Societal Standards vs WP Rules about criticizing religions

Post Reply New Topic

People want to talk about religion because they are interested in the topic.

Yes, Wrong Planet is used to avoid dealing with the challenges of being autistic. If done in moderation it is a good thing because it is unhealthy to be thinking about challenges 24/7.

I expect long arguments about language definitions to continue of WP. This is an Autism forum.

You didn't have to apologize for posting in my thread, devoted. Others might have been a bit hostile in that thread towards you, but I welcome all souls to my threads - and the derailing thing wasn't a big deal for me personally, I'm not too bothered about that type of thing. I don't mind threads that develop organically.

I often use words with their literal meanings in mind. I'm totally not autistic. /s

Lololzzz.. what a opportunity..finally a thread where critizing Christians could be acceptable ....
What do you think ,that the Moslems were thinking , When the Crusades started back in the day,,?
(These people are bringing something nice)? written cynically. How many Islamic peoples were annihilated by people who were wearing metal suits of armour . Claiming to be acting on behalf of their own faith.The best weapons of the Western world . And the Moslems held their ground . Now we have Israel another ? Christain/ judaic faith country .
So while these people did not represent all Christians , ( right wing fanatics ) still think they are ? Whether it is a
Old genocide, by the crusaders or a new one by the IDF . People seem to love to conflate religion with Warfare .
Am honestly not thinking people like to die . from whatever. But somehow Warfare seens to be our leaders? means to a end. That is not healthy for hunan beings . (just an another opinion)

Regrettably true - but what to do? It comes with the territory.

If I might be permitted a duplicate post, already made to "the other thread" but it has some relevance here -

I illustrated to you how what you'd posted was functionally identical to the bigoted: black men shouldn't be {something} because {reasons} and was removed on that basis.
Note that the rest of your post remains unaltered.

I don't want to get sucked further into debating your world view with its lofty church teachings of sinner vs. sin etc., as if they were somehow universal and applicable to everyone. They're simply what you believe, nothing more - and of course you're welcome to believe whatever you want.
But it's unrealistic to expect everyone else to uncritically tag along with it, and doubly so when expecting the belief to be protected from criticism.

As regards freedom of speech and criticizing religion generally -

"Freedom of Speech" refers to the interference of government with the expressions of its citizens.
It does not apply to a private website governed by a rule-set which defines acceptable behavior, where certain content may be censured or removed when failing to meet the conditions of membership as defined by those rules.

Certain things are not permitted on WP - racism, transphobia, personal attacks and so on.
But what is permissible is the examination and criticism of belief systems, philosophies, political views, etc. and while those things are not protected, their proponents are.
Thus, "this Cheesemaker cult is ridiculous because {reasons}" is permissible, but "Cheesemakers are stupid because {reasons}" is not.

Religions, political ideologies, belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. are lifestyle choices and not protected from examination and criticism. It's permissible to ask "why", and seek explanations or justifications for aspects of the belief - but only when done without ridiculing, demeaning, or attacking the believer.

Inherent, inalienable states such as nationality, skin color, sexuality, physical or mental conditions, etc. are protected attributes and while discussions about and around them are permitted, they cannot be held up for criticism.
Where a belief system is inherently critical of those attributes or other disallowed topics on WP, members subscribing to the belief are expected to self-censor their comments to avoid criticism or rule-breaks.

It does, but it sure is a drag on conversation when you have to engage in pages of debate on what the words mean before you can even get to the underlying argument. It's not even new, Orwell called it back in Politics and the English Language , but it feels like it's gotten worse in the years since the various critical theories leaked out of academia, with their postmodern views on the truth and Marxist dialectical DNA regarding language.

I understood the reprimand. I just disagree with the reasoning/paralleled example, that's all. And I do very much appreciate that everything else remains.

Thank you.

Judaism is no more inherently violent than Islam or Christianity.

Violent people will use any excuse to "justify" the violence they commit; a primary excuse being "Religious Beliefs".

It's not limited to violence, or religious beliefs, just look at the jerks online who think being on the "right side" of whatever issue gives them license to act like psychopaths.