this life is a mere prelude to an eternity in Heaven and surely it is easy to have total faith that those making the criticism are mis-guided and their comments cannot alter in any way the destiny of the believer meeting their creator. A smile in those circumstances is an indicator of total belief and confidence in God and affirmation that the person making the criticism is not neccessarily a bad person because of their own beliefs, or lack thereof.
"Don't worry, be happy"
percy toboggan
01-Oct-06, 14:45
[quote=canuck;140946]
However, my point is that most of the people who insult, ridicule or mock declare up front that they don't believe in God. They must be aiming the insult, ridicule or mockery at something. If it isn't God (because they don't believe in God) then it must be at people. And people do have feelings. Some of the comments made are far more pointed and dangerous than naive criticism. It is hard to smile in the face of insult, ridicule or mockery. In fact it is unhealthy to smile under such conditions.
quote]
Then don't smile. Harbour resentment and soldier on. It is the only way. Eventually the resentment will fade because one will have other things to occupy ones mind. Yes, all people have feelings, of course they do, but no-one on God's green earth (and I trespass into religious terminology for good reason) has the right not to be offended. It just has to be dealt with. The right of free expression is far more improtant than a 'God-followers' feelings. If God is omnipotent in their world then criticism, ridicule and parody will be shrugged off safe in their knowledge that the 'abuser' will get their come-uppance one day.
I do not want to return to a time where to transgress religious dogma means being burnt at the stake as a heretic. A dramatic illustration perhaps but if we follow the logic all the way this is where we return. The climate of 'ooohh we can't day that and we can't, surely, say this' is becoming ever more febrile. It is to be resisted every step of the way.
Gogglebox
01-Oct-06, 16:41
I wasn't 'personally offended', but found it extremely distasteful that someone started a thread deliberately mocking someones beliefs. IMO no other religious thread has started so distastefully - only ended up that way, but as long as the people involved in the discussion at the time feel it is acceptable, then fine.
I can't have been the only one to have reported the post - and as I said earlier, I stand by my decision. Given the same situation, I would do it again!
I'm all for people having their opinions - I do not agree with people attacking others, but as said earlier, as long as people are happy belittling each others opinions thats fine within a discussion.
I am totally impartial on religion - you have your beliefs, I have mine. However, I would never stoop so low as to say: Ha, you go to church, good thing all the churches are closing and can be put to good use. or: you don't believe in god, rot in hell!
As i stated i never seen the actual specific thread that you refer to.
My point is aimed towards posting on any topic rather than the specific thread or religion in particular
As an example of what i mean from your lines above i would say the comment on "good thing all churches are closing" is fine as its an opinion but the "rot in hell" would be inappropriate as that is just abusive and the poster should be curtailed by a moderator/admin.
I personally have no opinion on churches but i appreciate that there will be some that do.
rockchick
01-Oct-06, 17:00
(taken from "Never Hit a Jellyfish with a Spade" by Guy Browning)
"Finding religion is a way of giving your problems to someone else who claims to have all the answers. The reason why so many religious people seem so happy is because they are relieved not to have to ask themselves any more difficult questions. instead, they can refer to their Holy Book, which is generally the Word of God. There are many different versions of the Holy Book, depending on which reporter was around at the time. You also have to remember that the Word of God has generally been translated through thirteen different languages. Would you trust the instructions on your microwave if you knew they'd come the same route?
Religions are all man-made: that's why there are so many of them. They all have different branding, different packaging, and broadly hold out the same promises - mostly of the sort that can't be upheld in a court of law. Like other products, each religion promises to make your soul whiter than white and to shift stubborn stains on your character. Once you pick a religion that claims to be the best, you are obliged to think less of other people's religions. This gives rise to all sorts of hatred and unpleasantness, which fortunately religion alows you to be forgiven for. All good religions insist that other religions are mistaken, and, of course, they are all absolutely right.
If you're completely confident that you're in the one true religion, then you might like to try out someone else's religion for awhile. Of course, if you have any doubts, then it's best to stay at home and increase your level of fervour for your own religion. Fervour is religiou alcohol in that it makes you feel better on the inside but look stupid from the outside, and it eventually wears off leaving you feel worse than when you started.
