Anti-Religious Trolling On Mumsnet

MUMSNET HQ have an interesting conundrum. If they try and insist on basic netiquette which is based around mutual respect for the person behind the screen then they will upset some anti theists who insist that people of faith should not be respected. Richard Dawkins was quite clear that people of religion should be mocked and ridiculed.

However this sort of behaviour, where it takes a brave person to post on religious issues on this website because of the constant derailing by those hostile to Christianity, as being hostile to other faiths is more obvious, may still fall foul of the Equalities Act.

Ok. right.

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

Would that sort the problem?

Sky fairy is clearly intentionally rude. In the context of a thread about routine religiously motivated circumcision, or where three quarters of the state primary schools in your borough select on grounds of religion meaning that atheists' children have to commute to the other side of London, then I can see why posters want to use it to point the idea that these things are being done in the name of a supernatural being they find ludicrous.

In the context of other posters simply talking about their belief in God then it's really not on.

" don't think this one insult is the main point of the thread at all, though. I was just responding to one question"

So what is the point of this thread? I don't think I know. What specifically do people of faith want?

Ok, this, I think, is why the term "sky-fairy" is offensive to some theists.

It uses trivial imagery to describe something they see as very important. While I know some people believe in fairies, I don't think anybody worships them, believes they are omnipotent, etc. Most people would think of them as tiny, fictional creatures who appear in toys and books for children (the flower fairies, etc). Obviously, these creatures are much more limited in scope, power, goodness, everything, than people believe their God to be, to the point that the comparison seems offensive and absurd.

Also, the prefix "sky" appears to link to the belief, sometimes held by small children (for example my own three year old is adamant about this - must be from pictures in books) that God lives, and has Heaven, up in the clouds. As most adult Christians I know do not believe Heaven is literally up above us in the clouds, this seems deliberately infantilising.

I could go on. The point is, if people don't wish to offend, there is no need to use a metaphor at all. Just say something like "your god" or "the god you believe in", or, if that gives the concept too much existence, something like "your notion of a god", "your false belief in a god". It's easy to ditch the fairies!

I don't think this one insult is the main point of the thread at all, though. I was just responding to one question.

The only reason someone would use the term "sky fairy" is to be offensive and deliberately goading. Otherwise they would simply use the term your God or just God.

Because it is.

Nope. You can explain why a racial slur is offensive as its tied up with tones of societal dominance/hostility and concerns a non-chosen aspect of an individual.

Conversely the term sky fairy isn't what someone calls a believer, it's how they describe a God who can't be seen who helps his followers. So why get upset? Can't a god tolerate being likened to a sky fairy? Or does the God get upset? And that's why people don't want it being used?

No I get that people are offended and it's not something I've used but just wondered if there was something about the actual words/description.

"I do not want to see any form of religion based bigotry getting hold in UK. And that means mutual respect and tolerance. But I do realise that not everyone holds the same views."

And no criticism?

(I'm actually perturbed by that comparison but still working it out)"

Pressed 'post' too soon.

You need to read the Equalities Act. The comparison is in law.

And whether something causes offence is determined by the people of that group. Not the people who wish to use the offensive term.

Though of course if you want a closer comparison, then you could consider the rise of anti-religion hate speech (sometimes masked by 'I can't see anything wrong with it') is the rise of (neo-nazi) anti-smitten that is creeping across part of Europe. And consider the role of offensive language in that.

I do not want to see any form of religion based bigotry getting hold in UK. And that means mutual respect and tolerance. But I do realise that not everyone holds the same views.

Could the theists who don't like the term sky fairy explain why it is offensive.

I'm an atheist and even i find it offensive. Perhaps because I think it is incredibly rude to ridicule someone else and their beliefs in that way and have the decency not to do it.

Do you go around mocking people because of, say, their weight? I suspect not. So why do you think it's OK to mock people because of a faith that gives them comfort and a sense of wellbeing?

Because it is.

The victim does not have to explain their feelings. Any more than someone has to explain why some racial descriptors cause thrm offence and other don't.

You can either respect diversity, which means respecting the groups to which you do not belong and not banging on about terminology that you have repeatedly been told is offensive. Or you can continue, and in doing so look like a bigot.

Could the theists who don't like the term sky fairy explain why it is offensive.

I'm having difficulty seeing it's use akin to someone using a racist term. (I'm actually perturbed by that comparison but still working it out)

As I've said before, I don't use the sky fairy/imaginary friend memes. I think they are a bit silly and unoriginal. I think people use them sometimes because some Christians seem to find it hard to believe that some people really don't believe at all. Not even a little bit. We are very often told variations on the theme of "Oh, a little bit of Christianity won't do you any harm" and that can be very frustrating. It then becomes even more frustrating if we give in to a testy response and get called out as bullies.

Dione - You must have missed my post on another thread saying that I don't take discussions off threads and onto PM.

Bertrand, here is my answer to you, for what it is worth, as a person of faith: no.
Of course it is not a one way street. Just as I believe all people should be free to worship, in the faith of their choice, I similarly believe no one should be forced, or expected, to subscribe to any faith. All should be free and equal. And any hatred, belittling, ridicule, anything like it, directed towards atheists, is just as appalling as any directed towards those with faith.
It should all be absent from these boards (and from general life) in my opinion. Yes, we need to be free to discuss and debate our views, but no one should feel hated, hounded or bullied for who/what they are. Maybe it's time to listen carefully to each other, and if other groups are saying, this particular approach, or term, is especially hurtful to us, for the rest of us to listen, accept that, and stop using it.

i don't think I personally have ever said anything offensive about people of faith. Obviously some people have, and they shouldn't.

I would be very interested to know whether people of faith think the offensiveness, belittling, minimizing ans shutting down is an entirely one way street.

I think some people believe debate is all about bigotry. Because they believe they are right, and others are wrong, and there is no grey area. They believe that debates are about winning and defeating the other point of view, giving no ground whatsoever.

She is however entirely correct that, with characteristics protected under the Equalities Act - and indeed all anti-bullying policies in general - it is the group or individual who is on the receiving end whose views matter. After all, men don't get to define whether a comment is offensively sexist, nor is a person who uses a racist term excused because they think it's OK.

And people who persist in using offensive terms are displaying bigotry.

It's perfectly possible to debate without bigotry. But some people don't get that.

Itsmine- you post illustrates my point perfectly.

The most important thing about any society is that it allows its citizens to criticise and question EVERYTHING.... religious belief, political ideology, everything - nothing should be safe from questioning. BUT, that doesn't mean that individuals should be attacked. It does make me worry when I see people calling for others 'not to offend religious beliefs' - I see no reason for any ideology not to be questioned. Very dangerous road that!

"There have been countless, countless threads on that very topic"

I know there have. And there has not been one where people of faith have not dismissed and minimized other people's feelings, accused them of "jealousy" and told them to "deal with it"

On one somebody actually said that " You could all go to church if you wanted to"

So you'll forgive me if I don't get too exercised by the occasional disobliging remark directed at Christians...........

There are plenty of opportunities to have those conversations. Plenty of Christian are secularists. I can't imagine why you'd want to imply otherwise.
And sky fairy etc is rude and offensive. In your opinion it is accurate. Just like paki is only short for Pakistani, and anyway natiomality is only a human construct and it would be better if no one had any truck with it because history and wars and force for darkness.
You might say that, but we all know words matter and deliberately choosing the inflammatory word marks you out as someone who wants to provoke.
Generic you, for clarification