Teacher says Catholic school fired her for IVF

[AnimatedDirt]

I disagree.  I have been a mod on another site that had far more diversity of political and religious standpoints (it was the debate board of a parenting website, and there were moms of all stripes from the super Christian conservative, to Muslim, to atheist, to Jewish, to Buddhist, as well as all parts of the political spectrum.)  As you are probably aware, I am a pretty flaming liberal myself, but I never thought that I would be within my rights to moderate images or arguments simply because they ran afoul of my own atheist liberal sensibilities.  The only moderation I did was to enforce that all members had to treat each other with some minimum amount of civility and respect, and that none of the postings violated the site guidlines (for example, no picture posts of graphic nudity or spam links or whatever.)  And that's why I was a good mod.  It would be a piss poor mod that moderated people simply because they disagreed with them.

Certainly, I can see why you'd disagree.  However I think you made my point.  You remained a moderator because you stayed within the guidelines of that forum.

Yes, the guidelines of the forum that said "no graphic nudity" and "no spam", not "no dissenting opinions."

I'm simply saying there is good reason to be discriminatory in certain situation and apparenly IVF goes against Catholic guidelines.  It's the reason these laws exist, I think.  I'm sympathetic to this woman, however under law, apparently, it is within the rights of the school to let her go.

Do I agree that for IVF she's let go?  No, but nor do I agree with forcing a privately funded employer to employ a person that does not abide by their guidelines. 

[En_Route]

The story then might be, "Moderator removed for upholding his/her ideals."  There is nothing necessarily wrong with IVF nor is there anything necessarily wrong with moderating images that one finds offensive.  However in these cases, both actions go against the thinking of the "employer" and therefore cause or can cause discord or disrupt the harmony of the workplace in the article and in our hypothetical case here, the forum.

I disagree.  I have been a mod on another site that had far more diversity of political and religious standpoints (it was the debate board of a parenting website, and there were moms of all stripes from the super Christian conservative, to Muslim, to atheist, to Jewish, to Buddhist, as well as all parts of the political spectrum.)  As you are probably aware, I am a pretty flaming liberal myself, but I never thought that I would be within my rights to moderate images or arguments simply because they ran afoul of my own atheist liberal sensibilities.  The only moderation I did was to enforce that all members had to treat each other with some minimum amount of civility and respect, and that none of the postings violated the site guidlines (for example, no picture posts of graphic nudity or spam links or whatever.)  And that's why I was a good mod.  It would be a piss poor mod that moderated people simply because they disagreed with them.

What's wrong with graphic nudity?  In fact what is graphic nudity as compared to normal nudity?

[Tank]

The story then might be, "Moderator removed for upholding his/her ideals."  There is nothing necessarily wrong with IVF nor is there anything necessarily wrong with moderating images that one finds offensive.  However in these cases, both actions go against the thinking of the "employer" and therefore cause or can cause discord or disrupt the harmony of the workplace in the article and in our hypothetical case here, the forum.

I disagree.  I have been a mod on another site that had far more diversity of political and religious standpoints (it was the debate board of a parenting website, and there were moms of all stripes from the super Christian conservative, to Muslim, to atheist, to Jewish, to Buddhist, as well as all parts of the political spectrum.)  As you are probably aware, I am a pretty flaming liberal myself, but I never thought that I would be within my rights to moderate images or arguments simply because they ran afoul of my own atheist liberal sensibilities.  The only moderation I did was to enforce that all members had to treat each other with some minimum amount of civility and respect, and that none of the postings violated the site guidlines (for example, no picture posts of graphic nudity or spam links or whatever.)  And that's why I was a good mod.  It would be a piss poor mod that moderated people simply because they disagreed with them.

What's wrong with graphic nudity?  In fact what is graphic nudity as compared to normal nudity?

There is nothing wrong with graphic nudity in the appropriate context. The rules of a forum define what is and is not acceptable within the context of the forum.

[Ali]

The story then might be, "Moderator removed for upholding his/her ideals."  There is nothing necessarily wrong with IVF nor is there anything necessarily wrong with moderating images that one finds offensive.  However in these cases, both actions go against the thinking of the "employer" and therefore cause or can cause discord or disrupt the harmony of the workplace in the article and in our hypothetical case here, the forum.