There aren't many religions that are made by women. Women tend to concentrate on the spiritual side, which is something completely different and doesnt' require the erection of big buildings. In fact, another good way of analysing what kind of religion you've picked is to see how they pick their ministers and how these ministers then treat people who aren't the same sex as they are. If you have your doubts, simply apply fervour and all will be well."
martin macdonald
01-Oct-06, 19:54
(taken from "Never Hit a Jellyfish with a Spade" by Guy Browning)
"Finding religion is a way of giving your problems to someone else who claims to have all the answers. The reason why so many religious people seem so happy is because they are relieved not to have to ask themselves any more difficult questions. instead, they can refer to their Holy Book, which is generally the Word of God. There are many different versions of the Holy Book, depending on which reporter was around at the time. You also have to remember that the Word of God has generally been translated through thirteen different languages. Would you trust the instructions on your microwave if you knew they'd come the same route?
Religions are all man-made: that's why there are so many of them. They all have different branding, different packaging, and broadly hold out the same promises - mostly of the sort that can't be upheld in a court of law. Like other products, each religion promises to make your soul whiter than white and to shift stubborn stains on your character. Once you pick a religion that claims to be the best, you are obliged to think less of other people's religions. This gives rise to all sorts of hatred and unpleasantness, which fortunately religion alows you to be forgiven for. All good religions insist that other religions are mistaken, and, of course, they are all absolutely right.
If you're completely confident that you're in the one true religion, then you might like to try out someone else's religion for awhile. Of course, if you have any doubts, then it's best to stay at home and increase your level of fervour for your own religion. Fervour is religiou alcohol in that it makes you feel better on the inside but look stupid from the outside, and it eventually wears off leaving you feel worse than when you started.
There aren't many religions that are made by women. Women tend to concentrate on the spiritual side, which is something completely different and doesnt' require the erection of big buildings. In fact, another good way of analysing what kind of religion you've picked is to see how they pick their ministers and how these ministers then treat people who aren't the same sex as they are. If you have your doubts, simply apply fervour and all will be well."
so after all that. are you for or against religious discussion on the org?:Razz that is still the question..
Gogglebox
01-Oct-06, 20:26
That sounds like Rockchick is starting a new thread there on what she sees as perhaps some uncertainties in the ideaology behind religion - -
Thats not waht this topic is about.
its whether Religion is to controversial that it causes too many posters to cross the line between debate and insult and should it be banned
This topic is about freedom of speech, responsibility of posters and i believe sometimes people misinterpretating other people posts
We need to think what we write
read it again and think can this be interpreted another way
We need to Read properly what others are posting and if you think its offensive
read it again and think can this be interpreted another way
Dont get me wrong a personal insult is a personal insult and should be dealt with but sometime a missing comma or an exclamation instead of a fullstop can change the whole tone of how we read the posts
I have now seen the original offending post and to be honest I have no idea what the fuss is all about regarding the post itself their is nothing in there that is anything other than a personal opinion .
NB : This is only a suggestion on how someone maybe placed to write a post in such a manner
Im going to suggest and this is purely a leap of my own thought that the a person who wrote that original post has had some major trauma in their life perhaps the loss of a parent when they were a child or indeed the lost of a child.
To clarify i am not religious - - but i believe that people who place their trust in god would feel very cheated by their god if some kind of trauma like this has happened in their life. How easy it must be to have any other opinion if something like that happens.
I think that original post was the opinion of someone who has had a major trauma in their life and once was religious but has turned against the church as it blames it for the events in their life happening
I fully believe the post was perfectly acceptable but maybe its not the post thats causing the problem maybe its the amount of complaints about allsort of religious comments that are annoying the moderators and administrators and their is possible nothing wrong with the posters beliefs just oversensitive readers
IMHO
so after all that. are you for or against religious discussion on the org?:Razz that is still the question..
Exactly , That was the whole point on Niall's origional posting of this Poll, but IMO it has been hijacked by the very Orgers Niall ran this Poll for:confused
Exactly , That was the whole point on Niall's origional posting of this Poll, but IMO it has been hijacked by the very Orgers Niall ran this Poll for:confused
To be fair, reasons for why people voted the way the did were invited. This is always likely to lead to a bit of wandering. The poll seems to have served its purpose. Roughly 3 to 1 are in favour of religion staying.
For the naysayers, can I use a piece of Football results advice for future religious topics.
"If you don't want to know the score, please look away now!!"
Gogglebox
01-Oct-06, 21:52
For the naysayers, can I use a piece of Football results advice for future religious topics.
"If you don't want to know the score, please look away now!!"
