All you have to is substitute “white” for “Xian” in most of your* constructions to understand how deeply offensive it can be to claim something is right because the majority of the population hardly notices it.
*Not **Mangetout **
But who is going to scrutinize the threads on Christianity? Other Christians? If the majority of the board is Christian then you cannot blame them for not scrutinizing threads on Christianity. It is the job of those atheists interested in such things to do so.
I am unsure of what you think should happen. People should stop posting threads on Christianity? Christians should question Christians?
Who was claiming it is right? If the majority of the board is Christian what would you expect? Again, what do you think should happen?
Who should scrutinize all these threads on Christianity?
How about this quote from C.K. Dexter Haven, over in the Pit Threadabout hate speech, which is as close as you will ever come to having official Board policy explicated:
*We tend to think of “hate-speech” in relation to protected groups under US law – that is, based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, disability, gender, and age. These are basically things that one doesn’t have a choice about, one is born to (religion is probably an exception since there is some element of choice, but there you go.) *
So “religion is probably an exception” to the categories this Board chooses to protect from gratuitous attack (i.e., people questioning its very existence). Why? Because relilgion is not something you can choose, except of course it is, and CKDH acknowledges that but neatly gets the SD off the hook by quipping “there you go.” Oh. There I go. That makes things so clear–“That’s just the way it is, asshole, Get used to it. We’re openly biased towards religion, and if you push us hard enough, and leave us no wiggle room, we’ll actually admit it.”
We expect --we demand-- we insist–we legislate that the majority of people in this country who are white suppress whatever racist views they may have been brought up to accept and treat the non-white population with a modicum of respect and with some semblence of equality.
It doesn’t wash to say “Hey, we’re white and we’re in the majority, so screw everyone else. We’ll run this country as we please. It’s our country. We make the rules.” Now that’s labelled a biased point of view and generally criticized. Once you’re compelled to think of other people as your equals, you begin to accept their humanity.
You can start any time.
It’s basically gone from, ‘We’re not biased’, to, ‘Yeah, we’re biased. What’re you gonna do about it, punk?’
Religion is an exception because one does have a choice. It is nonetheless included in most lists of protected categories in discussions of hate speech and in most laws on the subject. I think that his “there you go” was an acknowledgement that religion is different, but is still included in hate speech laws, and is included in SDMB hate speech considerations for that reason. He didn’t say it was included because it involves no choice. He said it was included despite the fact that it is voluntary, because hate speech laws include it.
Good IPU!
Where’s the bias? Where have atheists been suppressed?
The majority of people on this board are American, is this board therefore biased towards America? Am I allowed to equate your views with racism now?
Help! Help! The poor Welsh person is being suppressed.
My point is that it is included.
Does that mean that you object to the inclusion of religion in hate speech laws and codes as well, not just on SDMB?
That’s a little more complex, since the aim of the US of A isn’t so clear as the aim of the SDMB: “Fighting Ignorance.” The constraints put on me in what’s considered “hateful” in discussing religion clearly establish a pro-religion tone on the SD.
My problem is that everyone belongs to some race, or has some gender, or even potentially some handicapped status, and so everyone is served by laws forbidding discrimination against these categories. But “religion” implies that only beliefs of a religious nature are protected. Secular beliefs, or the belief that religion is a horrow-show, are not protected–indeed, you could argue that they are subtly outlawed under the “anti-discrimination against religion” protection, certainly as enforced on the SD. This causes an open and honest discussion to be biased in the direction of the majority of Dopers, which doesn’t make it right but does make it difficult to unseat or even discuss.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that your beliefs are very much of a religious nature. In fact, they seem to be utterly consumed by, for, and about religion.
Okay, you’re wrong. Can’t wait for us to move past this logjam and onto matters of substance and importance.
Just trying to clear the airwaves of some of this static, is all.
M’kay… Let’s give it a test. Would dropping all the vitriol about Christians and God and faith and whatnot leave your views changed or unchanged?
I’m just an excitable boy.
I can be dull as hell, if you prefer. Just ask my students.
Or his friends. I’ve met him IRL and, yup, he can be incredibly tedious. 
Dude, you’re dull even when you’re excited. You produce boring, tedious vitriol.
I believe that you are in error on this point.
While atheism is not a religious belief, it is a world-view that addresses many of the same questions as religious belief, (“Is there a higher power? No.” precludes the extended discussions within religious belief, of course), and should, therefore, be protected. We still have to overcome the public expressions of former justice Roy Moore and such artifacts as the Texas Constitution, but I think the principle has been established that the words and expressions of atheists should be protected in the same manner as the words and expressions of religious persons.
To that extent, atheist expression is already protected on the SDMB. It is not possible to have a discussion of any aspect of religion, here, without some poster(s) dropping in to make the comments that the discussion is absurd because it addresses beliefs about imagined entities. I do not recall any such poster being reprimanded unless their expression was delivered in a rude manner. Beyond that, of course, are the numerous threads begun for the express purpose of denigrating some or all religious beliefs. Again, I do not recall any such thread being shut down if it had not degenerated into personal attcks.
In the U.S., the situation is more hostile to atheists and I believe that we should work to change that, but I believe that the Constitutional protections are on “your” side.
Now, to the extent that you wish to eliminate religious belief, you certainly have a conflict. However, unless you choose to begin killing of persons with religious belief, I’m afraid you are going to have to work through the same forum of ideas as anyone else trying to persuade others of your views.
To the separate issue of the “choice” to believe or not: I am not sure why folks actually believe there is much of a choice. Certainly, one may choose to express their belief through one denomination or another, (although, I suspect that for many of us, that “choice” is pretty much limited in that our expression of belief only finds an outlet through a very narrow range of groups), but I could no more “choose” to not believe in (a) god, than, I suspect most atheists holding that it is a choice could suddenly choose to believe that a god exists. The word “choice” is being used in an equivocal manner, based on the fact that a person who believes in the divine has a range of groups with whom to associate, seeking persons with similar beliefs, although the choice to actually believe or not is simply not there.
Okay, it’s obvious that J-C religion is given a favored place here on the SDMB. Just look at poor Der Trihs, who was banned for repeatedly saying that it was all a bunch of hogwash!
Oh, wait…
All you need to do to see religion as a choice is see how many people are persuaded to join up, or to resign, every day. They’re making a choice.
Lucky I never made any such claim then, eh?