You hate Religion. I get it.

DeVore

I've been trying my damnedest to get done under the blasphemy laws...

I'm sure its annoying to have the "tastes" of some of your group repeatedly pointed out but to be fair, what would you like us to do

I agree that posters shouldnt be attacked for their religion but that goes as far as calling someone a "dirty child-touching Catholic"... but I dont see much of that being reported. Anger at the institution of the RC church is not going to go away because we step in to protect them... not that I think we should.

DeV.

hopalong85

My name is URL wrote: »

Attack the Pope, not the parishioners

In this case I believe parishioners have left themselves open to attack. For continuing to attend mass and support the Church financially I believe they do deserve to be ridiculed.

Sparks

hopalong85 wrote: »

In this case I believe parishioners have left themselves open to attack. For continuing to attend mass and support the Church financially I believe they do deserve to be ridiculed.

Not that I have much sympathy for those who continue to act like an egyptian crocodile, but all Irish taxpayers are supporting the Church financially at the moment and have been for some time.

Sparks

DeVore wrote: »

I've been trying my damnedest to get done under the blasphemy laws...

Wait till after Ahern is out of the Minister for Justice's office and you'll have better luck - anyone getting done under those laws before he leaves and the new incumbent can blame the mess on him isn't very likely...

hopalong85

Sparks wrote: »

Not that I have much sympathy for those who continue to act like an egyptian crocodile, but all Irish taxpayers are supporting the Church financially at the moment and have been for some time.

Didn't realise that. Thanks for the links. Pretty shocking, just reinforces my determination to emigrate immediately upon graduation.

Orion

Overheal wrote: »

Condemnation for the Catholic Priesthood is one thing; Sectarian outrage toward everyone who practices a belief in God is quite another. It needs clamping down on before it grows wildly out of control.

+1. It's the equivalent of attack the post not the poster. I'm vehemently opposed to the Catholic Church, it's institutional corruption and abuse of power and Ratzinger himself. But I don't ever criticise people for having faith. While I'm also an athiest I am a firm believer in freedom to practise religion as you see fit.

It does amaze me that people still accept dogma from Rome - particularly in relation to child abuse. One guy (in AH I think) referred to the letter today as a "letter from our Holy Father" and implies that it should not be questioned. Blind faith and acceptance like that just amazes me.

Cunny-Funt

hopalong85 wrote: »

Didn't realise that. Thanks for the links. Pretty shocking, just reinforces my determination to emigrate immediately upon graduation.

Yeah I feel the same way tbh.

Overheal wrote: »

I don't pretend to know your Posting Habits CF. Except to say you spent 5 minutes or more writing the above post, between however long it took to write the original @ 21:20 and the final draft @ 21:25. I guess I need to ask: Do you refresh the page every time you make an edit?

No I don't edit my posts after people already replied to them to add extra digs, I merely replied to your post 1st. Then read the rest of the thread and replied to Dohnny Jepp's post. Editing it in so as not to make a double post since no one posted after my last post.

dr.bollocko

Nobody expects the atheist inquisition!

The catholic church in Ireland has hidden and covered up the abuse of innocent children by evil men. These men weren't shunned or vilified or sent to jail. They were moved to another parish to do it again. People need an avenue to express the kind of ire that that type of evil inspires. Hopefully it isn't confined to just boards tbh.

Dr Galen

snyper wrote: »

but you absolutely cannot disrespect and look down your nose at people that have faith in a god. I dont believe in a god, perhaps some day i will find faith again, but my rational thinking brain when switched on cannot reason one.

Why not?

While I agree with the OP that sometimes people are going to far with some comments, I fail to see why we can't "look down our nose" at those who believe in a fairytale. Within the bounds of site policy on personal abuse of course.

If someone believes in something mental, then of course I'll have less respect for them. If someone wants to believe that the earth is flat, of course I'll think less of them. Likewise if someone wants to tell me they want to believe in the Romes version of sleeping beauty, well then same follows.