You are the new Confuscious - -I like that quote
oldmarine
02-Oct-06, 05:04
I voted "YES". Everyone is entitled to their own opinion whether you agree with them or not.
rockchick
02-Oct-06, 06:30
so after all that. are you for or against religious discussion on the org?:Razz that is still the question..
My apologies - I thought I'd already put my vote up, but I see now that it didn't "take".
I am definitely for religious/spiritual discussions; although I was brought up in a Catholic household I follow a non-Christian religion and I always find it interesting to hear different viewpoints. I don't like it much when someone tries to shove their viewpoint down my throat, but that reflects more on the pusher than the pushee.
willowbankbear
02-Oct-06, 20:01
Im for it being dicussed, although I wont be joining in any debate on religion , Im not into it at all
I voted "Yes" and then I read through the posts. I am happy sticking with my vote but, having then read through the posts I can see why it was thought Religion should be banned. It is one of those subjects which obviously puts a lot of pressure on the Admin because of the number of complaints it generates.
I was taught, when I was young, that the best way to start a fight after a few beers in a bar was to start a discussion on politics, religion or football, in no particular order of preference.
I missed the thread that started this problem but I have seen a copy of the original post somewhere on the Board, I can't just remember where. I too formed the opinion that it was not meant to start a reasoned discussion but was simply meant to be offensive and inflamatory to people who had any kind of Religiious Beliefs and was done with the intent of troublemaking and setting people at one another's throats. That reason alone provides enough reason to see that particulat Thread closed and whatever punishment Admin considered the Poster should be subjected to handed out.
The fault, IMHO, lay with the particular Post and the Poster not the Subject which, when handled properly has, in the past, led to some interesting threads.
Providing everybody accepts that others are entitled to their Beliefs, or lack of them as the case may be, then there should be no problem. If anybody oversteps the line then they should be dealt with as they would be on any other subject.
As most of you know, I am quite happy to state my opinion when I disagree with somebody's point of view, but that does not mean I believe they should not have the right to hold or state their beliefs, provided they stay within the rules of the board.
cullbucket
03-Oct-06, 01:35
The original thread is still there on page 4....
http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=15105
Kingetter
03-Oct-06, 03:32
Looking through previous posts it astonishes me that there are still people out there who follow 'The Word of God.'
Question 1: Does PUSSYCAT really know what 'The Word of God' is?
OK, if for a moment we accept that is there is such a thing as a God, what I cannot understand is how and why ANYBODY could regard this God as a just, merciful or benevolent being.
Question 2: Is this how PUSSYCAT learns about matters he/she does not understand?
Given the horrors and slaughter HE presides over, or the misery inflicted daily on the lives of Billions - be it starvation, cancer, poverty, chronic illness etc etc - it beggars belief why people actually worship him.
Question 3: Does PUSSYCAT only attribute starvation, cancer, poverty, chronic illness etc etc to God, but not ‘the good stuff’?
Surely, if God exists, he is the enemy of Man?
Question 4: On what basis is he the enemy of Man? Nothing stated by PUSSYCAT provides any conclusion about God.
Meantime I enjoy trips down the A9, seeing all the abandoned Kirks, and I rejoice. Latest good news is the closure of Latheron, Berriedale and Bruan churches. Maybe now they can be turned into something useful.
Question 5: What is there in PUSSYCAT’s senses that allows for enjoyment to be felt? How did it get there?
PUSSYCAT
Question: Should the name be WILDCAT rather than PUSSYCAT?
PS: Just in case: When I die and go to heaven, I would dearly love to kick the man where it hurts !
Question 6: So PUSSYCAT who is so critical of someone else for being so bad, actually contemplates using physical violence against someone else – is that not hypocritical?
7 questions to be answered there.
Now, in the absence (?) of PUSSYCAT, we cannot apparently get him/her to provide the answers. What we are left with then is a good example of destructive criticism, no valued assessment from looking at pros and cons, an abrasive manner in which the message was posted with no concern shown in case it might offend, and not presented in a manner that looks as though the poster wanted to learn – I feel questions posed may have been rhetorical at best (that’s the kindest I can be), but were more likely intended to be inflammatory.
Issues such as first time post alter nothing, nor was the message about religion. It was surely one person who may well have an attitude problem expressing controversial matters in an inappropriate manner.
So, thoughts about said person? I actually feel the less now said the better, but I’ll quit this message with the notion that just maybe it is an ex-orger who got banned and aware of what such a posting might do, decided to ‘try and get even’. The fact is, we will probably never know, and by now, the damage is done. 5 pages of discussion and a poll seem evidential of that.
