No religion.
 

Hi.

Please add religion to the banned items in LQ Rules.

Quoted from LQ Rules:
"There is no advertising allowed in the forums." -- A certain LQ member advertises a religion in his signature.

Quoted from LQ Rules:
"Do not post any messages that are obscene..." -- I find religion obscene (offensive to the mind).

Regards.

I'm not behind this (obviously), and I'd be surprised if anyone else is.

Anyone?

The making, and enforcement of rules to ban the thoughts of others is the thing most singularly offensive to the intelligent mind.

The signature symptom of our present dark age, sorry to see it seriously suggested here.

-1

Well, most people don't (or else religion couldn't be a thing).

Thanks for the feedback. We have no plans to put a blanket ban on religion (or other topics) in the General forum. We highly value free speech and would like for LQ members to be able to engage in thoughtful and civil discourse on topics of their choosing. That said, members have noticed religion slipping into technical threads and the consensus seems to be against that happening. Happy to hear feedback on this, but if it's an issue members think should be addressed we will do so.

Note that advertising is (and has been) acceptable in .sigs, which can be disabled and do not show to guests/search engines.

--jeremy

Maybe make it more clear in the rules that threads in forums other than General are expected to stay on topic, with the topic determined by the top post?

A general topic swayed that way and a moderator rightly combined that thread with the very large thread on the religious subject. I chime in from time to time, but whatever I really don't care and it amazes me that someone's there care so very much to be "right", rather than just listen to other people's thoughts.

Either case, the non-nix general area is just for that.

Yes I do know that there is at least one very common user who has strong religious support comments in their signature. I sort of filter my own signature, as well as all of yourn's :D

That was actually a point I made there ... these are only problems when someone "makes" it a problem by taking offense or getting angry about "words'.

I'm rather disappointed that this wasn't about John Lennon's Imagine song ... :(

I hate banning anything. Being a mod on 2 forums myself.

My people skills have never been something to brag about though.

I am banned from a biker forum a few days ago for saying I will knock you on your ass if you say to me,

"Nice girls bike".

They wanted my opinion. I gave it. I got banned for it. No biggy to me really. You should not ask me if you do not like the answer.

Banning things are a sign of intolerance. Religions already have that covered pretty much.
I got a good grin getting banned on a biker forum.
I guess a linux using scooter tramp is too hard core for their forum.

@LinusStallman: Would you like to be banned from saying that there is no god, or that religion is something offensive? ...

That's your point of view and you should be able to express those fellings and thoughts as long as they respect some commonly social accepted behavior.. It's exactly the same for those who express religious beliefs... No Hitler, though... :))

THAT'S HILLARIOUS!!!!

Well ... stop riding that pink bike!!! OK? :D

Please don't read the religion mega thread!

I find it very repugnant if forums are over-regulated. The same goes for politics and religion forbidden. Horrible!

Reason is, that I spend some of my free time in forums, and the function is not only factual stuff, but also to get in contact with people over that medium.

By the way this is the only forum that I participate in, that has people from around the globe, and I think that is quite thrilling.

So why filter the personal, the human, the subjective, the small-talk, the kidding, the nonsense out?

I would not enjoy meeting people at a place where I am not allowd to talk about basic human issues like philosophy, beliefs/religion, and also politics.

I used to participate in a very heavily moderated and regulated forum, where posts were just deleted like that, off-topics was banned and so on. In my opinion ugly atmosphere and I left.

We also have to stand when you say you find religion obscene. And I think that is very good. So if you can't stand it ignore it or put the person on ignore or whatever.

Agree with most of the sentiments. At least until someone has a bunch of satanist links in their signature, and they get moderated because of it (satanism is a real religion), and then that would be highly hypocritical to not allow it, but to allow other, more popular religions links.

Funny thing is I have a signature, but I have viewing them turned off.

Good for you because your huge signature, which is longer than your post, won't waste electricity on your own screen then :P

I guess this is going to be a little off-topic in some ways...

Satanism is a recent invention of some real creeps!

It either presents the absence of God as a fact. Why then religion? It then presents itself as a mere provocation and bogey of the middle classes.

Or it cloaks the existence of God, calls it a lie and promotes man as his own god. By that it would draw people from a God that loves them, to a Satan that hates and destroys them. Hmm, well, how useful would that be?

Read about satanism. It is difficult to see any good in it. It is at best a degenerated and very incoherent attitude, religion is too big a word for it.

