|
An issue has been brought to my attention, that while I am not the ideal candidate to bring it forth, I am nonetheless the one writing it now. Some friends have commented many of times of what they feel is a slight unfairness toward their beliefs. So I write this for your consideration
During the course of a few religious discussions, some posters have really crossed a line (maybe not knowingly). Please first consider some posters of this forum are christian. And with that belief the "God" or Christ is more than just a belief to them. Many believe "God" or Christ is their heavenly father, takes a personal interest in their life, watches out for them, they pray to him daily. They love him more than they love anything. "God" or Christ is more than just a belief he is a living breathing part of their lives a family member who is genuinely loved. And to challenge "God" on many issues without proper sensitivity can come across as insensitive or even offensive. To these posters "God" is something very personal. And as such they see moderation on the subject to be a bit lacking.
I really do wish I could convey how important this belief is to them, and how much they love this community. They don't wish to discuss "healthy" debate. They just wish that others would take a bit more consideration when posting disparaging comments about "God". Also remember attacking ones religious institution or leader can be equally as offensive, posting disparaging words about the Pope for example the Holy Father of the Catholic church, can be very offensive for Catholics. Please I only hope to open some minds. To those moderators of the boards please take a second look at some anti-religious posts, and to those posters out there, please use a bit of empathy and understanding when posting about an others religious belief, it is something very precious to them and not something to be trampled on.
Please take this letter for what it is. I myself am an atheist but I do see some inconsiderate posts toward believers.I only hope my letter has been enlightening.
Yours Sincerely, Jeremy M
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
"Respect one another" is a good way to go into both posting to and reading these boards.
In the meantime, if you are offended by a post, please flag it and we will try to address the issue as rapidly as possible.
It's not a perfect method (especially if people don't flag the stuff that offends them or if not enough people flag it), but it's the best we've got.
In summary:
1) Please be respectful to one another.
2) If you're offended or feel that someone is being intentionally rude or disruptive, flag it and we'll get to it ASAP.
Also consider this:
People have just as much a 'right' not to believe in God, as they do 'to' believe in God.
The Catholic religion is not the only 'legitimate' religion out there, and like politics, religion is a hotly debated subject.
If democrats don't want republicans hurting their feelings, don't get involved in political debate, the same would be true for religion.
While Atheism is abound. Many other religions (and other personal beliefs) have been directly assaulted by the Pope, or his predecessors. Specifically those of the gay/lesbian community who, likely do not have a high opinion of the man or the church at this time, because of HIS (and by extension all catholics) views on what they feel are their close and personal beliefs.
Just because "gay" isn't a religion doesn't put catholics view on a higher pedestal than those who are opposed to that view.
I'm Mormon, my church has the same view on the gay issue as the catholic church. There is a reason the Prophet has bodyguards (like the Pope) if EVERYONE liked him, they wouldn't be needed.
But to put it simply, they have just as much right to their opinions (whoever they are) as you and your friends do. If you do not want to hear the opinions, avoid the material in which it is contained.
misc
Not sure if you're aware, but the OP indicated he is an atheist (and is an openly gay man who is married). He was simply using Catholicism as an example.
Some friends have commented many of times of what they feel is a slight unfairness toward their beliefs.
While I think it's important to be respectful of people, I don't think ideas deserve any respect.
On the contrary, the truth is discovered when we kick the crap out of an idea from every possible angle; if it emerges as the best explanation we've found yet, it becomes knowledge.
Some people have unhealthy attachments to some ideas. Einstein never accepted quantum entanglement; he couldn't give up deterministic physics. Yet today we understand that quantum entanglement is a fundamental (and scientifically testable!) property of the physical universe.
Quite frankly, these people are the ones who most desperately need to learn that the most delicious hamburgers are made from sacred cow.
miscNot sure if you're aware, but the OP indicated he is an atheist (and is an openly gay man who is married). He was simply using Catholicism as an example.
It's a good example for A or B.
If you don't like people's ideas about your beliefs, don't read them or subject yourself to media that contains it.
The Catholic Church doesn't exactly have a pristine reputation for not condemning others contrary beliefs either (Spanish inquisition, crusades? etc etc?)
But the catholic religion IS a good example, Gays and Catholics are always saying potentially hurtful things about the other parties belief.