I don't see PUSSYCAT on the members list.
Frankly, I think it is time to put a lid on it.
James.
Dreadnought
03-Oct-06, 08:42
The Amish are some of the most God 'fearing' people on planet Earth. Why then did this 'benevolent, loving 'God', send a killer into their midst to slaughter their children (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5400570.stm) yesterday? I agree with 'Pussycat's' sentiments.
Kingetter
03-Oct-06, 09:42
The Amish are some of the most God 'fearing' people on planet Earth. Why then did this 'benevolent, loving 'God', send a killer into their midst to slaughter their children (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5400570.stm) yesterday? I agree with 'Pussycat's' sentiments.
Your views concerning the Amish are not relevant to the aim of this thread and neither is your agreement with 'Pussycat's' sentiments. You are certainly well within rights to question causes for the incident you referred to concerning the Amish children, but this thread is just not the place to do it in, and I'm sure you know why.
I described PUSSYCAT's post as destructive criticism and, as you are following the same trend of not offering alternatives to that which you condemn, I'm guessing that neither he/she or you have anything worthwhile to offer which seems to say little for either of you.
Please note - I deplore incidents like yesterdays but I cannot blame a God for that without crediting the same God for all the beauty and good things in the world. Also, if, and only if, God made us all, then was he wrong to make you or I? If there is no God, how would yesterday's events be explained otherwise? - Rhetorical question, because as I said earlier, this is not the thread to discuss these matters in, its more about whether to allow such discussions.
Dreadnought
03-Oct-06, 14:57
Your views concerning the Amish are not relevant to the aim of this thread and neither is your agreement with 'Pussycat's' sentiments. You are certainly well within rights to question causes for the incident you referred to concerning the Amish children, but this thread is just not the place to do it in, and I'm sure you know why.
I described PUSSYCAT's post as destructive criticism and, as you are following the same trend of not offering alternatives to that which you condemn, I'm guessing that neither he/she or you have anything worthwhile to offer which seems to say little for either of you.
Please note - I deplore incidents like yesterdays but I cannot blame a God for that without crediting the same God for all the beauty and good things in the world. Also, if, and only if, God made us all, then was he wrong to make you or I? If there is no God, how would yesterday's events be explained otherwise? - Rhetorical question, because as I said earlier, this is not the thread to discuss these matters in, its more about whether to allow such discussions.
It is absolutely relevant. If discussion of religion is to be banned from the Org, how then can we discuss events such as yesterdays, bearing in mind that a large part of the Amish identity are their religious beliefs? My point was that there can be no such thing as 'God' with such atrocity being visited upon such innocent people.
Btw, I was not made by a 'God', or any mythological being for that matter, I was made by my parents.
Kingetter
03-Oct-06, 16:00
At the head of this thread is a question -
"Should religion be discussed on the forum?" The answer is yes or no, not please discuss the ethics of God or any religious alternative.
How much more simple can that be?
By all means state why one feels it should be discussed (like free speech etc maybe) but this thread's aim and purpose is not for critics of God to launch into the ethics of religion or acts of violence perpetrated by mankind or for His followers to defend Him. That was within the remit of the original thread which led to this one.
Btw - God is part of religion, not the other way round, and a great many people have been willing to die for their religious beliefs - that would be a reason for allowing discussion but not on this thread.
I'd already worked out that your parents created you, but thanks for the confirmation. I mustn't attribute that to God now must I?
When is this Poll closing?
It would appear that the ayes, eyes and I's have it!!
Closing date at top say 29-10-06
Kingetter
03-Oct-06, 16:30
When is this Poll closing?
It would appear that the ayes, eyes and I's have it!!
This poll will close on 29-10-2006 at 09:06 - so it says on the poll notice at the head of the thread.
Kingetter
03-Oct-06, 16:34
Sheesh - agreement on something (else?)! Miracle or science?
If we've got a poll for one banned subject (religion), shouldn't we have a poll for other banned subjects (ie football)?
Kingetter
04-Oct-06, 19:05
If we've got a poll for one banned subject (religion), shouldn't we have a poll for other banned subjects (ie football)?
Maybe not before we have a poll to see whether politics should be banned or not I'd say.
