Can we change the subject?

[Thats my opinion]

I have a suggestion. I gather all of us are interested in how religion or irreligion—take your choice—is vital in supporting the issues important to Democrats. Maybe we are wasting our time in the endless telling of religious horror stories. It may be fun to talk about the worst in somebody else, but it is just a nasty game that produces nothing beneficial for anybody. It’s also boring! It may feed prejudices of one sort or another, but it makes no creative contribution to social thought or progress. I would be sincerely more interested in having our atheistic or agnostic partners describe how they and those who hold their commitments get their beliefs or lack of them, acted out in the public arena. Let’s hear about their positive Democratic oriented passions and activities. I know some solid thoughtful atheists who are deeply involved in GLBT issues, peace issues, and environmental concerns. I want to hear more.

So let me begin by referring to the basic concerns of the Dalai Lama, who we might agree is one of the most thoughtful religious leaders in the world. Here are currently his three principle commitments.
1-“As a human being I am committed to the promotion of basic human values, in particular compassion, which I see as the foundation of human happiness. If we as a species are serious about creating a more caring and happier world, then it is this precious quality we need to foster and practice. 2-I am committed to the promotion of inter-religious understanding and harmony. 3-As a Tibetan, I am committed to provide a satisfactory solution to the sad plight of the Tibetan people.”

[MineralMan]

1. You just did.

Now, the question is whether anyone wishes to engage with you in discussion. I do not.

[cleanhippie]

12. +1

[Iggo]

2. Jeez.

[laconicsax]

3. You seem confused about the structure of this board.

There are other forums besides R/T. A good place to discuss LGBTQ issues is the GLBT forum, a good place to discuss environmental issues is the Environment/Energy forum, etc.

Many of the DUers who frequent the topic forums are atheists. If you want to know more, try visiting a topic forum and reading threads and don't assume that everyone is Christian like you.

At the top of every page, there is an icon labeled "Lobby." If you click it, you'll be taken to a directory of all of the different forums on DU.

[Thats my opinion]

19. Am I wrong?

I am under the impression that any forum naturally bears some relationship between the subject of the forum and the goals, plans aspiration of the Democratic party. I believe that anyhow.

[laconicsax]

29. That's only half of the issue.

The other half is that there are topic forums for the discussion of specific topics.

A possible analogy is a university. While every lecture hall and building is ostensibly associated with higher learning, you're more likely to find a substantive discussion of anthropology in the science department than in the school of business.

[Thats my opinion]

31. You are right

That is why I expect to find a rational discussion of religion and theology, and their implications in today's, world in a R/T forum.

[laconicsax]

36. I'm sorry, are you wanting to discuss other issues in terms of religion and theology?

Your OP mentioned LGBTQ, peace, and environmental issues. Are you wanting to discuss those issues or what role, if any, religion and theology play in them?

[skepticscott]

46. Except that you have explicitly eschewed such a discussion

by insisting that posts about the negative and harmful consequences of organized religion be avoided. I would argue that the "implications in today's world" of religion can hardly be discussed rationally without hearing both sides of the story.

Would you agree or disagree?

[skepticscott]

4. So you're saying that

continuing to make people aware of the tremendous harm and social injustices that are perpetrated and propagated by organized religion "makes no creative contribution to social thought or progress"? Maybe if those things went away, and if the people who promoted them started behaving more like civilized human beings, there would be no need to keep bringing them up, but I've seen no sign of that happening.

And the next time you feel the need to run down the posters in this board, you might at least have the stones to do it openly, instead of running off to another board to do it out of our direct sight.

[Jim__]

5. I am curious as to what you think may be a satisfactory solution for Tibet.

Tibet is being absorbed into China. The May 26th edition of the New York Review of Books had an article on Tibet (it's not available online without a subscription). But, a few paragraphs from that article go some way toward describing the situation in Tibet:

As the Dalai Lama's life enters its final stretch ... more and more Han <ethnic Chinese> migrants will arrive on the Tibetan plateau, and almost inevitably Tibet will head the way of Inner Mongolia and other regions of the mainland subsumed by the vast Han majority. The race is nearly over.

