Blasphemy, blas-for-you...

[Tinker Grey]

That is an excellent starting point. However...



There lies the rub, anything more specific than what is stated leads to objections of "but that wasn't my intent!" when a post is edited or deleted.

The alternative is no rule at all. As with libel and slander laws, there is a sense of what any reasonable person would see. (Perhaps, CaDan or Crazy Liz could elaborate.) My first message board was StraightDope. The only rule was "Don't be a jerk." It was the moderators job to interpret that--by a reasonable person standard. All such rules require interpretation. There is no getting around it.

What makes such rules worth while is when moderators are willing to instruct the infractors as to where there errors lie. When I moderated at a board, I used to suggest rewordings to the malefactors. In addition, we have to be willing to ban folks that refuse to learn or are too stupid to learn. Again the point at which we make that decision is flexible and varies from case to case. Nevertheless, civilized communities have to make those decisions. Maturity also requires that we are able to admit mistakes and revoke previous decisions -- and be willing to explain why we made those decisions.

I think the wording I gave allows all the above--but it does require trust. There is no way around it.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I think that it becomes a name calling thing that is unfruitful.

Even when sincerely believed, a Christian may refer to Shiva as "a false god", drawing from the bible itself. Clearly they would be insulted if one called Jesus "a false God", but they are unable to extend that courtesy to another, usually because it isn't about Christianity at all, but ego, and who is right being superior.

One should treat others as they want to be treated.
One cannot, however, call someone's god "a false God", and then cry foul, when the insensed person returns the same insult.

Honestly, I think the rules, with their good intentions, are going to be tools for Pharisee like tactics to entrap others for malicious intent.

Exactly. I think using words like "blasphemy" are jargon and not helpful. What they really want is that people should not be jerks. If we agree that people should not be jerks and if we want jerks dealt with, we'll have to extend trust to the mods to do there job.

Note to mods: if you want trust, you'll have to willing to justify your decisions.

Message boards tend to one of two extremes: 1) Absolute secrecy, and 2) complete openness. I prefer #2 to #1, but even #2 has its pitfalls. #2's major pitfall is that they sometimes fail to allow for the situation where something really does need to be discussed in private--like say a member's institutionalization for schizophrenia that may require latitude in dealing with him or her, but that that information was not made public by the member in question.

Boards that fall into #1 seem to think that in order to maintain order they must maintain absolute control. To maintain absolute control, they feel the need to be unquestioned. To be questioned means that decisions can't be final--they feel out of control. So to be unquestioned they maintain secrecy. But as has been said many times, where there is secrecy there can be no trust.

The primary thing that Type 1 boards forget is why anyone goes to a message board in the first place. The owner may want to make money. But a member comes to communicate and share ideas and fellowship. They pick a particular board because of its primary focus.

The Type 1 board will ultimately fail because the administration thinks the primary goal is control. It isn't. The primary goal is member satisfaction. No satisfaction, no board. No board, no ad revenue.

I think, forgive me, that CF is a Type 1 board. It survives for one reason. It has reached critical mass. That is, for each drama that causes and for each group of people alienated, there is a sufficient number of folks that have avoided that drama to keep it alive until enough new membership arrives and the next drama hits.

Because it survives, it can delude itself into thinking that God is on their side. For an insight into this delusion, see this Bob Dylan lyric.

I think we as members can help rectify the situation by extending trust and grace. By definition, grace is undeserved. I don't think our mods deserve trust, by-and-large, though some are worthy. But to reverse their psychological stance, we're going to have to stop jumping at every conspiracy theory merely because something is secret and we think we see evidence of it in some random post.

[/rant]

Well, I sure didn't intend to go down that path.

But ... HTH

 

[quatona]

I think the wording I gave allows all the above--but it does require trust. There is no way around it.

The alternative "no rules" also requires nothing but trust - the other way round, though.

 

[Tinker Grey]

The alternative "no rules" also requires nothing but trust - the other way round, though.

True.

 

[quatona]

True.