Colin Manson
04-Oct-06, 19:16
Football has never been a banned subject, the forum rules mearly state -
General Content Guidelines
As this is a community forum and is read by visitors of all ages, genders, religions, nationalities etc, please be aware of this when you post. Although we are not going to set a rule for what you choose to discuss on the forums, we would prefer that the topics are related to Caithness in some way, or national issues that affect everyone. It should also be taken into consideration that certain topics like football or religion can very easily be misread and cause offence, so great care should be taken when dealing with these types of issues.
Unfortunately some people don't take any care when posting about these subjects.
Kingetter
04-Oct-06, 19:18
Thanks for that clarification (& reminder?).
cullbucket
04-Oct-06, 19:26
Football has never been a banned subject, the forum rules mearly state -
Unfortunately some people don't take any care when posting about these subjects.
Thats not what Niall said in this thread...
http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=7698&highlight=local+football
Colin Manson
04-Oct-06, 22:00
He didn't say that Football was banned, just said to keep it local, I'm sure County League would be fine as well as the Highland League.
So my first statement still stands, it isn't banned just restricted to local teams save all the nonsense that goes with the Scottish Premier league, etc.
Although 75% is a sizable majority in the poll, I wouldn't want to be the administration when the 25% started complaining about posts. This is not as clear cut as it looks.
Dreadnought
05-Oct-06, 08:23
Although 75% is a sizable majority in the poll, I wouldn't want to be the administration when the 25% started complaining about posts. This is not as clear cut as it looks.
So we should pander to the minority?
Kaishowing
05-Oct-06, 11:01
Maybe not before we have a poll to see whether politics should be banned or not I'd say.
This IS political!! Religion has always been a political animal....after all, that's why the USA helps Israel so much etc etc...
I'm not trying to detract from the original parameters of the post...but politics and (mainstream) religion are so intertwined nowadays there's very little to seperate them!
Look at how powerful a political entity the 'religious right' has become in the US since the debacle of the 80's with the scandals etc....they hired lobbyists, spin doctors and media and political consultants...Now they've got one of their own in the oval office!
Religion and politics are two sides of the same coin.
Kingetter
05-Oct-06, 11:18
This IS political!! Religion has always been a political animal....after all, that's why the USA helps Israel so much etc etc...
I'm not trying to detract from the original parameters of the post...but politics and (mainstream) religion are so intertwined nowadays there's very little to seperate them!
Look at how powerful a political entity the 'religious right' has become in the US since the debacle of the 80's with the scandals etc....they hired lobbyists, spin doctors and media and political consultants...Now they've got one of their own in the oval office!
Religion and politics are two sides of the same coin.
I'm bound to agree, though I suppose I hoped someone would prove me wrong. The intertwining of politics with religion, sport, business et al makes it near impossible to avoid in discussions of one without the other.
Although 75% is a sizable majority in the poll, I wouldn't want to be the administration when the 25% started complaining about posts. This is not as clear cut as it looks.
3 to 1 is clear cut and very few people who voted no have given their reasons here. These people have been given their chance to vote. Can they not have the good grace to either ignore religious posts or simply tolerate them without having to pester the admin?
It is clear that some people found the post which spawned this poll to be "stirring the pot", others, including myself, felt the comments were tolerable. It is surely about trusting the mods to make the right judgement. Hopefully they can look at matters from a neutral standpoint and not be swayed by emotion. It is surely a bit bleak, not to mention disappointing, to envisage ALL those who voted no bombarding the admin team with complaints.
"New feelings brewing in Duff Man, What would Jesus do?"
There is something surreal about this - I just finished reading the chapter from the Rev. Donald Sage. Should we pack his bags and ask him to leave the site? And to take his book with him!
In so far as religion is a strong-some would say the strongest- strand in Scottish history it is imperative that the topic remain open for discussion.
So we should pander to the minority?
There is no "we" in this decision. It is the administration who have to decide if they have enough to do without handling all the religion complaints.
Cedric Farthsbottom III
06-Oct-06, 00:46
As a South of Scotland man,my religious views were always between the Bhoys of Parkhead and the Bears of Ibrox.The Highlands of Scotland has a greater sense of Religious awareness than any other part of Scotland,outwith the Islands.So should a forum in the Highlands discuss religion,yes I think it should.Agree wi canuck,its up to the administration o' this site to see if its possible.
mostlyharmless
06-Oct-06, 14:23
Hold on a minute is this thread being used to get a democratic decision on whether we discuss religion or not ?
Or is it merely a discussion thread with ideas,are we being used to create a policy or will the policy be decided whatever we say?
