Do you think we should have a moratorium on religious questions for a time?

How would you ban the “hot button” subjects?

We could flag them when we see them and a mod would remove. I know this is a difficult idea to engineer but it seems like pointless pain is being inflicted and nobody is benefitting right now.

Nope, I lean towards “ask anything as long as it’s not spam.” Some issues are more divisive than others, but it becomes hard to oversee that or moderate that. Half the religious discussions that come up seem to be from political questions anyway.

I am not the steward of others’ feelings. We are all adults here, and participate or don’t by our own choice.

If this site supported censorship in this manner, I would delete my account immediately.

hold your applause until it actually happens.

I usually have a pretty good instinct for questions that might devolve into the theist vs athiest muck. Every once in a while I get blindsided then I just stop following. I know it’s not as easy for others though.
I’ll go along with whatever the powers that be decide. I lurve everybody.

@Judi I too don’t wade in generally when I see them. I am just hurting for Fluther right now and I don’t think anyone is getting much out of any of these questions any more. It may be a dumb idea but it’s worth thinking about.

I do not tbelieve we should ban any type of question. I am surprised that you, as a librarian, would suggest it @janbb.

People can choose to not participate in contentious questions.

People can assiduously flag personal attacks.

People could refrain from personal attacks.

It might just be the price we pay for liberty. Some asshole is always going to test the limits.

@marinelife I hear what you are saying but there is always selection going on even in libraries. And we have banned polls and other types of questions on this site. And I am suggesting a moratorium for a time..

I am, however, of two minds on this but I feel we are at a point in our community where these questions have become destructive. Maybe so be it and we can disappear up our own ass.

In any case, I asked the question to provoke discussion not because I am committed to a ban.

Absolutely not! The tantrums we see here are exactly why we need more discussion. The problem isn’t that beliefs are being too closely picked apart. Rather, we need more of it. No more double-standards. That dangerous attitude is responsible for everything we all hate about the “real world”. Nothing is off limits.

If we can’t roll up our sleeves and discuss things like adults in a safe environment like this, I’m not sure we have any hope of making any progress in the “real world”.

It seems like promoting a moratorium on any types of questions would be akin to censorship or preventing someone from exercising their first amendment rights. Now, I know this is only a website and that sounds a little extreme, but Fluther is as fine an example of a Q&A forum that I’ve ever seen. There are wonderful, diverse, and very intelligent people here and I think it would be a mistake to limit their voices on any topics.

As @Seek_Kolinahr posted above, we’re all adults on here and we have a responsibility, I think, to express thoughts and ideas maturely and civilly. I understand that certain topics can be very personal for some and emotionally poignant and that can lead to very contentious discussions. That’s going to happen no matter what and it could involve all kinds of subjects, religion being a glaring example. Might the moderators be able to more closely monitor certain types of questions that engender heated emotions and responses and stave off trouble as opposed to having moratoriums on certain topics?

No, we have a self censorship option: Either don’t answer the question or, if it gets nasty, don’t respond.

I think a ban (even temporary, as in moratorium) on any topic, especially a hot button topic, would be censorship of the severest form. There have been many topics I have avoided because of my own feelings, or because of extremely emotional postings. I think it is more important to reserve the individual right to participate or not than to tell us what we can post.

I don’t know that a suspension of religious questions would be a good idea, but I also disagree with the idea of “people with thin skin should just avoid those Qs.” One shouldn’t be expected to always have a thick skin when it comes to being repeatedly demeaned. Words really do have the power to hurt, despite the denial of some.

And it truly is damaging to Fluther. So many people have been demeaned one time too many, and they just give up because the atmosphere here, regarding religion, has become so toxic. I’m guilty of becoming overly emotional, myself, even though I have been trying to avoid toxic questions. I only jumped in and blew up the last two days because of the mouse.

I wish we could somehow find a happy medium, in that a religion based question can be asked, but that they not be deliberate shit-stirring questions. I doubt that will ever happen, though.

I really don’t know how to get off the fence for this question, because I clearly see both sides of the argument. To censor, even temporarily, types of questions would be bad for the site, but to keep spiraling further into the religious/anti-religious hatred is also bad for the site.

