Anti-Religious Trolling On Mumsnet

[DioneTheDiabolist]

I get that not everyone is religious and that some people are very anti-religious (some with good reasons).

But some MNetters are religious, others are simply curious. So how come so many threads are allowed to be derailed by anti-religious trolls? Today a thread about Good Friday was deleted because a troll came on. FFS, it's Easter! Threads about Islam are regularly derailed by Islamophobes. On a thread seeking information on Judaism in the Philosophy & Religion topic, a troll has posted LMFAO. Ok, serious question, why does the Jewish God make all men wear a funny beards? She continues venting for a few posts before eventually exiting the thread saying that she is on drugs because It's Easter, party time.

She is a MN regular, like most of the anti-religious trolls here. I have reported her posts but they still stand.

Trolls are not interested in knowing what other people think or believe. They have no desire to discuss the point of actual threads and rarely start threads of their own regarding their issues with religion or belief. They just derail threads in the hope of driving all talk of religion and different beliefs off MN. And they are succeeding.

Why are MNHQ allowing this to happen? Deleting threads instead of dealing with posters? Allowing blatant anti-religious trolling to derail threads that people may find supportive or informative? Is MN a religion free zone? Because if it is, that's ok. I just think that religious posters should be told. Then they can go elsewhere if they wish to discuss their beliefs.

Oh, easily. But I am not saying, despite what silver birch appears to think , that others would not come to the same decisions without my religion. I am sure they would and they would do it better . I just need it to remind myself to behave with love and charity and forbearance and reasonable self sacrifice, to say sorry. You need to understand that I am not a nice person but v egocentric.

As needmoresleep knows, I have a difficult home life. Without my religion I would have given up even more on my marriage vows. I would undoubtedly be a worse less loving parent, even than I am now, which isn't very good. I would have ignored the demands of my mother. I would instead be either dead or much much more successful, and that isn't wishful thinking, I've had to sacrifice a lot for my family. And in some ways I might be happier, certainly if I were dead, I don't know, but would have left, I think, a trail of destruction in my family and professionally too.

As I say, the person of morals but no religion could equally well have come to these decisions, or not, but I am sure if they did they would have done them with better grace! I think my decisions were on balance right, but it's certainly arguable. What I do know is that I have looked at the decisions in three ways, analytically, morally, with the religious addition. The morals and religion usually have the same outcome. But I know that I personally might not have followed that decision were it not for my religion. That just makes me weak, morally, I agree. But my religion reminds me to love my neighbour as myself and I personally need that reminder. But my friend x, atheist, doesn't need that reminder. She us one if the most moral people I know. Always has been. Ever since she was 12. I love and admire her but can't emulate her.

Here endeth the very boring essay.

The wrong colour? Do you mean the centurions daughter? The occupying forces... But he did heal her....

Judge as applied to people...you, me, the op, etc.

there's a great poem called the light if Asia, and if you read about the Buddha you find this attitude there too, compassion. It's interesting that the same threads around compassion tend to come through at broadly the same period of development. It's one of the things I love about Islam, that it is specific that God is merciful, compassionate. We , just, as humans fail to live up to that.

"Would you say it was ok if someone talked with disain about, say, islam including 'sky fairies' and other terms or do you have any equality and diversity awareness and realise it would show intolerance?"

I talk about all religions in exactly the same way. I am more knowledgable about Christianity than any other so I cargo into more detail, but I have exactly the same feelings for them all.

However because I live in the UK, Chrietianity is the religion that impacts on my life, and which holds a position of privilege, so I have practical as well as philosophical objections.

I find it very interesting that.Chirsitans very rarely want to address the real debate that has to he had about privilege, but choose to focus on the few people who say disobliging things "Can we talk about the issue of faith school admissions policies?" "No- there's this much more important issue to fill a thread with- somebody called my god my imaginary friend!"

Betrand, I've always thought that that is because the settlement was a political one, could be changed, by politics, but neither of the major parties is prepared to take it on, or has been, perhaps JC might. Wonder if Sturgeon would?

"Can we talk about the issue of faith school admissions policies?"

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

This is the first thread I've seen on site stuff that specifically addresses the sky fairy name calling, etc and yet you want to turn this thread into yet another one bemoaning the lack of a secular society.

You've had that thread already. This is about another subject, which the OP and rather a few others think is important.

If you don't think this subject is important enough, you are free to post on another thread.

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

"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...........

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!

Itsmine- you post illustrates my point perfectly.

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.

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.

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.

Once again thank yoi to everyone who has contributed to this thread. Even the derailers.

MNHQ, as I have said before, I have no objection to people who wish to debate. If they want a debate they can start one. My objection is to derailers and trolls who go onto threads about belief with a reductionist agenda to justify their
bigotry. They are not interested in discussing or exploring the topic in the heading or actual posts by actual posters.

Once again I would like to point out that this is not an atheist vs believers thing. Nor is it about "peace at any price". It is about trolling and derailing threads about belief to the point that MNetters are reluctant to even start posts.

I have no wish to close down discussions. Anti-religious trolls and derailers do. And are succeeding. I am asking what can be done to combat this?

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.

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.

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)

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 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?

(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.

"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?

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.