"You are going to hell for being Gay"? id say is potentially hurtful.
"God doesn't exist and people who believe in him are stupid (or insert other insult)" also potentially hurtful.
However, if you are, truly a believer of what you say you believe (God is our Heavenly Father, for example) Then hearing the contrary to it, shouldn't really harm your belief.
The Bible is full of stories about people not believing and what they did and said about it. Heck, Christ was killed by those people.
What's a little name calling between friends?
|
Gays and Catholics are always saying potentially hurtful things about the other parties belief.
"You are going to hell for being Gay"? id say is potentially hurtful.
"God doesn't exist and people who believe in him are stupid (or insert other insult)" also potentially hurtful.
I know it's not intentional, but this does illustrate a dichotomy that's always bugged me, and it's popped up on these very forums. The existance of religious homosexuals/bisexuals always seems to slip through the cracks whenever lines get drawn between "sides" on matters as complex as belief and sexuality.
I know it's not intentional, but this does illustrate a dichotomy that's always bugged me, and it's popped up on these very forums. The existance of religious homosexuals/bisexuals always seems to slip through the cracks whenever lines get drawn between "sides" on matters as complex as belief and sexuality.Gays and Catholics are always saying potentially hurtful things about the other parties belief.
"You are going to hell for being Gay"? id say is potentially hurtful.
"God doesn't exist and people who believe in him are stupid (or insert other insult)" also potentially hurtful.
I'm not really sure exactly what you are talking about. But I think you are trying to say that 'Gay' people can be religious too?
Sure they can, but they cannot be (no matter how much they want to) part of a religion that condemns their beliefs and/or activities (like Catholics, Mormons....who else I'm sure there is more than just those two)
There are religions out there that openly accept Gay people and many even have gay preachers/ministers.
The 'problem' between the Gay and Catholic communities is that Catholics say 'Gay is wrong' and by extension you cannot BE Catholic and Gay, so therefor people who ARE Catholic (born into it usually) are not only getting kicked out of their religion, by well, their religion, but openly persecuted by it.
The LDS church, while it's stance is less hostile per say, really does not have any members of it's church in good standing that are gay.
You can be a member but have to change (it put it simply) and work on never being gay again.
So this is a "no gay" policy.
Therefore in the context being discussed, Gay people cannot be Catholic or Mormon, they can be Ex-Catholic, Former Mormon, but they are not active members of those religions.
You cannot 'pick and choose' your beliefs in that sense.
To Say "I believe in God and Jesus Christ, but I do not Believe in the Pope" is the same as saying "I am not Catholic"
I am not aware of the stance the Jewish and Muslim Faiths have taken on openly Gay members, but there are plenty of Christian Sects that accept gay people.
So yes, Gay people can be religious too.
But that's not what was being discussed, as those religions accepting those people aren't having issues with each other.
Gays are just one example of a group of people who might not have nice things to say about Catholics. But it doesn't make their beliefs any less valid.
There are plenty of Arab races, religions and beliefs that would have equal issues with Christian religions, the Catholics being the most prominent.
Example: Just because we are at war with Al Qeida doesn't mean they are 'wrong' per se. It means we beg to differ with them and use our rifles and bombs to negotiate our attitude.
They, on the other hand, believe we are in the wrong, and use their bombs and terrorist tactics to negotiate their attitude with us.
Alot of people think their belief system towards the females of their countries is 'wrong' and degrading toward women.
That's not actually true either.
In every case their are two sides to a "belief" and often several shades of grey in the middle.
The beliefs on the far right and far left seldom have anything to say that is NOT going to offend the other side, because they believe diametrically opposed things.
The Lion believes the Lamb is his lunch, without the lunch the lion will starve and die, the lamb finds the idea of being eaten unsettling and the mere idea of being reduced to something like the thought being 'mere lunch' could be insulting.
The lamb believes the lion is bully and thinks he should go eat berries and twigs, to the lion this is that same as saying 'go starve' because it is impossible for him to eat enough berries to support his life. a potentially insulting belief to the lion.
Bears however, also an apex predator, and very happily will eat a lamb, aren't so insulted by the idea of eating berries and honey, and actually that sounds like a good idea. Thus a bear represents a 'grey' as opposed to the lamb and lion, black and white.