The entire situation just sucks, and it’s not just a phase or cycle, as some jellies claim. I’ve only seen it grow steadily worse since I joined. I wish there was a perfect solution to the problem, but there doesn’t seem to be.

Nah. People should stop being so easily offended.

How about a RELIGIOUS and POLITICS section added to GENERAL AND SOCIAL AND META,would that work?

I honestly don’t think anything would be solved by a moratorium, temporary or otherwise.

I think it would set a very bad precedent to ban questions on any subject. Censorship doesn’t really solve anything. The same conflicts will still be there simmering just below the surface and leak out one way or another. The only effective thing I see would be to just hash it out and get through it difficult tho it may be.

“Maybe we could try a ban for three months or so and see how it works?”

” People say that people can just avoid these questions but many don’t.”

Punish the populace for the sake of the minority with no self restraint. Nice

Nobody hijacked people’s browsers to force them into even knowing Fluther exists.

If you go into a religion thread here, that’s implicit consent; if you can’t handle the conversation, you’re free to scroll past the question entirely and not ever even see it. If you’re that easily offended, one must wonder how you even handle being online… or even living in society as opposed to hiding under a rock.

Maybe a separate section is warranted, but anything stronger than that would be unacceptable.

If you can’t stand the heat then fuck off outta the kitchen, especially where the topic of religion releases many, many hotheads on both sides of the fence.
Me being agnostic, I can sit peacefully atop said fence & watch the carnage ensue below.

People ask questions about everything on Fluther. Why single-out religion as being worthy of a ban? Community members can choose to ignore questions that offend (or bore) them.

How about a moratorium on douchebaggery?

:)

You people must know that mods need to clean up our mess. I would be down with a moratorium if it meant Auggie could get a solids nights sleep.

@jonsblond, a moratorium wouldn’t help. A douchebag is a douchebag is a douchebag!

As much as I sometimes fantasize about doing just that, I know we can’t banish contentious questions/topics from the site. Besides the fact that we’d hate to limit the freedom to discuss any particular issue, it’s just not practical. If it isn’t religion, it’s politics. If it isn’t politics, it’s misogony, and so on. Soon, we’d be left with no questions at all! Which would, you know, not be so good for a Q & A site, haha.

I would, however, like to see an end to any question that’s just begging for a flame war, not due to subject matter, but due to the way they are phrased. And I’m all for an end to douchebaggery!

Maybe the best thing we, as members (and mods), can do is to consistently remind everyone to be kind. If you see someone being a bit of an ass, give them a gentle nudge in the right direction. Try to cool things down before they boil over. As always, flag away if anyone is going over the line. Just be aware that the mod team is extremely short-handed right now, making it even more important to keep things civil voluntarily!

Is there a strictly God loving site to which ardent deists could be referred?
Could a moderator be notified when a potentially caustic exchange was posted and cut it off if it turned into personal attacks? The jelly who reported it could be named to act as a mod for that particular question.
We should be able to do something about this without having people leave in a huff.

The problem comes with the definition of “personal attack”.

“I think believing in a creator God without evidence of its existence isn’t an intellectually honest thing to do” is not a personal attack, but people read that and feel attacked on a personal level.

Now, does the reader’s feelings on the sentence automatically make that a personal attack? Should that statement be removed?

Do we just start deleting posts based on other peoples’ interpretation of them? Do they have to be flagged or can we remove a post assuming that someone will misinterpret it and feel hurt?

And at that point, will anyone even bother trying anymore?

Is that the goal?

Some things aren’t personal attacks (so they won’t be removed), but are still kind of…mean, you know? And it’s the mean-spirited stuff that gets people so frustrated over time. “Irrational”, “ignorant”, “sky daddy”, “delusional” and the like. In addition to being unnecessarily hurtful, things like that just aren’t conducive to civil discourse.

Oy vey!

No I don’t. I think if you don’t like the way it’s going, you should not click on this Q anymore. It’s not fair to anyone, including new members and those who can handle the heat, to limit the entire collective in my opinion.

I have personally moved on or not answered, if I was in ‘a mood’, it’s not difficult.

