Petition to make religion a blockable topic on your threads list.

[The Pandector]

For clarification, I mean that FORCING people to listen to it is wrong. If you make the choice to go to Church, then that's perfectly fine & acceptable. You chose to go there and to hear the preaching. But we should NOT, and I repeat, NOT, force anyone to listen to our preaching. You shouldn't just drag someone to Church and make them listen to it, because they are going to just ignore it.

I am not forced to attend church nor to come on these boards. Neither is anyone else. And those who do come to these boards know full well that they are going to be reading plenty of emotionally-charged posts. Full disclosure.

What worries me in your posts is that you seem willing to have non-believers restrict your Christian activities to specifically Christian venues and events. I don't need to go to a building or hang out with labeled people in order to live out my faith. I hope this country doesn't soon come to the place where such restrictions are enforced. So it seems ominous to me if, when I want to express myself in this public space, I'm required to covey myself away to a restricted group, out of sight from the rest.

Again I ask... will we also do this with the sexually indeterminate and people who mention recreational drug use, etc.? Of course not. PC sounds good, until they come after you.

 

[Barymore]

@The Pandector
Dude, enough with the sexually indeterminate. I understand where you are coming from but find the term offensive. Cant you use a more accepted term please, like gender topics or gender questioning?

I use religion, religious etc rather than other terms that could be bandied about ;-)

 

[Thinx]

I do think it would be better to have a separate place, for religion, and that if someone raises a problem, also people don't simply suggest asking a deity for help with it. The person wants specific ideas for that issue, so suggesting they ask a deity of your own choice is not enough, unless you have a specific point about strategies your deity may suggest. Most deities I know of expect us to work on our stuff.

As a gay and non-binary person, I spend a lot of time taking on board the relationship or sexual concerns of heterosexual people here, and regard them with respect and interest. Everyone here is worthy of respect. And if your religion says otherwise, then I guess that's a good reason for it having a separate space.

 

[SimonSays]

So it seems ominous to me if, when I want to express myself in this public space, I'm required to covey myself away to a restricted group, out of sight from the rest.

It's the same with politics. No less a freedom of expression, but it is hidden here, by default.

I take your point though.

There doesn't seem to be too many posts on the religion section, so opting out won't change much. Which is all the OP was wondering. But as you point out, there is a deeper aspect to this, namely whether relevant posts in non-religious threads (or any thread where something off topic is brought into play) is acceptable to be there or has to be moved, or the whole thread moved to a different section.

Personally, I'm okay with those who see things from a religious perspective offering that perspective in a public thread. Like I said earlier, if it's not something I agree with I don't have to dwell on it. But do I feel the need for it to be removed? Censored? No. And yet some people don't like to see religious terminology, and I can understand that, but I think it's a slippery slope when we start to say what can and can't be included in a thread.

 

[Skittlebisquit]

I'm not ok with it, not at all, when somebody gets all preachy. Its elitist. There is another wrinkle though, many of those posts come from ppl who know that the person they are speaking to is someone of faith, and so the preachy statement is actually friendly, in a way.

 

[VernalSole1355]

@Barymore @The Pandector

For the sake of clarity, in the Church, we view the term "sexually indeterminate" as an equivalent to "Queer", or those of the LGTBQ+ community. Pandector please correct me if I am wrong on this. I do not believe that @The Pandector meant any disrespect by the term, but I do agree that the broader term known by most people should have been used.

This is just to make sure everyone is on the same page as to what exactly was meant by what was said.

 

[SimonSays]

We seem to have moved away from the OP.

I wonder if some people have read the poll slightly differently...

Would you prefer religion to be able to be blocked from your thread list?

If it had said... would you prefer religion to be blocked from your thread list? I could definitely understand some people's reply.

But this is not about blocking religion, just giving people the choice not to see it if they so wish, just like they have the choice not to see politics.

And I suppose regardless of your point of view, isn't having choice a good thing?

 

[The Pandector]

Dude, enough with the sexually indeterminate. I understand where you are coming from but find the term offensive. Cant you use a more accepted term please, like gender topics or gender questioning?

Drat. I wasn't looking for a general term like those you suggest. I was looking for an accurate term that hasn't already been loaded down with politically correct baggage. In your case, at least, I have failed. I do have to wonder if this is because it's an inherently offensive term, or rather because it isn't the 'proper' term. I'm saddened you're offended.

