On the concept of changing signature lines

Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
Status
Not open for further replies.
hewunch

hewunch

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2008
Messages
4,688
Location
Albany, GA
The poll that was not supposed to be a debate became just that. I kept my comments to myself as normally people smarter than I express what I am thinking in a better way. But as the poll is closed and I did not see anyone bring up this point (admittedly I did not read every response). So if someone did say this, my apologies. And it is not my intention to start another war, flame, or push any buttons. It is just trying to think through the whole issue.

If the owners decide to pull religious statements from signature lines because of offense, should we then stop posting religious themed pens? I am thinking the following

"Fisher's of Men" Kits
"Fish or Cross" clips
Bethlehem Olive Wood
El-Mostro's Blanks with Crosses
Other blanks with crosses
Lasered Fish kits

I guess my point is where would you draw the line?
 
Last edited:
Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
Hans,
I don't want to stir up any controversy or create any bad feelings. And I am a very tolerant person when it comes to religion or religious things... If I'm not interested, then I ignore.. If I am interested, then I'm open to discussion. It's not my place nor my right to censor, or advise or otherwise tell anyone else what they should believe or say. Personally, I believe that is biggest problem we are having in this country. This country was founded so there could be religious tolerance and I think we need to go back to that.

I have my beliefs and as such I believe they are private and for my use only.

I don't make religious themed pens, only because they are not my choice to make, I do use BOW because it is beautiful wood, not because of any religious connotations. That said, I see many pens with the cross, Celtic cross (which is also a religious symbol) and the fisher's of men center bands and admire all of them for the grace, skill, workmanship and beauty they all signify. And it is my intention to someday make some of the fisher's of men pens, I like that particular design because I think it's pretty.

This is not a poll, but I vote no we should not stop posting the pens you mentioned because the postings are for the purpose of showing off the skill involved in their creation.
 
hewunch said:
I guess my point is where would you draw the line?
Click to expand...

Somewhere very, very far short of the options listed in your post. I think this whole discussion has become irrational. We're all subject to whatever rules are set out by the owner whether we like them or not. What is or is not "religious" is not my problem. Simple as that.

In the other thread that is now closed, there was a tip posted about how to eliminate other people's signatures as one of your options. I think that's a fine idea, and I've just made the change. If you are concerned about what is in someone else's signature, I recommend that you make the change and find something else to fret about.

I keep IAP up most of the day at work and I really enjoy all of the good discussions, opportunities to buy interesting blanks, and the willingness that people have to help me solve pen-related problems. The debate about the religious issues just has no relevance to the website
 
Last edited:
My two cents

I voted in the poll yesterday and withheld my comments but today I can't hold back further. It concerns me greatly that we are gravitating toward a mentality that if you like something that's different from my taste, I should be offended. The whole discussion about what is or is not acceptable in signature lines is about drawing lines between what is and is not acceptable.

My suggestion is to draw a line only when someones post, signature line or other means of communication is derogatory or degrading to someone else. I hope that if I profess to like vanilla, the chocolate lovers of the world won't be offended. If I however say that chocolate lovers are the scum of the earth (and I'm one of them by the way) I expect to be censored.

If we draw lines like those being suggested on signature lines, there is almost no end to where and about what those lines could be drawn. I suggest we be very careful here.

John

BTW, is my signature line religious???
 
jedgerton said:
BTW, is my signature line religious???
Click to expand...

Yup.

I also didn't make comment since we were asked not to but my .02 is that as long as their comments are not derogatory nor inflammatory then there is no reason to censor them. If someone doesn't like seeing the quotes (be they religious or otherwise), disable the signatures. People have got to stop thinking they have the right to tell others how to live their lives. And this goes for both ends of the spectrum.

GK
 
Truly Ridiculous

This is truly getting ridiculous now.:frown: Who cares what is in a signature.

I have to agree with jedgerton here. As long as one group is not being offensive to another why should it matter?
 
Curtis/Jeff, feel free to delete this if you feel it is inappropriate.

I have not complained about signature lines, I am only providing a view from the 'other side' of this debate.

I am an Atheist, and I do not hide it. I am a lifetime member of American Atheists. I am not offended by others who wish to have religious themed signatures, BUT there should be a same tolerance for my signatures.