@Seek_Kolinahr That’s because many Fluther atheists don’t ever word it that way. “Believing in a gawd means you’re delusional or insane, and you should be locked in a padded cell for the benefit of society.” is more or less the type of comment that is posted. How could we not view that as a flaming insult? You’re trying to reeeaaally water down the actual comments that are frequently posted.

And here we all go again with derailing @janbb‘s threads. <hangs head in shame, again>

Look, trying to get back on topic, Fluther is pretty much a ban-free zone, so suspending religious questions probably won’t ever happen, but if those questions could be asked without the douchebaggery that is involved 99% of the time, no one would ever feel the need to even bring up the possibility of a moratorium. That’s the truth of it. It’s not the questions themselves that are the problem; it’s the egomaniacal comments that are driving people away.

I asked this thread so it could be a fairly free-form discussion and to keep the negativity away from my other question. It wasn’t asked to provoke nastiness, of course, but to enable some air.

And it’s not for my benefit; I have lived through enough in RL in the past few years that shit on Fluther doesn’t get my knickers in a twist. I just don’t like to see good people gone – and I’m not blaming any one side.

I think we run into problems here when we equate all atheists as arrogant or equate all Christians with repression and conservatism. We have enough of a spectrum to honor each but we don’t seem able to.

Jewish atheist penguins attend services on their own iceberg anyway.

LOL @imagining a penguin in a yarmulka.

@WillWorkForChocolate If some of these ‘adults’ don’t know their they’re being jerks, then it’s kind of a lost cause to try to get them to understand. Some are really cool people who just are curious, not all of them aspire to be the only jellies on fluther, which is how it appears sometimes…lol

I’m not better than anyone here, but I’ll be hanged if I start acting ugly to anyone, especially on a religious thread, it makes no sense to sink to their level. Lead by example, and if you’re a Christian, act like one as much as possible. Peace.

@WillWorkForChocolate I’m only writing how I write. I’m often referred to as “insulting” or “berating” theists. I don’t think it’s my place to argue another person’s comments, so I talk about my own. I don’t know how I can speak more plainly and less inflammatory than I already do, and still have my points understood.

In that thread, I spent more time arguing for my right to speak than I did actually saying anything.

It seemed, from my perspective, to be a bunch of people demanding that nontheists stop talking about religion, period, and those same people insisting that they were being offended by nontheists, when the nontheists had not said anything yet in that thread. Some people got in there shooting from the hip, making accusations, and then complaining that they were outnumbered and insulted! They call people arrogant, angry, insane…

As far as Supermouse specifically, there have been several times I’ve discussed religion openly with her, and she would not accept my position. I know she is a member of a minor religion. I have told her before, and I told her in that thread, that her faith is low on my “to-smite” list, but it still promotes belief without evidence, and that is the ultimate gamut. I’m sorry if she was insulted that I didn’t read into her religion specifically and create arguments against her chosen faith (which as I understand is quite peaceful), but there are five major religions (which aren’t particularly peaceful) I already need to know way too much about in order to refute their arguments.

If we (atheists) are forced to “accept and respect” belief as an institution, does it not shake fair that theists should be forced to “accept and respect” that others hold a viewpoint incompatible with the idea that faith is a virtue?

Do some theists do bad things? Yes. Do I believe all theists do bad things? Hells no.

I do think that many moderate and even liberal religious people make political decisions that negatively affect the world as a whole. I do think that the world would be vastly improved if religious institutions lost their hold on the powers that be. And on a personal level, it feels good to see people give up religion and discover that this life is worth living, instead of giving up the life you have in hope of another one somewhere else.

I do think that, as some famous smart person once said, “The unexamined life is not worth living”, and I do enjoy the opportunity to discuss (discuss) the possibilities of god and not-god. As a former theist, I am already familiar with many of the common arguments, having used them myself, and I do like to shake down into apologetics pretty quickly. Perhaps that’s where I’m losing people’s good graces, I don’t know.

