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.
So if I suggest god is less than just because he lets bad things happen to good people, that is crossing the line? I have said worse, but I am trying to be civil.
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".
Atheists certainly do not have the monopoly on telling others how they are wrong. I am not saying it is right when they do it, but I see plenty coming from the other side. It just seems to me when an atheist is told he/she is wrong, they counter with actual arguments to support their case. Here, it seems the argument is that it is uncivil to tell a Christian where they are wrong.
|
It just seems to me when an atheist is told he/she is wrong, they counter with actual arguments to support their case. Here, it seems the argument is that it is uncivil to tell a Christian where they are wrong.
Sometimes yes and sometimes no.
Jeremiziah felt that he was giving both sides of the argument -- yet one side had a significantly more accusing tone to it.
I think that part of it is that some people feel they have to "win" the internet and will say things that imply far more than just presenting their case.
|
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".
Quite right - putting words in someone's mouth is never nice. Even the armchair psychology of "I think you're wrong, and here's why I think you believe as you do" is probably a little out of line.
However, this should not be considered "uncivil":
"I don't believe as you do, and here's why..." or, "I disagree, and here's why..."
Can we agree there? Polite disagreement, or even somewhat blunt statements of differing opinion, should not be censored simply because they disagree.
|
|
Can we agree there? Polite disagreement, or even somewhat blunt statements of differing opinion, should not be censored simply because they disagree.
I agree. I've learned a lot from quite a number of these discussions. It could be rather easy for Paizo to simply say "no more" and shut down every thread that has this kind of discourse. I don't see a problem with different opinions. I know that I disagree with a number of Christians. Simply disagreeing is fine. How some people disagree may not be.
(Saying that I'm "imagining" my faith is not a reason, is not helpful, and I feel goes past simple "disagreement". I know he was trying to make a point, but it really is a good example of how some people may feel that they are "just" disagreeing, but it comes across as much more.)
Totally agree. And I would say to Court Fool that debating the character of God, or not believing because you accuse the character of God isn't intrinsically uncalled for. FOlk ought to be able to candidly have that conversation. It's when someone responds with "You can rationalize all you want, but you're still wrong about what you believe" that the conversation becomes less exploratory and more adversarial. At which point no one is served.
|
|
Moff - Yes, saying that someone is merely imagining something falls into the "armchair psychology" category I mentioned earlier. Faith isn't imaginary, belief isn't imaginary (even if I think that the objects of that faith or belief are imaginary).
However, I believe that people who claim supernatural experiences are indeed imagining those experiences (whether "imagining" means hallucinating, dreaming, or simply mistaking the mundane for the supernatural may vary depending on context). I don't think you would deny that many of these experiences (alien abductions, for example) are indeed imaginary.
Would you concede that asking "Is it possible that you simply imagined your experience?" is at least more civil than stating "You're just imagining what happened to you" ?
Anyone Recall when "D&D" was a hotly debated religious topic, we were all devil worshippers and blah blah blah?
I'm not offended by any level of simply suggesting I'm delusional or that someone disagrees with me. What gets my goat is when someone, in mean-spirited fashion, pulls ten words out of your post in order to say something insulting that you didn't address. We should maybe all d a better job of trying to find what someone intends to say, instead of using the limited capabilities of message boards as a weapon against them.
But again, it becomes an issue of respect. If someone is looking for a fight, it doesn't matter if its via MB or in person. That conversation is going nowhere, and it's painful to withdraw from it because it feels like defeat, even if neither party is remotely on the same page.
|
|
Would you concede that asking "Is it possible that you simply imagined your experience?" is at least more civil than stating "You're just imagining what happened to you" ?
That really is a tough call. I guess, I'd ask more -- what are you hoping to gain from that? To learn or to be right?
(In my case, no, I wasn't imagining it. You are still free to disagree -- but the end result is the implied message without actually helping the discussion.)
|
|
It's when someone responds with "You can rationalize all you want, but you're still wrong about what you believe" that the conversation becomes less exploratory and more adversarial. At which point no one is served.