As Far as the argument of " God doesn't exist we all came from fish and monkey's and when we die it is nothing but darkness and the end"
They are entitled to their beliefs, just as the strongly religious are.
Those who are religious have the choice to feel bad for people who think when they die it all ends, or they can choose to be angry and offended by their beliefs, but in the end, it is they who chose to feel that way and only they have themselves to blame for feeling that way and cannot point the finger to others and say "you made me feel bad"
He Ate all the other Gods, and as a result became really fat, now people in China make statues of him.
He Ate all the other Gods, and as a result became really fat
I feel inspiration for a whole new setting...
Role-play forums are not the place to challenge other people's fundamental beliefs or mock them. I like the fact that role-playing games allow me to explore moral and ethical issues and to examine what faith and belief mean in a world where gods are real and miracles happen but I don't want to insult anyone while I'm doing it.
The strange and alien concept of not-mocking-everything... Can you tell us more about it?
|
I rather think the problem the OP wrote abou is the tendency of some posters to make fun of religious beliefs just because they feel they are on a higher intellectual level for not believing.
The flying spaghetti monster is a good example. Basically it is a tool for saying:
Look, I think your god is a stupid thing made up by some morons, just like this internet phenomen, so you could as well believe in the fsm.
While this might be an intresting point to get a philosophical debate running, it is not often used in that way, instead it is most often used to tell religious people: Stop believing in an imaginary being!
That accomplishes nothing but insulting the blief of the religious poster.
While, in a threat of religious debate that is mostly acceptable, in other threats I think it is no better than insulting the poster by more direct means. As long as no one really knows if there is a god/godess/divine power or not, believing in one is as acceptable (and as intellectual - yeah, there are and were great scientific minds who are / were religious, just as there are morons who believe in a god) as not believing (there are / were great scientific minds who are / were not religious, just as there are morons who don't believe in a god).
Just to make that clear: I think questioning someones belief in a debate where it came up and has some meaning to the debate is fine. ridiculing someones belief just to hit him in the face is not imo.
Wow Jeremy, that was even handed. You rule.
I'm gonna bask in that for a while before I start cracking jokes.
I'm a Mormon as well, and though I spent two years of my life as a full-time missionary sharing my beliefs with others, I tend to shy away from online discussions of religion. Why? Because some people tend to turn off their social filter when they don't have a human face to direct their message towards. Yes, there are some fantastic people on these boards who can civilly disagree on just about any topic. Yes, you can be rude and insensitive regardless of which side of a discussion you take. And sadly, yes, there are some people who will be mean because this is the internet and they can stay relatively anonymous and insult you at the same time.
Just remember, it can turn into a tar baby rather quickly, so just flag and forget.
|
I'm a Mormon as well, and though I spent two years of my life as a full-time missionary sharing my beliefs with others, I tend to shy away from online discussions of religion. Why? Because some people tend to turn off their social filter when they don't have a human face to direct their message towards. Yes, there are some fantastic people on these boards who can civilly disagree on just about any topic. Yes, you can be rude and insensitive regardless of which side of a discussion you take. And sadly, yes, there are some people who will be mean because this is the internet and they can stay relatively anonymous and insult you at the same time.
Just remember, it can turn into a tar baby rather quickly, so just flag and forget.
+1
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Thank you for the open letter Jeremy,
I (try) to remember that while I am confident in my faith, others may be as confident in their beliefs*.
As long as they aren't trying to blow me up or otherwise 'clense' me, I (try to) live and let live**.
As for when I fail, well Christians are Forgiven, not Perfect. ;-) This is also why I (mostly) ignore the OT threads.
*
**
***
I'm a Mormon as well, and though I spent two years of my life as a full-time missionary sharing my beliefs with others...
Mormon missionary? You are a brave man.
I remember my grandpa inviting the Mormons in. He'd call in my grandma, seat them in the living room with her, and then walk out the back door. My grandma was into Christian mysticism, so a lively conversation would usually ensue.
Thanks, Jeremy.
I stay out of the religion threads because it's not what I come here for. Similarly, I would suggest anyone who doesn't want to participate in a religious debate, healthy or otherwise, stay out of those threads entitled "religious debate."
Problem solved.