Anyway, this is becoming a ramble and a brainstorm…

I really don’t think much more can be done, than what is. Yeah religious discussions here get very heated, and it sucks to see people go because of it. But it sucks to see people go for other reasons, too.
But I mean disallowing a type of discussion isn’t going to teach people to be ’‘more civil’’, and it would probably remain the same once the ban was lifted. For those who get hurt easily, not having religious discussions isn’t going to make them tougher once the discussions are allowed back.
And as already said by others, one of the reasons I stick to Fluther is because of our freedom to discuss and explore every subject openly. If that element gets taken away, I’d make myself scarce. It’s tough finding places online as flexible as here. Not trying to be mean either, but on the internet this kind of stuff is common. Not saying it can’t, or shouldn’t change…but for the time being, it is what it is, and long time squishies know this. ;/
I do believe we should probably have a bigger moderator team though. I know we’re a small community, but it’s big enough that it’s probably a hell of a lot of work for the mod team that we do have.
That said, not much to say about going around the guidelines, and acceptably being an asshole. But you can’t very well tell people how to write or how to think, either, not when they’re respecting the guidelines. I’m not sticking up for being an asshole, I get insulted and hurt too by people flying under the radar, but I also expect it.
Again, not justifying unpleasant behaviors, I’m saying ban and censorship isn’t the answer.

Perhaps mocking questions of any nature should always be taken down. I know for example if a question on Yahoo asked ‘Why do christians have sausage dogs?’ was put up it would be removed. Or another example would be ‘What point is the silly book the Bible, still used by Christians today?’.

I remember for example one question was ‘Why are all Hollywood stars jewish?’ It was removed within five minutes.

Also answers like ‘Why do you believe in fairies?’ in response to a question like ‘I am seeking a closer relationship to God’ would not go down well at Yahoo answers either. Yahoo does not have the best name out there but in terms of abuse they are pretty quick to sort out certain postings.

@Seek_Kolinahr “If we (atheists) are forced to “accept and respect” belief as an institution, does it not shake fair that theists should be forced to “accept and respect” that others hold a viewpoint incompatible with the idea that faith is a virtue?”

^ This.

@LornaLove Perhaps mocking questions of any nature should always be taken down.

Questions like that do get taken down here. Just try asking something like, why are all Christians such pussies, or why are all atheists such assholes? Even if the details are fine, you’ll be asked to re write the question, and if it’s obvious trolling, it will get closed. (same goes for the details too, if all it is is mocking something or someone, it will not stay)

@Seek_Kolinahr “I do think that many moderate and even liberal religious people make political decisions that negatively affect the world as a whole. I do think that the world would be vastly improved if religious institutions lost their hold on the powers that be. And on a personal level, it feels good to see people give up religion and discover that this life is worth living, instead of giving up the life you have in hope of another one somewhere else.”

By golly, who needs diversity?! How am I supposed to take God out of the equation when to me He is the creator of the equation? Does it matter than in some cases, I feel like Christian Conservatives could help the world, or is your opinion worth more than mine?

There is NO EXCUSE for poor behavior or belittling others for believing differently than you do. Sometimes I wonder if people who dish it out so much could take it if the roles were reversed.

To answer the OP, I have to say no. I’m thinking specifically of a possible new jelly joining with a question to ask about spirituality/religion, looking for a place to find answers. I hope we would be welcoming and helpful in our responses.

@KNOWITALL

I’d love to continue that thread but it feels off-topic. In PM if you like?

And I do take it. Often. Without whining.

@Seek_Kolinahr As a theist, I do accept and respect that many others hold beliefs different from mine. What I do not accept and respect is to be told that I’m stupid or delusional for believing in a “gawd” or that I belong in a padded cell. Those sorts of comments are the ones to which I’m referring, and you, yourself, have been guilty of saying things very similar to that in the past. Yet I’ve seen you and other jelly atheists write a comment that was to the point, without being condescending or demeaning, so to say “That’s just how I write” seems like a cop-out.

I would never tell you that I do not accept and respect atheists, or accept and respect having a calm discussion about what I do and do not believe. What I will tell you is that I refuse to accept or respect anyone who goes on an anti-theistic rampage and deliberately hurts me and my other like-minded jellies, just because they believe it’s their right to do so.

Milo here; I have been keeping my own list of topics that I find monstrously offensive. Do I get a turn to ban them?

