Oh yeah - does anyone seriously believe that the mods/admins wouldn’t take action if people started using the word “towel-head” around here to refer to Muslims? Would this community accept the use of that term because many members here regard Allah and the Koran as being totally fictional and the belief system of Muslims laughable and some of the actions committed by Muslim extremists in Allah’s name reprehensible? (That, BTW, is a serious question)
Alright, MrVisible: Christianity is bad, wrong, silly, childish, and causes folk dancing. We get it.
Your point, please?
Yes, we know that A) you don’t like Christianity
B) you don’t consider it worthy of respect
Others do. Mutual respect is grit on the slippery slope.
On the other hand, using the ontological argument to prove the existence of the MSF is quite amusing.
If you must, consider God as you would a poster. I.E. attack Him with respect, rather than ridicule.
BTW, MrVisible, this isn’t exclusive to the “Christian God”, but to the beliefs of everyone.
Guin, I’m one of the people who doesn’t believe in your (or any other deity) and the only reason I have brought my own beliefs and the reasons behind them into this thread is to illustrate that it’s perfectly possible for me to regard the existence of your God as being as likely as Atlantis having ever existed, and perfectly possible for me to express my disbelief without being knowingly offensive towards you or implying that anyone who has a belief system which diametrically opposed to my own lies occupies a place on the intelligence scale around that of plant life.
Somehow, I’ve managed to say in this thread that even if the existence of your God was proven, based on the Bible and church teachings I’d regard him as a nasty tyrrant whose influence should be thwarted at every opportunity. Somehow, I’ve managed to say all that without offending the believers in this thread - which pretty much illustrates that you can disagree with someone’s beliefs and even say not nice things about their deity without being obnoxious and deliberately offensive in the process. 
Sure it is.
Would you be offended? If so, I’ll try to remember to not call you a “meat eater”. What would you prefer to be called?
If a number of dopers are offended by the use of the term “meat eater”, let me know. If you’d like, explain why it’s offensive (my understanding of why something is offensive is never a bad thing) and I’ll do my best to remember to not use the term. Please let me know which term is more appropriate (yet descriptive) and I’ll try to remember to use that one instead. No skin off my nose. I’ll use whichever term makes you most comfortable, as long as it is reasonably accurate and descriptive. :shrug:
When I call someone directly and specifically a jerk, then call me on it. Or, if I use it to refer to someone who I don’t wish to offend or severely admonish (but, when do we use the word to describe someone we want to flatter?) then call me on it. If the word “jerk” itself offends you, you’d better take it up with the Straight Dope Message Board administration, since they use the word all the time.
reprise, you have summed things up wonderfully. Excellent points all.
flowbark: No, I certainly don’t advocate the thin-skinned prima donna being able to dictate everyone’ else’s vocabulary. (“I don’t like you using the word ‘acocado’—it has a ‘v’ in it and that distresses me.”) But when a number of reasonably respected people express a dislike for a certain word, make some reasonable attempt to explain why, it’s good manners to honor their request. Even if you think they are overreacting a bit.
Mr Visible said:
“What I object to is the gall of insisting that the Christian god, alone out of all subjects on this board, deserves to be treated with universal respect.”
Ok Mr. Visible. Who exactly insisted that? CITE? You made the claim. Now cough up the evidence. (Better yet, rephrase or retract.)
Hm. Perhaps you are making a straw-man argument. If so, please clarify.
MRVISIBLE –
Yes, yes, the idea that minimal respect for a person (only to the extend of not being actively contemptuous of their beliefs in their presence) is the same as endorsing those beliefs, and to believe otherwise is “unfounded argument.”
But, in fact, as is obvious to everyone with the single exception of you, these are not the same things. They are, in fact, as different as the classic apples and oranges. Your response, therefore, is “I have read and considered the argument you are using to support your position that apples and oranges are not the same and have found nothing convincing. I have come to the conclusion that the assertion that an apple is different to from an orange to be unfounded.” There are many words that could be used to describe this position, but I submit that an accurate one would be “obtuse.”
With all due respect, at this point the available choices appear to be “stubborn” (willfully obtuse) or “stupid” (just plain ol’ obtuse), and I am giving you the benefit of the doubt
There is no debate here. There is only me saying, “Will you reconsider doing this one thing?”; many people saying “yes;” and a couple people saying “no.” There is also you, justifying your “no” answer by willfully misreading the OP repeatedly and refusing to distinguish between minimally respecting a person – only to the extent of common courtesy – and respecting their beliefs (or “pretending to respect their beliefs”) – apparently to the extent of endorsing them. Why you fail to see the distinction between the two is beyond me, but it seems clear that the universe of possible explanations devolve down to “cannot” or “will not.”
I’m going to put this in great big letters for you to easily read. I cannot make you understand it, but I can make it easy to read: I HAVE NOT ASKED YOU TO RESPECT THE CHRISTIAN GOD. I HAVE NOT ASKED YOU TO RESPECT ANY GOD. I HAVE ASKED YOU TO REFRAIN FROM BEING UNNECESSARILY ACTIVELY DISDAINFUL ABOUT A CONCEPT YOU KNOW IS IMPORTANT TO PEOPLE, OUT OF MINIMAL RESPECT FOR THEM.
