Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

red rocket · Dec 24, 2006, 05:45 AM

Religion does more harm than good - poll

82% say faith causes tension in country where two thirds are not religious

Julian Glover and Alexandra Topping
Saturday December 23, 2006
The Guardian

More people in Britain think religion causes harm than believe it does good, according to a Guardian/ICM poll published today. It shows that an overwhelming majority see religion as a cause of division and tension - greatly outnumbering the smaller majority who also believe that it can be a force for good.
The poll also reveals that non-believers outnumber believers in Britain by almost two to one. It paints a picture of a sceptical nation with massive doubts about the effect religion has on society: 82% of those questioned say they see religion as a cause of division and tension between people. Only 16% disagree. The findings are at odds with attempts by some religious leaders to define the country as one made up of many faith communities.

Article continues

Finally some sense. All this waffling on about "faith communities" has had me scratching my head for years.

Big Mac · Dec 24, 2006, 03:22 PM

This just in - democracy does more harm than good, creating unnecessary political tension and rivalries in countries. Benign dictatorships are far superior.

Tuoder · 09:03 AM

I think this is another case of people trying to read into polls too far. If you keep reading the article, it mentions people in Britain who are both Christian and not religious.

red rocket · Dec 25, 2006, 04:17 AM

Update: I just got this infraction from vmarks:

Originally Posted by vmarks

Dear red rocket,

You have received an infraction at MacNN Forums.

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political-war-lounge/321813/uk-overwhelming-majority-opposed-to-religion/#post3249162

Reason: Political Lounge Rule Violation
-------
Hi,

I wonder if you could give your post about 82% of Britons having reduced confidence in the utility of religion some elaboration.

You make perhaps two sentences with an allusion to 'faith communities' -

Why don't you guide the discussion on its way with some elaboration on what you'd define as a faith community, and what you see as the flaws that set it apart from any other community that you might approve of.
-------

This infraction is worth 1 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

All the best,
MacNN Forums
__________________
If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com.

Apparently I have failed to remember that people from outside the UK may not be aware of the extent the British media have been propagating the idea that the United Kingdom is made up of "faith communities".

(A "faith community" is newspeak for group of religious people in a certain area, most frequently Muslims who are portrayed as not being part of the wider community. "Jewish community of Finchley" might be another example of a "faith community".)

The thing is, every time the issue of non-integrated Muslims comes up, the media drag out some vicar who claims to speak for the "wider community", and very publicly presents himself as trying to initiate some form of dialogue between himself as the spokesperson for "the" (actually, his own C of E, or whatever) "community" and some "community leader" of whatever Muslim "community"/ghetto he happens to be visiting.

Now, obviously there's nothing wrong with inter-faith dialogue, itself.

What is wrong, however, is the claim made by Christians that they are representative of the wider community. Britain is not a religious country.

This is an important thing to bear in mind when it comes to the subject of "integration". What sort of "community" is the outsider supposed to integrate with? In the minds of the religious Christians they are the backbone of British society, and therefore any Muslim "community" will have to integrate itself in a manner that is acceptable to a bunch of people who believe that their God sent down his only son Baby Jesus to die for the sins of mankind.

If, on the other hand, they only have to integrate themselves into a largely non-religious mixture of various communities that don't really care how "integrated" they are, provided they stick to the laws of the land, perhaps that is far less of an ask for anyone to come to terms with.

hyteckit · Dec 25, 2006, 04:19 AM

Yup. There's even tension among Christians - Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons. Although I fond of Catholics, I think Mormons got it right.

TETENAL · Dec 25, 2006, 04:20 AM

Mormons aren't Christians.

hyteckit · Dec 25, 2006, 04:23 AM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Mormons aren't Christians.

Oh yeah, tell that to the Mormons.

TETENAL · Dec 25, 2006, 04:31 AM

I know they claim they are Christian, but Mormonism is a syncretistic polytheistic religion that is fundamentally incompatible to Christianity. It doesn't matter that they have "Jesus Christ" in their church name.

And I really don't think they "got it right". Unless you like authoritarianism and misogyny.

hyteckit · Dec 25, 2006, 04:39 AM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

I know they claim they are Christian, but Mormonism is a syncretistic polytheistic religion that is fundamentally incompatible to Christianity. It doesn't matter that they have "Jesus Christ" in their church name.