When a conversation starts that way, sure. But what about several pages of the same/similar arguments being put forth and refuted ad nauseum?
In the appropriate context, I find this response entirely reasonable:
"You can make that argument all you want, but I/we have already pointed out the flaws in that line of reasoning several times. I'm/we're not going to continue to debate a point that has repeatedly been discredited."
An example of polite (IMO) theological discourse:
Christian: Because I believe in God,my opinion is etc. etc.
Atheist: I don't believe God is real,so I can't really relate to your arguments,however I believe etc. etc.
An example of an insensitive Christian (exaggerated):
If this train wrecks,I'm going to Heaven to eat caviar and your going to Hell because you don't share my beliefs.
An example of an (extremely) insensitive joke aimed at Christianity:
Jesus loves me,and that's why he ____ed me. (no,the line doesn't represent "saved")
Insensitivity is everywhere. People ready and willing to mock and disrespect other people are everywhere. There are people who wish to engage in civil discourse,the trick is to find and talk with them. Don't feed the trolls.
|
|
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.So if I suggest god is less than just because he lets bad things happen to good people, that is crossing the line? I have said worse, but I am trying to be civil.
It depends on how you say it, of course, but I don't generally have a problem with people stating a point of view. But to use phrases like, "pretend sky-god," is, in my opinion, crossing the line from civility to rudeness. To use just one example I have seen around here before.
I am sorry to keep hounding on this, but it has been botherine me.
Saying that I'm "imagining" my faith is not a reason…
O.k. So 'imagining' is out. What about "…your conclusions are faulty", "…your logic is faulty" or "…your facts are faulty"?
Dear lord! CourtFool is splitting hairs! Well, yes…yes I am. I have been told that "…you just don't get it" which sounds pretty much the same as "…your conclusions are faulty" to me. So I am trying to better understand exactly where everyone sees the line.
I have been accused of being proud to reject god, which, in my estimation is name calling which I thought would be an absolute no-no. In my opinion, it was not done out of malice which is where I tend to draw the line on what is insulting and what is not.
…will say things that imply far more than just presenting their case.
That is debate, is it not? We all imply that our case has more support. I mean, if we were not convinced our case was correct how could you put any passion in it at all? I consider myself pretty good at playing Devil's advocate, but I can not make a case for something I completely disagree with.
Christians quote the gospel like it is…gospel…all the time. It certainly seems to me they are implying it is more than just words.
To use just one example I have seen around here before.
Thank you for your clarification.
|
|
Would you concede that asking "Is it possible that you simply imagined your experience?" is at least more civil than stating "You're just imagining what happened to you" ?That really is a tough call. I guess, I'd ask more -- what are you hoping to gain from that? To learn or to be right?
That's a fair question. I admit that, in these discussions, I believe that I'm right until someone shows me I'm wrong (but doesn't everybody feel this way? ;) ), so part of my answer is "to be right". But it's more complicated than that.
I also want to learn more about the other person's point of view. "Is it possible that you simply imagined your experience?" should be followed up with "If not, why not?" I want to know more about the person's thought process, so I know which approach to take in attempting to show them another perspective.
I guess that's my real goal - to share different perspectives, and assisting in the spread of critical thinking. I also want to hear the perspectives of people with differing viewpoints so I can test my own critical thinking skills and see how my views stand up against someone who disagrees.
Ah, we're all just playing in the sandbox of some vastly superior alien race anyway. Everyone knows that all religious/alien/mythological experiences and stories are due to various experimental interactions with them. We all just have to wait until 12/21/12 when they finally reveal themselves to us in all their glory.
It's when someone responds with "You can rationalize all you want, but you're still wrong about what you believe" that the conversation becomes less exploratory and more adversarial. At which point no one is served.When a conversation starts that way, sure. But what about several pages of the same/similar arguments being put forth and refuted ad nauseum?
