This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Do you believe in God?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
I can't speak for everyone, but I assume it's mostly because religion tends to be the root cause of a lot of those things for people. Religion is a very pivotal issue to a great many people in the world and consequently has very real ramifications on how the world is run and how people interact on even a global scale. To view it merely as a personal opinion that doesn't affect anyone else is to do the role of belief in the world disservice.
Interesting. I guess I've worked so hard to grow an understanding of each of the "major" issues, that I have an opinion that I have arguments supporting that don't require "God exists" to be the major part of it. I have reasoning for my standpoints on Earth beyond my personal beliefs, and that's why when it comes to religion, I don't feel it to be a necessary thing for someone to share my beliefs in order to reach common ground.
Post by
Patty
I can't speak for everyone, but I assume it's mostly because religion tends to be the root cause of a lot of those things for people. Religion is a very pivotal issue to a great many people in the world and consequently has very real ramifications on how the world is run and how people interact on even a global scale. To view it merely as a personal opinion that doesn't affect anyone else is to do the role of belief in the world disservice.
Interesting. I guess I've worked so hard to grow an understanding of each of the "major" issues, that I have an opinion that I have arguments supporting that don't require "God exists" to be the major part of it. I have reasoning for my standpoints on Earth beyond my personal beliefs, and that's why when it comes to religion, I don't feel it to be a necessary thing for someone to share my beliefs in order to reach common ground.
I think what Jubilee is discussing is less about the philosophical implications of if "god exists" and more to do with the legacy of Church supremacy from earlier time periods still having a lasting impact on laws, customs and practices right up to the modern world, including that in secular countries such as the US. Not to mention the dominance of other religions in other parts of the world and the way that that religion has impacted on society, both culturally and legally, and continues to do so.
Post by
MyTie
Well, then I'm surprised that that should manifest in negative ways toward Christians in this forum. Is there really a channeling of centuries of rage and political injustice at a couple of people using an internet forum? Since it is legal to rape little girls in foreign countries due to the laws a religious despot, it makes sense that I am called "ignorant" "stupid" "insane" among other things because I believe in God?
Post by
Gone
There's a point where a label, like insanity, is an actual non-insult description for someone, doesn't matter if one takes it as an insult or not. As in, I could say you're insane and not be insulting you, instead, I'm just stating a fact. I think what you said in that post was screwed up the to extreme
Well i think a lot of what you said, a few days ago and just now with this post, is dumb. Does that mean I can call you stupid and have it not be insulting just because I may or may not think it's true?Well, then I'm surprised that that should manifest in negative ways toward Christians in this forum. Is there really a channeling of centuries of rage and political injustice at a couple of people using an internet forum? Since it is legal to rape little girls in foreign countries due to the laws a religious despot, it makes sense that I am called "ignorant" "stupid" "insane" among other things because I believe in God?
If you say something racial, or homophobic, or sexist people tend to jump right on it, but anti religious sentiment gets a pass these days.
I'll never forget this one thread from a few years ago called "Christianity: The Horse that Refuses to Die"
Probably the most volatile religious debate I have taken part in here on Wowhead, and the mods never even bothered to change the title, despite how obviously offensive it was to Christians. If you took the same title and replaced "Christianity" with "homosexuality" or if the thread was somehow intolerant to a race or other ethnicity, it would never have made it to page 2.
Post by
Patty
Well, then I'm surprised that that should manifest in negative ways toward Christians in this forum. Is there really a channeling of centuries of rage and political injustice at a couple of people using an internet forum? Since it is legal to rape little girls in foreign countries due to the laws a religious despot, it makes sense that I am called "ignorant" "stupid" "insane" among other things because I believe in God?
Again, I was discussing Jubilee's post, in which she didn't mention any of those. And it's not a foreign issue, problems such as patriarchy, the continued suppression of queer legal rights equal to their heterosexual peers, etc. are still problems in western society. These, at least partially, stem from church dogma, if not state support from the main religious institution of that country (in secular countries, my primary example being the US, legislature is still massively influenced by the church - indirectly).