@WillWorkForChocolate As I have stated:

It has always been my hope to have mutually fulfilling discussion. In the time that I have been a member of this site, I have tried my damnedest to find a way to phrase my comments in order to both make my point heard and not be an asshole.

I admit that at times it is difficult, especially when you’re being told how offensive you’re being, when there was no intent to insult or offend in any of the posts you had written.

If there is any way that I can both speak my piece and be understood without being called a doucebag, I would love some pointers.

@Milo Chewy here; That question mark at the end of your first sentence should be a period.

@Seek It’s all good.

I don’t like people to project their feelings about Christianity on to anyone who says they believe in God, that’s all. I didn’t murder anyone, didn’t bomb a clinic, didn’t ride in the Crusades, and yet somehow, all discussions lead back to how ‘Christianity’ is so bad for the world. It’s also done a lot of good you know.

@KNOWITALL Taking it to PM.

@WillWorkForChocolate: MIlo here; My first priority would be to fire Gail and hire a more accurate typist.

No. I do think maybe we can help as community to call out meanness when it happens on our “side.” Not that I think it is atheists against theists, I just mean on a particular Q if we are agreeing with a jelly and that jelly begins to really get harsh, we can maybe remind them it isn’t necessary to be so mean. Some jellies can argue, and it gets heated and it is all ok. Jakx, Qingu, and others can dish it and take and I love to watch it, it often cracks me up. But, I think we know when someone is really getting offended or feels jellies are piling on. Let’s have some understanding for them. I do think some people are very easily offended and that can make discussion difficult sometimes, we aren’t responsible for making them happy, but we can maintain a certain level of politeness.

Just wait. When election season rolls, around, politics will be the battleground.

(I don’t understand the angst – if you get pissed in religious questions, why click on religious questions?)

No way would I agree with this. Threads concerning theism, mysticism, religion, etc are my number one interest. I’m not a big political junkie, and issues that do interest me outside of these topics I could likely never discuss on here due to the demographics on here anyways. Outside of metaphysical questions (I have a decent amount of interest in some philosophy) I would have little reason to log on here.

vvv: I was about to leave and go pick Japanese beetles off my perennial leaves, but will wait for Kate, whose responses are always worth waiting for.

@JLeslie I think that’s perfect, and that’s what I did with the mouse. I disagreed and said it without belittling anyone. It does work both ways, but I rarely see anyone on the ‘non-theist” side tell each other to take it down a notch.

Perhaps reasonable discussion is just not possible in an open forum. The barriers seem insurmountable.

I recently learned to my dismay that a jelly whom I think of as intelligent and good-natured accepts reasoning that goes like this:

Person A has trait N.
Person A belongs to group X.
Therefore all members of group X have trait N.

If that’s too abstract, here’s an (absurd) example:

Sam is stingy.
Sam is a musician.
Therefore all musicians are stingy.

Here’s another:

Clara is rude.
Clara is blonde.
Therefore all blondes are rude.

Or, impersonally:

This coffee is stale.
This coffee is Peet’s.
Therefore all Peet’s coffee is stale.

Sound ridiculous? It is. It’s backward logic. Or rather, it isn’t logic at all.

But it’s exactly the same reasoning that’s going on when somebody says

Person A is {ignorant | arrogant | stupid | a bully}.
Person A is {an atheist | a theist | a Christian | an agnostic | other}.
Therefore all [of them] are {ignorant | arrogant | stupid | bullies}.

It’s impossible to discuss anything rationally with someone who thinks this way.

And unfortunately we seem to have far too much of this kind of thinking around here, at least just now. I’ve noticed that the more emotional people get, the more likely they seem to be to lapse into such blind accusations and thoughtless rebuttals. Then someone in the mischaracterized group takes exception, and off we go again: acrimony, mean-spiritedness, name-calling, hurt feelings.

Those who have no appetite for engaging in these pointless and destructive altercations should refrain from any participation. That, I think, is all we can do about it.

“The best lack all conviction, the worst are full of passionate intensity.”