I stay out of the religion threads because it's not what I come here for. Similarly, I would suggest anyone who doesn't want to participate in a religious debate, healthy or otherwise, stay out of those threads.
Problem solved.
+1
Ordained Episcopal Deacon here. All the religious arguments/debates can be summed up in one quote, in my opinion:
For those who believe, no proof is necessary, for those who don't believe, no proof is possible (Stuart Chase 1888-1985)
Agree with Erik, ignore it, or flag it, but in both cases move on.
The Reverend Deacon David Bender
-- david
Papa.DRB
Quite frankly, these people are the ones who most desperately need to learn that the most delicious hamburgers are made from sacred cow.
Mmmmmmmm . . . sacred cow. I love sacred cow, but don't forget the wonderful, magical animal.
|
|
First I wanted to thank Jeremy for bringing this up. I too have noticed how certain groups seem to be more fair game then others. At the moment it seems to be Christians in the broad sense, (Episcopalians, Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Mormons: LDS church), and please forgive me if I have forgotten to include anyone or made inappropriate divisions.
I do appreciate Jeremy’s request for people to at least have a little respect and sensitivity for the beliefs and points of views of others, especially if you do not agree with them.
And as Tanner Nielsen suggested the anonymity of the Internet often permits people to do or say things they would not do in a face-to-face situation. Too often people will hide their insults behind the humor of “I was just joking,” or I’m just kidding”. Such situations can as Tanner Nielsen suggested turn into a tar baby very quickly.
Personal background: of anthropologists, missionaries and Indians
My father is an anthropologist, and a curator at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in Washington DC (the American Museum of Natural History in New York, is also an excellent museum, which I would often visit and enjoy when I lived in Manhattan) When I was small, he would take me down to the museum on Saturday mornings, before the museum would open up to the public. Our first stop was a huge purple triceratops, which lived on the Mall, right next to the museum. It was life sized, and I remember clambering up over the horns and frill to the top of the dinosaur and then sliding down the back down the tail. This was lots of fun and then I would run around to the front of the dinosaur and do it all again. I would do this 10 to 15 times. I now realize my father was tiring me out.
Then we would go into the museum say hello to the guards, and then go to the Dinosaur exhibit. I had the exhibit and my father all to my self. Life didn’t get much better then that.
So growing up I learned about Darwin, evolution, and the scientific method, from my father and about Genesis, from my mother. I never saw a conflict between the two.
I encountered Dungeons and Dragons in middle school, and that led me into devouring all sorts of mythologies, Norse, Greek Egyptian, Babylonian, and books etc.
From time to time my mother and I would go down and visit my father in the field in Brazil while he was doing research with the Indian tribe he has now been studying for more then 50 years. They are called the Canela. I remember learning, that while the way they (the Canela) may do things might seem strange, they were merely different, and that there was nothing bad about that. Their village (not in the Amazonian rain forest, but the dry scrubland of the NE of Brazil) was when looked at from the air, like a big wagon wheel. There would be a central plaza, and “spokes, which lead out to a circular “avenue” on which every family had a (then) thatched house. While my father was doing his research and would be living with one family on one side of the village, the missionaries literally would be on the other side of the village. My father, an anthropologist and the missionaries, were there in the tribe for different purposes. My father was there to observe record and investigate. He tried to make as little impact as possible. This was somewhat similar to the Prime Directive in Star Trek. The missionaries were there to bring about change. These particular missionaries, the Wycliffe Bible translators, were in the tribe for twenty years. They were trained linguists. In addition to that they had some medical training. For the first 15 years they learned about the tribe, the people, the culture, and they studied the language. My father and the Wycliffe bible translator would share their work on the language. And this missionary organization would let my father use their base camps, and their small plane network to fly into and out of the tribe. The missionary’s superiors would always ask my father if the missionary family was proselytizing. (For the first 15 years or so they were not supposed to) after learning the language, the Wycliffe Bible translator missionary put together a written language for the canela, so they could learn to read and write in their own language, and he also translated the New Testament into their language. I think that, over all these missionaries made a very positive contribution and helped the Canela. There are more reasons I could go into, but perhaps I should save them for a later post on this thread if others are curious.