The belief in god thing on this forum is probably linked to individuals, who either have grievance with the idea of a god and what those gods are said to stand for, or who literally
cannot
understand the thought process of somebody religious who would, blindly and faithfully, carry out any order their god willed, or both, or some other factor I've not considered. When Christianity has systematically suppressed portions of the population for hundreds of years and those problems remain today in one form or another, the current followers of those religions are a prime target, unfortunately. Especially when said followers (in portions, including some on this forum), would be in favor of the continuation of this suppression. Note this is conjecture, I can't speak for anyone on this matter.
Edit: Probably the most volatile religious debate I have taken part in here on Wowhead, and the mods never even bothered to change the title, despite how obviously offensive it was to Christians. If you took the same title and replaced "Christianity" with "homosexuality" or if the thread was somehow intolerant to a race or other ethnicity, it would never have made it to page 2.Because being a Christian doesn't stop you from enjoying full rights, being gay does. By society at large, you're much more negatively judged on sexuality than on being a Christian.
Just clarifying points, really.
Post by
MyTie
Because being a Christian doesn't stop you from enjoying full rights, being gay does. By society at large, you're much more negatively judged on sexuality than on being a Christian.
Well then it's justified.
Post by
Gone
Edit: Probably the most volatile religious debate I have taken part in here on Wowhead, and the mods never even bothered to change the title, despite how obviously offensive it was to Christians. If you took the same title and replaced "Christianity" with "homosexuality" or if the thread was somehow intolerant to a race or other ethnicity, it would never have made it to page 2.Because being a Christian doesn't stop you from enjoying full rights, being gay does. By society at large, you're much more negatively judged on sexuality than on being a Christian.
Just clarifying points, really.
So intolerance against gays should take priority over intolerance to the religious?
First of all, if you look back at history, there has been just as much oppression of peoples religion as their sexuality. Secondly, in every legal sense, religion, sexuality, race, and gender, are all protected under the same banner. Your post, saying that a persons religion is somehow less sacred or deserving of less protection than their sexual orientation only proves my point.
Post by
Squishalot
Probably the most volatile religious debate I have taken part in here on Wowhead, and the mods never even bothered to change the title, despite how obviously offensive it was to Christians. If you took the same title and replaced "Christianity" with "homosexuality" or if the thread was somehow intolerant to a race or other ethnicity, it would never have made it to page 2.
I'd like to point out, from a moderator's perspective, that we've recently had a thread all about racism which made a goodly number of pages in the last week.
The concept of 'being offensive to <insert group here>' is something that we've discussed as a moderator group. If it's not a direct or implied attack on a person (note - not a group, but a person), then really, it's fair game. I don't think that it's reasonable to police occasions where something is offensive to 'Christians' or 'Atheists' or 'Asians' or 'CNN viewers'.
At the end of the day, the volatility of religious debate depends entirely on the respect of people within the thread. If people respect each other and their beliefs, you can have a
good discussion
.
Post by
Gone
Probably the most volatile religious debate I have taken part in here on Wowhead, and the mods never even bothered to change the title, despite how obviously offensive it was to Christians. If you took the same title and replaced "Christianity" with "homosexuality" or if the thread was somehow intolerant to a race or other ethnicity, it would never have made it to page 2.
I'd like to point out, from a moderator's perspective, that we've recently had a thread all about racism which made a goodly number of pages in the last week.
And if I am remembering right, you guys made him change the title like three times, and the thread was about the use of a word, it wasn't an attack on any particular group. The thread I mentioned from a few years ago was started as a specific attack against Christianity, and the title itself was even worded thus.
I'll ask you honestly, if somebody started a thread that was titled "Homosexuality: The Horse that Refuses to Die" and when you opened up the thread the topic was blatantly anti gay, would you really let it keep going? I don't think I'm being presumptuous when I say that you guys would at least make whoever made it change the title to something less offensive.
Post by
Skreeran
Edit: Probably the most volatile religious debate I have taken part in here on Wowhead, and the mods never even bothered to change the title, despite how obviously offensive it was to Christians. If you took the same title and replaced "Christianity" with "homosexuality" or if the thread was somehow intolerant to a race or other ethnicity, it would never have made it to page 2.Because being a Christian doesn't stop you from enjoying full rights, being gay does. By society at large, you're much more negatively judged on sexuality than on being a Christian.
Just clarifying points, really.
So intolerance against gays should take priority over intolerance to the religious?