To interpret this request as asking for a “no ridicule” policy towards Christianity (or any subject) under any circumstances, no matter how richly deserved, is so inaccurate as to be laughable. Laughable. And, I’m afraid, it looks an awful lot like willful obtuseness – as if the only way you can argue with the point is to make it into something it is not. But then, of course, you’re not arguing with the point at all, are you? You’re arguing with something else, something I never said. You are wasting your time and effort attempting to prove that my request of respect for my beliefs is unreasonable, when I very clearly NEVER made that request at all. It’s a huge straw man, and as you stand there, running it through with your sword repeatedly, I stand over here and say “Um, that’s not it, actually. We’re actually over here. We’re over . . . Hello? No, not over there. Over here. We’re over here. Excuse me, the point is this one, over here . . . Hello?”
For the very last time – and I mean it, this is the last time, I know a lost cause when I see one – “Please refrain from being unnecessarily derisive about something important to me” is not the same as “Please show active respect for my beliefs, even though you don’t share them.” You insist and insist that these are the same, when they very clearly are not. And when I cannot convince you of the obvious – that they are not – then you call that a failure of argument on my part. And it is; I admit that it is. But as I have said, those holding willfully obtuse positions will refuse to be argued out them, so I don’t take my inability to argue you out of this one too personally. It is, as I have said, a task doomed to failure.
FLOWBARK (on preview) – “Perhaps”?
Yosemite
No, I certainly don’t advocate the thin-skinned prima donna being able to dictate everyone’ else’s vocabulary. (“I don’t like you using the word 'avocado has a ‘v’ in it and that distresses me.”) But when a number of reasonably respected people express a dislike for a certain word, make some reasonable attempt to explain why, it’s good manners to honor their request. Even if you think they are overreacting a bit.
LOL regarding the avocado example. We’re certainly converging, but I’d like to add a clarification. There are situations when good manners are not appropriate or optimal. At the same time, I acknowledge that it is better to choose such impoliteness only after at least a little reflection.
One of Australia’s most famous tourist attractions, Uluru, is an Aboriginal sacred site. The elders politely request that people visiting the area do not climb the rock (in their eyes doing so could be likened to tourists climbing the Sistine Chapel); similarly, in Aboriginal culture, women do not play the didgeridoo and are excluded from participation in “men’s business”. Even the mainstream media here makes warnings when images of dead Aboriginal people are going to be shown on television or in newspapers . Our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population is a tiny percentage of the Australian population.
Are those tourists who respect Aboriginal culture enough to not climb Uluru giving validity to ancient superstitions? Are those women who decline to play the didgeridoo participating in their own repression? Are those media outlets which issue warnings about images of the dead perpetrating a fiction and pandering to the believes of a tiny percentage of the Australian population?
And lest anybody think that Aboriginal culture is totally benign, you might want to do some research on Aboriginal beliefs and tribal practises related to twin births.
flowbark: Thanks for correcting my spelling of “avocado”. Even though I do the preview thing, I always seem to miss something!
And yes, I believe our views are converging.
Actually, reprise, I don’t really believe in the Bible alone-I think it’s inspired somewhat, but it’s mostly man made.
I believe-God=love. My idea of a God is more vague-not the fire and brimstone creation.
REPRISE, I have dealt with a similar issue with Native American rituals, which hold that a menstruating woman should not participate in certain ceremonies or touch certain articles (like a peace pipe) because she is unclean. To me, this appears to equate to at least one of the following: (a) a woman is somehow less than a man; (b) a woman can be “unclean” in the spiritual sense, when a man cannot; © a woman can be made unworthy of active participation in her spirituality by a natural event beyond her control; or (d) certain aspects of the biology of a woman are repellant, shameful, and alienating from God.
I cannot endorse any of these, not even by implication, not even by presence. So I do not attend Native American spiritual functions if I know or think this aspect of NA beliefs will arise. (And, yes, I know not all NAs believe this, or have historically believed this.) For example, my church invites Native American spiritual leaders to conduct services one Sunday each year. I know that those services will include an invitation that the congregation come up and touch or smoke the peace pipe (sort of like how communion is usually done), but the request will be made that if a woman is menstruating, she not participate. I do not feel comfortable participating in a ritual where certain people are excluded based on circumstances beyond their control, nor do I feel comfortable just sitting there, inviting people to speculate as to whether I’m having my period. So I don’t go.
But neither do I express contempt for Native American beliefs to the faces of people I know practice or hold those beliefs. If asked, I will explain my objections, but even then I try to do it respectfully. I seriously doubt anyone takes my lack of vocal contempt as being an endorsement of those beliefs.