Example in a statement, They say: There is a/are God(s). I say: There is/are no God(s). Those of a religious background are going to be offended by the latter, and those with an Atheist belief will be offended by the first.

Who is right, and who is wrong? This should not be a forum for a personal stand on the subject. Signature lines are being used to skirt the AUP and make a point and send a message. A post mentioning a prayer is not the same, although it may be in the gray area, as would be someone discussing Darwin or evolution. In my opinion, a pen with a religious theme would be no problem as it is directly pen related.

In the interest of fairness and maintaining what this forum was set up to be, we should drop anything that is not related to pen making. No politics, no religion, and no philosophies.

If it is allowed, where is the line going to be drawn? How blatant of a statement is going to be accepted from either side? Religion or Atheism / Creationism or Evolution / Pro-Life or Pro-Choice, if you allow it, you ARE going to alienate someone.
 
Mr. Place, I'll go ahead and address your post and do it as simply as I can, as it's a simple idea.

Open mind, closed mind.
Speaking positively, speaking negatively.

Your signatures are entirely inappropriate if you ask me. Why? Because yours speaks against something. It speaks negatively about something. The idea that you're unable to see the difference is very doubtful.

You are dealing with a large audience with a vast array of beliefs. If you walked into an ice cream convention with a shirt that said "Chocolate is for idiots." you know darn well you're going to bother people. If you walk in with a shirt that said "I love chocolate!" then you're going to get an entirely different reaction. Those that agree will be happy, those that don't won't take offense as it doesn't insult their tastes. The first shirt would do just that.
 
Skye said:
Mr. Place,

Your signatures are entirely inappropriate if you ask me.
Click to expand...

I agree.. this sig is just trying to cause trouble and stir the pot to get them to ban all religious sigs..


BIG Difference on positive or neg..

example:

If someone posted a sig saying "god is great".. all the power to them, but if someone posted a sig saying " god is great and everyone who dont agree is idiots".. that would not be appropiate.

Yours is hitting on a neg area to cause trouble.
 
Skye said:
Open mind, closed mind.
Speaking positively, speaking negatively.
Click to expand...

This is my point. You believe, so you take offense. When I say the world evolved, those who believe in creationism are offended.

I believe there are no God(s), that is a personal belief. That offends people who say there are gods.

So it could be equally offensive to either party. Except I am not offended when you tell me there are gods, as the religious group is if you tell them there are no gods.

You say I talk against something, that is only because that is how you are taking it. I am writing a personal belief that can be reasonably proven with historical facts. I am no attacking anyone's belief system. I am stating a position.

If you write something of a religious nature, you are writing against my personal beliefs also, regardless of how positive you feel it is. It is a challenge to my belief and is calling my belief in to question.

I have no problems with having my beliefs called in to question and I am not offended if they are, but I should be afforded the same opportunity.

mywoodshopca said:
example:

If someone posted a sig saying "god is great".. all the power to them, but if someone posted a sig saying " god is great and everyone who dont agree is idiots".. that would not be appropiate.

.
Click to expand...

So if someone says "God is Great" that is as offensive to me, just as it would be to that person if I said "Gods are a myth". Is that person anymore entitled to offend me than I am entitled to offend them?

I am NOT advocating taking out religious signatures, and no one should think I am pushing for that. I have not been offended one way or the other. My original post was to promote tolerance. If "religious" signatures are allowed, then all signatures should be allowed with the exception of obscenities and personal attacks.

There is no good answer to this problem. This is the same as political discussions, neither party is correct. Each side has a view that is opposing to the other.
 
Last edited:
mrplace said:
I am stating a position.
Click to expand...

A negative position.

If I post something religious like "God is Love!", then it may not agree with your belief system, but it's not attacking it.

If I post something like "Turn or Burn!", then it's against your belief system and it is attacking it.

You can play this coy game if you want but you're really not fooling anyone. The really humorous thing about your position is that you blame religion for causing conflict. Now, your using your personal belief that religion is to blame for problems to cause problems. Who will get the blame when this goes sour? Religion, even though it's you stirring the pot. It's an easy scapegoat and you're monopolizing on it.
 
mrplace said:
This is my point. You believe, so you take offense. When I say the world evolved, those who believe in creationism are offended.