I disagree.  I have been a mod on another site that had far more diversity of political and religious standpoints (it was the debate board of a parenting website, and there were moms of all stripes from the super Christian conservative, to Muslim, to atheist, to Jewish, to Buddhist, as well as all parts of the political spectrum.)  As you are probably aware, I am a pretty flaming liberal myself, but I never thought that I would be within my rights to moderate images or arguments simply because they ran afoul of my own atheist liberal sensibilities.  The only moderation I did was to enforce that all members had to treat each other with some minimum amount of civility and respect, and that none of the postings violated the site guidlines (for example, no picture posts of graphic nudity or spam links or whatever.)  And that's why I was a good mod.  It would be a piss poor mod that moderated people simply because they disagreed with them.

What's wrong with graphic nudity?  In fact what is graphic nudity as compared to normal nudity?

Within the context of the forum, something like a picture of a woman bare breasted and breastfeeding would not have been graphic nudity and would have been allowed, but something that was meant to be sexual would not have been.

[Stevil]

The rules to this forum are:
Civility
Right to Privacy

Guidelines are
NO JUNK POSTS
NO RACISM
NO PREACHING
NO SPAM
NO PLAGIARISM
WORK FRIENDLY
DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS
NO SOCK PUPPETS

In particular the No Preaching benefits from elaboration here
"While everyone is welcome to discuss their views in a civil manner, this forum is not a podium for those that only wish to preach.  This rule applies to atheists and theists alike. Preaching means stating your beliefs without providing evidence."

These don't give advantage to atheists.

The mere name of this forum and the mission statement means that most members will be atheists and a lot of conversation will be about disbelief with regards to religions and religious influence and behaviors within our societies. There is nothing to stop you having a Christian conversation as long as it is not preachy, i.e. not simply quoting scripture, making baseless assertions and trying to evangalise.

With regards to the image thread, have you discussed the offensive ones with the moderators?
Can you let me know which one or two you find the most offensive there?
What would be an equivalent offensive at atheism image?

[Stevil]

There is nothing wrong with graphic nudity in the appropriate context. The rules of a forum define what is and is not acceptable within the context of the forum.

There are laws, and those can be used to convict the owner of forums.

[AnimatedDirt]

The rules to this forum are:
Civility
Right to Privacy

Guidelines are
NO JUNK POSTS
NO RACISM
NO PREACHING
NO SPAM
NO PLAGIARISM
WORK FRIENDLY
DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS
NO SOCK PUPPETS

In particular the No Preaching benefits from elaboration here
"While everyone is welcome to discuss their views in a civil manner, this forum is not a podium for those that only wish to preach.  This rule applies to atheists and theists alike. Preaching means stating your beliefs without providing evidence."

These don't give advantage to atheists.

The mere name of this forum and the mission statement means that most members will be atheists and a lot of conversation will be about disbelief with regards to religions and religious influence and behaviors within our societies. There is nothing to stop you having a Christian conversation as long as it is not preachy, i.e. not simply quoting scripture, making baseless assertions and trying to evangalise.

So lets say a moderator decides to be preachy or quote scripture...is it discrimination to remove such a moderator that doesn't fit within the guidelines of the forum or specifically more on topic, the entity they work for?

No, it doesn't necessarily give the advantage to the atheist.  However, IMHExperience, it does give the atheist more room to make certain statements that others, because they more agree than disagree, do nothing about.  (I won't go into detail, it's just the norm here as I interpret it and something I'm apparently willing to endure.)

With regards to the image thread, have you discussed the offensive ones with the moderators?
Can you let me know which one or two you find the most offensive there?
What would be an equivalent offensive at atheism image?

It wouldn't make any difference to you since you don't hold anything "sacred".  However as I've mentioned at least once, there is at least one image that while seriously offensive, I was able to find the humor, so maybe I'm a hypocrite.

I don't know of any specific image that would be specifically offensive to atheism.  Do you?  I'm sure many of the forum members would find it offensive if after each post, I would write something to the effect, "I'm praying for you, Stevil."  See the We're praying for you! thread.