The Mongolian comparison is especially grim: in 1949, Mongols in their region outnumbered hans by five to one. By the year 2000 there had been so much Han migration that there were 4.6 Hans for every Mongol in Inner Mongolia, and now only 17% of the population are Mongols, "confined largely to nomadic settlements and ethnic oases in a sea of Han."

...

This damage can take surprising forms. In Nepal, Johnson met a young Tibetan with frostbitten toes from his agonizing trek across the mountains. Why had he fled? He didn't get along with his older brother. Truly amazingly, when asked if he longed, as most such refugees passionately insist, to meet the Dalai Lama in India, the young man said. "I've never heard of the Dalai Lama." Some may suppose his village was extremely remote, but in my own travels through Tibet I never met a single Tibetan, no matter how far from the cities, who didn't worship the Dalai Lama. That was twenty years ago. Chinese domination may be more pervasive than we suppose.

We can all regret the loss of the Tibetan culture. But, if the current situation in Tibet is that the culture is being subsumed by Chinese culture, the best thing for the people of Tibet may be to live their lives as Chinese rather than fight a losing battle against China. If the Tibetans are persecuted by the Chinese, then we should try to aid the Tibetans; but if they are being absorbed into a new culture, the best thing may be to allow it to happen.

I don't know what the actual situation is for the Tibetan people. Do you? Do you think there is something to be done to preserve their culture?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

6. A "nasty game"?

A "nasty game"? You realize that you're insulting us, even when trying to "change the subject"? "I know some solid thoughtful atheists who are deeply involved in ..." The implication being that many of the atheists in R&T are not solid people or thoughtful individuals. Your 3rd paragraph is more innuendo, implying that the particular atheists here on DU don't ascribe to those principles and that you're here as some sort of savior to help us see the light.

And you wonder why people here are not interested in your bullshit?

[Thats my opinion]

18. Come on, I made no such accusation.

I only know what people ascribe to when they say so. This is a D/U forum, which leads me to assume that whoever is here has some positive relationship to the Democratic party and democratic values. I happen to believe that the non-religious posters here are as deeply involved in liberal values as the religious people I know. And that is a fit subject for any forum in D/U. I haven's seen so much defensiveness when I'm just calling for dialogue, in a long time. Why? Continually talking about the worst in people is a nasty game. I have a feeling we are all better than that.

[skepticscott]

24. Well, you seem determined to continually talk about

what you perceive to be the worst in the atheists and anti-theists on this board. To the extent that you find the need to run off to other groups to do it. And what you call "defensiveness" is legitimate criticism of the opinions you post as if no one should dare to challenge them. If there is any true defensiveness here, it is yours.

So why again should we take what you say seriously?

[Thats my opinion]

34. But

I have not run off to other groups. I post something every Wednesday on the editorial forum--but these posts are on a very different set of subjects.

[darkstar3]

39. Chief among them how far you can look down your nose at the board...

[skepticscott]

45. Here is where you ran off

to another group, to post negative and disparaging comments about the "radical atheists" in R/T:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=291x6541

Why you would do that, other than wanting to fling poo and not have to defend your claims in a truly open discussion, remains unexplained.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

26. That's why I used the word "implied"

The accusation was veiled, but it was an accusation nonetheless. If you can't understand how what you say is insulting to us, then there isn't any way for there to be a meaningful dialogue. You're starting from a position of ignorance and you know it (or if you do know it you do an excellent job of feigning ignorance).

I'm not buying what you're selling.

[Thats my opinion]

32. Talk about "nasty"

Have you read the responses from those who just have had this forum to themselves and don't want anybody to barge in discussing religion and theology--which I believe is this forum's topic?

[darkstar3]

40. Let us know when you wish to discuss religion or theology instead of other DUers.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

41. Who said you couldn't discuss religion and theology?

This sub forum is for the discussion of religion and theology. Who said you couldn't do that here?

[darkstar3]

43. He did, when he put words in your mouth.

[humblebum]

7. I find your involvement in this forum as relevant as anyone else's.

This a religion and theology forum of discussion. That pretty much says it all. And I find you reference to Tibet and the Dalai Lama interesting. Tibet needs to emphasized because we are witnessing the destruction of a culture and a religion. As a matter of record the Chinese have recently made it illegal for children under 16 y.o. to receive any religious instruction in the home. Gee, where have we heard that before? Very Dawkinsish, indeed.