And I really don't think they "got it right". Unless you like authoritarianism and misogyny.

Thus the tension among Christians.

voodoo · Dec 25, 2006, 05:55 AM

Originally Posted by vmarks

This infraction is worth 1 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

What the heck does that mean? 1 point?

There's a scale?

V

hyteckit · Dec 25, 2006, 06:39 AM

Originally Posted by voodoo

What the heck does that mean? 1 point?

There's a scale?

V

If you get enough points, you get banned I guess. vmarks likes dishing them out. I got one from him too a few months back. He's easily offended with anything that goes against his religion or beliefs.

voodoo · Dec 25, 2006, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by hyteckit

If you get enough points, you get banned I guess. vmarks likes dishing them out. I got one from him too a few months back. He's easily offended with anything that goes against his religion or beliefs.

Hm, I see... so what is this scale? Will 10 points get one banned, 100? more? Is this completely arbitrary?.. are all the mods keeping score together?

does vmarks have one scorecard and demonhood another?

I hate invisible rules. This is not recorded anywhere in the public forums.

V

Uncle Skeleton · Dec 25, 2006, 11:08 AM

This is my favorite part:
"If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com."

ghporter · Dec 25, 2006, 11:24 AM

Tension among Christians is as old as the turmoil that led to Luther's nailing those papers to the church door.

Here in Texas, there are "Baptists," "Southern Baptists," "Evangelical Baptists" and a number of other groups who call themselves some form of "Baptist." They do NOT get along.

Or look at the conflict between the Church of God, Church of Christ, and Church of God in Christ. They not only don't get along, they describe the members of the other groups as anything from heathens to blasphemers. And they all call themselves "Christians."

Frankly, I think there would be far less trouble in the entire world if everyone who called himself or herself "Christian" would actually follow Christ's teachings and live as He did, in an accepting, loving, and caring way. That would give a huge number of other groups far less to complain about, don't you think?

Points are, to my understanding, both cumulative and temporal; if you accumulate a number of points over time, you will be banned. If you accumulate a smaller number of points in a short space of time, you will be banned. And if you're a total hemorrhoid, you'll get banned without any infraction points. I have noted that vmarks has serious beliefs, but he has been very consistent in NOT allowing his personal beliefs to impact his official duties. He does have less patience with people who like to push others' buttons than many of us.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

This is my favorite part:
"If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com."

That's vmarks' signature. And it wasn't "posted" in any lounge, it was quoted from a private message. I personally have to divide my activities between the "official" functions of a moderator and the issues I wish to discuss.

lpkmckenna · Dec 25, 2006, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by hyteckit

If you get enough points, you get banned I guess. vmarks likes dishing them out. I got one from him too a few months back. He's easily offended with anything that goes against his religion or beliefs.

I'm an outspoken atheist, but he's never "modded" me for that.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

This just in - democracy does more harm than good, creating unnecessary political tension and rivalries in countries. Benign dictatorships are far superior.

Relevance?

vmarks · Dec 25, 2006, 02:22 PM

The infraction points system is set by Demonhood. The forums hampster itself keeps track of the score.

I mark them knowing that they're almost always temporal, so that the system keeps score rather than I do, and it imposes the action based on accumulation that Demonhood has set. You see, that has the opposite effect of secret rules and moderators imposing different scores in their heads ("one more time, he does that and whammo!" is no longer a reality.)

In this particular case, it looked like a Rule 8 example, which is, despite the debate surrounding it, not a bad rule - its intent is to encourage the poster into making posts worth discussing. I asked red rocket to do just that, and I think the results were worthwhile.

I hand out the fewest bans and do not stifle users whose posts or beliefs I disagree with. No one has ever recieved an infraction for disagreeing with me.

I'd be bored if everyone agreed with me. I would have less motivation to refine my arguments or positions.

ghporter · Dec 25, 2006, 05:45 PM

vmarks, I thought your note to the guy was above and beyond the call. An extended explanation of WHY posting and running is not good for discussion wasn't called for, but an example of WHY a useful comment is GOOD was not only on target, it was inspired. I certainly couldn't have done anything as effective as taht.

And I'm with you-it would be very dull if we all had the same views. How do new ideas come about without some disagreement?