Finally why don't we just have a religous area to discuss the parameters of all things spiritual and those that do not abide by its guidelines will be banned forever from it! But still remain in the org playground,as a means of punishment and yet mercy.
Niall Fernie
06-Oct-06, 16:27
Hold on a minute is this thread being used to get a democratic decision on whether we discuss religion or not ?
Yes it is going to be a democratic decision. The majority have decided that its fine to discuss religion on this forum and as Admin I'm going to abide by that decision.
Or is it merely a discussion thread with ideas, are we being used to create a policy or will the policy be decided whatever we say?
Why would I have posted a poll? I could have just stuck to my guns and just put up with the flack. Lets face it, I've done it before and the flack finally comes to an end :roll:
Finally why don't we just have a religious area to discuss the parameters of all things spiritual and those that do not abide by its guidelines will be banned forever from it! But still remain in the org playground,as a means of punishment and yet mercy.
Erm, not a chance, I think its been shown quite clearly on this thread that there are some people that just cannot have a civilised conversation and there will be on most threads. A topic like religion obviously holds a closer place to some peoples' hearts and so more offence than usual can be taken therefor a dedicated forum would just open up the floodgates for some people to do nothing other than "have a go".
As I've stated before on the subject of dedicated forums there are plenty of them out there on the Internet and this one was started as a forum dedicated to Caithness. We'll never become THE place to discuss a particular topic other than "Caithness". However we have opened up a bit and become a place where things that affect the lives of Caithness folks can be discussed. This obviously brings in a far wider range of topics and we've tried to be as accommodating as possible.
Religion is one of those topics that crops up in threads from time to time as being a reason for or against a decision or action being discussed, so in reality it would be very difficult to ban it entirely. What I think has been shown in this thread are a few views on what upsets people when its mentioned and how often its complained about. I will of course be pointing the complainers of the future to this thread to see what has been said.
Although the poll shows a clear majority in favour of open discussion it should also point out to that majority that there is still a fairly large percentage of members who would rather it was not talked about. I would hope that in future discussions that members will bare this in mind when composing their post and choose their words with care. With that in mind I'll be applying the rules strictly to threads about religion so members should take care how they go about arguing their point as any complaints will be closely scrutinised for validity. In this way I feel that I am bowing to the majority while still doing my bit for the minority. I would also like to say that the point has been made, and I agree, that if you find the topic distasteful, don't read it and that goes for any other topic in the forum.
So, the "Ayes" have it with 103 over 32 and if things can now go on peacefully I'd say its been pretty successful having a poll to sort out the issue.
weeboyagee
06-Oct-06, 17:06
In this way I feel that I am bowing to the majority while still doing my bit for the minority. I would also like to say that the point has been made, and I agree, that if you find the topic distasteful, don't read it and that goes for any other topic in the forum.
So, the "Ayes" have it with 103 over 32 and if things can now go on peacefully I'd say its been pretty successful having a poll to sort out the issue.
At last!
Some of us don't post as often because of the lack of thread material to discuss or get your teeth into. The offended will complain, the weak minded will be influenced and the strong minded will fight their little corner until they're black and blue.
Remember one thing - this may be an internet site to promote all things Caithness but while I was away (as most of you know I often am) the amount of comments I get about whinging and limited vision Caithness people can be a pain when you try and promote your county!
Niall got it in one - the majority have it, and whilst I didn't post (given my rant on a heavier religious post ages ago) on this one I will post happily in the future (heh-heh look out!).
I nearly quit the org in Toronto when we saw the offending thread plugged,....dumbing down the org is not what I would like to see but the encouragement of sensible debate. I'm staying now after this result (awww naw I hear golach say!!!) and as Niall says and agrees with, if you find the topic distasteful, don't read it and that goes for any other topic in the forum.
On that note - Hallelujah! :D
WBG :cool:
As one of the original "yes" voters I am delighted with the decision.
Niall, you have obviously given the situation some thought and I can only hope that posters are willing to accept the decision.
There are too many subjects (and I am not referring to the Org here) which presently are being made "taboo" because somebody, somewhere might just possibly, somehow be ever so slightly upset. It seems to me that there is a growing trend by some to use that as an excuse to bully into silence people who think differently to themselves.
I'm afraid I have little sympathy with the, "If they don't see things my way then shut them up." Brigade.
I am, of course, talking about peoples ideas and beliefs and not the manner which some individuals might use to express them.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.