In the appropriate context, I find this response entirely reasonable:
"You can make that argument all you want, but I/we have already pointed out the flaws in that line of reasoning several times. I'm/we're not going to continue to debate a point that has repeatedly been discredited."
That's the trick, I guess. In the last few days, i was in a conversation where someone made a claim using scripture. I pointed out how that scripture was misused, including context, previous comments about the subject, other comments about the subject from the same Biblical character, and talk abot the whole of scritpure. Dude completely ignored it and restated his point again.
I said, well, you just keep saying the same thing over again. I explained how your assessment isn't right.
Note here I'm not trying to get Dude to jsut come on over to Jesus so much as at elast get him to see that his reasoning for calling Christ a failed Messiah used scripture to define a successful Messiah inacurately.
Of course he felt I was just repreating myself, too (I think because I was asking the same unanswered questions). Neither one of us are budging on the issue. So I back away reluctantly and now it's dead. But the tone certainly felt disrespectful and as if I was wired wrong jsut for believing differently.
AGain, the trick was, we were both telling the other guy he was just saying the same thing over and over again. There was nowhere to go. I think in that case the only thing you can do is check your PBP thread and go to bed.
I have been accused of being proud to reject god, which, in my estimation is name calling which I thought would be an absolute no-no.
I always took it for compliment.
|
|
I am sorry to keep hounding on this, but it has been botherine me.
Saying that I'm "imagining" my faith is not a reason…O.k. So 'imagining' is out. What about "…your conclusions are faulty", "…your logic is faulty" or "…your facts are faulty"?
Dear lord! CourtFool is splitting hairs! Well, yes…yes I am. I have been told that "…you just don't get it" which sounds pretty much the same as "…your conclusions are faulty" to me. So I am trying to better understand exactly where everyone sees the line.
I have been accused of being proud to reject god, which, in my estimation is name calling which I thought would be an absolute no-no. In my opinion, it was not done out of malice which is where I tend to draw the line on what is insulting and what is not.
…will say things that imply far more than just presenting their case.That is debate, is it not? We all imply that our case has more support. I mean, if we were not convinced our case was correct how could you put any passion in it at all? I consider myself pretty good at playing Devil's advocate, but I can not make a case for something I completely disagree with.
"You don't get it" is a cop out. (I hope I haven't said that.) In it's defense, there are times when someone is having difficulty explaining something and can see that the conversation is not going the way intended. Maybe we need a better "exit strategy" plan for those cases? (I agree that "You just don't get it" is probably not the best way to go...)
If your "passion" comes in the form of suggesting that others are lacking intelligence, wisdom, thinking, reason, and so on, then it probably should be avoided.
|
|
I'd just like to go ahead and reiterate and add my support to a sentiment from the first page:
"Try not to be offensive" is good advice. "Try not to be offended" is equally good (if not better) advice.
There is a balance though. One thing I've found interesting recently is that a number of atheists have expressed their displeasure about other atheists and their "civility". I myself have been disappointed in how some Christians have behaved at times.
If your own faith (or lack thereof) thinks that you've probably crossed a line -- you probably have.
That's the trick, I guess. In the last few days, i was in a conversation where someone made a claim using scripture. I pointed out how that scripture was misused, including context, previous comments about the subject, other comments about the subject from the same Biblical character, and talk abot the whole of scritpure. Dude completely ignored it and restated his point again.
You really want to do this here?
I believe his point was that was your interpretation of scripture. Once you start going down the interpretation route, it is easy to say it means whatever you want it to. Just for the record, I was not convinced by your interpretation either as I found the scripture to be pretty self evident what it meant. I saw no point interjecting as we are both pretty convinced we are right.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Wait...there's a line?
I've generally cut back and attempted to curtail my more inflammatory rhetoric. Typically, I go into the controversial threads these days to derail them.