More personal background: of cameras and christianity
For a while as a teenager from 18-23, I was a born again Christian. My father thought I had gone off the deep end, but after some reflection he thought that I was simply rebelling and that I would grow out of it. While I have left the “born again” behind, I still consider myself to be nominally a Christian, not a very good one mind you, but nominally a Christian. While in my “born again “ phase, I dove into the texts and studied them with the same excitement I dove into all of those mythologies earlier. But I am not saying I am an expert by any means. I began my college education at a Christian evangelical college called “Gordon College” in Wenham MA and I finished my college education at an art school in “The School of Visual Arts” in Manhattan. Mapplethorpe for example, in one community was considered an anathema, while in the other community a hero.
I was always dragging around a camera. Eventually I figured out Photography was a profession I could peruse, and I have. Luckily my work has taken me to China, India, New Zealand, Ecuador, and Brazil.
I do think, perhaps because of my own background, that we all must find our own path. And if I may use a photographic analogy, I use different lenses for different purposes. I see the world differently through them. A telephoto lens is useful for one kind of photograph, and a wide angle lens another. In a similar way, I find that for myself the scientific method is an excellent tool for examining the empirical world. I also find that for myself my Christian faith helps me to navigate moral questions and quandaries, and on a most basic level, right from wrong. So I personally don’t have nor see a conflict between a scientific perspective and a faith-based perspective. I find both perspectives useful in different parts of my life.
If I may quote Michael Strazinsky, in a Babylon 5 episode, “you can go farther in two shoes rather then one.” I have of course forgotten which episode it was.
But again we all must find our own path.
So I do have bit sympathy for people of faith, Christians in particular, when their faith is being ridiculed, or they are being ridiculed for believing. I also have allot of sympathy for the biology teacher when “Intelligent Design” is stuffed into a biology curriculum ” as if it were a scientific theory instead of a philosophical idea.
I do hope that we can, even though we disagree, respect one another as we have discussions.
After all we all must find our own paths.
Again thank you Jeremy for bringing this up.
I do hope that we can, even though we disagree, respect one another as we have discussions.
I do not think we can.
And to challenge "God" on many issues without proper sensitivity can come across as insensitive or even offensive.
It is perfectly acceptable to tell me I am arrogant for rejecting god, but if I question the existence of god I am uncivil. The double standard is appalling.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
As far back as 2002 when I started writing columns on the WotC website, I thought it was important to include in my little bio paragraph that I was an active and committed born-again Christian, because I thought it was worthwhile to point out to both non-Christian gamers and Christian gamers (and non-gamers for that matter, should they chance upon the site) that one could be both. I'd get occasional emails forwarded by the WotC folks from Christian gamers asking questions about how I reconciled the two, or how I answered various questions about it, etc. It seemed like a helpful thing for some folks.
I think it's useful to be open about that, not only for the benefit of other Christian (or otherwise religiously affiliated) gamers who can see that they are not alone, even though sometimes it may feel like it, but also for the non-Christian or non-religious gamers to be able to see "here's somebody who's into gaming in a big way, able to have a great time with it and even have success doing it, AND be a Christian, and yet not be some kind of stereotypical high-and-mighty stick-up-the-rear zealot person."
In response to whomever above said, more or less, "if you don't like it, don't read it," that would work IF things were always neatly compartmentalized. Alas, it ain't always so. Some people like to throw their digs in as part of general conversation, and in the past I have flagged a post or two that I thought went over the line.
It all goes back to Rule -1 (the one before Rule 0): Don't be a dick.
Even if someone is being a dick to you, show some class and rise above it. There is no winner in a poo-flinging contest. :)
Thanks to the OP.
People can disagree while remaining respectful.
And there is a difference between engaging in invited debate and attacking someone out of the blue for an ideology that is different from yours. People can and do cross that line here.
Let's look at hypothetical examples A & B:
Item A:
In the offtopic forum, I could post something like this:
I am a member of the Religious Society of Friends, and my religious beliefs lead me to protest war for x, y, and z reasons.I want to discuss in this thread how political beliefs are influenced by religious beliefs and whether or not they should
I may well expect a post response like this:
You crazy left-wing religious nutjob! How dare you bring your personal beliefs into a discussion of politics!
Whether HypotheticalResponder is right or wrong to react like that is not the point--the discussion is intended to indeed debate different views on religion and other ideologies and how they relate to each other.
