An interesting question raised by our mod. Why not talk about it?

[fshrink]

"Jews are ruining DU for me" or "Gays are ruining DU for me". He's right, no one here would agree with that. And yet I feel there's a difference with "Xtians are ruining DU for me". One aspect I think is that Xtians are not a minority. In fact WE are. I would add, that, particularly in these appalling times we are "living" (I'm not sure we are actually living, more like surviving, but that's another story), it seems that minorities should be granted a space where they could at least speak normally without restraint (except the normal civil restraint, that everybody here, as far as I know, has always followed. What do you folks think?

[slutticus]

1. Hmmm. I think I agree with skinner.

If you go by the DU rules as they are written, then this is "calling out" a particular set of DUers. I think the fact that Christians are in the majority is irrelevant. In fact, the post was really about only one DUer that the OP was upset with.

I think the issues and fights that have erupted in the other forums recently should be discussed, and this is certainly the place (for us) to discuss them, but it doesn't seem to me that that was the OP's intent.

When I first read the topic, I had a feeling it would be deleted eventually, not because of the content, but because of the title and the "I hate these fucks" part. I think this whole thing could have been avoided with a different topic title. Also, our group statement does say "In this forum it is inappropriate to belittle those with religious beliefs or to engage in demeaning or hateful speech toward members of DU who may hold such beliefs."

Anyway, I don't think skinner has made a final decision on the matter, but we should all chime in with our opinions. I think the key here is that posting when your really pissed off is never a good idea!

[fshrink]

2. I agree on the main, but

, and this is in fact an ongoing issue on several forums, I still am unconvinced that negative, angry, fuming etc... posts are just "farts", as it were. That these posts are useless. I still think that they really are, provided that they don't belong to that category of stupid and blind anger. Which I don't think is the case here. Anger contains tons of very useful, precious, elements and the only chance to see this negative ore refined into something usable is to express it. Expressed anger is very productive, cools itself off, and fosters reflection. This happens because each outburst suggests a slightly different angle of critique, maybe just one or two words, that can be helpful to others to alter or enrich their own perspective and feelings. You kill that, you get a shapeless mass of raw emotion. Unproductive and explosive. But, yes, agreed, it's a fine line...

[Modem Butterfly]

3. Hmmm...

Immediately after the election we had quite a spate of "Gays are ruining the Democratic Party" posts, most of which were, regrettably in my opinion, not locked. Granted, they were not specifically saying "Gays are ruining DU" but the implication is certainly there.

Xians have a way of sucking the air from the room, metaphorically speaking. They assert the illogical notion that they have both hegemony over US culture and that they are under constant attack by freethinkers of all stripes, theistic and non. We need to be able to talk about that and frankly, to devise strategies for dealing with that fact. I worry that these efforts will yield more locked threads, however, in fairness, I have no idea what is happening in the places on DU where Xians speak among themselves. Perhaps their rants against freethinkers are subject to similar restrictions. At the same time, DU is a site devoted to the development of Democratic ideals and politics. Every sideline group, from our Atheists to Vegatarians, is secondary to that goal.

[fshrink]

4. That's the whole abject martyr thing!

This is really abject, when you think about it 2 minutes. It's taking what is best in human and turning it into a torture instrument. This guy they made up is supposed to have been killed and now we all have to carry his wooden cross and bow before so much suffering, which, of course, each of them represents in flesh and blood. They can't let go of the "persecution" fallacy: it is a the very root of their system!

[YankeyMCC]

5. Censorship

It's a question of where we think the line should be drawn. Frankly I prefer a place that errs on the side of letting somethings through.

Such titles as "Jews are ruining DU for me" may be in poor taste but unless the tread turns into calls for violence or promoting organized hate groups or something that could lead to someone being harmed then I think we should be allowed to deal with it as a community. By ignoring or by refuting/debating the ideas presented in such threads.

A "Free community" should be able to find it's own standards. DU seems to do pretty well but occasionally the price we pay for this freedom is putting up with some threads that might not be worded very tactfully.