But people are entitled to have a faith, and the comfort and solice it povides them is unquestionable.

I agree that people are free to believe in what they want, and would be a defender of that right totally, the fact that they take comfort and solice from it is not my concern.

Going back to what I said above, I don't think people with faith deserve any more or less protection than anyone else on this site. No more than the public servants regularly getting slated as being lazy so and so's (we all know that most aren't), no more than the people who made a few euro during the boom being called money grabbing thieves ( again, most weren't) etc etc. I could go on, pointing out other groups of people who regularly come in for attack not just here but across all society. Certainly, personal abuse should not be tolerated whatsoever, but additional protection just because religion makes people feel warm and fuzzy is not a good road.

Handsome Bob

There was a recent thread in A&A which sums up my feelings on this. A number of posters had ganged up on a certain poster, some of the posts crossed the line to personally abusive in my humble opinion. Here's the thread;

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055852556

I reported them and they went unacknowledged. A mod note was posted in the thread on page 1 or 2 but it was by and large ignored.

I have noticed an ever increasing amount of posters being unable to discuss religion without getting personal and crossing the line so I completely agree Overheal.

Just for background, I'm not religious myself, so this is not the opinion of someone who feels persecuted. Rather it's just the opinion of someone who was brought up to have manners, common courtesy and to not patronise or look down on people.

Chinafoot

I don't really get how this warrants its own thread. If you see a post attacking someone personally report it and let the moderators deal with it. If its a case that you don't agree then state your case. Debate the issue. Should we stop all discussion on the issue? Should we only allow posts that you deem to be nice regarding the church?

The sex abuse scandals are a hot topic at the moment and people are justified in their outrage. It'll pass. Next month it'll be something else to get riled about. I don't see why religion deserves special treatment. People are entitled to their religious beliefs and equally people are entitled to think that its a pile of crap and both sides should be free to express that here. Personal abuse is never warranted but someone making the point that the laiety were in some way implicit to what went on and should be ashamed is not personal abuse as far as I'd be concerned. It absolutely baffles me that people still support that church, just like it baffles me that people still support this government. I do have a lower opinion of those people. Why shouldn't I?

As Mystik Monkey pointed out there have been numerous topics where people have voiced their outrage in this way. I'm a public sector worker, should I go reporting every post that says "The public sector are all lazys gits who do nothing, make thousands a week, and then hold the country to ransom to get what they want"? That view has been expressed on boards countless times and people are entitled to that opinion, even if I completely disagree with them.

In short (I'm very hungover and not being very coherent) report the posts you deem abusive and leave it to the mods.

Ickle Magoo

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I have noticed an ever increasing amount of posters being unable to discuss religion without getting personal and crossing the line....

See, I kind of agree with that. There does seem to be some quite rabid anti-theists about and sometimes their comments make me cringe - but in the interests of fairness, there is still a lot of double standards. Perhaps there needs to be some more obvious rules in the charter with regards to religion or religious comments too?

I'm not sure what makes it okay for a theist to tell a poster in PI that they have no morals, or that a parent is cruel for not introducing their child to god in parenting or post in a forum dedicated to people who lack belief in a god theistic proclamations about their nearest and dearest suffering bringing them closer to god but argue that no-one can tell the theist that their faith based proclamations regarding others are nonsense & not appreciated.

There seems to be an all pervasive religious agenda by certain posters who assume they have carte blanche to judge and make rather inappropriate judgements and suggestions because that is what their faith tells them they - and everyone else - should believe. I agree that personal insults should treated the same way as any other kind of insult in line with the charter but I don't see why theists should automatically have the right to foist religious views on others unabated or unquestioned outside of the forums dedicated to them, either.

AckwelFoley

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

Why not?

While I agree with the OP that sometimes people are going to far with some comments, I fail to see why we can't "look down our nose" at those who believe in a fairytale. Within the bounds of site policy on personal abuse of course.