[LeftishBrit]

8. When did Dawkins make anything whatsoever illegal?

And I am no fan of the thoroughly oppressive Chinese government in general or their treatment of Tibet in particular; but suppressing and destroying cultures and their spiritual practices in not a prerogative of atheists. What about the Native Americans in the United States, the Aboriginal people of Australia, or the Maoris of New Zealand? What about the treatment of Bosnian Muslims by Serbian Christians in former Yugoslavia? What about the treatment of Christians and other religious minorities in Muslim theocracies?

The moral is that absolute power -including the power of being the majority - can corrupt absolutely; and that minorities everywhere need active protection.

[laconicsax]

10. Come on, LeftishBrit...

You know that Richard Dawkins, by virtue of writing books (well, one book at least) and giving speeches at atheist gatherings is the single greatest threat to religious freedom in the history of the world.

Thank Vectron he isn't a blogger! The consequences would be too horrific to imagine!

[humblebum]

11. Where did I say Dawkins did anything illegal? But, he has alluded to

the fact more than once that religious teaching in the home should be illegal for those under 16. And where did i say that all of these other suppressions of humanity were not also wrong.

[LeftishBrit]

14. I didn't say you accused him of DOING anything illegal...

rather of being similar to the Chinese government in making religious teaching illegal, or being likely to.

Dawkins is an academic with no chance of, or even interest in, entering the legislature. If you equate his expressing an opinion with the tyranny of the Chinese government, then you'd have to do the same with everyone who has ever exclaimed "There ought to be a law against X!"

[humblebum]

15. Excuse me. I should have said "made." But, he did sign a petition

to that effect and he has given positive ascent to that subject on more than one occasion. He is certainly not the only one in the New Atheist movement to do so.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. 'religious teaching in the home should be illegal'? I think not.

You may be thinking of this:

Yes. In my all too cursory reading of the petition (if I had read the whole thing more carefully, I would have noticed the coercive phraseology and would not have signed it) I of course assumed that it referred to schools, not parents in the privacy of the home. I am sure that was also the intention of the petition organizer. The very idea of giving that control freak Tony Blair any more power over people than he already has appals me, and probably appals the author of the petition too. The problem in Britain is that Blair and his colleagues are hell bent on increasing the influence of religion in British schools. I want to reduce the power of religion in the schools. Blair wants to increase it. I now see that, since the petition lamentably failed to mention that it referred to schools, it can all too easily be read as an attempt to expand government power beyond the schools and into the home.

Incidentally, another reason why I would not have signed, if I had read the supporting statement as well as the petition itself, is that I am positively in favour of two aspects of religious education. I advocate teaching the Bible as literature. And I advocate teaching comparative religion as an important anthropological phenomenon. Schools should teach: ‘Christians believe X, Muslims believe Y, Buddhists believe Z.’ But a teacher should never say something like ‘You are a Christian child and we Christians believe …’

...

2. Obviously you are opposed to theism and think it is harmful. But do you actually think it would be a good idea for a government to make it *illegal* for parents to teach their religion to their children? (e.g., taking them to church, sending them to Sunday school, giving them private religious instruction, etc.)

Of course I don’t think it would be a good idea. I am horrified by the thought. My entire campaign against the labelling of children (what the petition called ‘defining’ children) by the religion of their parents has been a campaign of CONSCIOUSNESS-RAISING. I want to educate people so that they flinch when they hear a phrase like ‘Catholic child’ or ‘Muslim child’ – just as feminists have taught us to wince when we hear ‘one man one vote’. But that is consciousness-raising, not legislation. No feminist that I would wish to know ever suggested a legal ban on masculine pronouns. And of course I don’t want to make it illegal to use religious labels for children. I want to raise consciousness, so that the phrase ‘Christian child’ sounds like a fingernail scraping on a blackboard. But if I dislike the use of religious words to label children, I dislike even more the idea that governments should police the words that anybody uses about anything. I don’t want a legal ban on the use of words like nigger and yid. I want people to feel ashamed of using them. Similarly, I want people to feel ashamed of using the phrase ‘Christian child’, but I don’t want to make it illegal to use it.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/divided-by-a-co.html

The petition had, as its short wording:

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make it illegal to indoctrinate or define children by religion before the age of 16"

and, expanded:

"In order to encourage free thinking, children should not be subjected to any regular religious teaching or be allowed to be defined as belonging to a particular religious group based on the views of their parents or guardians. At the age of 16, as with other laws, they would then be considered old enough and educated enough to form their own opinion and follow any particular religion (or none at all) through free thought."