It would be better of course if the people who felt like starting such threads knew that the rest of us expect high standards of respect and intelligent discourse, and would led to them choosing clear and concise titles and opening posts that did not generalize in a derogatory way. I think it is more effective for the community to make this known than to have mods censor such threads.

[Behind the Aegis]

6. Two mind sets here

On one hand, I understood why the person posted that thread and I have to say, I felt the same. On the other hand, it was an "attack" on an entire group of people. But, as one poster here stated, there were plenty of "gays ruined our election" threads after the election, so many, that my partner refuses to read DU and I know that I have seen a few other gays no longer (or rarely) posting.

In my mind, I know who it is ruining my reading here, and it is non-thinking persons who espouse Christian beliefs with nothing more than their faith as "proof." I am a spiritual person and I follow my own little way (I helped start the Ancient wisdom group), but I do not force my beliefs onto others, nor do I use my faith as 'proof' of something.

The real thing that has been a deterrent here has been those who are so sanctimonious (no matter what persuasion) and also have NO reading comprehension! There are a couple of posters (who have 1000+ posts) who are like a dog with a bone on certain things and they are mostly talking out of their ass! They totally miss the intention or message of the post and latch onto a nothing argument and help get the thread locked. I bet some of you can guess a couple of the posters I am describing! :) These people are also unwilling to admit when they have made a mistake or error in what they read. To me, that is very frustrating.

I think it was wise of Skinner to lock that thread, but I understand fully why it was posted. This group does not really need to be completely inclusive because it is a specific train of thought. As I stated, I am a spiritual person, but I CHOOSE to come into this 'room' fully understanding that the majority of the posters here will not have that in common with me. I can just as easily choose to NOT read posts here. However, GD and LBN should be for EVERY DU'er!

I reread the thread in question (because I saw it was locked and I have a morbid curiosity to find out why... I am weird that way). Maybe the thread should have been titled "LBN and GD has become too religious and it pisses me off!" or something along those lines. I would also encourage those who have left those two rooms, to rejoin the discussions...ease yourself in...but DO NOT let those "people" silence you!

[Cobalt Violet]

14. But it wasn't too religious.

It was shove it down your throat ********** (is that going to far?). Why should I have worded it to imply that it was all religions?

[Behind the Aegis]

16. Just a suggestion

I know what you are talking about as far as the 'shove it down your throat' types and that they are almost always one "sect." I guess my suggestion was to be more inclusive as not to single out one group (although, one could argue that "religious" would be a group). It is a slippery slope to be sure.

[Cobalt Violet]

17. But the problem is that it is just one group.

I have never had a problem with any other group.

[Behind the Aegis]

18. I feel ya!

I really do understand why you posted what you did. I read it several times and saw that many others were having the same issues as me. Since one cannot "call out" an individual (per DU guidelines), it is almost as if we have to generalize. It is a slippery slope, though. I just battle them back and let them know I will not "surrender" to their will. :)

[gottaB]

7. Minority status should not excuse bigotry

If you can't think of a way to discuss the problem of minorities being marginalized and oppressed without resorting to blanket attacks against all members of a group, even a dominant majority, then you're probably not thinking very clearly. Maintaining a policy against such attacks should encourage people to rethink their arguments, and that should improve the quality of discussion.

[Philostopher]

8. The post in question ...

referred to a specific thread, but the poster was concerned about being accused of 'calling out' by linking to the thread in which s/he had experienced the difficulties and, therefore, merely referred to it. Some of us had also been frustrated by the content of the thread to which s/he referred. It wasn't any secret, from the content of the locked thread in this forum, to what the original post referred. Regrettably, it appears further posts were too specific -- I admit, I may have been too specific at some point in the thread. I'll take any lumps required for that, though it appears we're really just hammering out the parameters here and nobody in particular is going to have to do that before those parameters are set.

It wasn't the 'dominant majority' that caused the poster to feel the way s/he did, and the content of the thread reveals that. There were specific problems the OP had with specific posters in the thread s/he didn't want to 'call out' that was referenced. While I agree with the decision to lock that thread when it was locked, I must say that the impetus to post it wasn't to smear all Christians here, or to insinuate that all theists on DU are a problem. I can see why what ultimately evolved in the thread was problematic, and required locking, but the original motivation to post the thread (while the subject line was perhaps more broad than the poster intended) wasn't nearly so broad, if I can take the liberty of translating the intentions of the starting post.