If someone believes in something mental, then of course I'll have less respect for them. If someone wants to believe that the earth is flat, of course I'll think less of them. Likewise if someone wants to tell me they want to believe in the Romes version of sleeping beauty, well then same follows.
.

Because to "look down ones nose" at someone else, is to assume your views or social standing is greater than the other. Its the single biggest cause of conflict among mankind. At some point Hitler was sitting having a beer and a bratwurst and thought to himself, them jews are a lesser group than us germans (although he was austrian).

My point is this, dont look down on other people due to what may be their opinion or beliefs no matter how daft they may seem. It shows a level of intolerance and snobbery that relfects more on the one that holds it than the person they have the view of

Dr Galen

i should clarify then, what I'm talking about is "looking down ones nose" purely on an intellectual level. Not a personal one.

I do think we're in agreement though that the personal side of things should be removed from any debate or discussion around religion.

--amadeus--

Firstly Boards is a medium, not a message. We don't set agendas we just facilitate people discussing them. The RCC attitude to the serial abusers in thier employ is a hot topic and will stay so unless and until people feel it's being addressed and I don't think we should in any way try to stifle that debate.

And I'm totally with MM - no-one should face personal abuse. But we should be free to point out the many, many flaws in the RCC. As in no-one should be told "you're catholic therfore you're a child rapist" but we should be free to say "teh RCC covered up decades of child rape"

And there are two sides in teh debate. A lot of teh posts from teh RCC apologists have been very unpleasent:

ISAW wrote: »

<waffle>

Rape was not committed as there was not law of raping boys!

<waffle>

People can't crib looking for protection from people attacking religion on teh one hand and post stuff like that on teh other.

WindSock

Sparks wrote: »

I just love how "atheist" is always translated to "has no faith" instead of its correct translation "has faith there is no god"; and I love even more how that then gets transmuted into "have a crack at them, they're not allowed to get irate when someone questions their religious stance 'cos they don't got none, hur, hur, hur".

That's not what I was saying at all. By the term 'fundamentalist Athiest', I wasn't having a go at all athiests, just the ones who act in the same manner as fundamentalist religious; those who berate any one for not having the same belief as them.
I am not religious myself, less do I care about the church, but I have to say some of the most intolerant people I have come across call themselves athiests.

Overheal

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

Going back to what I said above, I don't think people with faith deserve any more or less protection than anyone else on this site. No more than the public servants regularly getting slated as being lazy so and so's (we all know that most aren't), no more than the people who made a few euro during the boom being called money grabbing thieves ( again, most weren't) etc etc. I could go on, pointing out other groups of people who regularly come in for attack not just here but across all society. Certainly, personal abuse should not be tolerated whatsoever, but additional protection just because religion makes people feel warm and fuzzy is not a good road.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Nobody expects the atheist inquisition!

The catholic church in Ireland has hidden and covered up the abuse of innocent children by evil men. These men weren't shunned or vilified or sent to jail. They were moved to another parish to do it again. People need an avenue to express the kind of ire that that type of evil inspires. Hopefully it isn't confined to just boards tbh.

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Firstly Boards is a medium, not a message. We don't set agendas we just facilitate people discussing them. The RCC attitude to the serial abusers in thier employ is a hot topic and will stay so unless and until people feel it's being addressed and I don't think we should in any way try to stifle that debate.

And I'm totally with MM - no-one should face personal abuse. But we should be free to point out the many, many flaws in the RCC. As in no-one should be told "you're catholic therfore you're a child rapist" but we should be free to say "teh RCC covered up decades of child rape"

That's all I'm trying to say. When you're going off-topic in a thread to attack someone and say they are trying to brainwash their children because they are Religious, is going way out of line. I am not at all trying to defend the Church itself or stifle the topic and I'm appalled but unsurprised at the Pope's recent admission that they effectively feel they are above the law. Those are totally valid concerns and discussions but thats not a license to permit Discrimination and Bigotry. And surely if you want to express disappointment at the Laity you can still maintain the Decorum that has Always been expected here, regardless of the issue; and not resort to this.