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/freethinking/#detail

[Thats my opinion]

20. Thanks.

Good point. I was in China at the end of the cultural revolution, right after all religions had been persecuted. Freedom must include religious freedom ala the first amendment of the US Constitution. Although it is controlled by the State and the Party, the Chinese
Constitution has freedom of religion written in. Our "free exercise" clause means and says "freedom of religion, not "freedom from religion." The problem is that so often right-wing religion tries to establish a particular brand of religion on all of us. I have long been a member of groups working for the strengthening of the "wall of separation." We have won several Court decisions but under this Court we may lose some down the road. I'll fight it.

[LeftishBrit]

9. Anyone can post a new subject at any time

As regards Tibet, people may be interested in the Students for a Free Tibet website: www.studentsforafreetibet.org

And the International Campaign for Tibet

www.savetibet.org

And human rights organizations such as Amnesty International are campaigning against the human rights violations by China with regard to Tibet.

[Thats my opinion]

21. I am an active letter writing member

of Amnesty International.

[cleanhippie]

13. YOU can change the subject anytime you feel like it.

But it has become obvious that you are only interested in discussion with those who tend to agree with your positions.


How about you START by sticking around your OPs and replies for a while and actually PARTICIPATING in the current discussions.

[Thats my opinion]

22. Where did you get that idea

that I am only interested in discussing with those who agree with me? Nonsense. I disavow that stance right now and right here. The fundamentalists proof-text stuff to make an opponent say what they want him or her to say. It is a bad habit. Read the totality of what I write and you will see that I want to listen--not just confront or challenge those who disagree with me.

[skepticscott]

25. Maybe from the fact that in OP after OP

you have conspicuously avoided engaging in discussion of perfectly legitimate criticisms of the opinions you express, and responded primarily to people who support your opinions.

Can you point to ANYWHERE in the threads you have started here where you have been involved in an extended and substantive discussion with someone who strongly disagreed with you? Anywhere?

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. As laconicsax says in reply #3, you'll find most of what you're looking for in the rest of DU

DUers' positive Democratic oriented passions and activities are talked about in General Discussion, the various specialist forums and so on.

I don't know if "religion or irreligion ... is vital in supporting the issues important to Democrats" is a useful way of describing things. It's certainly vital that Democrats pay full attention to, support the rights of, and are open to, everyone, both religious and irreligious, and in practice this means there must be both religious and irreligious Democrats, because you can't really get a fully thought-through program without full participation from all sections of society (where possible - we just have to look after the interests of infants on their behalf, of course). But I'm not sure I'd express that as 'religion is vital...' or 'irreligion is vital...'.

For myself, not much comes from my lack of religion, or my lack of belief in higher entities. It means I don't have the hope that something will judge people in an afterlife, I suppose, which means I don't have the idea that a higher entity, or fear of one, can keep those in power under control, and so we need to be able to limit them ourselves; but religious people would also want to be able to limit them - DUers, anyway. I do feel that religions shouldn't get special treatment, and should just be like any other group that has a viewpoint. Being British, that means my special concern is to get the Church of England disestablished (eg to get rid of the automatic seats in the House of Lords for several C of E bishops) and to end the state support of religious schools. But, again, it's possible for religious people to want those things too.

As for the thoughts of the Dalai Lama: I'd roughly agree with 1 and 2, though I don't think inter-religious understanding needs more promotion than, say, international understanding, and mutual understanding with those without religion is needed too; and I hope for a satisfactory solution for Tibet and many other countries too.

[Thats my opinion]

23. which is it?

Some of you tell me to do my thing in other forums and groups. Some of you say, don't take it out somewhere else. I don't want to change or convert anyone. I just want to broaden my viewpoint by listening.