Btw, you made a good point when emphasizing that a working communication between administration and posters would be the prerequisite for trust.

And on yet another note, I lack trust in the competence of an administration that considers the "blasphemy" rule (any "blasphemy" rule, that is) rule a good idea.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I agree, if by that you mean something as what is currently written.

I think, however, that some sort of rule that promotes civil discourse and allows the policing of uncivil discourse is good.

The problem with the word blasphemy is that it almost ensure an inequity in enforcement -- particularly since it seems that that word is used by those that are prone to being offended.

I would be happy with the simple straightdope rule, "Don't be a jerk."

 

[Tinker Grey]

I agree, if by that you mean something as what is currently written.

I think, however, that some sort of rule that promotes civil discourse and allows the policing of uncivil discourse is good.

The problem with the word blasphemy is that it almost ensure an inequity in enforcement -- particularly since it seems that that word is used by those that are prone to being offended.

I would be happy with the simple straightdope rule, "Don't be a jerk."

 

[mpok1519]

blasphemy = anything a rigid fundamentalist w/o their own thoughts/opinions disagrees with.

lol

the word is slung around as much as the phrase "I love you" is. lol

 

[quatona]

I agree, if by that you mean something as what is currently written.

I think, however, that some sort of rule that promotes civil discourse and allows the policing of uncivil discourse is good.

The problem with the word blasphemy is that it almost ensure an inequity in enforcement -- particularly since it seems that that word is used by those that are prone to being offended.

That´s how I see it, too, and I can´t fathom any other way of phrasing a blasphemy rule that does not come with the same problem.

I am all for civil discourse, but a blasphemy rule does not help civil discourse.

I would be happy with the simple straightdope rule, "Don't be a jerk."

Then again: Is there really a need for that?
Does anyone go to a discussionboard seriously thinking that he is expected to act like a jerk?
And - assuming there were a handful of people who behave as jerks intentionally - would they in any way care about or be impressed by this rule? I mean, not acting like a jerk is common sense. On people who need to be reminded of that this reminder is lost, anyway.
It´s the same situation we have in society: We have a lot of laws that are directed towards potential sociopaths. 99,9% of us don´t need them. And those for whom they are made (the sociopaths) won´t keep them anyways.

I am pretty sure that the vast majority of perceived offenses here are not caused by intentional jerkiness. Intentional jerkiness is a neglectible problem when it comes to communication problems.

As I have said before, I think these problems are easier to solve on part of the receiving end.

If there had to be one rule, it would be "Don´t take offense.", imo.

 

[NPH]

.

 

[Beanieboy]

I'm going to say this as gently as possible, but I think quickly labeling someone, "homophobe" or "racist" for saying something homophobic or racist similarly ends the conversation before it begins. The other person feels unjustly accused, rather than have his position questioned, and shown as homophobic due to its falseness, its unfairness, or its deroggatory nature, and instead, feel justified to continue their rant.

It's hard to enter into any conversation, and examine and discuss what was said, rather than label the other person, especially if it is insulting to us personally. It's human nature to attack those who attack you, but accomplishes little but make both sides justified to hate the other.

I think the same is said for mocking another's religion, no matter how impossible it may seem for you to believe. Religion, especially, is almost like the map that people understand of reality, and challenging that, or judging that, seems to cut a bit deeper.

RE: The rules, though, I keep going back the fear of legality.
I may say JC, and think it isn't blasphemous, while another may accuse me of blasphemy for it. If so, from a Buddhist perspective, I owe it to the person to tell them that allow it wasn't my intention, I seemed to have offended you, and so I'm sorry.

But then I am let to another dilemma, especially on CF.
I understand that this is first a Christian Forum, where people of other faiths are welcome.
My problem is that if a wolf chooses to put on sheep's clothing, they claim to have full authority of God's Word and Desires for us. They can claim that it is ok to hate, because God hates people who are worker of evil. Another forum had such Christians that would claim, for example, that Romans 12:9 Let your love be without hypocracy; cling to what is good, abhor what is evil. I am gay, I am evil, so God command them to hate me.