[En_Route]

The story then might be, "Moderator removed for upholding his/her ideals."  There is nothing necessarily wrong with IVF nor is there anything necessarily wrong with moderating images that one finds offensive.  However in these cases, both actions go against the thinking of the "employer" and therefore cause or can cause discord or disrupt the harmony of the workplace in the article and in our hypothetical case here, the forum.

I disagree.  I have been a mod on another site that had far more diversity of political and religious standpoints (it was the debate board of a parenting website, and there were moms of all stripes from the super Christian conservative, to Muslim, to atheist, to Jewish, to Buddhist, as well as all parts of the political spectrum.)  As you are probably aware, I am a pretty flaming liberal myself, but I never thought that I would be within my rights to moderate images or arguments simply because they ran afoul of my own atheist liberal sensibilities.  The only moderation I did was to enforce that all members had to treat each other with some minimum amount of civility and respect, and that none of the postings violated the site guidlines (for example, no picture posts of graphic nudity or spam links or whatever.)  And that's why I was a good mod.  It would be a piss poor mod that moderated people simply because they disagreed with them.

What's wrong with graphic nudity?  In fact what is graphic nudity as compared to normal nudity?

Within the context of the forum, something like a picture of a woman bare breasted and breastfeeding would not have been graphic nudity and would have been allowed, but something that was meant to be sexual would not have been.

Spoilsport.

[DeterminedJuliet]

There are rude and not entirely fair things that are said about theists here, but I don't think the vast majority of it is anything that's over the top. You have to keep in mind that a lot of us come from a background where atheists have been treated unfairly on a regular basis (not all of us, but some of us) and this is a "safe place" for those people. Also keep in mind that some of us are ex-theists who have very personal and often complicated feelings about religion. It's a highly emotional thing, you can't expect us to be above a little unfair expression from time to time when we know the vast majority of the people here are mostly sympathetic to us.

It's like when I meet up with other Newfoundlanders: we might make a couple of snide comments or jokes about "mainlanders" here or there, but do we actually believe most of it? No, not really. It's just nice to have common ground when you might otherwise feel like a minority.

AD, maybe you need a "theist in HAF" thread.

[En_Route]

The story then might be, "Moderator removed for upholding his/her ideals."  There is nothing necessarily wrong with IVF nor is there anything necessarily wrong with moderating images that one finds offensive.  However in these cases, both actions go against the thinking of the "employer" and therefore cause or can cause discord or disrupt the harmony of the workplace in the article and in our hypothetical case here, the forum.

I disagree.  I have been a mod on another site that had far more diversity of political and religious standpoints (it was the debate board of a parenting website, and there were moms of all stripes from the super Christian conservative, to Muslim, to atheist, to Jewish, to Buddhist, as well as all parts of the political spectrum.)  As you are probably aware, I am a pretty flaming liberal myself, but I never thought that I would be within my rights to moderate images or arguments simply because they ran afoul of my own atheist liberal sensibilities.  The only moderation I did was to enforce that all members had to treat each other with some minimum amount of civility and respect, and that none of the postings violated the site guidlines (for example, no picture posts of graphic nudity or spam links or whatever.)  And that's why I was a good mod.  It would be a piss poor mod that moderated people simply because they disagreed with them.

What's wrong with graphic nudity?  In fact what is graphic nudity as compared to normal nudity?

There is nothing wrong with graphic nudity in the appropriate context. The rules of a forum define what is and is not acceptable within the context of the forum.

It looks as if there is  a gap in the market for the HappyGraphicallyNudeAtheistForum.

[DeterminedJuliet]

The story then might be, "Moderator removed for upholding his/her ideals."  There is nothing necessarily wrong with IVF nor is there anything necessarily wrong with moderating images that one finds offensive.  However in these cases, both actions go against the thinking of the "employer" and therefore cause or can cause discord or disrupt the harmony of the workplace in the article and in our hypothetical case here, the forum.