 

[VernalSole1355]

In relation to the SECOND from above. (I started writing this BEFORE it was posted)

I'd also like to take a moment to have us all re-center on the point of this thread, to discuss a simple proposition that the religion section should be made into an opt-in (or opt-out) section, not to debate someone's belief. Do we know what goes on behind everyone else's closed doors? What happens in their life? No, of course not.

We as Aspies especially have a tendency to misunderstand things. This is OK and is to be expected. What's not OK is to call someone out because they believe in a god or don't, because they view themselves as one gender or another, etc, and/or not trying to correct the understanding. You believe what you believe, and there is NOTHING you need to be ashamed of for it.

What goes on in your life is your life, your story. It's unique to you. Everyone has one. It is through healthy discussions that we can come to a broader understanding of each other and be able to more effectively discuss topics like these, and not have them spiral into debates. So take a moment. When someone says one thing, think about WHY they might be saying that. What's the meaning behind it? If you feel led to, ask them about it. They might be willing to tell you. (Respect privacy, of course.)

 

[VernalSole1355]

We seem to have moved away from the OP.

I wonder if some people have read the poll slightly differently...

Would you prefer religion to be able to be blocked from your thread list?

If it had said... would you prefer religion to be blocked from your thread list? I could definitely understand some people's reply.

But this is not about blocking religion, just giving people the choice not to see it if they so wish, just like they have the choice not to see politics.

And I suppose regardless of your point of view, isn't having choice a good thing?

Good eye, my friend. Appreciate you pointing this out.
In relation to my earlier post, not my previous one, religion can give some people triggers. As such, we want to be able to, as a forum, accommodate for these people. You'd want to accommodate for someone who has a sensitivity to bright lights, or loud noises, wouldn't you? I believe that this step would help bring more people to the Autism Forums in general.

Again, I support this idea and think it would be a great addition to the forums.

 

[The Pandector]

For the sake of clarity, in the Church, we view the term "sexually indeterminate" as an equivalent to "Queer", or those of the LGTBQ+ community. Pandector please correct me if I am wrong on this. I do not believe that @The Pandector meant any disrespect by the term,

Thank you, @VernalSole1355. I've been in the church most of my life, including extensive stints at the podium. I have never heard this saying used outside of botany class. I thought I was inventing a neutral term for use in this thread. I appreciate you pointing out prior derogatory use of the term. No correction needed; no offense intended.

 

[ForestGumpett]

Sure can relate to what your saying, esp the last sentence. I’m always pissing ppl off and totally clueless as to what happened.

Also, and it also seems possibly like you, when someone says something I take it literally most of the time.

Like right now...it may seem like I’m arguing with you, when I’m agreeing with you.

This is my first Asperger forum and talking to this many people, one, is odd feeling, not good or bad just odd. And two, talking to this many people that think so strongly and opinionated and sometimes blunt....well, I think I like it?

If someone wants to talk about atheism then I’d be curious. I wouldn’t be offended nor would I try to change their minds.

Why can’t people just get along?

I'm sorry you feel that way, my friend. But I can't see how it was disrespectful in any way.

I didn't disrespect any particular opinion. What she stated about 'only believers' was simply false, as I explained. If I'm wrong on that point, please jump in and explain. If I seemed to be saying that her opinion or feelings wouldn't change the course of millennia-old dynamics, then I got my point across. If I said these things in an offensive way, then maybe I failed in my effort to be simply factual and logical. Of course she's entitled to her views, and to their expression.

It's a fact of my life that I am positively savant at saying credible things in incredibly insensitive ways. I would be open to an explanation of what I did wrong.

 

[Thinx]

@Barymore @The Pandector

For the sake of clarity, in the Church, we view the term "sexually indeterminate" as an equivalent to "Queer", or those of the LGTBQ+ community. Pandector please correct me if I am wrong on this. I do not believe that @The Pandector meant any disrespect by the term, but I do agree that the broader term known by most people should have been used.

This is just to make sure everyone is on the same page as to what exactly was meant by what was said.

