What purposes are served by the religion forum that aren't better served by the interfaith forum?

[el_bryanto]

I'm not sure there are any, but I could be wrong.

Bryant

[hrmjustin]

1. I feel more comfortable here.

I like our group here.

[kentauros]

2. First off this place isn't a "shooting gallery"

That is, we post in the confidence that we won't have our beliefs questioned at every turn, seemingly for the purpose of arguing for the sake of arguing.

I would like to see more posts by our friends knowledgeable in many faiths or beliefs so we don't stagnate. I've always heard the New Age people I like quoting from A Course in Miracles, so I was just about to go looking for an ebook version. I'd never be able to make that statement in the Religion forum without getting trounced, mocked, and ridiculed almost immediately.

[el_bryanto]

3. That's largely my experience as well.

While having your beliefs question isn't the worst thing in the world, having them constantly ridiculed and attacked does get old.

Bryant

[hrmjustin]

4. Yes and sometimes the other room gets the better of me.

And sometimes I walk right into it.

[kentauros]

5. I don't have a problem with my beliefs being questioned

in a civil and polite manner. That's pretty much the basis of discussion. While the rules of that forum do state that it's a place for discussion, I have long had the belief that discussion isn't on the table. Only debate is revered. That's just not my idea of discussing something.

I seem to recall a statement of advice made somewhere on DU that the primary method for atheists to use when engaging believers in "discussion" was to attack, and not to attempt civil discourse. I guess that's why I have some of them on ignore now...

[MADem]

24. This is it, exactly. The idea is to have a safe haven of sorts--the TOS spells it out.

The Religion group, no matter what the topic, often devolved into thread disrupting "It all SUX!" rants. That's just not happening here.

[cbayer]

6. A little history on Interfaith, if I might.

When DU3 came into being, there was much discussion about whether the Religion group was or was not a "safe haven".

It was decided (mainly by consensus) that it was not.

Discussion ensued as to whether there should be an alternative that would be a safe haven. Unfortunately, much of the discussion about this took place in the now closed meta forum, which you can not access or search.

As I recall, the believers felt that it would not serve much purpose and maintained that civility should rule in all groups. Another member, MADem, was very much in favor of this group and promoted it as a place that people could discuss religion without fear of attack. He posted a thread asking who supported it's formation and had enough responses to have the group opened in March, 2013.

Almost all of the support came from the DU atheist community, as is evidenced in this post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12307658

I found that very curious at the time, but if you read that thread it may become glaringly obvious why things have not gone all that well.

In one ATA post, hrmjustin asked Skinner about his thoughts regarding the hostility towards religion on DU and received this reply:

I'm not religious, and I understand that too often religion is used to justify intolerance. But some DUers are hostile to religion. Personally, I think it is offensive and unnecessary. Many good DU members are believers -- they do not support the intolerant teachings of their faith, and there is no reason to deliberately alienate them. Liberal believers are going to be the people who ultimately bring change to their own religions.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1259572

Initially, I and others tried to promote the group. We posted articles and tried to draw attention, but like many of the very small or new groups on DU, it did not flourish.

Also, almost immediately, several members of DU anti-theist community began frequenting the group with the same kind of antagonism they displayed in the religion group. They also took the opportunity to mock the groups extensively and call out specific members while doing so. This was done in the A/A group.

This became such a problem that the hosts of A/A had to take action to stop it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/123013986

Although the rules they laid down at that time are not in any way consistently followed in the A/A group, they did stop talking about the Interfaith Group for a time.

There you have it. It started out with a broken leg, incurred a few other broken bones and never got off the ground.

So, my answer to your question is a resounding no.

[el_bryanto]

7. Than what can we do to get it off the ground? It seems like the only threads that have legs in

the Religion forum are the ones where we bash Atheists and they bash us - and I'm a little tired of that.

Bryant

[cbayer]

9. I try not to participate in those threads and I do so

by completely ignoring a small group of posters there . I think I have a lot of interesting conversations, but it could be better.

You have started some very interesting threads. Perhaps really encouraging and interacting with people who appear to want a legitimate conversation would be helpful.

I don't see much hope for this group. As recently as about a week ago someone came in here to disrupt and I don't anticipate that that is going to change. It was established under a cloud.