I would then pull up the whole passage. Paul says after that to love your enemies, return curse with blessing, do what is right in the eyes of all people.

I would then say that they have completely misused the bible, and are not following the words of Paul, nor Christ, but clearly the opposite. The are acting the antithesis of what a Christian should be.

Incensed, they would ask me what authority a non-Christian had telling Christian how to live. I told them that I wasn't telling them how to live, simply stating a fact, and point out what the passage spoke of. I exposed a lie, and was attacked for it.

And even as a Buddhist, that bothers me - people who act more like Pharisees, and claim to know God well, to follow Jesus, and yet, their fruit doesn't show that. For one, it gives Christians a really bad reputation, and its not in a good state now for a reason, but it also creates a really twisted idea of what God is. It shows God often as an ogre that would as soon crush you like a bug than save you, one whose compassion seems to end once you die, and he has to kick you into hell, one who is only about wrath, and not mercy, hope, kindness and love.

It is man making God in their own image, holding it up, and then trying to make others believe that God believes exactly what they do.

That's blasphemy, and I worry that if i call people on it, and Christ did to the Pharisees, that the legalese will side with the "christian" out of principal, or some specific wording loophole.

Were I a Christian, it is this brand of hateful, vengeful God that is presented to others that I would be far more concerned with when dealing with issues of blasphemy.

 

[Paulos23]

You are being watched, be careful.

They way this board is going, I really don't care anymore.

Granted, in a perfect world everyone will be nice to one another and we would understand the position people are coming from so we don't misunderstanding their meaning accidentally. But they way it is now I don't think I can say anything about religion without getting a ban. Or comment on peoples opinions based on religious belief.

 

[NPH]

.

 

[Exhausted]

Blasphemy? No, it is not blasphemy. If God is as vast as that, he is above blasphemy; if He is as little as that, He is beneath it.

~Mark Twain

​

Thread was over at the third post.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Blasphemy? No, it is not blasphemy. If God is as vast as that, he is above blasphemy; if He is as little as that, He is beneath it.​

~Mark Twain​

lol. Forgetting that you are at the utter of mercy of God 24/7 and are hanging on a thin thread that could break at any moment. People drop dead everyday. Blasphemy only hurts one person, the person commiting it. God is vast because he still allows us to blaspheme him because of our free will. Just don't expect to not reap what you sow. You may throw the seeds around everywhere and whenever you want, your free to do that, but once those seeds are thrown they are gonna grow

 

[cantata]

If someone speaks contemptuously of someone you love, don't you feel a need to go, "Hey, my buddy's not so bad!"

I asked you the question because I wanted to know whether your reasons for being offended by contemptuous language about your husband can be equally applied to an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient being.

lol. Forgetting that you are at the utter of mercy of God 24/7 and are hanging on a thin thread that could break at any moment. People drop dead everyday. Blasphemy only hurts one person, the person commiting it. God is vast because he still allows us to blaspheme him because of our free will. Just don't expect to not reap what you sow. You may throw the seeds around everywhere and whenever you want, your free to do that, but once those seeds are thrown they are gonna grow

Right, so why do we need the rule? To protect people from themselves?

Also, "to blaspheme" is an intransitive verb, people.

 

[quatona]

Also, "to blaspheme" is an intransitive verb, people.

Interesting, I didn´t know that.
(I think it would be a more useful word if it were transitive, though.)

 

[cantata]

Interesting, I didn´t know that.
(I think it would be a more useful word if it were transitive, though.)

It's okay! You can blaspheme against things. You just can't blaspheme them.

 

[quatona]

It's okay! You can blaspheme against things.

Thank you!
(In German we don´t even have a verb "blaspheme", we just have the noun).

 

[SiderealExalt]

I don't believe in blasphemy. Even if I did, I'd find that blasphemy isn't necessarily bad because of how nebulous the concept of "holy" is, or I'd think blasphemy is immaterial to omnipotent beings.