Drat. I wasn't looking for a general term like those you suggest. I was looking for an accurate term that hasn't already been loaded down with politically correct baggage. In your case, at least, I have failed. I do have to wonder if this is because it's an inherently offensive term, or rather because it isn't the 'proper' term. I'm saddened you're offended.

But 'sexually indeterminate' can't be a general term for all sexualities other than heterosexual, or all genders other than male/female, can it? Because it actually means, the person's sex is undetermined. I'm sorry to hear both that this is used in church, where everyones unique personhood is valued, and that @The Pandector instead of taking a minute and thinking, is implying it's a suitable term. It's clearly not.

 

[Sherlock77]

I always thought that the religion forum was subscribe only, unless the topic is sneaking in elsewhere...

I am an active Christian, the most I will ever do in the public forum is mention that I am a member of a church, but I try not to initiate public discussion about the belief itself (I might have the odd slip sometimes)

 

[Penumbra]

It's one of the reasons I come to this site less and less. Religious quotes and 'read the Bible or the Torah or Koran' as answers to individual difficulties are only helpful to people who believe.

It's been driving me away too, and I just got here. Religion being discussed (not just mentioned) is a big trigger for me. I'll just leave the room, or in this case, the website. It's unfortunate because I really am seeking help and I don't want to lose resources.

 

[LadyS]

Wow, um, sorry for posting about Agnosticism....?
(OK that was mostly sarcasm).

Carry on.

 

[Major Tom]

You already have that choice in the 'ignore' options, it'd be the same posters mostly so use it.

That doesn't work I've already tried. And I'm not suggesting it be removed only a personal choice whether you can see it.

 

[Major Tom]

Oh My ______ (Insert name or non-name reference to your acceptable deity. Alternately, name or refer to your favorite idolized musician or sports figure.)

IMHO...
There are only two topics of any lasting importance. How we relate to our creator and how we relate to our fellow man. Religion and politics.

NT or ND, many of the problems we have touch on these seminal issues. They emerge all over the place. What now? We're going to task the site staff with hunting down and obliterating any post on any thread that touches on religion?

I'm convinced we're made of nobler stuff than that.

No all I'm asking is for posts tagged religion to be a choice to see. Not forced upon you. I don't want to see it.

 

[Major Tom]

It can be necessary sometimes.

It really depends heavily on the forum as a whole, and the purpose/function of that forum.

There's another forum I frequent and in fact moderate, which is related to an indie dev I've contracted with a few times. There's a rule there, which I will enforce with unflinching ruthlessness, which is: No politics. Period. If a political topic pops up, or if a non-political topic GETS political, I lock it. It's that simple.

WHY, you ask?

The official reason is that the developer as a whole... who DOES function as a business selling a product (the games they make) doesnt want to be seen as being linked to ANY specific political thing at all. They dont want the potential customer's purchase decision to be linked to "oh this developer supports THAT guy, huh?". The decision to buy or not should be about the product being considered, nothing more. So.... yeah. No politics, period. Every now and then someone on the forum expresses a dislike for that rule, but... bloody tough. It is what it is, and it is there for a reason.

Okay and the other reason is to avoid ridiculous flame wars, as political topics have a tendency to be quite flammable on the Internet. And I will admit that reason #3 is my utter loathing for the topic as a whole.

My point though, is that there can be genuine reasons for even an entire forum to avoid certain topics, and those reasons are, in the end, entirely up to those who own/control the forum. Agree or disagree, it's their decision for their reasons in the end.


NOW, that all being said, I must also say in response to the OP... there's little point in complaining about it either way, from the point of view of a general "user". Just... dont click on the things you dont like. It's the freaking Internet... if you cant manage to avoid doing that, you will soon be driven to absolute madness. I mean, seriously, "just ignore X thing instead of reacting to it" is like Internet Usage 101 here.

That does not help, I'm on a phone and I just get little quips of forum thread titles.

 

[VernalSole1355]

It's been driving me away too, and I just got here. Religion being discussed (not just mentioned) is a big trigger for me. I'll just leave the room, or in this case, the website. It's unfortunate because I really am seeking help and I don't want to lose resources.

This is case in point why we need the opt-in/opt-out feature. Both yours and @Mia 's cases. I'd personally hate to see you guys leave simply because you get notifications in your feed that sets off a trigger.