If I had said the same thing about the Republican Party in a Healthcare debate for example, I'd have been rightly banned. However to the contrary, posts like these are being actively supported and encouraged.

Ickle Magoo wrote:

I'm not sure what makes it okay for a theist to tell a poster in PI that they have no morals, or that a parent is cruel for not introducing their child to god in parenting or post in a forum dedicated to people who lack belief in a god theistic proclamations about their nearest and dearest suffering bringing them closer to god but argue that no-one can tell the theist that their faith based proclamations regarding others are nonsense & not appreciated.

I don't defend the right of anyone to make such claims and accusations either and when they've been levied at me in the past I have always been quick to report them. But just as I expected to be defended from those accusations when it was directed at me; they deserve the same courtesy now that it is directed at them.

Maximilian

The depth and scale of grotesquerie of the catholic church is just incredible to me. And if I read the article in the paper correctly (or enough) this morning the Pope has pretty much much said it's our own fault for not being devout enough and sapping their jedi powers or whatever.

To a real atheist, it's nothing short of astonishing that anybody can believe in religion at all. To those who now come to question and thereafter reject the beliefs drilled into them since childhood, anger is a perfectly natural response.

It's surprising to see a supposedly self-confessed atheist say that we should shut up or just be more quiet/respectful about it all. Why aren't there more such threads?

Ickle Magoo

Overheal wrote: »

If I had said the same thing about the Republican Party in a Healthcare debate for example, I'd have been rightly banned. However to the contrary, posts like these are being actively supported and encouraged.

But, ironically, you think having a sig calling someone fcuking unbelievably retarded is okay?

Overheal

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

But, ironically, you think having a sig calling someone fcuking unbelievably retarded is okay?

If you follow the link I clearly explain the rationale that brought me to that proclamation.

Youre also welcome to peruse all of my other posts discussing Palin. I've often defended her right to privacy to what she does as a Private Citizen. I do however find that what she chooses to do as a Politician is open to scrutiny. And by that record, she's made all the wrong moves.

Did I mention Im a big Family Guy fan?

Sparks

To be fair, Sarah Palin does continually convince people that she has some serious learning difficulties and/or low intelligence...

Ickle Magoo

Personal rationale or not, last time I looked calling someone retarded is as offensive a term as any that you are complaining about - as one the posts on the quickly locked thread you link to shows. After all, people calling to task those still supporting the catholic church have their rationale as well...what's good for the goose, etc, etc.

dr.bollocko

That's still just deflecting Overheal's original point. I personally don't have a problem with any of the posts I've seen linked here, particularly not that one you linked above overheal, but then I'm biased on this argument. It's very hard to see the other side when you're convinced they're entirely wrong so I don't know if there is a problem or not.

Overheal

The difference is I never judged Sarah based on the actions of Billy Bob. I also don't pick a demographic and call them all retarded. I dont say Fcuk all you Catholics. Or Fcuk all you Evangelical Bible Thumpers. Or Fcuk the Muslims.

Believe me, and again, you can look back to the day she was announced as the VP to now: I judged the woman based purely on her merit. On day one I thought she was an impressive choice. Then Katie Courich. Ohhh Katie..

When you say Fcuk all you Catholics, you are telling Mary, Paul, John, Jacob, Tom, Pat, Michael, Connor, Seamus, Cathy, Jill, Steve, etc. to Fcuk off.

Well lets see. Maybe Mary and Paul are choosing to ignore current events. Maybe Paul and John and Jacob have chosen to boycott the church but still believe in the tenets of Catholicism, and maybe Tom Pat Michael Connor Seamus Cathy Jill and Steve believe their Parish has been impartial from these incidents; wish for the Guilty Clergymen to brought to justice, and continue to go to Church to pray for their souls.