So I would prefer to stick with the religion group and try to make it a better place.

[cbayer]

23. Though I think the DU3 changes are really great

and would never support going back to the moderator system, there were a few advantages,

One of those was that moderators had some historical knowledge. I think that is happening to some extent in the MIRT forum, but they don't really monitor the groups the way the mods did.

On DU3, it is much easier for members to report some kind of "history" that's really not accurate. Members are generally not inclined to do the research to see whether the version they are getting is accurate or not.

It's kind of fascinating to watch the evolution of some of these stories. Reminds me of the game telephone, as often the stories bear no resemblance to the actual truth after a while.

[MADem]

28. My involvement basically came out of a place where I got tired of seeing decent people get crapped

upon.

In my view, there's really nothing of which we can be "certain." I'm not talking about strictly spiritual matters, but matters of "science," as well. Once upon a time, scientists thought that we were affected by "humours" and that women's wombs could wander all over their bodies.

There's just a shitload that is not known. Still. Despite an air of "certainty" there's plenty that's just not clear even to this day. People get through their days the best way they know how. Cultural considerations also impact this kind of thing...and many religious holidays are a boatload of fun. People "cling" to their religions for lots of reasons, some social, some spiritual, some to keep grandma happy, and some for the chocolate, cookies and cakes.

I'm not going to fault people for believing what they want to believe, be it this deity or that, this prophet or that, or the FSM, so long as they aren't shitty to others and so long as they don't discriminate. It's like choice--NMB. Not. My. Business. I think most people who are--in actual fact and not fronting for internet fun--True Progressives feel this way. It's just not an issue. I also think most True Progressives follow the "Render Unto Caesar" attitude in their daily lives as well. No need to insert religion into government or taxpayer funded endeavors--it's just not cool.

The A/A group could or can do what they want. I think if they want to bash people who post here, that's on them entirely--the only thing is, they're NOT gonna do it here.

I don't think the mark of a "good" group is necessarily one that is heavily trafficked. The most "popular" kids in my high school, back in the dark ages, were assholes, lots of 'em. Volume does not always translate to quality.

If a person wants to have a chat with someone, or a few people, about a topic that fits here, they can invite them with a PM or redirect from the "free-wheeling" religion group to a more in-depth discussion. That's the utility of this place--it's a quiet corner where people won't be jerking your chain. It's a place where civility is the watchword, if you will...!

[cbayer]

30. I've been thinking about this, but I don't really have a solution.

It seems to me that liberal/progressive people should be able to post anywhere on DU without getting crapped on. When a separate space must be supplied to make sure that is the case, it is indicative of a much deeper problem.

Whether that problem can be resolved or not is not clear, but division is never good for the democratic party, imo.

The TOS of this site specifically talk about bigotry towards believers and non-believers, yet the community seems to tolerate both. As a result, it has flourished in some cases.

I agree with you that a good group is not necessarily a heavily trafficked group. I also think that widely divergent points of view are good things and lead to the most interesting conversations. However, if that conversation can not be had civilly, have we not hit a brick wall?

I think the "quiet corner" concept is a good one and I would advocate for this group to be left standing. However, I still think that civil and stimulating discussion can be had in the religion group and I like to participate in those, but it can only be had if you refuse to let your chain get jerked.

[MADem]

35. We're not organized--we're Democrats.

I don't see it as a problem. We aren't cookie-cutters. We don't agree on everything. The general trajectory of the Democratic Party is found in the platform, but you'll find people all over the country who don't agree with every single plank of the thing.

Hell, look at the Gungeon. It will NEVER be civil up in there. I stay away from that place--to me, it's a sewer. More vitriol than you could shake a stick at. Indeed, I can understand why some people have a need for a gun (people feed their families with 'em in rural areas, and protect their livestock as well) but I just can't get into the whole Fight!!!! Fight!!! You're WRONG!!!! I'm RIGHT!!!! game they play there. I don't think every idiot should walk the streets packing heat, and yet we have people who will vote the "D" ticket who feel otherwise.

You can even find bitter pro/anti-nuke throw downs in the Environment groups, and they can get nasty and snide, too....where there is Internet, there will be Fights, apparently.

