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.

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?

Outwith

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

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.

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?

"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?

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.

capsium your suggestions are unworkable, unclear and unfair.

While I agree with banning personal attacks the rest is never going to happen. Nor should it. We are all adults here.

They are just suggestions pearly. It would be helpful if you explained a little further, how you think these suggestions are unworkable.

Of course, they will only be guidelines, which might be why they appear unclear. Zapping every interruption would be unworkable, I agree there, and probably shut down discussion more than not. Equally asking questions about someone's beliefs, in order to help clarify their points, is fine but in order to derail is not.

Regarding the making a 'straw man' of someone's beliefs - difficult to stop, although it is annoying. People do have different perceptions

I think I know what you're referring to here because it's a misunderstanding that I've got caught up in. As an ex Christian I know the bible quite well and have sometimes asked a Christian for their thoughts on certain passages for example God commanding the stoning of the guy collecting sticks. I've had Christians think I assumed that they thought that was acceptable but the converse is true. I bring it up to see how the Christian can read that passage and yet see God as all good. It's because their morality has to make them adapt it that I bring it up.

I think it is entirely fair to bring up difficult passages because they are in yours and my bible and I'm interested in the different ways Christians hold a concept of a loving God while those verses exist.

1. Personal insults are already reportable and deletable. Incidentally, I do find it interesting that people object to the use of the rational word. Faith is by definition non rational. I mean no insult by the use of the expression- it is purely factual.

2. I have never seen that happening here? Does it? How very tedious.That does seem like something that MNHQ could intervene in.

3. Ah, the straw man defence. In my experience, people of faith tend to turn to it when asked about the murky and egregious elements of their religion "Oh, but that's nothing to do with me. Yes, I am a Roman Catholic [for example] but I believe in contraception, gay marriage and the use of condoms for protection against HIV infection in sub Saharan Africa.And women priests. And of course priests who amuse children should be defrocked, reported to the police and prosecuted, not moved on to other parishes. Stop constructing a straw man."

This thread has taken a very peculiar turn indeed.

Betrand you don't seem to understand, you don't get to define what someone else finds offensive or hateful, so no one has any obligation to dig through threads to find examples that you will probably dismiss anyway.

I see nothing wrong with capsicum's suggestions, but I can see why they might rile those who want every single thread about religion to be about school admissions or collective worship.

"Betrand you don't seem to understand, you don't get to define what someone else finds offensive or hateful, so no one has any obligation to dig through threads to find examples that you will probably dismiss anyway."

I realise that my lack of religion make me hard hearted and insensitive, but even I would surely have noticed someone "spewing hatred"?

I realise I can't define what other people find offensive. That is why I am asking. So that I can post without giving offence. Because not being specific about it does seem to me to be a bit like trying to stop people posting, or shutting down discussion................

head questioning Bible interpretation is great but only on a thread which has that purpose. If believers are asking advise on how to manage aspects of their worship, for example, bringing up unrelated Bible passages, is off point and just has the effect of derailing.

Bertrand the non rational comment is fine unless directed personally or indeed to a sector of society, as that is prejudice. Discussing whether behaviours or particular thought processes are rational is fine IMO. Just because faith (itself) is not rational does not mean that people who hold it or act in it do not also apply reason in their thought processes or to their behaviour. So I would suggest not applying the non rational comment to people but rather certain behaviours or thought processes.

The 'straw man', I stand by this. People cannot defend the beliefs they don't hold - so why hold them accountable for them? You could start a thread on the 'murkier' bits of Christianity to 'iron out' some of these issues, see how Christians actually reconcile their beliefs - if you actually want to find out more about how the Christians who contribute to these boards believe and worship. Just using some of the more 'fundamental' to slate all Christians is inaccurate though when they believe differently.

I realise the debate has moved on, but since it took me ages..!