If there were no God and no Satan why build up a bugaboo like Satanism? It would be much more productive and straightforward to just name materialism materialism and atheism atheism then.

What sources would you recommend?

I am not recommending to spend time on it if you are not interested anyway, I think there's more interesting things. If someone thinks Satanism might be an 'alternative religon' or 'productive' or 'positive', go on and read.

I use wikipedia as a ressource that is perfectly fit to give me as an unknowing person sufficient insights on almost any interesting topic of general education.

For starters you can read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Satan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_Satanism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_LaVey
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_metal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-h...ight-hand_path
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_the_Black_Light
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleister_Crowley
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thelema
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Nine_Angles

From there you can extend by following links and reading more hours.

Reading most of this and more hasn't brought up anything positive for me in these matters and circles. But in my opinion it brought up a lot of confusion and manipulation, alongside filthy, sobering and terrible things.

Even a respectful satanist would probably not cause a whole lot of upset here at LQ. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if there were one or a few self-proclaimed satanists here already. Of itself, that is not the problem.

But there are always those people eager to adopt some stance they know will be maximally offensive to others, then present it in a way that is difficult for others to avoid or ignore.

And, there are always those who think that such things can be fixed by rule-making, which is not only stupid and cannot work, but creates layer upon layer of whole different sets of problems from which you can never recover.

Maintaining an equillibrium between these two dynamics is simply not possible.

The problem is not lack of a "rule" to cover it, the problem, as always, is ordinary lack of respect for others among those who engage in the intentional giving of offence, and those who are determined to be offended.

As such, it must be resolved first by showing respect for others by not forcing things that offend them into their space, and by making known the things that actually offend yourself when they cannot be easily avoided or ignored.

Equillibrium can only exist between mutually respectful individuals.

Give it. Expect it. Demand it when you think it necessary. But it comes from within the individuals involved, not from any externally imposed rule set.

I try to avoid such threads, because participating in them is a lose-lose proposition, though I must admit that I have been unable to restrain myself on a couple of occasions. I would not like to see such discussions banned, so long as they remain in the appropriate forum.

I think the LQ mods do a pretty good job of keeping the discussion in bounds--sometimes intense, but still within the bounds of civility. (Heck, the reason we have rules of civility is to make intense discussions possible. It's comparable to court procedures--the procedures are rigid because the emotions can be high.)

The main reason religion is so widespread is due to mass indoctrination of kids.

Hi Jeremy.

I take it back and was wrong to suggest that religion should be banned outright on the forums -- since there's other non-tech sections where it can exist. However I do not like to see religion being advertised in sigs in non-religion threads.

Please clarify when you said "which can be disabled and do not show to guests/search engines." You mean I can make a setting to not see a certain members sig or not see anyone sig?

But the LQ Rules says advertising is not allowed -- it never mentions the sig being an exception. Does this mean all types of advertising (even commercial) is allowed in sigs?

Regards.

You can turn off signatures entirely. To my knowledge (which admittedly isn't that great) it isn't possible to turn off a single users sig so that you never see it. If it is, I'd very much like to know that too, as I have sigs turned off due to a small selection of users sigs that are quite annoying (to me).

Hi Tim.

It'd be a handy feature to be able to click on a particular members sig and ignore it permanently (but not ignore their posts). I would not like to ignore everyones sigs as most of them are fine and many are useful.

The same can be said of pretty much every wide spread socal organizing principle or moral. That itself does not make it good or bad, right or wrong, or even popular or unpopular - only widely received.

In that sense all the currently acceptable social and political precepts taught by public education today (a more effective mass indoctrination method), are just seeds of the de facto "religions" of future generations.

Fear for the future.

Hi...

There are signatures that I have found distasteful, yet I have not asked that they be removed. Why does Jesus offend you so much? :(

Regards...

By definition, one man's religion is another man's blasphemy.

Hi...

But out of them all, there can be only one Truth. ;)

Regards...

Yes, the truth that Christianity is possibly the most hypocritical religion ever, that's responsible for more wars and death than all other religions put together, and is utterly distasteful to anyone with a sense of honor.

....according to YOU. Amazingly, any other religion ALSO says that theirs is the 'truth' too....lather, rinse, repeat.

Which is why such things are best kept TO YOURSELF, unless someone asks.

And honestly, I think the only reason you post your welcomes to so many folks, and why you ignore the LQ rules about posting when you have nothing to offer on a topic (such as "I have no idea about your issue, but you may want to change your user name"), is to get your signature seen.