I think self-control is a key element of maintaining civility, certainly; stiff-arming the jerks and calling them out by making public note of their conduct is another way to check them. It can take effort though, and some people aren't interested in "wading into the fray" at times--this place serves those customers. It's a side dish, if you will--and nothing wrong with plenty of those.

[cbayer]

36. The difference between the gungeon and religion is that

there is not a specific statement on this site about guns, while there is one about religion.

And there really is no opportunity for people on the two major sides of the gun debate to come to some agreement.

That is not the case with religion, OTOH. If people could agree to live and let live and see where they have commonalities instead of the relatively small difference of belief or non-belief, there is an opportunity to form alliances and work together.

However, I agree that the internet thrives on debate and disagreement. I'm not opposed to that, but I still believe it can be done in a civil fashion.

That, I believe, is the goal of the owners of this site.

[rug]

37. There was a reason for this: "Almost all of the support came from the DU atheist community".

To create a ghetto elsewhere to have a free hand to bash religions and those who adhere to them. Any objection would then be met by a link to this place. It didn't work.

[cbayer]

39. I tend to think that is accurate, but I can not be sure.

It was very puzzling at the time and not a good way for the group to start.

It should be "safe" for any liberal/progressive person of belief or non-belief to post anywhere here. When a safe haven has to be created, it is indicative of a bigger problem.

When those who are least interested in the subject at hand are the ones that most strongly support it, it is probably indicative of a monumental problem.

[rug]

41. Agreed.

Never accept a free ticket to Madagascar.

[hrmjustin]

8. I think we need to post about other religions.

My knowledge on Eastern religions is limited but we have knowledgeable people here that I hope will post ops on it.

[MADem]

25. You never see any Islam threads here, I've noticed!

[hrmjustin]

26. Yes we need to post them.

It will be interesting to see more posts on religions other than Christianity.

[hrmjustin]

47. I have little experience with it.

I wish I knew more.

[goldent]

10. I always read this group and Catholic group first

I think it is human nature that the Religion group is going to be more popular. People are DU are probably more argumentative than the average person and enjoy arguing. The fact that people are anonymous lead to name calling and insults.

One thing I have always thought is we could merge most of the religious groups into one safe-haven "interfaith" religion group.

[MADem]

31. That was my initial suggestion back in the DU2 days--but people hated it because some folks LIKE to

fight.

The POV was that the A/A group was protected, all these small little "Path Seekers" and "Christian, This, That And The Other" type groups were the "alternative" protected groups for religious people (though they weren't at all "inclusive"--by their titles, they were segregated, and the categories were skewed to main line religions and Standard New Age fare) and the way they were segregated it didn't make it easy for a Sikh to talk to a Baptist. I mean, why would a Sikh be digging into the Christian group as a matter of course? They'd be more likely to come here, if anywhere, for an "interfaith" conversation.

I did have the idea, initially, that all of those itsy-bitsy groups could find a place here--and people could just be clear in their thread titles to get the conversations going on a particular topic. Some of those groups get very little play as well.

I do think, absent strict civility "rules" (and we aren't going to go there as a community, the jury system is here and it is working overall) that protected groups with hosts who know the guidelines and who can toss people who are acting like jerks is the way to go. Alternatively, if people are hiding behind a protected group to crap on people, that's a jury call, but people should be able to have a conversation without being mocked or derided.

[goldent]

48. I agree, and to be clear what I think makes most sense...

is:

- a "religion" group where religion of any type is discussed without insult (like this interfaith group). and

- a "religion war" group (like the current religion group) which is mainly for fighting between religious and atheists (although there'd be no rule against civility ).

I was surprised when I saw what the Religion group was about, and wondered if it was always this way, or became this way over time.

[MADem]

49. Near as I can tell, the "religion" group was pretty much always that way...

If we want to discuss religion or lack thereof without getting into the "Waah, you're stupid for believing/not believing what you do" type discussions, that's possible to do in the Interfaith group. It requires one to choose one's words a bit more carefully, but I think it's probably a good thing if that happens in a lot of groups round these parts!

[hrmjustin]

11. Just to inform this group I have decided to stand down as a religion host.

I will continuee to post in the room.

