New rules

[srb7677]

think you miss the point, or perhaps steered round it to make another.

The question concerned the moderation team's attitude to blasphemy in regard to it's being forbidden by the rules. Which I personally find strange given this is pol-tics.com not theology-rules.com.

I think that makes my point — ie, this is primarily a politics discussion forum, so what legit need would a non-believer have to engage in or initiate religious argument or debate unless it's in a political context?
Surely, how the moderators judge any post or content is up to them...?

We have a religion sub-section precisely for such discussions. Odd if we cannot express opinions there freely without being reported. We are after all free to be critical of the political beliefs of others, so why not the religious beliefs. I myself began a thread there asking if Jesus was an ancient hippy socialist, which obviously frames him in a political context which it is often possible to do with religious matters. Is such a post blasphemous? I imagine some probably think so and could use this ill thought out rule to censor such discussions and ban all freedom of discussion re religion. We could end up with the god squad talking dogmatic and unproven nonsense to each other with no one else able to challenge with any logical criticisms. Is that free debate?

I guess it is all down to the interpretation but if rigidly enforced, this site would be better off banning religious discussion entirely

[Borg Refinery]

I've no problem with the warning given to me, I expected it would happen sooner or later.

What I find puzzling is this -

obscene, indecent, seditious, offensive, pornographic, abusive, liable to incite racial hatred, discriminatory, menacing, scandalous, inflammatory, blasphemous,

Obscene? That's like, half the threads here, you'd better remove me and half the membership for our crude jokes.

Indecent? As above - EVERYONE on here is guilty of posting stuff like this.

Seditious? That's me perma banned then.. me and so many others here. Seditious sounds so 19th century.

Blasphemous? Look at like half the threads in the religion section and on this thread.

I'm stating that these rules are virtuallyunenforceaboe unless you repeatedly sanction half the membership. And by some accounts you could judge some of the posts in this thread to be blasphemous if you were so inclined.

Just saying..

[patman post]

think you miss the point, or perhaps steered round it to make another.

The question concerned the moderation team's attitude to blasphemy in regard to it's being forbidden by the rules. Which I personally find strange given this is pol-tics.com not theology-rules.com.

I think that makes my point — ie, this is primarily a politics discussion forum, so what legit need would a non-believer have to engage in or initiate religious argument or debate unless it's in a political context?
Surely, how the moderators judge any post or content is up to them...?

[johnofgwent]

1.6. You are prohibited from posting or transmitting to or from this Website any material:
1.6.1. that is threatening, defamatory, obscene, indecent, seditious, offensive, pornographic, abusive, liable to incite racial hatred, discriminatory, menacing, scandalous, inflammatory, blasphemous, in breach of confidence, in breach of privacy or which may cause annoyance or inconvenience;

May I ask for clarification on the above re blasphemous material? I am not a Christian believer and tend to believe that it is fair enough to be critical of aspects of any theology. For example, though I believe Jesus existed, I think he was just an enlightened human being and I reject his supposed divinity. Some might regard that as blasphemy and could use such a rule to try and censor out of existence any and all criticism of any religion, especially Christianity I suspect.

So what exactly would constitute unacceptable blasphemy and where would the dividing line between that and acceptable criticism and discussion lie? Imaginary examples might help to clarify.

Why would you need to worry if you're not a believer or follower of any deity? It's not a topic that we non believers need to initiate without cause — unless it's to troll, provoke or ridicule others.
Even if, unprovoked, we're criticized or insulted directly for not believing, why would we bother...?

I think you miss the point, or perhaps steered round it to make another.

The question concerned the moderation team's attitude to blasphemy in regard to it's being forbidden by the rules. Which I personally find strange given this is pol-tics.com not theology-rules.com.

As an agnostic I am unlikely to be reporting anyone for this sin punishable by death any time soon. But (and this may be a first) i think srb has a point. Others might report them. Or me.

And now I'm off to find a piece of halibut thats good enough for jehovah. Whilst waiting in the queue I'll have a quick look through deuteronomy to see if the fish of the sea are in fact pleasing in the sight of JHVH as an offering .... I'd like to think they're not. That would explain exactly why a certain film scene would in fact come to.pass.

Should I get some popcorn too ??

[patman post]

1.6. You are prohibited from posting or transmitting to or from this Website any material:
1.6.1. that is threatening, defamatory, obscene, indecent, seditious, offensive, pornographic, abusive, liable to incite racial hatred, discriminatory, menacing, scandalous, inflammatory, blasphemous, in breach of confidence, in breach of privacy or which may cause annoyance or inconvenience;

May I ask for clarification on the above re blasphemous material? I am not a Christian believer and tend to believe that it is fair enough to be critical of aspects of any theology. For example, though I believe Jesus existed, I think he was just an enlightened human being and I reject his supposed divinity. Some might regard that as blasphemy and could use such a rule to try and censor out of existence any and all criticism of any religion, especially Christianity I suspect.

So what exactly would constitute unacceptable blasphemy and where would the dividing line between that and acceptable criticism and discussion lie? Imaginary examples might help to clarify.

Why would you need to worry if you're not a believer or follower of any deity? It's not a topic that we non believers need to initiate without cause — unless it's to troll, provoke or ridicule others.
Even if, unprovoked, we're criticized or insulted directly for not believing, why would we bother...?

[Forum admin]

Blasphemous is used in the context of the dictionary definition.

[srb7677]

1.6. You are prohibited from posting or transmitting to or from this Website any material:
1.6.1. that is threatening, defamatory, obscene, indecent, seditious, offensive, pornographic, abusive, liable to incite racial hatred, discriminatory, menacing, scandalous, inflammatory, blasphemous, in breach of confidence, in breach of privacy or which may cause annoyance or inconvenience;

May I ask for clarification on the above re blasphemous material? I am not a Christian believer and tend to believe that it is fair enough to be critical of aspects of any theology. For example, though I believe Jesus existed, I think he was just an enlightened human being and I reject his supposed divinity. Some might regard that as blasphemy and could use such a rule to try and censor out of existence any and all criticism of any religion, especially Christianity I suspect.

So what exactly would constitute unacceptable blasphemy and where would the dividing line between that and acceptable criticism and discussion lie? Imaginary examples might help to clarify.

[Forum admin]

The new rules are a full revision.
Please read them here.
https://pol-tics.com/index.php/topic,1732.msg35923.html#msg35923

Old rules for comparison:
https://pol-tics.com/index.php/topic,62.0.html
Thanks for your participation. Without your posts there would be no forum!

Feel free to discuss any aspect.