Item B:
On the other hand, maybe in GamerTalk, someone has posted a non-ideology related question --- let's say:
When is the best time to run a game? When do you usually run your games? Is there a time you would never play an RPG?
And maybe I'd respond:
Well, I would never play a game on Sunday morning because I always go to Quaker Meeting for Worship.
And someone replies to that:
You idiot! How DARE you bring up your stupid religion in this thread, and you're wrong to do ANYTHING for religious reasons!
In this case, I'm not bringing up my religion for debate, I'm just explaining why I don't game on Sunday mornings. Someone criticizing me for that is really missing the point of the discussion. Really, it's a situation where my beliefs shouldn't matter to someone else, it's just something incidental to part of the conversation I'm having.
The problem is I do think sometimes Item B happens more than we would like. And I think definitely in that case it is appropriate to flag a poster (or any poster who is not debating or asking, but simply attacking).
Ideology is part of identity--whether it's to do with faith or anti-faith or politics or philosophy--it is very easy to take personally someone's ideas that are antithetical to yours because somehow, you feel it threatens your personal sense of identity. And it's very easy to want to protect yourself by attacking the other person's sense of identity because you disagree with them. Because it's easy, does not make it right.
If someone is evangelizing--and I mean that in a very broad sense, someone could be "evangelizing" string theory--WHATEVER kind of beliefs... that's not appropriate for a gaming forum, and again--flag it and move on. If someone is simply neutrally mentioning a belief (and No, of course I don't mean "beliefs" like "I think everyone should die a horrible death right now," so let's not take it to that extreme), it is not an invitation to someone else to "call them out" on something that is part of their identity or culture. These are sensitive things, if they are to be discussed at all, best in person and far from a forum where we tend to seek recreation.
If none of that makes any sense... look at this for a comparison:
This is a gaming board. We have a lot of discussions about personal play style preferences---roll vs roleplaying, point buy vs 4d6 keep best 3, etc. Sometimes these debates can be interesting studies in who likes what for what reasons.
But often they devolve into debates that boil down to, "You're having fun wrong. You're not playing the game the way I do, so you're not doing it right." Many people look down on the WrongBadFun arguments as a non-constructive way to converse on these boards.
Although I think the weight of the "belief systems" at hand are very different, really no one has no more right to tell someone they're having WrongFaith than they're having WrongBadFun. Certainly, faith and religion has FAR wider reaching implications than gaming so there's a reason why it's taken far more seriously---I realize the comparison is limited. But when it comes to what makes for good/appropriate debate around here, I hope the comparison is worth considering. If you defend my right to make a point buy character even though you like to roll dice, I hope you can also defend my right to believe what I believe in other parts of my life (as long of course as I do not act upon those beliefs by killing or maiming anyone), even though you may have a different perspective on life.
I also hope this post isn't taken out of context to enable further debate about why one person should be allowed to freely discuss their beliefs while someone else shouldn't. And sorry for the wall of text.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
And to challenge "God" on many issues without proper sensitivity can come across as insensitive or even offensive.It is perfectly acceptable to tell me I am arrogant for rejecting god, but if I question the existence of god I am uncivil. The double standard is appalling.
Question it does not equal be a dick about it.
You may very well be capable of expressing your questioning in civil fashion. Many in the world of ye internets either lack this skill or lack the desire to exercise it.
If you have never encountered uncivil questioning on the subject of religion on the internet, I would guess you were very new to the online conversation. Since I've seen you around these message boards for a while, my guess is that it is likely that you have seen both civil and uncivil questioning on the subject of religion and are aware of the difference between them as well as the relative preponderance of the latter in many conversational spaces.
I do hope that we can, even though we disagree, respect one another as we have discussions.I do not think we can.
This could be an example of what some might consider an uncivil frame of mind.
It is perfectly acceptable to tell me I am arrogant for rejecting god, but if I question the existence of god I am uncivil. The double standard is appalling.
Exactly. Merely questioning someone's belief, not matter how dearly held, is not uncivil. Nor should any particular belief get a free pass as out-of-bounds. I call raging B.S.
The Golden Rule of society often seems to be "Try not to be offensive". I love this rule. It is a very good rule. It is essential to civil discussion. But this is only one side of the rule,the "Yang" if you will. It seems that we often forget the "Yin".