For whatever it is worth, the civil religious thread is a large part of why I have made this change. I've come to respect a number of posters and their beliefs because of that thread, and keep them in mind when posting.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I hate to be the cold splash of reality, but ultimately it's a business decision for Paizo. As long as they think that instituting a no-politics/religion/controversy policy would cause a decrease in messageboard traffic and a corresponding decrease in site views (...sales), they won't do it. If they think that removing Charlie Bell's uncivil post targeting religion/atheism/race XYZ will piss off Charlie Bell and lose his business, they won't do it, unless they think that leaving his post will be more likely to piss off the religious people/atheists/race XYZ and cause them to take their business elsewhere. The decision is as simple as "what will piss off the least number of customers?" No amount of social responsibility or belief in free expression will change that equation.
That said, I'm generally content with Ross's moderation (although I've long since left CRD since it became the place where it's OK to ignore policy #2). I'm especially appreciative of the fact that Paizo staff and freelancers generally do not discuss controversial topics on these forums. Erik has said elsewhere that Paizo doesn't have a specific policy, but the self-restraint of Paizo employees on these forums is admirable.
|
|
One thing I've found interesting recently is that a number of atheists have expressed their displeasure about other atheists and their "civility". I myself have been disappointed in how some Christians have behaved at times.
If your own faith (or lack thereof) thinks that you've probably crossed a line -- you probably have.
The Gnu Atheist vs Accommodationist debate (aka the Don't Be A Dick debate, thanks to Phil Plait) is HUGE in the atheist community. The big task in my opinion is to properly define what is meant by "offensive" or "civil".
In many debates, "You're being uncivil!" is used by theists as code for "I don't like your opinions so you need to shut up!". That is, accusing the atheist of being rude allows the theist to disqualify the atheist from the debate without having to actually respond to any of the points raised by the atheist.
The debate is multifaceted, and I'd be happy to discuss it in further detail elsewhere, but the basic summary is that atheists don't all agree on the optimal strategy for engaging the theist population.
I think a good deal of the trouble here is that fantasy roleplaying games are part of art and literature, and it is not the goal of art or literature to be civil or inoffensive. Art and literature are created both for entertainment and to comment on human nature and society, and you can't do the second task without offending someone somewhere.
1st ed AD&D had this in spades with the Deities & Demigods, where--apart from the Cthulhu and Melnibonean mythos sections which got pulled from the 2nd printing for copyright reasons--there were full stats for the Chinese and Indian pantheons, despite the fact that there are living people today who worship these gods. But there were stats provided so you could beat up Quan Yin and Krishna and take their lunch money, or at least magic items and XP, and while Deities & Demigods didn't go so far as to give stats for the Christian pantheon, it doesn't take much imagination to realize that the statblock for Quan Yin, Chinese goddess of mercy and childbearing, would probably do just dandy for the Virgin Mary.
Then there was the bad past history where fundamentalist Christian pressure groups made it so that the entirety of 2nd edition, instead of having demons and devils, had tamari and batty-zoo (and yes, I'm deliberately misspelling the names because I find the made-up words utterly offensive, both in genesis and aesthetics). There's some bad blood there.
As for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, His Noodly Appendages would never have left the great pasta press in the center of the galaxy if various Christian groups hadn't been trying to break the Establishment Clause in Kansas and get religion taught as science. I find Intelligent Design both morally reprehensible and academically indefensible and as such absolutely deserving of mockery.
That said, most of the discussions I've seen try to be towards the literary and academic end and discuss how this god or goddess might be used in a particular setting and how the theology and metaphysics of our fantasy worlds may mirror those in the real world. Such discussions also include ideas like the middle ages with actual magic, including saints wandering around performing actual miracles, in which case it's perfectly reasonable for your alternate reality to discuss whether St. Francis should be statted up as a druid or as a cleric with the Animal domain, and even if you're not specifically statting up St. Francis, if you start talking about some random holy man who chats with the animals, comparisons with St. Francis are not only inevitable but bound to be productive. Is this the historic St. Francis? No. Is this St. Francis as he currently exists in Catholic theology? No to that as well. Is it offensive and insensitive?