[humblebum]

38. When you see a forum entitled Religion/Theology and it is

dominated by atheists/agnostics, I think you are very much in the place you belong. It needs diversity.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

44. LOL, you're funny

with your persecution complex.

[humblebum]

50. What do you have against diversity? nt

[EvolveOrConvolve]

51. Absolutely nothing

I just think it's funny that your fragile belief takes so much offense to the chattering of a few harmless atheists on a political message board.

[humblebum]

53. You seem to be making several unfounded assertions.nt

[EvolveOrConvolve]

68. Just basing my opinion on what I've read of you on DU

Especially in the R&T forum. You really seem to hate that atheists hang out here.

[darkstar3]

52. What do you?

Homogenous isn't a strong enough word to describe your posting history, so what do YOU have against diversity?

[humblebum]

54. One only needs to take a look at the list of threads to see how much diversity there is here. nt

[darkstar3]

56. So branch out.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

57. *Looks at R/T front page thread list*

*shakes head*

[humblebum]

55. darkstar3 quote from 4-6-2011:

"Since I have found you one of the most insulting posters I've ever dealt with, and I won't have anything to discuss with you in future...."

So why then do you persist?

[Thats my opinion]

62. I think that is a great cartoon!

Why so you persist, unless this site is owned by a group that just doesn't want anybody with a different idea to play in their sand pile.

[Thats my opinion]

58. thanks

[muriel_volestrangler]

48. I'm not saying you need 'do your thing' elsewhere; but if you want to read others

on their viewpoints on GLBT issues, the environment etc. (you said you wanted to see "our atheistic or agnostic partners describe how they and those who hold their commitments get their beliefs or lack of them, acted out in the public arena. Let’s hear about their positive Democratic oriented passions and activities"), you're much more likely to find it in the forums that specialise in those subjects.

[darkstar3]

27. As soon as you stop whining about other DU members,

as soon as you post an OP on a topic worth discussing that doesn't include sweeping generalizations guaranteed to derail things immediately, and as soon as you start behaving as though this is a discussion board and not a soapbox, you may find the discussion you allegedly seek.

[Thats my opinion]

30. No, there are no sweeping generalizations

If you think the only things worth discussing are religious horror stories you may not want to engage in serious discussion. I repeat, that's boring! "Ain't they terrible" just says a lot about the people titillated by that sort of thing. I assume that the best discursive forums deal with the universe of ideas. If the only thing worth discussing is how horrible someone else is, that is your right. I think there are noble ideas from noble people--some of them people of faith--and some of them people of no faith. Both groups have my respect, and from both groups I have a right to learn--and do. But simply exploring the religious sewers to find crap--of which there is plenty--is not my idea of rational discourse.

[darkstar3]

37. You contradict yourself in a single post, and you don't even see it.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

42. You used a sweeping generalization in your defense against sweeping generalizations

Are you really that obtuse?

[onager]

28. No, we DON'T agree on that repressive theocrat, the Dalai Lama

Who was funded by the CIA for years. And may have even more family members on the payroll than the Bush family...

Dalai Lama's Links to CIA Still Stir Debate - Comment by George Fetherling, February 19, 2004

Followers of the 14th Dalai Lama, including such Buddhist theologians as Richard Gere and Harrison Ford, have often tried to ignore the long-time links between their exiled leader and the CIA. Doing so credibly, however, becomes harder each year...

Excuse me...:rofl:

Much of this information became public in 1997 in the far-right Chicago Tribune, of all places, confirming what Maoists had been charging for decades. In 1998 both the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times added further details, using newly declassified agency documents.

Now the debate may be shifting. One former CIA agent named Ralph McGehee, admittedly a professional thorn in the side of his former employer, alleges that the CIA has been a prime funder of the Dalai Lama's media profile as a symbol of meditative peace and Buddhist mindfulness. But the North American image of a spiritually pure Tibet--the Shangri-la idea that's been building ever since Lost Horizon , the 1933 novel by James Hilton, who got the idea from photos in National Geographic --can also be viewed in other terms. It can be seen as a continuation of the Orientalism by which the western imagination has colonized and marginalized Asia and the Middle East for generations.

http://www.straight.com/article/dalai-lamas-links-to-cia-still-stir-debate

Behind Dalai Lama's holy cloak - Michael Backman
(May 23, 2007)

...No mere spiritual leader, he was the head of Tibet's government when he went into exile in 1959. It was a state apparatus run by aristocratic, nepotistic monks that collected taxes, jailed and tortured dissenters and engaged in all the usual political intrigues.