[No Vested Interest]

12. It would be a loss for this group or any group to lose you

as host.
You are interested in the topic and provide good and provocative material.
I can understand why you might be discouraged at times by some of the harsher commenters.
I guess they have won, but I don't blame you for wanting to do what is best for yourself.

Thank you, Justin, for all you have contributed as a religion host.

[hrmjustin]

13. Thanks.

It was just getting toxic for me and the dishonesty by some in there was just annoying,

I know I made mistakes but some it there live to throw things in your face. I am glad and relieved to be standing down.

I will continue to post there but I msy use the ignore function when I need to.

[No Vested Interest]

14. Ignore can be great.

I have no idea what vile things I'm missing, likely even to some of my own posts.
Blissful ignorance!

[hrmjustin]

15. Sounds like a great option.

[MADem]

32. Maybe take a break and come back later....?

You know, you can't control what jerks say to you, but you can control how they make you feel.

I always say "Consider the source." When someone acts like a jerk, in the end, it's on them. They know it, too-that's half the reason why they're acting like a jerk!

[hrmjustin]

34. Oh I am going to post in the room.

Just not going to host in there.

[Dorian Gray]

21. See

I don't think there is winning. I think Justin doing this is the right choice for him. There were a few people who seemed to really want to get a "gotcha" moment with a few posters, and I think that Justin's refusal to be snarky or rude is fantastic. I also think that made him a little bit of a target for some. It was a game to pick and pick and pick at him until he lost it.

The only way for him to win was to disengage himself from it.

I'm not as prolific a poster, and I do depend fall back on snark.

[hrmjustin]

18. Thank you but it was time.

[hrmjustin]

44. I will send you a pm.

[MADem]

27. I wish you'd stay....you have a good head on your shoulders. nt

[hrmjustin]

29. It was unhealthy for me.

[el_bryanto]

22. A discussion of religion I suppose

And, to be honest, sometimes I go there just to argue, when General discussion is dull. But I don't think that's healthy. I do it, but I think i'd be better off not doing it.

Bryant

[MADem]

33. If you like to "go there just to argue" then do that. That's tolerated there.

If you have questions, or want to understand a tradition, or simply want to engage in a bit of compare-and-contrast, or discuss some deep theological issue, THIS is the place.

And it doesn't have to be big and free-wheeling to have utility. There are days when cooking and baking isn't a hotbed of activity either, but it's much loved nonetheless.

[No Vested Interest]

42. Excuse me, but what kind of people go anywhere just to

argue?
What is this?
What drives that kind of thinking?

[Dorian Gray]

20. It appeals to

people who like to watch train wrecks.

[rug]

38. We can have a monthly discussion about dead children there.

[hrmjustin]

40. Seems like that is all they want to do.

[hrmjustin]

50. Oh there are moments when I would like to trash that room.

[el_bryanto]

59. I have trashed it - there's just no point to it anymore. nt

[hrmjustin]

60. I think the room was getting to you.

There are some in that room who eill give you a mild and respectful debate, there are those who will be a bit more forceful but not nasty, and then there are a few that are looking for a fight.

Remember that there are people who want to get you to say things that would get you a hidden post or banned. I put 5 people on ignore because it is the only way at the moment to post sanely over there. You need to put some on ignore at leadt for a period of time and stay away from that room like I did for a week.

It works.

[hrmjustin]

51. I have to say ignore works.

I put a few on ignore and it works. You don't see everything but the fact is their tactics are the same everyday.

The fact is it is not a safe haven so they will challenge us on our views but some will just not be respectful.

I never challenge their views because I respect it but from some I don't get that same respect and this point I don't expect it.

So for the time being a few will be on ignore.

[hrmjustin]

53. It is making my life easier.

[okasha]

54. Most of the time, just not responding

works just fine.

I don't put the Usual Suspects on ignore because it occasionally becomes necessary to deal with an outright lie. Same Us. Sus. has posted such twice in two days, though the accusation that I believe homosexuality is a sin probably sets a record for sheer stupidity.

[hrmjustin]

55. I don't think it is permanent but I just can't deal with them now.

When all I have left with some is insults then there is just no point.

[okasha]

56. Understood.

Meantime, we got your back.

[hrmjustin]

57. Thanks.

I think they will leave me alone when they see I don't respond.