Anti-Religious Trolling On Mumsnet

Bertrand, 'When should MN intervene?'

Tricky, of course I would prefer that they didn't have to. However, since you are asking,

1. personal derogatory comments / insults. This should not happen anyway. If the defence is the poster is aiming the comment at a religion, this should be made very clear - so no ' You are not rational because you act in faith,' because this does not recognise the whole person. However saying 'Acting in faith is not exercising reason,' is arguably ok.

2. If a poster fills up a thread with questions, unrelated to a topic, maybe a warning / suggestion that poster starts a new thread for those questions. (Something happens like this on 'Ship of Fools', I think, as far as I can gather).

3. Regarding the making a 'straw man' of someone's beliefs - difficult to stop, although it is annoying. People do have different perceptions. The only thing that I think it would be possible to moderate would be repeated comments which state, 'You believe,' or ' You are' - posters cannot legitimately make claims concerning other posters.

"So I've always said here, I have no problem with people saying they do no respect my beliefs. When they say that but are kind to me and do not attack me as a person there is no issue. When they say they do not respect my beliefs and then go on to be little me, spew hatred at me then I have an issue with that"

I agree. It I don't think I have ever seen anyone "spew hatred" on a Mumsnet thread. I can only assume you must mean something different to me by that phrase. Could you give some examples?

Disrespecting faith and disrespecting people are different things. I disrespect tory ideology and make no bones of it, but don't spit hatred at the tory person - I believe in showing respect to a person even if their values repulse me (that doesn't mean I agree with the person but that I have a standard I apply in interaction with folk.)

So I've always said here, I have no problem with people saying they do no respect my beliefs. When they say that but are kind to me and do not attack me as a person there is no issue. When they say they do not respect my beliefs and then go on to be little me, spew hatred at me then I have an issue with that (esp via PM which has happened sadly.)

In general, a little kindness goes a long way, but we should all have the right to share our views about what we do not believe and what we think is plain wrong or damaging. But can we do that while valuing the person?

flying spaghetti monster'

The Flying Spaghetti Monster was invented to highlight the absurdity of religious respect. If I remember rightly some guy made the religion up and claimed his faith requires him to wear a colander on his head. The authorities subsequently had to allow him to have a colander on his head in his driving license photo.

When people refer to the fsm it's about highlighting that there is no way to determine which religions are valid as all have the same weight behind them, that of human opinion.

Right. Maybe we're getting somewhere. What particular things do you think Mumsnet should intervene over? Could you give some examples?

Outwith

I can't see anything on the mumsnet talk guidelines that would prevent me from disrespecting faith or religion. Personal attacks are not allowed, but disrespecting faith or religion is hardly that.

Would I be stopped from disrespecting the conservative party because some people are members?

pearly you can choose to disrespect anything you want to, however the question is whether MN should let you post disrespectfully on it's site without intervention.

So what is the point of this thread?

If the Tin Man would acknowledge that the Scarecrow has a brain
And the Scarecrow would acknowledge that the Tin Man has a heart
Things would be much more harmonious on the Yellow Brick Road

< Just my two bits worth as I have my morning cup of >

Of course I can disrespect faith.

I read 'beliefs' there to mean religious beliefs, which would mean the main faiths.

I wouldn't dream of comparing those to horoscopes, which AFAIK are never counted as a religion. I don't think that making comparisons which appear to be intended to trivialise, obfuscate or just use reductio ad absurbam to be particularly helpful.

"I would suggest that the Catholic church's stance on contraception is intrinsically harmful- should I respect that?"

You can still disagree with, and even campaign against, individual policies of the church without disrespecting the faith (after all, thousands of Catholics do precisely that on this issue) or using terms which offend its adherents.

I think trying to be kind, is a good starting point. Jumping in with derogatory comments over a poster's intelligence only based only on them stating a religious belief is rather prejudiced IMO.

Also, discussion should focus on what posters say they believe (if that what the thread is about) rather than another poster's perception of a particular set of religious beliefs. Posters cannot really answer for other's beliefs. I have said before, I think a 'straw man' gets built out of poster's Christian beliefs on here, the beliefs they are often repeatedly challenged on, bear no relation to the beliefs they possess. Which is unfair.

Added to this, whilst a little diversion, on a thread, might be interesting just coming on to globally challenge Christianity and ask questions, only in order to challenge religious belief, when the purpose of the thread was discuss an aspect of worship, does close down discussion - it means religious posters cannot discuss aspects of faith without constant interruption.

No, it isn't disingenuous, Soup. You said, without qualification, "Perhaps people should just promise to treat other people's beliefs with respect. That would solve the problem." You now seem to be saying that actually you don't think all beliefs should be treated with respect. So where do you draw the dividing line? Is it only the mainstream religions? Only single deity religions? Only Christian religions? And what about the fact that few if any of those religions have a history that is fully worthy of respect? Should we respect Christianity for the good things but feel free to disrespect it for burning people at the stake and looking the other way in relation to paedophile priests?