The fact is, everything is offensive to someone. If you draw a stick figure and write a particular name starting with "M" underneath it, someone will be offended. Hell, it doesn't even have to be a stick figure--an anthropomorphic coffee cup will do just as well, and there's an artist living in fear a fatwa for just that.
|
|
If people will allow me, I will share my tips on how to debate without being insensitive or offensive. I have found this will generally work, to help things to always come across fairly well.
Tone - It is very important to try and be mindful of how your text comes across. Take some time to think of how it can possibly be interpreted. Try to word your posts to be as neutral, inoffensive, or as unobtrusive as possible.
Context - This is something I had to learn the hard way. Try to understand ones opponent on an issue. Not just what they believe, but why they believe it. Understand not just that they have these beliefs but what history, and what feelings lead to this belief in that person. Most people here on the boards are willing to share as much. If you know where it comes from then it may not be so offensive to your sensibilities.
Apologize - Don't be afraid to apologize or to be apologetic. To admit when your wrong, or even when your taken out of context. It immediately defuses a situation that could build up tension.
Be exhaustive - Don't be afraid to let your posts run long, if you explain your conclusions exhaustively it is harder to be taken out of context.
Kevin and Jagyr pretty much said it.
Especially Jagyr:
The whole "you're being offensive to me, because I'm sensitive about my religion and I can't win the argument" people really annoy me.
It's like this. If you think you're fat, don't hang around people who make fat jokes.
That being said I have seen people I thought were fat, laugh hilariously at fat jokes, and REALLY fat guys wearing T-shirts that say "No Fat Chicks"
Either A) these people don't see themselves as fat or B) they don't let it interfere with their sense of humor.
Personally the irony of the obese guy with the no fat chicks Tshirt says about 43 political statements all with a twist of humor to me, and I find it amusing. It could also be worn by a guy with a twisted sense of reality.
The real question is, when you see him, wearing that Tshirt do you
A) go up to him an inform him that's an incredibly insensitive statement?
B) go up to him and ask him "umm do you KNOW YOUR fat?"
or
C) quietly chuckle to yourself at the oddity you have just seen?
and the final question is, telling the fat guy, that he's fat, insensitive, considering he's wearing a Tshirt like that? Or is he inviting that type/topic of conversation by virtue of wearing the Tshirt?
When it comes to religion, the above applies.
You cannot argue with someone who believes differently than you by saying "You can't say that, it hurts my feelings"
I believe women should stay home, raise children and build better families, does that make me a bad guy? Does that mean I hate women?
Did I just make an offensive statement?
To the women who hate the idea of being couped up in the kitchen? Probably.
But no to ALL women, so how could I state a belief like that without 'insulting' someone. It's a belief, not an insult.
The insultee chose to get insulted.
|
|
... and the opposing viewpoint is "Hey guy, I really don't think God existsThis 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".
...well, that's all well and good, but the second clause is often times part of the athiest viewpoint. One of the main problems athiests face is that they're often asked to explain why 98% of the world populace since time immemorial has been theist (i.e., Appeal to Popularity). If they're not able to give reasons as to why they think other people have it wrong in addition to talking about why they have it right, what's the use in talking?
I actually don't think there is any use in talking. That said, the responsibility to spread the gospel - to evangelize if you will - is hard-coded into Christianity, while there's nothing at all in any athiest doctrine indicating that they're supposed to spread the "word" about their beliefs. It just seems that sometimes they're compelled to, regardless. :-)
|
I do hope that we can, even though we disagree, respect one another as we have discussions.I do not think we can.
Then why have the debate. Others try to be polite but are then attacked for it, ridiculed or subtly made fun of. This does not add to the debate but rather retracts from it.
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.
No, the arrogance comes from the approach and attitude shone when responding. No double standard needed.
Wow. So...sad. So much flaming. Not surprised. Role playing used to be a 'social' venue but the social part seems to be on the decline.
Well, your heart was in it Jeremy. Thanks for the attempt.
|
|
Ahhh.... I have learned much here.
Mostly that y'all believe what you believe, can't understand why everyone doesn't believe it when it so obvious you're right.