@Jeruba If someone makes an incorrect generalization and someone takes exception, that should not be a huge problem. There should be a discussion and data can be presented to disprove it, or even jellies can chime in to say they fit in group a and don’t think like B etc. then the person who made the generalization will see they are wrong in their thinking. We should be able to discuss things like that and learn without people getting so offended. Teach the ignorant persn their mistake so they are no longer ignorant on the topic.

@JLeslie,
> then the person who made the generalization will see they are [wrong] in their thinking.

That’s where we fall apart. Instead, the person who made the generalization is apt to flare up and defend the position, maybe even flinging more accusations (“You’re one of them too”), or backpedal with lame excuses (“I didn’t mean you—if you’re not like that, then you’re not one of the ones I’m talking about”) (that would be “All blondes are rude except the ones who aren’t”: how can you answer that rationally?).

@KNOWITALL,
> I rarely see anyone on the ‘non-theist” side tell each other to take it down a notch.

This doesn’t surprise me at all. I, for one, don’t think of myself as being on a side or in a group when it comes to my beliefs or absence of them. I have seen many people generalize about atheists on many threads, and the ones who call themselves atheists are typically just as far off the mark in describing my position as the others are. They don’t speak for me. And I don’t speak for them. So it’s none of my business to tell anyone to back off on behalf of a “side.”

Imagine for a moment a world divided up into people who like music and people who don’t. Among people who like music you could probably make some clear divisions: people who like country music, people who like classical, etc. And some will say they like all kinds.

But try grouping those who don’t. How can you? All they agree on is that they don’t want to be bombarded with someone else’s choice of listening material. Maybe they don’t agree that they all like silence. Some might enjoy the sound of running water, or birds and crickets, and some might say it drives them crazy. They might not even agree that they all hate music; some might think the distinction between “don’t like” and “hate” is really important, and others might say “You’re nuts—it’s the same thing.” You are not going to be able to form a club of like-minded folks out of those who are outside the music-lovers’ faction; they’ll never agree on a T-shirt design.

They may all look alike to the music lovers, but they’re not. Can’t the music lovers see that? No, perhaps not, because they’re blinded by what they think they know.

Those who don’t like music shouldn’t have to constantly defend their preference for a music-free existence. Notice, too, that a huge amount of the time they can’t avoid it and just try to endure it quietly until they can get away. They know they’re in a society where it’s going to come at them constantly because the music lovers can’t live without it. But if one of them shouts for QUIET!!, another is going to be offended by the shouting.

I do think, though, that they should stop going to concerts and complaining about the noise.

@Jeruba I just want to make sure you are not saying that if someone says, “I only mean the blonds who are,” is the same as saying “all blonds are except the ones who aren’t.” I see those two things as very different and definitely have written the former myself.

@JLeslie, if you only mean the blondes who are, then what they have in common isn’t the blondeness. It’s the rudeness. “Blondes” is a false grouping. When you start talking about blondes as if being blonde meant they were rude, you’re going to have a lot of blondes (and friends of blondes) objecting, and you’ve lost your case in talking about rudeness.

@Jeruba Common courtesy shouldn’t require five paragraphs of explanation and analogy. It’s actually very simple.

If you read the answers on the Bible Q that ET posted earlier, about the favorite character, you’ll understand perfectly what disrepecting another’s beliefs is.

@KNOWITALL, are you suggesting that common courtesy requires me to monitor and correct the behavior of someone whom others have mistakenly lumped with me as members of an affinity group?

I’m not going near any Bible Qs or anything else on this subject for at least six months.

@Jeruba No, common courtesy would dictate that we NOT be intentionally contentious and rude to others.

I personally feel comfortable telling another theist to back off because most of us have the same general rules regardless of denomination or sect. Like turning the other cheek.

Hey, how about a moratorium on blonde bashing while we’re at it?!

;)

Only nice people should ask questions.

I really can’t see how that would work. I missed the bru-ha-ha that made some people leave as of late and that’s fine. Religious fights are really ridiculous because they can’t meet in any sort of a middle – when you believe in something vs when you don’t believe in something…no dice…like with abortion or whatever…just completely different paradigms. I wouldn’t bother with it, as an atheist, but we all have our hot-button issues.