"Try not to be offended"
Ordained Episcopal Deacon here. All the religious arguments/debates can be summed up in one quote, in my opinion:
For those who believe, no proof is necessary, for those who don't believe, no proof is possible (Stuart Chase 1888-1985)
Agree with Erik, ignore it, or flag it, but in both cases move on.
The Reverend Deacon David Bender
-- david
Papa.DRB
Another Whiskeypalian! ::Pulls out fifth::
|
|
Lots of little things in my mind from this thread.
I like Jeremy's post but I can't help but find the title a little disingenuous.
He's been here long enough to know that you can e-mail the staff. Jeremy has chosen to share his opinion with the community, I wouldn't like to assume a reason for doing so but this is not a personal plea to the staff who moderate the forums.
As for the topic, if Christians feel like they're getting most of the stick on the forums, that's probably down to them being the dominant religious culture in most of the communities that play Pathfinder.
I like Jason's rule-1 but I think it may be a little limited, people need to take on more responsibility. I'm nominating: "Be nice." as my replacement rule-1.
I've always tried to cultivate an instinct that doesn't involve making fun of anyone, for any reason, because that's not very nice, or kind, or decent, or respectful, or humane... and those are the qualities I respect and admire in people. Sometimes I slip up and I'm no saint but I think paying attention to these things would make things more pleasant for Jeremy's friends and may other people, regardless of faith, upbringing, expertise, taste, whatever...
I'm totally on board with trying to be nicer in general. It's the singling out of a particular group as deserving special consideration that I find distasteful (and telling).
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Lots of little things in my mind from this thread.
I like Jeremy's post but I can't help but find the title a little disingenuous.
He's been here long enough to know that you can e-mail the staff. Jeremy has chosen to share his opinion with the community, I wouldn't like to assume a reason for doing so but this is not a personal plea to the staff who moderate the forums.As for the topic, if Christians feel like they're getting most of the stick on the forums, that's probably down to them being the dominant religious culture in most of the communities that play Pathfinder.
I like Jason's rule-1 but I think it may be a little limited, people need to take on more responsibility. I'm nominating: "Be nice." as my replacement rule-1.
I like your rule -1. Mine IS more limited, in that it is not making any real positive demands. It'd be nice if people would be nice, but if they just can't quite feel it in their hearts to go that far, then at least... don't be a dick. :)
I rather think the problem the OP wrote abou is the tendency of some posters to make fun of religious beliefs just because they feel they are on a higher intellectual level for not believing.
The flying spaghetti monster is a good example. Basically it is a tool for saying:
Look, I think your god is a stupid thing made up by some morons, just like this internet phenomen, so you could as well believe in the fsm....Just to make that clear: I think questioning someones belief in a debate where it came up and has some meaning to the debate is fine. ridiculing someones belief just to hit him in the face is not imo.
Sir, I think this is exactly the way several of us feel. In my experience, I've tried to engage folk when the subject of religion is raised only to have a select few dance in circles around my clear intentions and approach the conversation not from a palce where two smart guys can talk someting over, but one smart guy throw jabs at one person they consider a close-minded half-wit. Curiously, I find those people to be at least as closeminded and rather unwilling to answer me on specific questions.
However, the community here is largely tolerant. And it isn't Paizo's job to make a safe haven for Christian gamers. While I might constantly disagree with a few of these people, and I might feel they are rather highbrowed and elitist on the subject of religion, on another thread, a gaming thread, they might be totally right about things where emotions don't run so deep.
It is first and foremost a forum for gamers to discuss gaming, escapism and entertainment, and while it's nice of Ross to go nuke openly insulting posts, I don't much think it my place to carve out a protected status here at Paizo. Anyone who knows me well knows I mean well and love everyone here, and have friends from all walks and beliefs. Anyone who writes me off as backward-thinking conservative bigot is a victim of their own self-importance and prejuidice. I am sure a few of them feel the same way about me. I wouldn't ask for any special protection of my sensitivities, just like I think it's incumbent on me and not Paizo to not attack someone else personally. Maybe I will eventually just learn there's no point in engaging some people on some issues, although I hate giving up. And again, I recognize it's sometimes reciprocal.