I disagree.  I have been a mod on another site that had far more diversity of political and religious standpoints (it was the debate board of a parenting website, and there were moms of all stripes from the super Christian conservative, to Muslim, to atheist, to Jewish, to Buddhist, as well as all parts of the political spectrum.)  As you are probably aware, I am a pretty flaming liberal myself, but I never thought that I would be within my rights to moderate images or arguments simply because they ran afoul of my own atheist liberal sensibilities.  The only moderation I did was to enforce that all members had to treat each other with some minimum amount of civility and respect, and that none of the postings violated the site guidlines (for example, no picture posts of graphic nudity or spam links or whatever.)  And that's why I was a good mod.  It would be a piss poor mod that moderated people simply because they disagreed with them.

What's wrong with graphic nudity?  In fact what is graphic nudity as compared to normal nudity?

There is nothing wrong with graphic nudity in the appropriate context. The rules of a forum define what is and is not acceptable within the context of the forum.

It looks as if there is  a gap in the market for the HappyGraphicallyNudeAtheistForum.

There's a niche that needs filling.

[The Black Jester]

The story then might be, "Moderator removed for upholding his/her ideals."  There is nothing necessarily wrong with IVF nor is there anything necessarily wrong with moderating images that one finds offensive.  However in these cases, both actions go against the thinking of the "employer" and therefore cause or can cause discord or disrupt the harmony of the workplace in the article and in our hypothetical case here, the forum.

I disagree.  I have been a mod on another site that had far more diversity of political and religious standpoints (it was the debate board of a parenting website, and there were moms of all stripes from the super Christian conservative, to Muslim, to atheist, to Jewish, to Buddhist, as well as all parts of the political spectrum.)  As you are probably aware, I am a pretty flaming liberal myself, but I never thought that I would be within my rights to moderate images or arguments simply because they ran afoul of my own atheist liberal sensibilities.  The only moderation I did was to enforce that all members had to treat each other with some minimum amount of civility and respect, and that none of the postings violated the site guidlines (for example, no picture posts of graphic nudity or spam links or whatever.)  And that's why I was a good mod.  It would be a piss poor mod that moderated people simply because they disagreed with them.

What's wrong with graphic nudity?  In fact what is graphic nudity as compared to normal nudity?

There is nothing wrong with graphic nudity in the appropriate context. The rules of a forum define what is and is not acceptable within the context of the forum.

It looks as if there is  a gap in the market for the HappyGraphicallyNudeAtheistForum.

There's a niche that needs filling.

Nice.

[DeterminedJuliet]

 

[AnimatedDirt]

There are rude and not entirely fair things that are said about theists here, but I don't think the vast majority of it is anything that's over the top.

If it is rude and unfair, by definition it is over the top.  But again, because you all agree more than you disagree, hurting another person is ok if that person happens to believe delusionally in God.

You have to keep in mind that a lot of us come from a background where atheists have been treated unfairly on a regular basis (not all of us, but some of us) and this is a "safe place" for those people. Also keep in mind that some of us are ex-theists who have very personal and often complicated feelings about religion. It's a highly emotional thing, you can't expect us to be above a little unfair expression from time to time when we know the vast majority of the people here are mostly sympathetic to us.

Exactly my point.  For me to express myself in a manner in which is "rude or unfair" leads to a ban.  For *you it gets chuckles and accolades and/or kudos.

It's like when I meet up with other Newfoundlanders: we might make a couple of snide comments or jokes about "mainlanders" here or there, but do we actually believe most of it? No, not really. It's just nice to have common ground when you might otherwise feel like a minority.

In that context it would seem more of a poke at in fun and not to demean or degrade one because of their delusional beliefs.

AD, maybe you need a "theist in HAF" thread.

I'm unsure how that conversation might go.

More on topic, then there is a time and place for discrimination.  On one end, minor offenses and on the other blatent racial or sexist.  I think it's more healthy for the company or private entity to hold those people that keep more in line with the guidelines of the entity and weed out those that may cause problems or go against the guidelines.

It seems logical to me.

[DeterminedJuliet]

I disagree about "rude" = "over the top", but everyone has their own limits, I guess. It still seems to me that your problem is that an atheist forum has an atheist discourse.