Perhaps there should be a forum for anti-religion posts where vitiol and hatred can be kept in one place

I'm not religious but respect those with beliefs - what ever they are. However, JO8 this is a forum - which means that subjects are introduced for discussion whether we like other peoples' views or not. It's up to you to discuss it and put forward your views. Hopefully you will get sensible responses back even if they aren't responses that you particularly agree with it. However, I do think that if someone gets too personal or abusive, they have lost the point of their argument immediatly.
Or is granjura right and you've just popped that remark in with mischief in mind? Hope I'm wrong.

I don't expect any forum to be "monitored and censored"! Where did I say that?

I suggested separate forums so that if a poster wanted to say something with a religious aspect to it, they could do so without being shot down in flames by the religion haters.

This is not the first time that it has been suggested that the Religion and Spirituality forum should be monitored and censored. Naturally, no one in either instance has bothered to explain how and on what criteria. It wasn't considered a special case last time and, of course, it won't be now.

I think all religion is tosh!
I love a lot of people who hold religious beliefs.
I think that leaders of religions have often been corrupted by power and use that power to distort the original tenets of their particular doctrine or to protect themselves and their cronies.
In amongst the corruption will be some genuinely 'faithful' priests.
I do not think it is healthy for religious followers to blindly follow a doctrine /leader and never question or blindly defend!
I am not being vitriolic or hateful just staing some facts and my opinion.

And I'm not saying 'why oh why'. Stopped saying anything at all since Midwife started actually. (apart from trying to understand Galen' s offering)

That's why I put it under 'Site Stuff'.

And the anti' s. sorry

No Granjura! I really think it would be better to have separate forums for the religionists the anti' s.

TBH I thought Site Stuff was more to do with making suggestions to GNHQ, rather than debating with other members.

One thing I have learned is, it doesn't matter what other people think. Don't rush in to defend your opinion if you don't want to debate. It's called let it go..

j08- you are an intelligent woman, and knew very well that this new thread would just cause more debate and controversy - and now throw your hands innocently in the air saying 'why oh why' - I am absolutely sure you are not naive. What was the point, as you know how so many feel here. Are you trying to be a modern day martyr?

For me this thread is no longer about religion as such, but about censorship. And censorship is wrong on an open forum, providing opinions and debate is kept polite and respectful.

Which was slightly puzzling.

That was the answer to Galen' s post

Is Jesus Christ her Lord.

And?

.?The churches one foundation?

"By schisms rent asunder..."??? No!

Thinking about it, hatred and vitriol are generally far more characteristic of religion – think crusades and jihadists, never mind the Spanish Inquisition, all the European wars of succession or half the modern history of Northern Ireland – than agnosticism and atheism. So there's an interesting question.

I don't think anyone has argued that. The argument I've seen is more like "I didn't mean it to hurt but I can't think of every possible scenario". I've also seen it expressed (not on GN, I think) as "Whatever you say, someone somewhere will be offended." That's pushing it a bit far though.

Separate posts with separate points.

I'm sure there isn't any point my staying on this thread.

QED

Ana That was not what I said. It was not even what I implied.

My post was actually in reply to absent's, Bags. And of course I take the point that I don't know you. I'm sure you don't mean to put people down when you mock their ideas/beliefs, but I really don't get the argument that 'because I didn't mean to hurt, it therefore didn't'.

I still don't understand what she means. Usual response to a usual comment? Ana , please clarify as I am quite confused.

And yours just above it.

absent, I think (though I may be wrong) that ana was responding to my post of 20:19:10.

Ana I'm losing track here. What is the usual response to what?