Anyway, to shift gears, doesn’t anyone want to argue about gender and try to convince me that it’s necessary/inherent? :)~

@Simone_De_Beauvoir: Milo here; Sure. Put up your dukes. Winner of two out of three arm wrestles gets to be right this week.

(Fists)

@gailcalled what are dukes? oh, fists…well I don’t have to put up my fists, I’m right. :)~

They’re cute guys who ride around recklessly in an orange car.

@Jeruba Well, I am not thinking about blondes, I am thinking about when I generalize about religious people who are against gay marriage. I don’t think the majority of religious people are against gay marriage for instance. But, I do think the majority of peoplewho are against gay marriage are against it for religiously rooted reasons. Do you see that as some sort of false grouping? I ask, because I want to know how it comes across to others.

I enjoy questions about religion and existentialism. I just wish they can all be handled with respect for others opinions, regardless of how fucked up they are.

@KNOWITALL What Bible Question are you talking about here? Someone just asked who our favorite Biblical character is, and I answered David as the hero slaying Goliath. Is that offensive? If so how? Or was it some other thread? If so, which. Perhaps I can learn to be more diplomatic in how I word responses if I know where I gave offense.

Seriously, we ban religious Q’s, then we will ban political Q’s, then we will be arguing about if we have all hair colors represented when we talk about hot celebs.

I don’t support a moratorium on any type of question, but perhaps fluther could be more proactive about calming the waters.

It’s our site, we create it. Flag as y’all see fit. We should add a flag tag that denotes a post is not contributing to the well-being of the thread or fluther.

Should we start a petition?
;)

@ETpro I’m pretty sure that @KNOWITALL is referring to the fact that the Q specifically said “bible characters” but people started making jokes about Odysseus and Hercules.

@WillWorkForChocolate But she signaled me out as the culprit, and I did no such thing. My one answer about David was all I posted. I did screw up royally in writing that answer. I wrote “David being a slender youth like myself…” when I really meant to say “David being a slender youth like I was in my youth…”. One look at my photo tells you I’m no slender youth today. But I don’t think I posted anything there that disrespected anyone other than perhaps Goliath’s current family members.

Oh for fuck’s sake…

Now we have to justify a social conversation that hurts no one at all?

”@Imadethisupwithnoforethought If I list the absurd claims of Christians, that will just touch of another round of hate mongering.”

@ETpro You don’t see how your opinions might be perceived as dismissive or condescending towards others?

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought I refuse to stop dealing in truth to placate those that might be offended by it. I was asked why I picked on other faiths and not Christians. I answered honestly.

@ET

It was Ucme’s question and she evidently misremembered that detail and ascribed it to you instead.

And, to be fair, he did put it in Social. But, lets face it, loli being loli, just couldn’t resist and then we’re off to the races.

Apparently she hasn’t learned to ignore loli when being deliberately ornery for its own sake.

Everybody’s kind of a bit overse nsitive lately. On both sides.

Here is a peace offering that took place in the atrium of Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem. (Do not read anything significant in the venue, please.)

http://safeshare.tv/w/OXHZUxUXXN

May I have this dance?

That was so cool. I wouldn’t dream of reading anything into it other than pure delight. I loved the look on the kid’s faces.

Kudos to the organizers.

Haha, more pointless bickering by folks who must love the sound of their own voice, internally anyway.
My Bible question was asked as a healthy alternative to the shit we see here & that’s how it turned out, positive, fun & bullshit free. So a couple of known arsecandles chose to play around, hardly even noticed & barely made a ripple on a thread that largely achieved it’s specific purpose, when discussing religious topics you don’t have to be world class dicks.

@janbb Polls are banned? I never knew that. How come?

@longgone Sort of. Simple polls aren’t allowed. Like, “Blue or red?”, with no supporting details to make it interesting. More complex polls, or at least fun, interesting polls are okay. :)

@augustlan Okay then. Sounds boring anyway. ;)
(But blue. Always blue.)

RED

BLUE. Do we need to poll the collective?!

Can’t we all just get along and compromise on purple?

Neither blue nor red. Purple. Always choose purple.

I can live with purple. Group hug!