First of all, if you look back at history, there has been just as much oppression of peoples religion as their sexuality. Secondly, in every legal sense, religion, sexuality, race, and gender, are all protected under the same banner. Your post, saying that a persons religion is somehow less sacred or deserving of less protection than their sexual orientation only proves my point.No, he's not saying that. All he's saying is that by and large, Christianity is socially acceptable. It doesn't need me or Patty to come to its defense. If it were in the minority (as it is in, say, Egypt) then we'd generally be more eager to defend it. That's why whenever Islam or Wicca gets slandered here in Texas (often by my own father), I will jump to its defense, despite not being a follower of those religions, just like I'll jump to the defense of homosexuals, despite not being gay.
Heterosexuals, Christians, Whites, Men, and Sports are already socially acceptable, and only criticized infrequently in small amounts. I don't need to defend their merit because they're already accepted by almost everyone. It's the minorities that are threatened and thus the minorities that need defending from the majorities.
Post by
Gone
Edit: Probably the most volatile religious debate I have taken part in here on Wowhead, and the mods never even bothered to change the title, despite how obviously offensive it was to Christians. If you took the same title and replaced "Christianity" with "homosexuality" or if the thread was somehow intolerant to a race or other ethnicity, it would never have made it to page 2.Because being a Christian doesn't stop you from enjoying full rights, being gay does. By society at large, you're much more negatively judged on sexuality than on being a Christian.
Just clarifying points, really.
So intolerance against gays should take priority over intolerance to the religious?
First of all, if you look back at history, there has been just as much oppression of peoples religion as their sexuality. Secondly, in every legal sense, religion, sexuality, race, and gender, are all protected under the same banner. Your post, saying that a persons religion is somehow less sacred or deserving of less protection than their sexual orientation only proves my point.No, he's not saying that. All he's saying is that by and large, Christianity is socially acceptable. It doesn't need me or Patty to come to its defense. If it were in the minority (as it is in, say, Egypt) then we'd generally be more eager to defend it. That's why whenever Islam or Wicca gets slandered here in Texas (often by my own father), I will jump to its defense, despite not being a follower of those religions, just like I'll jump to the defense of homosexuals, despite not being gay.
Heterosexuals, Christians, Whites, Men, and Sports are already socially acceptable, and only criticized infrequently in small amounts. I don't need to defend their merit because they're already accepted by almost everyone. It's the minorities that are threatened and thus the minorities that need defending from the majorities.
I've had different experiences than that. The group of people I hung out with in high school constantly made me feel like an outsider because of my religious views. To them Christians were all intolerant uneducated ***holes. And I didn't even talk about it that much. If I were one of those people who carries around a Bible and whips it out to read at the lunch table, I probably would have been even more openly ridiculed.
Hell even more recently, I had a philosophy professor who would take a good half hour of every class to go on about how religion, especially Christianity and Islam, are antiquated beliefs that we should be evolving out of any day now. He assigned us the book of Job just so he could dedicate a lesson to how much of a d**k God is. And one girl mentioned she had a Bible app on her phone, to which he replied "that's disgusting."
I live in probably the second bluest state in the country, around here you are a lot more likely to be ridiculed for being openly Christian than you are for being gay, or certainly for being a racial minority. The fact that in the US Christians are in the majority does not in any way mean that their religion is any less deserving of protection than a persons race, gender, or sexuality.
Post by
Squishalot
I'll ask you honestly, if somebody started a thread that was titled "Homosexuality: The Horse that Refuses to Die" and when you opened up the thread the topic was blatantly anti gay, would you really let it keep going? I don't think I'm being presumptuous when I say that you guys would at least make whoever made it change the title to something less offensive.
There are two things to consider here - firstly, moderation policy has changed quite a bit from a few years ago. Certainly, the more active moderation team (asakawa, Hat, Sas, Elhonna) are all 'new' moderators who have joined in the last 1-2 years.
The second thing is that homosexuality is not comparable with Christianity. If it was "Atheism: The Horse that Refuses to Die", for example, I don't think I'd have any issues about it.
Post by
Skreeran
Well, I suppose our experiences are different then, because I live in Texas. Segregation might as well still be in effect.