After the original poster had been advised that the best alternative for dealing with such experiences was to ignore posters with whom s/he had a problem, or to hide problematic threads, I suppose it's legitimate to say the purpose of the thread had been served and it could have been locked.

Bottom line, the 'big tent' party we all claim includes people from a wide spectrum of beliefs (or lacks thereof), and there's the necessity to tolerate that by both believers and non-believers. A specific incident where the poster believed s/he had experienced a lack of tolerance was (if I dont' assume too much) the spur to post the thread in the first place. His/her frustration was with the behavior of a subset of people who posted in the thread, though admittedly the subject line of the thread didn't make that clear.

I think everybody in this forum is aware of reality -- everybody on the site should be. We all have to tolerate the fact that the political left in this country includes those who believe in a higher power and those who don't -- it's reality for everybody, both believer and non-believer. Democrats have, traditionally, been willing to accept that fact; much more ready than Republicans, for that matter.

The thread probably had served its purpose once the original poster had been reassured and advised to hide threads that were problematic or ignore posters with whom s/he had a problem. That's the best advice anybody can give on a site like DU -- some of us are apt to rub each other the wrong way, it's inevitable.

I suppose if we limit ourselves to reminding people who become frustrated over specific incidents that the options to ignore other posters and hide threads are available, that will solve the problem of having threads veer into the dangerously specific. If I hadn't immediately recognized the issue the original poster had, and the thread that brought him/her to a level of frustration that made him/her feel compelled to post such a thing, if I'd responded at all I'd have said 'ignore, alert and hide thread are your friends,' as I often do, and that would have been my sum total contribution to the thread. I've been there, I've done that, and I know that's the superior answer in such a case, and I admit I should have stopped there.

We're all going to have clashes over specific issues from time to time; if we all marched in lockstep, DU wouldn't be a decent place for liberals to hang out. Democrats are supposed to be tolerant and inclusive. I don't honestly think the original intention of that thread was to exclude a large group of perceived 'others' so much as to articluate the frustration due to a perception of exclusion the original poster was feeling at the time. It went on longer than it should have, probably. That's my take on the whole issue, anyhow.

[leftofthedial]

10. I hate to sound like your mom (or mine), but

if the majority were all jumping over a cliff, would you jump too?

Or in this case would you avoid calling them crazy or suicidal for fear of hurting their feelings?

What if a bunch of them had aggressively prosyletised you about their belief that the rocks at the bottom of the cliff are actually made of marshmallows and cotton candy?

Religion is (generously) a delusion, or it is (more accurately) psychosis. That's what I believe. I believe it is pathological and that this pathology runs deeply through the heart of the fundamentalism, the divisions, the cruelty and the hatreds that threaten the future of our so-called civilization, our country, our species and our planet. I believe that I and my family are directly threatened by this madness. If I don't speak out, I will have failed them.

[gottaB]

12. “If Youqing does as daddy says, our lives will get better and better."

Fugui: “If Youqing does as daddy says, our lives will get better and better. Our family is like a little chicken. When it grows up it becomes a goose. And that'll turn into a sheep. And the sheep will turn into an ox.”

Youqing; “And after the ox?”

Fugui: “After the ox is communism!”

[leftofthedial]

9. I think religious posters here can speak more directly about us

than we can about them.

I've seen dozens of posts in the past week "calling out" the DLC, the moderates, the progressives, the BBVers, the Greens, the Kerry supporters, the Kerry opponents, the gays . . . you name the group, they have been slammed aggressively here at DU recently.

But state that religion is mental illness or that christianity is mythology, or that belief in a supernatural entity that no one has ever seen is superstition (never mind that these are mainstream opinions) and you will eventually get shut down. There is a group of activist religious martyrs here who will be the squeaky wheel that gets the grease of mod action. It's happened for years.

This is not a slam at the mods or at Skinner. DU is a great place. Like any great place, it has rules. Those rules forbid "calling out" any particular group. The problem is not the mods, it is the religious martyrs who insist on a strict application of the rules when they are criticized. They can't win arguments on merit, so they cry to mommie.