I like, blue, too. :p

Fine, fine. Now I feel compelled to be nice, too. ACAB.

Purple rain, purple rain…purple rain, purrrple rain…

arsecandle?

A new word I like playing around with, similar to tosspot or spunkbubble.

Arsecandle

I wouldn’t ban them, @janbb. There are other topics, equally contentious (like gun control), so where’s the line? Me, I just stay out of threads that I know from experience will be—__at least for me__—unpleasant.

@Pachyderm_In_The_Room I am just thinking about your answer, and what pops into my mind is fundamentally I don’t think gun control and religion should be in the same category. Religion should be a personal thing, while gun control is a public policy thing. I think it demonstrates how religion is all bundled up with political and public issues now.

Not only gun control and right/left politics, we’d have to ban discussion of pro life/pro choice as well. And probably blue vs. red in all it’s many implications. :-)

Arsecandles, on the other hand, should provoke no controversy till you tell a fellow Jelly they are one.

@ETpro I was referring to the replies, not your Q, sorry I wasn’t very clear.

Although if you ever want to talk about how you personally are perceived by me, I’m always happy to oblige.

My spunkbubble has been enlightened by arsecandles!

@KNOWITALL No problem. If there are things you’d like to discuss bu PM, I’ll do my best to answer without being judgmental. Of course you already know you may not agree with my take on things. But I do respect your integrity and intelligence, and find our exchanges to often be thought provoking.

@ETpro PM on the way, we’ll keep it classy.

@Yetanotheruser Flicked from a tosspot no doubt.

@JLeslie, I don’t disagree. I just meant that questions about hot-button topics, whatever they are, should be posted, and it’s each jellie’s choice as to whether to engage in the thread,

All of this arguing about what should and shouldn’t be when all we really have to do is take a look at the definitive rule book.

Y’all may have heard of it. It’s called The Bible.

@Blondesjon hahaha, not many here believe it’s even a good story, let alone a basis for your life or anything. :)

@KNOWITALL i am not religious at all but I consider it the best story ever told. Read the original unedited version: The book of J

Nothing approaches it prior to Shakespeare. And I will be happy to argue that all day long.

@augustlan Maybe the best thing we, as members (and mods), can do is to consistently remind everyone to be kind.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/08/04/be-kind-george-saunders-advice-to-graduates-goes-viral/

:)

@jonsblond Excellent!

I had mentioned author and scientist, Sam Harris’ assertion that religion should not be above criticism when it pushes ideas that are illogical or worse, destructive. I had searched for a short YouTube clip of his reasoning on that, but not been able to find it. This isn’t the one I had in mind, but it captures all the salient points. I also think theists, polytheists and pantheists should be just as free as agnostics and atheists to question the logic others use in questioning their beliefs.

@ETpro Believe it or not, I actually like Sam Harris and have a great deal of respect for the guy. He even takes a beating from other nontheists and sceptical thinkers as being too lenient concerning some issues. I have much more respect for a Harris than someone like a Michael Shermer. I like Harris much more than apologists such as a Craig or Ross too.

I’ve criticized Harris myself pertaining to some of his remarks concerning certain phenomenon, but I can tolerate him. I feel that Harris gets a bad rap from both atheists and theists, which I don’t find fair. Even ‘rational’wiki criticized Harris, but then I just consider the source.

@Paradox25 Sam Harris strikes me as a person who is both blindingly brilliant and intellectually curious, and who goes where the evidence takes him. I have enormous respect for him because of that.

@ETpro Yeah he takes a pounding from both sides it seems.

<insert @ETpro quip on being ‘pounded from both sides’ here>

@Blondesjon I’m used to that. Theist, whatever God they subscribe to, are quick to pounce on me. And the atheist/agnostic community is more difficult to herd than cats.

I just meant in the dirty, sexual sense but whatever. I see you have other things on your mind.

To answer the question again, because I feel like it.
Keep the religious questions flowing, they’re funny, akin to watching a drunk guy weaving all over the road right before he crashes…you know it’s wrong to laugh, but you just can’t help yourself.

@Blondesjon Oh cool, well in that case, I’d look forward to the pounding if I weren’t already spoken for.