Post by
Patty
Edit: Probably the most volatile religious debate I have taken part in here on Wowhead, and the mods never even bothered to change the title, despite how obviously offensive it was to Christians. If you took the same title and replaced "Christianity" with "homosexuality" or if the thread was somehow intolerant to a race or other ethnicity, it would never have made it to page 2.Because being a Christian doesn't stop you from enjoying full rights, being gay does. By society at large, you're much more negatively judged on sexuality than on being a Christian.
Just clarifying points, really.
So intolerance against gays should take priority over intolerance to the religious?
First of all, if you look back at history, there has been just as much oppression of peoples religion as their sexuality. Secondly, in every legal sense, religion, sexuality, race, and gender, are all protected under the same banner. Your post, saying that a persons religion is somehow less sacred or deserving of less protection than their sexual orientation only proves my point.No, he's not saying that. All he's saying is that by and large, Christianity is socially acceptable. It doesn't need me or Patty to come to its defense. If it were in the minority (as it is in, say, Egypt) then we'd generally be more eager to defend it. That's why whenever Islam or Wicca gets slandered here in Texas (often by my own father), I will jump to its defense, despite not being a follower of those religions, just like I'll jump to the defense of homosexuals, despite not being gay.
Heterosexuals, Christians, Whites, Men, and Sports are already socially acceptable, and only criticized infrequently in small amounts. I don't need to defend their merit because they're already accepted by almost everyone. It's the minorities that are threatened and thus the minorities that need defending from the majorities.
I've had different experiences than that. The group of people I hung out with in high school constantly made me feel like an outsider because of my religious views. To them Christians were all intolerant uneducated ***holes. And I didn't even talk about it that much. If I were one of those people who carries around a Bible and whips it out to read at the lunch table, I probably would have been even more openly ridiculed.
Hell even more recently, I had a philosophy professor who would take a good half hour of every class to go on about how religion, especially Christianity and Islam, are antiquated beliefs that we should be evolving out of any day now. He assigned us the book of Job just so he could dedicate a lesson to how much of a d**k God is. And one girl mentioned she had a Bible app on her phone, to which he replied "that's disgusting."
I live in probably the second bluest state in the country, around here you are a lot more likely to be ridiculed for being openly Christian than you are for being gay, or certainly for being a racial minority. The fact that in the US Christians are in the minority does not in any way mean that their religion is any less deserving of protection than a persons race, gender, or sexuality.
Okay, here are some very simple examples, pretty much off the top of my head.
Legal rights: Christians can get married all over the US, gays cannot -
in some states we are seeing proposals for an increased repression of homosexuality
. Economic factors: as I've highlighted in the racism thread, there is still a massive disproportionate amount of wealth amassed in a white population, that has less to do with religion. The glass ceiling also still exists for women. DADT was only recently repealed. Bad experiences with Christians, as well as a bad press from groups such as Westboro, are in no way comparable to the systematic oppression of minorities and women.
Once Christians and queers (by which I mean anything non-heterosexual), women and racial minorities (and religious minorities, it has to be noted) enjoy the same level of legal, economic and social equality - then we can start talking about problems of being a white Christian male in society equivalent to those of a gay person. It's really that simple.
Post by
Gone
Okay, here are some very simple examples, pretty much off the top of my head.
Legal rights: Christians can get married all over the US, gays cannot -
in some states we are seeing proposals for an increased repression of homosexuality
. Economic factors: as I've highlighted in the racism thread, there is still a massive disproportionate amount of wealth amassed in a white population, that has less to do with religion. The glass ceiling also still exists for women. DADT was only recently repealed. Bad experiences with Christians, as well as a bad press from groups such as Westboro, are in no way comparable to the systematic oppression of minorities and women.
Once Christians and queers (by which I mean anything non-heterosexual), women and racial minorities (and religious minorities, it has to be noted) enjoy the same level of legal, economic and social equality - then we can start talking about problems of being a white Christian male in society equivalent to those of a gay person. It's really that simple.
I understand what you're saying, that gays still have less rights as opposed to heterosexuals, and that in much of the western world being Christian doesn't effect peoples rights. I'm saying that this does not matter. Anti gay sentiment and anti religious sentiment should both be held to the same standard, the fact that one is still farther down the ladder of social acceptance than the other is irrelevant. Any intolerance of homosexuality or religion should be considered abhorrent, by making intolerance of homosexuality more so, you in turn make intolerance of a persons faith less of a priority, and more acceptable.
