Oh, I get it! If I dare to criticize Islam, that means I'm racist!

[backscatter712]

Don't you love the latest batch of conflation from the apologists?

[trotsky]

1. Religion and the right to not be offended > Freedom of Speech

I guess that's how the equation works. Sure goes against everything I understand the First Amendment to be about. Declaring certain ideas off-limits to criticism - no matter whether that criticism is intellectual, or comical - is distinctly ANTI-American and quite frankly I'm disgusted to see it here on an allegedly progressive, liberal site. I would much sooner expect to find it on FR.

[backscatter712]

2. Yep. My posting of a pic of Mohammed modeled after trollface means I moonlight in white sheets.

It does get silly, doesn't it?

[trotsky]

3. That's how you silence those you disagree with, in the progressive world.

It's no less disgusting when our side does this than when the right wing did it with Bush, post-9/11, declaring it was treasonous to disagree with the president.

[rexcat]

4. You can't expect much...

from people who believe in religious crap! They are already intellectually compromised.

I'm sure this comment will come back to bite my ass in the religion forum!

[Starboard Tack]

5. You might want to take note of the following.

In this forum it is inappropriate to belittle those with religious beliefs or to engage in demeaning or hateful speech toward members of DU who may hold such beliefs.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12301040

[backscatter712]

6. Why is religion special?

We mock and ridicule politicians, governments, policies, political parties, celebrities, athletes, sports teams, and virtually anything and everything under the sun. The only exceptions are things you have no control over, such as race or gender or sexual orientation.

But people damned well have control over their religious beliefs. They can choose to believe in one religion or another, or not to believe at all.

So why do you demand I conform to your taboo against ridiculing religion, especially when that taboo is enforced inconsistently. We make fun of the pope all the time, blast priests for failing to keep their hands off the altar boys, and bash fundies when they try to inflict their batshit customs on the rest of us. Mitt Romney's magic underwear is also fair game. Why is Islam special? Why is any religion special?

I don't have to conform to your taboo. Don't like my posts? Tough.

[Starboard Tack]

7. Why do I demand you conform to my taboo against ridiculing religion?

I don't. Ridicule it all day long. I might even join you. No religion is special. This group has rules and hosts who help define what we are about. And what we are about is "not belittling those with religious beliefs".

These are not my words. You might want to click on the link next time, or just read the notices pinned to the door before entering.
"In this forum it is inappropriate to belittle those with religious beliefs or to engage in demeaning or hateful speech toward members of DU who may hold such beliefs."

[dmallind]

8. Islam is a DU member? A religious belief has religious beliefs?

Didn't see the OP mention criticizing Muslims

[Starboard Tack]

9. You responded to my response to the following, not the OP

You can't expect much from people who believe in religious crap! They are already intellectually compromised.

You might also note that the highlighted part does not refer specifically to DU members, but to people with religious beliefs. If you don't like it, take it up with the host who posted it.

In this forum it is inappropriate to belittle those with religious beliefs or to engage in demeaning or hateful speech toward members of DU who may hold such beliefs.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12301040

[dmallind]

39. Well "the host who posted it" seems to not agree with your assessment, since it stands

And since when is "intellectually compromised" belittling? Anyone particularly invested in anything is intellectually compromised when discussing it. Einstein's reaction to quantum theory is probably the best example, and I am certainly not likely to belittle his intellect by saying it was compromised; say it I do, however.

[Starboard Tack]

40. "And since when is "intellectually compromised" belittling?"

I don't know. You tell me. I never said it was. I was just giving our friend Rexcat a heads up as to the posted protocol.

However, combined with the following, it did appear to be somewhat demeaning.

"You can't expect much from people who believe in religious crap!"

The host in question interpreted the comment as referring specifically to drawing cartoons and obviously did not feel that such a comment was demeaning. Thankfully, we have such discerning hosts to clarify these misunderstandings.

[rexcat]

12. It is my opinion that religious beliefs...

are nothing more than irrational though processes. I may have been a little harsh but the jury disagreed with whoever alerted the post since it was not hidden. I have seen a lot more harsh opinions expressed in this forum than the one I posted.

On edit: now I suppose you will consider this demeaning or hate speech?

[laconicsax]

14. While I can't speak for the other hosts...

The context of the comment would imply that by "religious crap," rexcat was referencing blasphemy, which is about as crap as it gets and clearly can compromise the intellect. Therefore, saying that a believer in blasphemy believes religious crap is justified and saying that a person who believes that an imaginary entity must be respected by everyone is intellectually compromised is equally justified.

Do we need to include a provision explicitly stating that in addition to the underlying assumption of the group regarding the existence of divine superbeings (a blasphemous assumption it itself), the intellectual bankruptcy of associated concepts such as blasphemy and the right of believers to override free speech are a given?

[Starboard Tack]

19. I was just pointing out your guidelines

Maybe I'm not as intuitive as you. I was surprised and favorably impressed that you had written those guidelines about civility. Apparently they don't mean that much if one has to read between the lines to discern the writer's true intent.

[laconicsax]

20. Understanding the context of a comment isn't "reading between the lines."

It's basic reading comprehension. How can you hope to understand what's meant if you don't take into consideration the context of the comment?