But you've all Tarred them with the same brush. Well done.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

That's still just deflecting Overheal's original point. I personally don't have a problem with any of the posts I've seen linked here, particularly not that one you linked above overheal, but then I'm biased on this argument. It's very hard to see the other side when you're convinced they're entirely wrong so I don't know if there is a problem or not.

I can respect that and I can understand that when you're on the center stage of the issue, you aren't seeing the same thing as someone else who may be in the Third Person.

I guess what I'm beginning to understand is just how many people here are emotionally invested in the issue, and maybe all I can do is wait till the April showers wash away the bloodshed here.. like a lonely Mr. Data when the whole ship contracts a psychoactive virus.

Dr Galen

Correct me if I'm wrong here Overheal but what your saying is that there is a line, where justified critiscm takes a nasty turn?

I think that different people might have a different view of where that line should be. Like I said before, and using another current anaology, routinely posts are made on this site, claiming that public servants are lazy shower of wasters. Much like what your talking about, a whole group of people are being tarred with one brush. I don't see special protection for those guys and thus I don't think it should exist for those who chose to associate themselves with the Roman Catholic church. Don't forget that many of the people your talking about above (Mary, Steve, Conor et al) knew what was going down, or at the least had an inkling, and chose to say nothing. "For evil to flourish, it only requires good men to do nothing" comes to mind tbh.

This is in danger though of turning into a thread more suited to A&A. I do agree with you that there has to be a line on the sand, I just think that line is in the same place as everyone elses.

Ickle Magoo

Overheal wrote: »

The difference is I never judged Sarah based on the actions of Billy Bob. I also don't pick a demographic and call them all retarded. I dont say Fcuk all you Catholics. Or Fcuk all you Evangelical Bible Thumpers. Or Fcuk the Muslims.

But you offend anyone who doesn't like the term retarded or who supports Palin (a minuscule demographic, I grant you!) even though you think you have a sound rationale for using the term. I just don't see much difference between that and people who don't like terms like deluded or nonsense, or are offended when it is suggested they are knowingly supporting an organisation which protects and supports child abusers, which would make them complicit in protecting and supporting child abusers.

I don't think it's a very nice accusation to make but I can see their rationale.

deadhead13

We have had the Ferns report, CICA reported and now the Murphy. All of which the Catholic Church fought at every turn. Even now, the Church's hierarchy chief concern appears to be clinging onto power. The Catholic Church wielded far too much influence in this country for a long, long time.

Yes, there is a blacklash and perhaps some of the anger is misdirected. but I think that is understandable. It is all part of the process.

metrovelvet

I can understand why people are angry at those who are still even attending church because it shows support for the institution at large. AS long as the flock keep showing up the shepherds arent going to change anything. Im a catholic [although a very casual practicing/non practicing one] myself and yes it makes sense to have at least a one sunday universal protest no show across the country to let them know people are pissed.

There's a saying in the southern part of the US. "I'm so mad I could lose my religion!"

Its enough to make you turn protestant.

Handsome Bob

That's no excuse to be personally abusive towards people. As I said, attack the religion, but don't treat their followers with contempt if they don't deserve it.

Overheal

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

But you offend anyone who doesn't like the term retarded or who supports Palin (a minuscule demographic, I grant you!) even though you think you have a sound rationale for using the term. I just don't see much difference between that and people who don't like terms like deluded or nonsense, or are offended when it is suggested they are knowingly supporting an organisation which protects and supports child abusers, which would make them complicit in protecting and supporting child abusers.

I don't think it's a very nice accusation to make but I can see their rationale.

Theres a difference to offense and to attack. I think you'd agree that calling the woman retarded - though potentially offensive to her supporters, is not in the same league as saying that All supporters of Palin are Retarded.

No more could I discriminate against Jews for the actions of Israel.