Pro-religious censorship at PF

[arildno]

I am deeply disappointed that some of the mentors at PF has a pro-religious, fact-denying intolerant attitude in saying I am religion-"bashing".

1. Is it religion-"bashing" to state the FACT that just about any form public entertainment in Taliban Afghanistan was forbidden, except for public executions?
Do mentors deny that Taliban leaders constantly justified their actions by citing the Quran?
Do mentors say these leaders quoted the Quran incorrectly?

Is it religion-bashing to say that insofar as some call to action (for example cutting off the hand of thieves, or stoning of an adulterous wife) is prescribed by the Quran, then Islam has an intimate connection as the motivating background for the execution of such actions?

2. Is it religion-bashing to say that any text within the Bible belong to the corpus of the holy, authoritative text for Christians?
Do mentors deny that the sentence "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" is a call to murder those "proven" to be witches?

3. When Paul says that women are to remain silent in assemblies, is it religion-bashing to point out that if you are to be a Christian then, at the very least, you should disapprove of any woman who dares to raise her voice?


Please, do not go in the trap of maintaining a rosy sheen about religions, and that is in fact what you are doing when you, as a principle, regard either the Bible or the Quran as essentially a MORAL book.
Or, if that is too difficult, do not throw about labels of religion-bashing, when criticisms are backed up with historical FACTS concerning the religion in question.

 

[chroot]

Arildno,

Please calm down. We are not pro-religious, nor are we anti-relgiious. We take no stance on religion, and simply do not permit discussion of religion on this forum -- regardless of the validity or merit or intentions of the arguments or participants. It's just not in the scope of this forum. I encourage you to take your religious arguments to another of the many other sites on the 'net which host religious debate.

- Warren

 

[arildno]

So pointing out that a crucial component in the execution of a 16-year old girl (whose only fault was to make love with someone she wasn't married to) is, in fact, the religious beliefs of those in authoritative positions in the judicial system, that is impermissible?

Well, well, if that's how you want to run the forum, so be it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The last time I checked you were misquoting Christian doctrine.

 

[ZapperZ]

Wait a couple of months, and we'll get accused of being "ardent" aethiests.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=124489

Zz.

 

[chroot]

Indeed. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm simply saying it's not a welcome topic here. Trust me, I don't like censoring you, but this is a science forum. Our staff long ago made the decision that religious arguments (pro-, anti-, or anything in between) are simply not welcome here.

I appreciate that regilious differences are practically the firmament upon which the world's current political situation rests, and that a discussion of politics almost cannot exclude religion. I appreciate that this hinders discussion here. Our membership is by and large incredibly intelligent, worldly, and well-meaning, and I too would genuinely like to hear what they have to say on the topic. However, we have to draw our boundary lines somewhere, and they have thus been drawn. Religious topics are simply too inflammatory, attract inordinate attention, and distract from the forum's purpose -- the discussion of science.

Perhaps some members have suggestions of forums which support religious debate?

- Warren

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Speaking as a Christian and the one who locked the thread, I feel pretty much the same way as you do, Arildno. Not entirely to be sure, but more than not. Note also that you wouldn't find many Christians defending radicalized Islam on a theological basis.

I'd like to [Bush] say a lot more but that would quickly violate the posting guidelines.

 

[Mattara]

Perhaps some members have suggestions of forums which support religious debate?

- Warren

http://www.big-boards.com/kw/religion/ search gave some interesting results.

 

[Hootenanny]

Does this class as a religious discussion? :tongue:

 

[arildno]

Well, I don't know, since it is now impermissible here at PF to criticize any statement that somewhere in the world has been raised to a religious dogma.

Perhaps it is for the best, but then you could equally well shut down P&WA.

(For example, one of the truly major factors in the Israel conflicts is that Jews say their God awarded them a country they didn't live in for 2000 years. The presumed descendants of those once living there didn't even have any legal documents to show that they were, in fact, descendants, they merely claimed to be so, and got away with that).

 

[axawire]

Oh! I thought physics was a religion... what's going to save me now :-(

 

[ZapperZ]

Oh! I thought physics was a religion... what's going to save me now :-(

String Theory. You have to believe in it.