I am fine if Paizo just asks folk to respect one another and doesn't change anything about the boards as they are today.
Although I do think the gunslinger needs more bonus feats.
Even if someone is being a dick to you, show some class and rise above it.
QFT from across the aisle.
"In the beginning was the word...of Wil Wheaton."
Thanks for writing a calm and intelligent post.
My own view is that Gods (and supernatural forces such as chi) and religious institutions are often only connected in lipservice only and not action. While many atrocities are committed by specifically anti-religious organizations, most horribile events in our recorded history have been done in the name of god and often with the support of religious institutions.
If you want people to respect your belief in god (or law, or freedom, or whatever), you have to start with those who claim influence and power in organized groups that control the institution. Until then it is only natural for people to associate god and religion with the most visible and vocal people who claim power.
In short, respect is earned not given.
He Ate all the other Gods, and as a result became really fatI feel inspiration for a whole new setting...
Been there, played that.
Back in Grand Junction Colorado my buddy Troy Crawford ran a world where the lawfull good goddess of the moon was the only survieing human deity, she trapped all the other gods so she and she alone would be the divine influence on the planet.Then again his world also had thunder cats as a playable "race" too.
Question it does not equal be a dick about it.
In my opinion, that differentiation is not being made. It seems cries of incivility are being made simply to silence opposing viewpoints. I do not see how meaningful discussion can be made with such tactics. What is worse, in my opinion again, the loudest turn around and make the same 'insensitive' remarks towards other religions.
This could be an example of what some might consider an uncivil frame of mind.
My point is that civil discourse is being crushed in the name of sensitivity. We are not allowed to draw pictures of Mohomed.
Speaking as a person who often feels embarrassed by how far people on both sides are willing to go to "prove" their stance on religion, I typically avoid even reading topics that look like they could be headed in that direction.
If I avoid them, maybe other sensitive people should, too.
In the end, the need or urge to debate is spurred by pride on some measure: pride in one's religion, or pride in one's opinion, or a general need to be "right" or to prove something to somebody else. Since humility is a defining, active aspect of most religions, and certainly every major religion, perhaps it would be best to exercise it, and simply not follow the impulse to fight people who think differently.
Turn the other cheek, so to speak.
|
|
This is pretty tough. If a Christian believes "God is my heavenly/spiritual father", and the opposing viewpoint is "Hey guy, I really don't think God exists and I'm pretty sure you're imagining the whole thing", and the Christian is offended by that, then I'm not sure there's any actual discourse that can be held.
Considering that that actually is the Christian viewpoint and the opposition viewpoint (boiled down, anyway).
Being offended by something is completely subjective, at any rate.
|
|
There is a difference between not believing in something and publically ridiculing those who do. Not believing in God is one thing. Publically calling God names and laughing about it when you know you are engaged in a conversation with people who not only believe in God, but hold Him in reverence is a sign of poor manners, to say the least.
Edit: The closest analogy I can think of is having a conversation with someone about your respective families and, in the midst of the discussion, suddenly calling the other guys mother something crude and then laughing about it.
|
|
... and the opposing viewpoint is "Hey guy, I really don't think God exists
This is fine. But then it goes on...
and I'm pretty sure you're imagining the whole thing"...
When the discourse goes on to tell the other person what they believe, what they are imagining, what they feel, how they are wrong, and so on, is when it becomes considerably less "civil".
Saying something like "I believe that God created everything" is fine. Going on to say "and you're blind for not being able to see it" is considerably less "fine".
|
|
I'm all for keeping religion/politics out of the gaming threads, or at the very least agreeing to be polite to each other if those subjects are briefly mentioned in the gaming threads.
However, as a gnu atheist, I do worry about the possibility of going overboard. That is, "don't be a dick" is all well and good, right up until "being a dick" gets defined as "anything that doesn't agree with opinion X".
Human beings deserve respect (unless/until they've demonstrated that they don't). Ideas don't.
I have immense respect for almost every poster on these forums, religious and non-religious. I have little to no respect for religious ideas, just I have little to no respect for the idea of hundreds of elven/gnomish/dwarven subraces.
tl;dr - People deserve respect automatically, but ideas need to stand on their own merit. We need to be careful not to give special privilege to a certain set of ideas.