The government set up in exile in India and, at least until the 1970s, received $US1.7 million a year from the CIA. The Dalai Lama himself was on the CIA's payroll from the late 1950s until 1974, reportedly receiving $US15,000 a month ($US180,000 a year).

Like many Asian politicians, the Dalai Lama has been remarkably nepotistic, appointing members of his family to many positions of prominence. In recent years, three of the six members of the Kashag, or cabinet, the highest executive branch of the Tibetan government-in-exile, have been close relatives of the Dalai Lama. An older brother served as chairman of the Kashag and as the minister of security. He also headed the CIA-backed Tibetan contra movement in the 1960s. A sister-in-law served as head of the government-in-exile's planning council and its Department of Health. A younger sister served as health and education minister and her husband served as head of the government-in-exile's Department of Information and International Relations.

Their daughter was made a member of the Tibetan parliament in exile. A younger brother has served as a senior member of the private office of the Dalai Lama and his wife has served as education minister. The second wife of a brother-in-law serves as the representative of the Tibetan government-in-exile for northern Europe and head of international relations for the government-in-exile.

All these positions give the Dalai Lama's family access to millions of dollars collected on behalf of the government-in-exile.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/behind-dalai-lamas-holy-cloak/2007/05/22/1179601410290.html

[Thats my opinion]

33. Thanks for a literate thoughtful response

I have followed the Dalai Lama's work and thought for some time. I hear your point of view. I just have different opinion. Nevertheless, I appreciated your thoughtful contribution to the discussion.

[rrneck]

35. Oh boy,

another thread designed to start a pissing contest to see who's the best Democrat.

I've got news for you. Nobody here had to produce a debriefing on their good works for your approval. It seems that every OP you post is the same: Frame the discussion to inoculate yourself from criticism, question the motivations of atheists, compare them to superior atheists of your acquaintance, then decline to actually engage in discussion beyond self congratulation or mutual agreement. Then trot off to piss and moan about hostility and lack of substance.

I am unaware of any successful culture that did not support some sort of religious practice. I would like for you to explain what good the current forms of religious do for our culture given their inability to police their own ranks.

What have they done for us lately and how are we to appreciate those good works in light of the evil that is done in God's name?

[trotsky]

47. This quote is the monkey on your back.

"None of us would want to live in a society without some sort of an ethical sensitivity based on solid religious faith."

With it, you are clearly saying that the moral foundation allegedly brought to the table by religion is superior to anything that secularism can come up with. So why should any non-believer choose to have a "discussion" with you? Maybe an apology for that harmful quote and all your other behavior could start you down the path you claim to want to be on.

[Thats my opinion]

59. What you assume that means is never what I have said

Do you understand the difference in logic between a necessary and a sufficient cause?. Nor would I want to live in any culture where one religion dominated, or where dissent by atheists and others was prohibited or even contained. But if you just want to put me down then misconstrue what I continually say.

[laconicsax]

65. Umm...

"Nor would I want to live in any culture where one religion dominated, or where dissent by atheists and others was prohibited or even contained."

I hate to break it to you, but you do live in a culture where one religion dominates.

As for your original offensive statement, "None of us would want to live in a society without some sort of an ethical sensitivity based on solid religious faith," this statement clearly equates religious faith with morality/ethics. I'm curious what you think a society in which the moral zeitgeist isn't religiously based would look like.

[trotsky]

66. Then explain exactly what your quote means.

And please be specific when describing exactly why none of us would want to live in a society based on secular morality.

If I have misconstrued you, then it should be easy to clarify. Go ahead.

[cleanhippie]

49. When you can abide by some simple rules to have a rational discussion. Can you?

[Thats my opinion]

60. If the rules

are that anything which ridicules or puts down religion is fair, no matter how vulgar, but anything that supports any religious notion is out of bounds, then I would like to discuss the rules.