I'm saying that attacking a persons faith or sexual orientation should be absolutely prohibited. Rather than one being prohibited, and the other also being prohibited but slightly less so. Both should be absolute.
The second thing is that homosexuality is not comparable with Christianity. If it was "Atheism: The Horse that Refuses to Die", for example, I don't think I'd have any issues about it.
To me that mentality is part of the problem. Race, gender, sexual orientation, these things are all largely considered to be beyond a persons choice, and protected against persecution, at least where I'm from. But religion is afforded that same protection less and less lately. It seems like it's becoming more acceptable to attack peoples religion these days.
Post by
Skreeran
Funnily enough, DADT was repealed when I was in Basic. In AIT I met my first openly gay soldier.
It was funny actually, because one Saturday evening he came back to formation announcing that he'd gotten laid that night. I was about to give him a high-five and then though better for it. I verbally congratulated him instead. :P
I understand what you're saying, that gays still have less rights as opposed to heterosexuals, and that in much of the western world being Christian doesn't effect peoples rights. I'm saying that this does not matter. Anti gay sentiment and anti religious sentiment should both be held to the same standard, the fact that one is still farther down the ladder of social acceptance than the other is irrelevant. Any intolerance of homosexuality or religion should be considered abhorrent, by making intolerance of homosexuality more so, you in turn make intolerance of a persons faith less of a priority, and more acceptable.Again, though, in most places WASPs don't really need defense, because they are already in the majority. It's the people who lack it that we're fighting for tolerance for.
If in twenty years Christians are the minority where I live, I'll make sure to defend you too.
Post by
Gone
Funnily enough, DADT was repealed when I was in Basic. In AIT I met my first openly gay soldier.
It was funny actually, because one Saturday evening he came back to formation announcing that he'd gotten laid that night. I was about to give him a high-five and then though better for it. I verbally congratulated him instead. :P
I understand what you're saying, that gays still have less rights as opposed to heterosexuals, and that in much of the western world being Christian doesn't effect peoples rights. I'm saying that this does not matter. Anti gay sentiment and anti religious sentiment should both be held to the same standard, the fact that one is still farther down the ladder of social acceptance than the other is irrelevant. Any intolerance of homosexuality or religion should be considered abhorrent, by making intolerance of homosexuality more so, you in turn make intolerance of a persons faith less of a priority, and more acceptable.Again, though, in most places WASPs don't really need defense, because they are already in the majority. It's the people who lack it that we're fighting for tolerance for.
If in twenty years Christians are the minority where I live, I'll make sure to defend you too.
I'm not talking about defending it. I'm saying that when an incident of an attack against a religion or a religious person pops up, that it is afforded the same level of seriousness one would apply to an attack against a persons race, gender, or sexual orientation.
To give an example, at this point gender equality is pretty well established in most of the US, but sexism is still taken very seriously when it occurs, even though it is nowhere near the same problem it was 50 years ago.
Basically what i'm saying is that it shouldn't matter what the minority is. Any cases of intolerance should be quashed with equal prejudice, no pun intended.
Post by
Patty
Okay, here are some very simple examples, pretty much off the top of my head.
Legal rights: Christians can get married all over the US, gays cannot -
in some states we are seeing proposals for an increased repression of homosexuality
. Economic factors: as I've highlighted in the racism thread, there is still a massive disproportionate amount of wealth amassed in a white population, that has less to do with religion. The glass ceiling also still exists for women. DADT was only recently repealed. Bad experiences with Christians, as well as a bad press from groups such as Westboro, are in no way comparable to the systematic oppression of minorities and women.
Once Christians and queers (by which I mean anything non-heterosexual), women and racial minorities (and religious minorities, it has to be noted) enjoy the same level of legal, economic and social equality - then we can start talking about problems of being a white Christian male in society equivalent to those of a gay person. It's really that simple.
I understand what you're saying, that gays still have less rights as opposed to heterosexuals, and that in much of the western world being Christian doesn't effect peoples rights.
I'm saying that this does not matter.