Yes, that was aimed at both sides of the debate.
What it all comes down to is this:
Or, more politely: What you personally believe, what gets you through the day and night to being the best possible "you" there is; that's what matters. Having just yourself or twenty million peers that agree with you won't make much of a difference after you let lose this mortal coil. There is no "winner" or "loser" when it comes to you belief system (even if it's non-belief). It's not a team sport, it's not a debate, it's not even important.
If you are happy with your beliefs, be happy. If you can't be happy with your beliefs without believing that everyone else has to agree with you, then you really should check your ego. It may have gotten a tad inflated.
Edit: Almost forgot. +1 Jeremy. Hope to see people get more civilized and less inflammatory!
Anyone Recall when "D&D" was a hotly debated religious topic, we were all devil worshippers and blah blah blah?
Meh. I only noticed it 'hotly' debated in the media. Never warranted discussion at my private, religious high school or with my other 'religious' gamers. Guess it was just a game to us.
But this was a thread about people being jackholes to each other and being responsible for the history/actions of other jackholes, wasn't it?
1st ed AD&D had this in spades with the Deities & Demigods, where--apart from the Cthulhu and Melnibonean mythos sections which got pulled from the 2nd printing for copyright reasons
That info was not pulled for copyright reasons, see the rec.games.frp.dnd FAQ item E8, "What was removed from Deities & Demigods?"
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).
I'm an atheist as well and I completely understood what the OP was implying. He had to choose the route as an example in the fashion he did to make a point. Maybe consider it a clarion call for some of us to not come across as militant in hypocritical fashion versus those to whom we may question the grounding of their belief system. And vice versa for those of a theist bent telling the non-theists about not being able to reside in foxholes. Ad nauseam.
Personally, I like my brand of atheism peppered with crazy wisdom served by R. A. Wilson, but I digress. ;-)
|
|
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.
Untrue. While its acceptable for one to say its a bit arrogant for you to recject him, yoru free to question the existance of god. But you ARE uncivil when folks in yoru camp go with "He's a myth" and various other methods you and your like run with.
The standard that your allowed to be rude is not a double standard. I have no issue with skeptics and questions. I do have a rather large problem with the militant or fundementalist atheist and their attitude.
Spoilered because it's huge... sorry, I got carried away.
That's the trick, I guess. In the last few days, i was in a conversation where someone made a claim using scripture. I pointed out how that scripture was misused, including context, previous comments about the subject, other comments about the subject from the same Biblical character, and talk abot the whole of scritpure. Dude completely ignored it and restated his point again.You really want to do this here?
I believe his point was that was your interpretation of scripture. Once you start going down the interpretation route, it is easy to say it means whatever you want it to. Just for the record, I was not convinced by your interpretation either as I found the scripture to be pretty self evident what it meant. I saw no point interjecting as we are both pretty convinced we are right.
CourtFool, I feel like every time I've seen one of your posts in this thread that it has had a significantly more aggressive tone than others who are posting. This could be a misunderstanding of your tone on my part, but in particular this sentence... "You really want to do this here?" ... really stood out to me.
It seemed to me after all the build up in the discussion that you were ready to 'throw down' so to speak. There was also a lot of condescension palpable in that sentence, as if you felt like you could completely lay the discussion/argument flat with one post. You also seem to have a very strong dislike of religion in general, not just Christianity (since that's the one coming up the most). I can respect that some people choose not to believe in any higher power, but I always expect my beliefs to be shown the same respect.
Somewhere in the thread someone else said that people should be shown respect, not ideas. I think a religion is more than just an idea, as for many people who are devout in whatever their faith may be, that idea is a part of their identity, and attacking it or trying to invalidate its existence feels personal. I believe that it is much easier to insult someone who is religious just for that fact; simply questioning what they believe may not feel like an outright attack, but it can be a sharp prod. An atheist has no doctrine to mock, no symbols, or sacred texts... Never have a I known an atheist who was thin-skinned about being such. Atheists, in my experience are more self-sufficient, and whether that is because of their decision not to believe or the result of it, I am unsure, and I bet not even all atheists would agree on that point.