Zz.

 

[Danger]

String Theory. You have to believe in it.

Zz.

You surprise me, ZZ. I always thought that you were a 'brane man. :tongue:

 

[ZapperZ]

You surprise me, ZZ. I always thought that you were a 'brane man. :tongue:

What, you think I'm two-dimensional?

:)

Zz.

 

[Mickey]

Everyone should give strings a good plucking at least one time in their lives.

As for religions, pluck those too.

 

[Danger]

:rofl: :rofl:

 

[Chi Meson]

Everyone should give strings a good plucking at least one time in their lives.

As for religions, pluck those too.

(Gotta do something about that smiley)

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I'm a devout agnostic with a real interest in religous history I can honestly say that the most dissapointing thing about PF is that you can't talk about religion, but I'll get over it, I also like talking about maths, physics and biology and nothing important and politics and parasychology and that scarey realm philosophy were the inititated appear to be speaking a language I cannot fathom there all catered for, oh happy day.

 

[vanesch]

As Warren said, religion simply turned out to be too touchy a subject to allow discussions over, unless it is in a neutral (that is, no value-assigning) way. The reason is that we have a world-wide audience, and you might hurt feelings of people, dragging them into a flame contest which then requires a lot of moderation effort which is wasted for the main purpose of this site, which is to discuss science. We tend to shut down about all activity that requires moderation effort and which doesn't serve the main purpose of this site, and believe me, religion is such a topic.

As stated however, neutral discussions about religion are permitted.
Saying, for instance, that the Taliban misuse or abuse the Muslim religion in order for them to instore their views is, I'd think, permitted, because it is a criticism of the Taliban, and not of a religion. But it is already borderline.

All non-neutral statements however, are not welcome, not because we don't like them, but they are cause of trouble and use moderation ressources which could be better used on science topics.

You might not know, but the number of preaching zealot posts that we have to eliminate praising Allah, Jehova, Budda, the Lord,... and inviting people to read the Bible, the Quoran, ... is rather large (it seems to come in waves). So things go both ways.

We want to stay religion-neutral, just to avoid the hassle. Not because we want to endorse any PoV.

 

[ketameaningle]

'You might not know, but the number of preaching zealot posts that we have to eliminate praising Allah, Jehova, Budda, the Lord,... and inviting people to read the Bible, the Quoran, ... is rather large (it seems to come in waves'
but the more precisely you know the position of the email in your inbox, the more like a particle it appears.

seriously though, i bumped this for a reason. i really registered here because i am interested in the grand concepts of quantum physics and cosmology, and i want to improve my grasp on them. (I don't speak maths or anything)
and these ideas are basically and fundamentally religious questions. Is that ok to discuss or am I in the wrong place?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

You surprise me, ZZ. I always thought that you were a 'brane man. :tongue:

Just don't call him a p-brane.

 

[cesiumfrog]

I am deeply disappointed that some of the mentors at PF has a pro-religious, fact-denying intolerant attitude

I'm guessing arildno started this thread before PF's climate science denial was decreed?

i really registered here because i am interested in the grand concepts of quantum physics and cosmology, and i want to improve my grasp on them. (I don't speak maths or anything)
and these ideas are basically and fundamentally religious questions.

That deserves a separate thread from here. I don't think you'll find much agreement with your proposition (equating religion and fundamental physics) though. And the discussion value may be diminished if you're opposed to (or just unprepared for) technical detail.

 

[Evo]

'You might not know, but the number of preaching zealot posts that we have to eliminate praising Allah, Jehova, Budda, the Lord,... and inviting people to read the Bible, the Quoran, ... is rather large (it seems to come in waves'
but the more precisely you know the position of the email in your inbox, the more like a particle it appears.

seriously though, i bumped this for a reason. i really registered here because i am interested in the grand concepts of quantum physics and cosmology, and i want to improve my grasp on them. (I don't speak maths or anything)
and these ideas are basically and fundamentally religious questions. Is that ok to discuss or am I in the wrong place?

If you think physics is a religion, then you are probably in the wrong place.