Anti gay sentiment and anti religious sentiment should both be held to the same standard, the fact that one is still farther down the ladder of social acceptance than the other is irrelevant. Any intolerance of homosexuality or religion should be considered abhorrent, by making intolerance of homosexuality more so, you in turn make intolerance of a persons faith less of a priority, and more acceptable.
I'm saying that attacking a persons faith or sexual orientation should be absolutely prohibited. Rather than one being prohibited, and the other also being prohibited but slightly less so. Both should be absolute.
Rather, it is the crux of the issue. Why defend something not in need of defending at all as it is socially acceptable, doesn't impinge your rights or anything like that, when there is something being systematically prohibited and limited that does need protection to be established for its practice? In an ideal world, your views are fine. In practice, all it really does is extend the survival of the oppressing hierarchy.
Post by
Skreeran
Are you talking about in real life or on the forum? Because in real life I can't really think of any anti-christian acts that weren't answered with just as much or more derision as anti-gay, for example. Yes, there's the crowd of people who defend anti-christian acts, but they're generally the same people who defend Christopher Dorner.
On the forum, I'm not sure what to say. I'd probably stand with Squish (now there's something I never thought I'd see) when I say that someone saying something that's "offensive to atheists/christians/democrats" (that is, an idealogy) is a different matter than saying something that's offensive to homosexuals/mexicans/woman (that is, something you're born with).
Post by
Gone
Okay, here are some very simple examples, pretty much off the top of my head.
Legal rights: Christians can get married all over the US, gays cannot -
in some states we are seeing proposals for an increased repression of homosexuality
. Economic factors: as I've highlighted in the racism thread, there is still a massive disproportionate amount of wealth amassed in a white population, that has less to do with religion. The glass ceiling also still exists for women. DADT was only recently repealed. Bad experiences with Christians, as well as a bad press from groups such as Westboro, are in no way comparable to the systematic oppression of minorities and women.
Once Christians and queers (by which I mean anything non-heterosexual), women and racial minorities (and religious minorities, it has to be noted) enjoy the same level of legal, economic and social equality - then we can start talking about problems of being a white Christian male in society equivalent to those of a gay person. It's really that simple.
I understand what you're saying, that gays still have less rights as opposed to heterosexuals, and that in much of the western world being Christian doesn't effect peoples rights.
I'm saying that this does not matter.
Anti gay sentiment and anti religious sentiment should both be held to the same standard, the fact that one is still farther down the ladder of social acceptance than the other is irrelevant. Any intolerance of homosexuality or religion should be considered abhorrent, by making intolerance of homosexuality more so, you in turn make intolerance of a persons faith less of a priority, and more acceptable.
I'm saying that attacking a persons faith or sexual orientation should be absolutely prohibited. Rather than one being prohibited, and the other also being prohibited but slightly less so. Both should be absolute.
Rather, it is the crux of the issue. Why defend something not in need of defending at all as it is socially acceptable, doesn't impinge your rights or anything like that, when there is something being systematically prohibited and limited that does need protection to be established for its practice?
Why are you acting like defending a persons religion somehow prevents people from defending minorities? Is there a quota on how many of a persons rights we can defend every year?
And I'm not just talking about Christianity, also Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, Animists, Pagans, even Atheists. All of these fall under the banner of "religious views" and all should be protected to an equal degree, and this should also be a degree of equal protection with sexual orientation, race, and gender.
Basically what you are saying is that the oppressed minorities should hold precedence over the majority in terms of protection. I'm saying that's horse ^&*! and all people of any faith, race, gender, and sexual orientation should enjoy equal protection from prejudice.
If somebody points at a gay man and says "look at the f**" and another person points at a Mulsim and say "look at the towel head" and a third person points at a Christian and says "Look at the Bible thumping idiot", all three of these insults should be considered a crime of equal proportion. Whether it's being said in the US or the mid east, or on the internet.
On the forum, I'm not sure what to say. I'd probably stand with Squish (now there's something I never thought I'd see) when I say that someone saying something that's "offensive to atheists/christians/democrats" (that is, an idealogy) is a different matter than saying something that's offensive to homosexuals/mexicans/woman (that is, something you're born with).
That's what I disagree with. I think that a persons faith should be considered the same as their race, and not in teh same category as political views.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.