[Hamlette]

13. you nailed it leftofthedial

you don't even have to say religion is mythology or mental illness, you just have to say "I'm an atheist" and you are treated as though you called out all religious people. "You're an atheist? What have I ever done to you for you to treat me with such contempt?"

It has happened to me all my life. To now hear christians talk of themselves as the victims is more than I can take.

I've reading The End of Faith. If you've not read it, you should. It's LONG PAST TIME we called out all people of faith. They believe in fairy tales and now, with WMD available, they could end all life on earth based on those fairy tales.

Moderate Christians, those who don't believe the bible literally, are just as dangerous. They ignore not only to their religious teachings but reason as well and they make it impossible for us to even question the exhistence of God in the name of tolerance.

I have no tolerance for intolerance and all people of faith are intolerant.

[fshrink]

15. You double nailed it. And there are cases where

blanket-statements are unavoidable and even necessary. I'm sure everyone can think of a few...

[GOPFighter]

11. I think Skinner did the right thing

He locked the thread and yet it's still available for all to read.

The thread was started as an angry rant as a way to blow off steam. Cooler heads responded and eventually the writer calmed down. It was a valuable thread because I think we've all been in the same boat at some time or other on DU (in fact there is one forum in particular whose resident posters are so smashmouth anti-liberal that I cannot post my opinions there anymore).

Personally, I think rants like the thread in question are not out of line in a DU Group like this. There are some DU groups for those who are religious and I wouldn't be surprised or offended if Christians blow off steam about the atheists and agnostics on DU in those groups.

[opiate69]

19. One major distinction....

One's ethnic background or sexual orientation are not chosen. Christians choose their beliefs. As far as I'm concerned, they have no more of a right to be protected from criticism nor ridicule than I would if I chose to wear my wife's thong, high heels and a Charlie Brown sweater to the mall on the day after Thanksgiving.

(and yes, I know that Judaism is a belief system, but it is also an ethnicity... )

[displacedtexan]

20. I was thrilled when this DU group was formed... until I read the rules.

Back in '02, several of us DUers chatted regularly (for a brief time) on Sunday mornings (in the lounge) about our disdain of superstition and its inherent danger to progress. Soon, christians started joining in and turning our chats into religious debates.

Mostly, we chatted about the hypocrisy and the horrible things that happen in the name of religion.

So I was thrilled when this group was formed.

Until I read the rules.

I seethed for a while until I realized that, overall, the 'no calling out of groups' was an ideal I should strive to honor.

I don't have a problem with the DU rules.

I have a problem with people whose faith is so weak that they have to shut me up in order to feel good about their chosen religious lifestyle.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. Why doesn't the same rule apply to the Christian group?

That's just a general question thrown into the air, but I took a look around other groups this arvo and discovered that particular one is freely going on and on and on about DU members who displease their religious sensibilities. They don't need to name names cause they ever so helpfully link to the posts...

Violet...

[displacedtexan]

23. Good question, Violet.

I sometimes fear that any liberal rant, which could be used against us by freepers, is frowned upon... not necessarily here, but everywhere.

[fugue]

21. I think minorities need to be able to vent

We are a minority. That's hard. It's difficult and frustrating and sometimes you need to vent to other members of your group. If you've got folks in real life, great. If you don't, why not the DU group that represents you?

I had a rant on neurotypicals in the disability group. Yes, it wasn't friendly, but when people give you lectures on your disability when they clearly don't even know what Asperger's syndrome is, then someone else thinks it's something a rock star made up to get out of a lawsuit (I think he chose it to get out of a lawsuit and didn't actually have it, but he didn't make it up), and then you get people insisting you phone when you can't . . . well, there comes a breaking point.

The same goes for nontheists. After you've been told for the thousandth time that you can't be moral without believing some boogeyman will punish you if you're bad by people who think it's OK to kill other beings for various reasons, oppress people for being born different, and let people starve because God must not like them if they're working hard but still poor, well, there's that breaking point again.

The minority groups on DU should be about support as much as activism because without support there is no activism. You don't have the energy for it.