Have been through the 'How can I help my religious daughter?' thread that lottielou linked to as an example of anti-religious trolling.
The 6yo daughter of a Christian and an atheist is confused because what she's being taught about creationism conflicts with what she's being taught about dinosaurs.
I think it's absolutely acceptable to bring an atheist perspective to that thread. Calling that 'trolling' is simply an attempt to shut down other views IMO.
(I also note the only deletions are of a Christian abusing an atheist.)

And agree with headinhands post about the flying spaghetti monster - it's not a phrase used to refer to any other god, it's a religion in its own right. And you're mocking, criticising, and not respecting that religion. Log in your own eye and all.

when they believe differently

But they all hold the bible in some regard or else they wouldn't even believe in Jesus. That's why it's not unreasonable to bring it up. For example on the thread about capital punishment it was very interesting how Christians could feel God was utterly opposed to it when the OT is very pro-death penalty. That's an entirely valid contradiction to point out. I you feel it isn't you need to talk is through how the two sit together without causing you a headache.

"Just using some of the more 'fundamental' to slate all Christians is inaccurate though when they believe differently."

I wasn't. My example was a Roman Catholic using the straw man defence when asked about some of the fundament tenets and behaviours of the Roman Catholic Church.

head if you ask someone what they believe and they state it, in relation to a thread topic, IMO that is what is discussed, they cannot be asked to defend other's beliefs. If you want to discuss your own Bible interpretations (which differ significantly from the posters), it really does belong in a separate thread - people cannot really comment on beliefs that bear no relation to their own. It would be like someone with an entirely different definition of 'phonics', to the one commonly held by teachers, repeatedly questioning the definition and berating teachers for using phonics, (as commonly understood) for teaching reading.

Not every thread on the spirituality / philosophy boards is about validity of Christianity.

^questioning the validity, that should say.

Betrand you don't seem to understand, you don't get to define what someone else finds offensive or hateful

I don't think that a discussion group can entirely work that way. There has to be some sort of objective standard of what is offensive, not least because MN has to operate their rules sensibly. If I complain to them that I find, say, posts about bad parking offensive, they need to ignore me no matter how much that might upset me.

You cannot force someone to respect another or a specific group, however respect can be earned by the behaviour of a group or person.

In general most people learn respect by their specific experiences; behaviour breeds behaviour. Therefore anger, frustration and derogatory comments come from someone's life experiences. It is interesting to see how the discussions on this thread have evolved and developed as different posters express themselves in a blunt or more reasoned style, others responding in a similar manner.

I have a problem concerning the instruction about the need to respect others who have a faith. Throughout the world I see the lack of respect of many groups and individuals with a faith; who show no respect to others with different lifestyles or believes. Homophobia, sexism, violence, cruelty, intolerance all in the name of faith.

Frankly calling their God a Sky Fairy is a very minor act in comparison with the Anglican Church's attitude and promotion of the persecution of gay people in parts of Africa. Respect and tolerance is a two-way street.

Sliver I believe showing respect is something you should show to anyone, regardless of their beliefs or actions. Showing respect is more about behaving in a certain, non aggressive, kind,manner yourself because that is how you want to behave, the sort of person you want to be, rather than whether the other person deserves it. For example, as professionals should be respectful and treat their clients / patients / students etc with dignity.

to the one commonly held by teachers,

It would if there was one huge manual. And there was a chapter about drowning children who didn't pass the Y1 test 'but that's Chapter 1!' We don't follow chapter one anymore'. The further difference is the supernatural element. If all the teachers claimed to be in contact with the phonics God who gave them instructions, why would the phonics God give different people different instructions. Why would he say to one group 'you can't teach phonics if you're gay, being gay is disgusting' but say to another teacher 'I'm happy for teachers to be gay, I have no problem' So if you want me to be able to liken it to phonics you need to assert that there is no divine being communication with Christians.

Again head, this is not a thread concerning the validity of Christianity, here. This thread is here to discuss the derailment of threads concerning specific aspects (as laid out by the OP) of religious faith and worship.

Sneaking in aspects the brutal aspects of the Bible, in analogies, again makes this about the validity of the religion. It is a derailment. Have a thread on Bible interpretation, if this is what you want to discuss.