[removed] off, you pompous buffoon.

I just realized we have no way to give "negative" reputation.... Very Facebooky...

Hi...

Your mistaken in part, the username issue I do as a service and I don't do it very often compared to the posts where I'm attempting to resolve issues. As far as the greetings go, yes, absolutely! Although it's not the only reason, I do want to spread/share the Good News about Jesus Christ and I have nothing to apologize for or to be ashamed of. I do like to greet people and make them feel welcome, too, so I get to do both. :)

Regards...

I don't believe in a god. I think of the bible along the same lines as greek myths and legends. But if anything should be banned it's that sort of response.
Was that meant to be facetious or was it a rush of blood?

You changed your original post very quickly. I hope you're still an avid atheist and surely you think believing in fairy tales and imaginary beings is even more ridiculous. (-;

Point taken.

No. You have a point there. But I'm not (nor would) go around shoving my atheistic views via a sig to everyone I reply to.

Yes, a lot of nonsense is also taught in schools but unlike religions indoctrination -- very important things are taught - info that's actually based on facts, evidence, and reality.

Oh the arrogance. You are completely brainwashed.

I don't need to be saved from going to an imaginary place by your imaginary zombie pal jesus. I may have to add you to my ignore list since I cannot ignore just your sig.

Slander and gutter talk. I'd say you deserve at least 6 points for that.

You just don't get it. You presume everyone wants to here your "good news". I would bet most people on this forum are not religious and see your sig as being superfluous text.

Really?? A simple search on LQ turns up over 1000 "Welcome" posts...out of your total of 3794 replies. So, a little less than 1/3 of your TOTAL POSTS are nothing but welcomes, with lots more of the "I don't know anything about your issue, but consider changing your user name". Again, that is in violation of the LQ Rules about not posting if you have nothing to contribute to the thread.
No, you don't..but you SHOULD keep it to yourself unless you're asked. Shoving it in peoples faces is tantamount to spamming them, and you ADMIT it's a good part of the reason you welcome folks. And the larger point you *DO* keep missing (however, I think you IGNORE it), is that it may make others uncomfortable. Again, as you've been told before, people of other religions don't think YOU have the 'truth', and you sure wouldn't be too thrilled if they started putting things out there about THEIR religions, but you seem to want a free pass because YOU THINK it's the 'truth'. We don't care about your motivations....we don't care about why YOU THINK it's a good idea/the right path/etc....you're making people uncomfortable, and would squawk loudly if someone else had a similar signature in a different religion.

And something else to think about: every time you say "While I don't know....", you remove a posters question from the zero-reply list, making it LESS LIKELY that the person will get help. If others have posted, you're sending them messages leading them to believe they should log in and check, in hopes of an answer...which you didn't give.

You're at a technical forum....have you considered actually keeping your comments about the subject at hand, and trying to HELP folks?

I've changed my signature. Am I in violation now?

Be careful not to get yourself repelled from the sane though that a God may exist, only because Ardvark promotes an unbiblical and bloodcurdling webpage.


http://www.divinerevelations.info/do...hell/demon.jpg

Is that a creative-illustrative, a realistic or even a low quality photographic depiction of a demon?

I wonder how many people have given their life over yet, because of your hell promotion activity?

Can we have a witness of Ardvarks fruits, then I will rethink my position?

Oscar Wilde: "Religion is like a blind man looking in a black room for a black cat that isn't there and finding it!"

@dunne, that type of language isn't acceptable here at LQ.

Please keep future posts in this thread on topic or the thread will be closed. Thanks.

--jeremy

Atheist here. I do not support censorship - even of things that annoy me. Please don't censor anything. Let people talk about what they will.

The LQ rules are just typical forum/bbs rules that allow civil discussion, exchange of ideas and so on, while having a way to stop trolls, annoying amounts of swearing, and flamewars. They don't seem to be geared at straight up censorship like OP is, ignorantly, rallying for.

This is worth mentioning again! I scour the zero-reply posts every day looking to help anyone that fell through the cracks. And so many of them get pulled out of that list with unhelpful or anecdotal replies. Thanks for pointing this out.

Go [removed] yourself, you blathering West-Brit poltroon. Oh, and it would be libel, not slander, were it not true.

Hi.

Please read my post #19 https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...ml#post5552268.

Regards.

+1 reply to dunne's drivel. :hattip:

Excellent points!