[Starboard Tack]

21. Right. Thank you for explaining that.

[rexcat]

33. Thanks...

I was a little harsh and I wish I had stated it as well as you did and I admit to being a blasphemer. I just can't help myself.

Again, Thanks!

[NS2012]

10. Someone tried to have your comment deleted.

I served as juror #1.

In my opinion the distinction between those who believe in a diety and those who don't is simply a matter of perspective. It's the same universe regardless of how one chooses to perceive it.

God / Non-God are eternal complementary portions of the ultimate ontological concept.

I've found Taoism and Buddhism offer insight into the semantic nature of belief vs non-belief.

Various religions are various fingers pointing at the same truth. Religion tends to focus on the hand pointing at the truth as opposed to the truth itself.

[rexcat]

11. Did you save the e-mail with the results...

I would be interested in seeing the comments from the jury. They are routinely posted as a cut and paste.

On edit: more like hidden, not deleted.

[NS2012]

16. Yes.

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

"people who believe in religious crap" are "intellectually compromised".

Highly offensive to large number of DU members.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue May 22, 2012, 10:14 AM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The Atheist point of view is a welcome contribution to civil discourse. By censoring it the community would be deprived of one more aspect of the complete picture.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: In a different forum, I would have had to think more about whether to leave or hide. But this is a forum for atheists and agnostics.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: not out of line in the context of the group SOP.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Wanna hide something because someone is expressing their oppinion?
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[rexcat]

13. Looks like someone in this forum tried to bite my ass...

and I thought it would be someone from the Religion forum! My post was alerted but it looks like the jury disagreed with the "alerter."

[Starboard Tack]

18. FYI, in case you were wondering, the alert was not from me.

[laconicsax]

22. It looks like the handiwork of our serial alerter.

Being a mod all those years undoubtedly created some authoritarian habits.

[cbayer]

23. This is a call out and not the first one in this group.

I did not alert on this and have not alerted on anything in here.

You need to spend more time enforcing your own rules and guidelines in this group and less time calling out and attacking DU members who do not post here.

[laconicsax]

24. That's an impressive response time.

49 minutes for a group you don't belong to. Very impressive. You're doing a great job bolstering your case.

[cbayer]

25. Thanks. I read this group every day.

What *case* is it that you think I need to bolster? You are not calling me a liar, are you?

I am asking you both as an individual and as a host of this group to stop with the call outs and attacks on me and other members who do not post here.

I don't think that's unreasonable.

[laconicsax]

26. So sorry to impugn your credibility.

You're not a non-believer and don't seem to mind when non-believers and members of this group are called out and attacked in a group you host, so forgive me if I don't believe you.

[cbayer]

27. Actually, I do mind and I do alert in the Religion group when I see personal attacks from either

side.

You have labeled me as a believer in order to categorize me and put me in *enemy* camp, while, in fact, you don't really know what I believe or don't believe.

Now, I am going to ask you again to not call me out and attack me. I have never done that to you and I am asking for the same consideration.

[laconicsax]

28. That's an interesting choice of words.

I mention your apparent complacency when it comes to attacks on non-believers in the Religion group and you reply to say that you alert on personal attacks. Not broad-brush, bigoted attacks--but personal attacks.

You're a host in Religion. You have a poster who has been blocked once already and since being unblocked has resumed posting the same bullshit that got him blocked in the first place, yet you're content to let him stay and continue.

When you say that I don't know what you do or don't believe, are you implying that you are, in fact, a non-believer?

I would also suggest that you called yourself out. I may have been thinking of you when I wrote my comment, but I didn't name you. You named yourself. I said, "there's a serial alerter here who used to be a mod" and you replied with "don't call me out."

Do you see all comments about former mods as call outs, or just the ones about serial alerters in this group?

[cbayer]

29. I did not enter this thread to talk about other members.

In fact, I entered this thread to ask you to stop talking about other members.

I am finished here, but will reiterate that I did not alert on this thread, do not alert in this group and again request that you refrain from calling me out and attacking me here.

[laconicsax]

30. Very well.

I will do my best to not name you as this group's serial alerter and will continue to not attack you here.

[trotsky]

32. Could you please point to the exact language in the rules that defines what a "call out" is?

I mean, I'm flattered by your regular visits here to keep us in line, but how about we get a good idea about what you're accusing others of?

[rexcat]

34. It would appear that any comment...

could be construed as a call out.

I did receive an DU mail from someone around March 2012 who was not happy with something I posted in the A&A forum so I do know that there are some stalkers from the Religion forum who seem to attack us on a personal level via DU mail or in the Religion forum in general.

[laconicsax]

36. Could I interest you in sharing the name of your secret admirer?

All I get are forwarded alert results and jury calls. I feel left out

[rexcat]

38. Check your inbox.

[Goblinmonger]

35. Huh, when I read through #23, I don't see your name anywhere in there

Just a unnamed reference to a serial alerter. And you complain that this is a call out.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

[laconicsax]

37. In fairness, I was referring to her.

Why she saw herself in a comment about a serial alerter...that's a different matter I suppose.

[Starboard Tack]

41. Your honesty is both noted and appreciated