If you don't mind, I am curious as to whether or not there has ever been religion in your life, even if not directly, and what may have driven you away from it. Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, Wicca... anything? I know at least one person who claims to worship old Germanic gods like Thor.
I'm taking as much care to avoid sounding condescending as I can, because I have a genuine interest. Some people appear (to me) to be so aggressive in discrediting things that it frightens me, religious or otherwise. Westboro Baptist Church is a terrible example of a 'Christian' establishment (can I cite them here, or is that against a rule?). True that Christians have their psychos, but what body of like-minded individuals doesn't have extremists ruining their image? Look at table-top gamers; I tell people I play D&D (because they don't know what Pathfinder is yet) and they tell me I don't seem like that kind of person, because I play soccer and have a religion. (Because obviously you can do physical activity or be religious and play RPGs.)
I will stop now because I just realized how freaking much I've written. :O I know no one cares that much about what I have to say anyway.
Wait...so the plea for civility is degenerating into an argument over the proper amount of offense to take (and to dish out) in an argument?
Uh...seriously?
Your opinion is wrong, and that's a fact. ;)
|
|
And while the Danish Muhammed Cartoons did raise "awareness" of an issue, it didn't really bring much "healthy debate", as it was drowned out by the cry of injustice from the Muslim world. I think there could have been better ways to do it. Again, that doesn't give Muslims (or anyone else for that matter) the right to try to kill the cartoonist, but I am neither surprised nor angered when someone decides to burn the Danish flag in return. After all, flag burning is also a way to express yourself.
Well of course not. In many areas Imans intentionally fanned the flames hotter. Wasnt so much the cry if injustice, but the lead of intolerance.
Islam, more then any other group, needs to learn a bit(or rather alot) of satire and humor, especially to self.
There wasnt a better way to do it. Hell the female cartoonist in seattle who suggested "draw mohammand day" had to GO INTO HIDING and change her identity on the suggestion of the FBI.
If anyone has been in dire need of a change, its Islam. They didnt just burn flags, but threatened violence, repeatedly. Or did you forget a decade or three ago of teh Fatwa on Saldie Rusdie? WHich is still in effect today.
I pronounce fawtla on this thread.
If you don't mind, I am curious as to whether or not there has ever been religion in your life, even if not directly, and what may have driven you away from it. Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, Wicca... anything?
I was raised Catholic. Exposed to Southern Baptist. My daughter currently goes to a Lutheran School so I attend services there once every couple of months. I have dabbled with Quakerism and currently I am exploring Buddhism and Taoism.
What drove me away from Christianity? The answers I received to the questions I had did not reconcile with my experiences.
1st ed AD&D had this in spades with the Deities & Demigods, where--apart from the Cthulhu and Melnibonean mythos sections which got pulled from the 2nd printing for copyright reasonsThat info was not pulled for copyright reasons, see the rec.games.frp.dnd FAQ item E8, "What was removed from Deities & Demigods?"
Ah, thanks for the clarification.
I suppose I should state that in the future as "licensing issues."
To me it is pretty simple question facts and ideas, but not beliefs. If you ever find yourself at the point where you are telling someone that what they believe is wrong, civility has gone out the window.
[stuff] is in dire need of changing, but beating people in the head with a stick (even if it is a figurative one) is not the best way to do it. It'll only inflame the intolerant ones and alienate the moderates and pro-change.
My point still stands, universally and not just limited to Muslim-related issues: Freedom of Speech doesn't mean you necessarily should say something. To semi-quote someone: "With great freedoms come great responsibility".
Bolded for emphasis. Applies outside of religion as well, and especially the interwebs. Well said.
To me it is pretty simple question facts and ideas, but not beliefs. If you ever find yourself at the point where you are telling someone that what they believe is wrong, civility has gone out the window.
And if I believe that I am Napoleon?