[cleanhippie]

61. If you can point to where ANYONE ever said ANYTHING resembling what you did...

lets discuss that.


Really. You seem to have it in your mind that your viewpoint is not allowed and that is simply just false.

How about this: stop complaining and just JUMP IN! If your viewpoints can be substantiated with facts, your assertions supported with evidence and your opinions rational, you WILL get the conversation you want.


There are PLENTY of ongoing conversations right now. Jump in and speak your mind. If you take offense to a post and think it is against the forum rules, alert on it. If you disagree with it, post a response as to WHY you disagree with it.

[Thats my opinion]

63. What?

please be clear

[cleanhippie]

64. Read my response again. I was editing it when you replied.

It should be much clearer now.


if you mean be more clear about my response to YOUR words, which were are that anything which ridicules or puts down religion is fair, no matter how vulgar, but anything that supports any religious notion is out of bounds, then I would like to discuss the rules."



then YOU need to be clearer about just WHERE you see that happening. Please, be specific.

[Thats my opinion]

70. thanks

that clarification helps. The vulgar rudeness I have experienced is hardly conducive to conversation.

[cleanhippie]

79. No, YOUR responses are hardly conducive to conversation.

You are a complainer, nothing more. foad

[skepticscott]

67. It is clear that the rules you would like to impose

would make any post that praises religion or celebrates any societal good motivated by it fair, but any post that criticizes religion or brings up inconveniently any harm or evil stemming from religious motivations out of bounds. Should we discuss those rules too?

And you still seem to be operating under the notion that if the opinions expressed in a post are questioned or criticized, that equates to a desire to censor or prohibit such a post. Hogwash. That's what a discussion is ALL ABOUT, something you seem inexplicably unable to grasp. Even when you respond to something, it is not to promote discussion or to help the process of getting at the truth. Your true motives remain rather fuzzy, frankly, but no one here has blocked you from posting anything you please, as long as it is forum-appropriate and within site rules.

[Thats my opinion]

74. don't be silly.

I have never said that "any post that criticizes religion......is our of bounds." If ghat were true I would have a full time job.

[skepticscott]

82. Have you or have you not

said that you would rather not see posts highlighting the negative aspects and consequences of religion? And is that any more of a "rule" than the written or unwritten rules that you say restrain you?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

69. Where are you reading these "rules"?

Because those definitely aren't the rules in R&T.

[Thats my opinion]

71. rules

there are written rules, and unwritten rules that flow from the expectations of some of the writers. I have often been tempted to ask the admins to stop certain postings, but am very hesitant to do so, because I believe in free speech. Just look at the first posts in this chain.

[skepticscott]

72. Oh, how noble of you

you've refrained from trying to censor criticism of you and your beliefs and opinions because you believe in free speech. Are we supposed to be grateful?

And if you've made unwarranted presumptions about what you're allowed to post here, or if you've failed to post things out of fear of the response, you have no one but yourself to blame.

[Thats my opinion]

73. who

in recent history who has had the balls to stand up to you all? Do I really sound as if I fail to post things out of fear of the response"?

[rrneck]

76. Ah, now it comes out.

The litany of supine OP's you've left in your wake reveals you as one of the most recumbent here.

[laconicsax]

77. "Stand up to you all?"

Give me a break!

Thank Vectron you have the courage (complete with sexist language) to try and put us in our place. I can only imagine how hard it is for a member of the majority to stand up to a small minority. You're coureagously taking on 1.6% of the population with a scant 236 million Americans behind you.

[cleanhippie]

78. Ugh. I just threw up in my mouth a litlle.

:puke:

[rrneck]

80. Made good your escape I see. nt

[skepticscott]

81. Your failure to respond to

so many substantive criticisms of your post remains unexplained. But you're free to clear that up at any time. And since "rational discussion" seems to mean only discussion without criticism or debating back and forth to you, your claim to want that doesn't really wash.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

83. Ah, so you're saying that you made of those "rules"

Gotcha.

[rrneck]

75. There is a question pending

in post #35 if you have the intestinal fortitude to address it.

Like I told you before, ignoring people is running away and a refusal to engage in discussion by fleeing into umbrage is capitulation. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.