"Belief systems deserve the same respect as the Christian god. "
[ul][li]Judaism[/li][li]Islam[/li][li]Buddhism[/li][li]Hinduism[/li][li]Wicca[/li][li]Other pagan religions/forms of goddess worship[/li][li]Religions not included in the above[/li][li]Agnosticism[/li][li]Deism[/li][li]Atheism[/li][li]Scientology, at least with regards to its followers[/ul][/li]
I suspect you’re not going to acknowledge this, based on your previous posts in this thread. I prefer not to deal with those who reserve the right to insult me, therefore, good evening.
CJ
I have to go out for a while, but I just wanted to make the comment that overallI think this thread has been extremely valuable whether or not the request in the OP is complied with by other posters.
Cite indicating that it is indeed all right to make fun of Christians on this board. Thank you Gozu! By the way, I did not find that post offensive. I’m actually happy it was so easy to get a cite.
You’ll have to excuse my misunderstanding of your position. But I had repeatedly laid out the impolite uses you cite above, and distinguished that from completely legitimate use of such language in debates where the existence of God was at issue, by the time you said:
I hope you can understand my having drawn the implication that you found unsatisfactory those uses I considered impolite.
But I’m glad we finally have that cleared up. Now on to the next one:
As you can see, I’ve answered this one a few times:
Among other times, you raised the question on page 3, on 8/2 at 4:18pm Eastern. (Adjust for your local time.) I replied to you at 5:20pm as follows:
Underlining added.
In my first post on page 4, 8/3 at 9:28am, I said that same respect should be given well beyond religion and atheism, mentioning specifically vegetarianism, hedonistic sexuality, and baseball. (That portion of that post involved much C&Ping, so I won’t C&P it in here.)
On page 4 again, at 3:56pm, I summarized the relevant part of my 9:28am post:
Emphasis in original.
Does that help?
Well, so much for hot dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet! 
Some points :
-Several posters keep on saying that using the MSP comparison is unecessary and gratuitous. I already stated several time why it isn’t. .
-Several posters keep giving examples related to coworkers, friends, etc…It’s not relevant. We’re on a debate forum, not engaged in friendly chit-chat with a colleague
-Many comparisons have been made which IMO aren’t relevant, either. For instance :
*With gays : being gay isn’t an idea or an opinion. Attacking someone’s idea isn’t at all the same than attacking the person itself (and yes…I still think attacking someone for something he can’t help, be it his race, sexual orientation, etc…isn’t the same that attacking him for his deliberate choices)
*Same with towelheads : nobody called anybody else “pixie!” . And even if someone had, pixie isn’t generally considered as an insult, contrarily to “towelhead”.
*The australian rock : I heard about it, and no, I wouldn’t climb it. For the same reason I wouldn’t enter in a church or mosque in bathsuit. Because in both cases it would be messing up with people’s way of life and disrupting their rituals. People have every right to be left alone in their sacred place. I’ve every right to tell them these places are as sacred as the flowerbed in my garden.
-Despite what people are willing to state here, we’re not insulting them with the MSP. We’re disrepecting a concept they hold dearly, which is an abolutely different thing. I do think that trying to enforce a mandatory respect of any concept as soon as someone is strongly supportive of it is “soft censorship”.
-People keep on saying that they don’t expect any special consideration, that it should be extended to any other similar situation, and I don’t believe for a second it’s true (at least for the very wide majority of them) :
*As I already stated, if people feel insulted by a comparison between their god and fairies, it means that they consider that the belief in fairies is somewhat inferior to the belief in god, hence that their belief is special. Despite this argument being serious, in case people couldn’t take it seriously, what about a comparison between god and djinns or water spirits? The latter are also part of actual religious beliefs. Where exactly do you draw the line between beliefs which belong to a superior category and can legitimately compared to your own, and inferior beliefs which can’t be compared to your own hence are insulting? I already asked this question several times, and i’m still waiting for a response.
*There has been numerous threads where someone has, gratuitously or not, made fun of someone else belief, be it in ghosts, in astrology, etc…I didn’t notice that there were frequent and major uproars by our “respectful” crowd about these disparaging comments. So, how come disparaging religious beliefs seem to appear as a much more serious issue than disparaging beliefs in other fantaisies? (actually, even some minority religions, for instance the mormon religion, have been insulted in a much more direct way without it resulting in a 6 pages long pit thread…how comes?)
*There are many people for whom political opinion are extremely important. Why don’t our well behaved friend open pit threads when an insulting comment or comparison is made about, say, communism? What exactly gives to a religious belief a special status as compared to a political opinion (and if someone think that people hold political opinion less dearly than religious beliefs, they probably never met a trotskyst militant) or any kind of opinion important for someone?
So, definitely, I don’t believe that most of you (if any) actually think that all concepts deserve the same respect you’re demanding for your religion, despite your claims to the contrary…
And a good evening to you, too, CJ. Please let me know if the following deserve inclusion in your list as well:
[ul]
[li]Astrology[/li][li]Phrenology[/li][li]Satanism[/li][li]Scientology, with regards to its underlying concepts[/li][li]Alchemy[/li][/ul]
Could you also please give some idea as to how you arrived at the list you gave, in case I have any questions? For instance, as clairobscur pointed out, why have political beliefs been left out?
Oh, now THIS is a nice progression. Now we are all LIERS, too.