The point is that nothing is worthy of automatic respect purely because people choose to believe in it.

I would suggest that the Catholic church's stance on contraception is intrinsically harmful- should I respect that?

That example is intrinsically harmful though headinhands.

If someone believes that people called Paul are descended from lizards then you nod and smile, or say "I believe that to be untrue, and may I refer you to the DNA research on the subject?" At the point where they say "and therefore shouldn't have access to the NHS", that's the point where you say "fuck off, that's fucking batshit".

Oh FFS.

Only the terminally thick wouldn't understand what that means.

There is a difference between saying you think something is bonkers and being rude and offensive about it.

But you carry on being disingenuous.

OK.

"Treat other people's beliefs with respect" What does that mean? All beliefs? Horoscopes? Does treating them with respect mean not criticizing either the beliefs or actions carried out in their name? Can I not say that I think the practices of some faiths are barbaric- cutting off the hands of thieves, for example? Or the Christian churches hierarchies' response to child abuse? Can I say that is unforgivable? What about reading tea leaves? Can I say that's bonkers?

Any belief whatsoever? What about Satanism? What about those strange religions where they decide that children are possessed by the devil and should be sacrificed for that reason? I'm definitely going to struggle to treat those beliefs with respect. And I'm really not prepared to respect people who commit terrorist acts in the name of religion either.

Perhaps people should just promise to treat other people's beliefs with respect.

That's not workable. While I can respect your right to have an opinion, I cannot respect your opinion if I think it's wrong/silly/harmful.

Would you respect my opinion that everyone called Paul is secretly part of a Paul movement and will one day rise up to dominate all non-Pauls into subservience? And you would say 'yes I respect your opinion?'

Religion is a tool of oppression.
The power of the church needs questioning.

My kids attend a campus school. Children of the same community attend two different schools, purposely built to accommodate the catholic school and the non denominational school. They share dining facilities, but the hall is screened off so that catholics sit in one area and non- doms the other.
The playground has a high fence splitting the two school communities.
Beginning and end of school days are staggered to prevent the children coming into too much contact with each other, as fights often develop. These are children living in the same street together, but divided by religion.
The church is responsible for creating divisions within our community.

THis is bat shit. I have zero respect for the church, and their idols.

Headinhands: I haven't generally allowed myself to become overly riled by the use of 'sky fairy' or 'flying spaghetti monster' or the like, because I've taken the general stance that my God can take it, I can take it. However, I do think they are derogatory terms and can become somewhat wearing after the nth time of reading, and a always appreciated debate with people like you and Bertrand for the specific reason that you don't tend to stoop to the levels of such lazy language.

I think the reason they are inflammatory is as lovely says; they implicitly imply a delusion on the part of the person of faith, no, more than that, an idiocy, a dimwittedness. The terms say that a person believing in God are stupid - their belief is as valid as belief in . Now, I'm aware that people think we are this stupid, and am not actually saying that you should not be allowed to communicate your complete incomprehension at our choices, but if you can do that without insult (as you and Bertrand tend not to) then that would be well received and actually make for much better and more focused debate.

To Bertrand's question: yes, I do see people of faith occasionally attacking atheists and am just as uncomfortable about this. I have to be honest, though, I haven't seen much of the equivalent to the derogatory terms which are the main focus of this thread - not much implication that the atheist is stupid/mentally challenged/has no cogent thought process of their own. Maybe there has been such that I haven't seen.

I have noticed some comments along the line of what you mention - the suck up a little Christianity thing and yes minimising your discomfort with it and try to avoid that myself because I know your feelings are strong and therefore I do my best to honour them and sorry if I fail sometimes.

I do think there are a few deliberately GF posters on mn who come on religion threads to play havoc and ruin it for those who want to debate with politeness and respect, and I do think mn are not always quick to address these posts.

Say people promise never to say "sky fairy" ever again. Or "imaginary friend"

Would that sort the problem?

Perhaps people should just promise to treat other people's beliefs with respect. That would solve the problem.

Atheists are just as likely to be rude and uncouth as any other sort of people. But I don't think there are any who think that as atheists they should mock and be rude to people of faith.

However, I think the right to be challenging to and, yes, be rude about actual beliefs is an important one.

Incidentally, think what you like about Richard Dawkins, and think that he has written some excellent books (his children's book, The Magic of Reality is wonderful) but is a mysogynist git, he is a proper equal opportunities God-Basher.

may still fall foul of the Equalities Act.

At what point should we involve the police?

You need to read the Equalities Act.

Do you feel that people who use the term sky fairy should be prosecuted?