I believe there are no God(s), that is a personal belief. That offends people who say there are gods.

So it could be equally offensive to either party. Except I am not offended when you tell me there are gods, as the religious group is if you tell them there are no gods.

You say I talk against something, that is only because that is how you are taking it. I am writing a personal belief that can be reasonably proven with historical facts. I am no attacking anyone's belief system. I am stating a position.

If you write something of a religious nature, you are writing against my personal beliefs also, regardless of how positive you feel it is. It is a challenge to my belief and is calling my belief in to question.

I have no problems with having my beliefs called in to question and I am not offended if they are, but I should be afforded the same opportunity.
Click to expand...

MrPlace:

You and I will never agree on our personal beliefs. However, I fully agree with your last statement.

I, for one, do not find your tag lines offensive. Why? Because they make a general statement that expresses your personal beliefs. Neither quote attacks another individuals belief system, or personal choice.

As I stated in the other thread, personal beliefs are one of the things that make individuals unique.

I think that anyone that is truely rooted in their beliefs can hold those beliefs without attacking the belief systems of others. If not, then I would question if they truly believe or are they still trying to convince themselves by down playing an opposing view.

If I cannot support my beliefs, without attacking others, then my beliefs mean very little.

In a community forum, such as this one, we should be able to agree to disagree without becoming disagreeable.
 
Last edited:
Skye said:
A negative position.

If I post something religious like "God is Love!", then it may not agree with your belief system, but it's not attacking it.

If I post something like "Turn or Burn!", then it's against your belief system and it is attacking it.

You can play this coy game if you want but you're really not fooling anyone. The really humorous thing about your position is that you blame religion for causing conflict. Now, your using your personal belief that religion is to blame for problems to cause problems. Who will get the blame when this goes sour? Religion, even though it's you stirring the pot. It's an easy scapegoat and you're monopolizing on it.
Click to expand...


You are trying to defend your position with emotions and personal attacks. I have presented several cases for either banning or allowing, I have no problem either way. Whatever is done, needs to be equal for all parties.

===================================
I think we have offically crossed the line with this discussion.

Sorry Curtis.
 
Last edited:
I think it is a wonderful idea to ban anything religious in signatures, clothing,
jewelry, billboards, television and everything else I can think of. I'm tired of
being offended and I consider it emotional abuse to subject me to the stress
of seeing people who have something in their life.
While we're at it, can we ban ugly people from appearing in public? I think
they offend the senses and should be restricted to their own homes to leave
the rest of us in peace. Oh ,and blondes ,too. Make blondes illegal. That way
there would be no more blonde jokes and I won't have to laugh politely when
I pretend that I 'get it'.

Seriously, there's too many people minding everyone else's business and
playing 'victim' .. taking offense where none has been offered, trying to make
themselves a 'put-upon' minority. As for the 'right' not to be offended?
There's no such thing. Life is tough. Wear a cup.

I think that whatever someone wants to put in the signature (provided it
isn't illegal) it is their business, unless it violates the guidelines set forth
by the site owner. (There's no 'right' to free speech on a website)
I can read it or ignore it. And when something is perceived as going
'too far', the IAP community doesn't seem to have a problem letting each
other know.

Can we get back to turning? :biggrin:
.. and blonde jokes?
 
QUOTE: There is no good answer to this problem. This is the same as political discussions, neither party is correct. Each side has a view that is opposing to the other

Actually, ONE side IS correct. Trouble is, you won't know which one until you DIE. Same is true of politics. There IS a right and wrong answer, but only HISTORY can discern the difference.

Meanwhile, why not tolerate each other's opinions - in that THEY may be CORRECT, in hindsight.

I object to anyone murdering anyone else on the site. Verbal barbs will NOT lead to physical harm. OPEN your minds, accept others' views. YOU MAY learn something.

If you talk with and listen to, only those with whom you agree, your outlook on life, will, necessarily be narrow.

Now, does Jeff HAVE to allow that conversation to take place on HIS penturning site??? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! (I would like it if he did, but MANY would NOT like it - he attempts to please MOST of the people and OFFEND as FEW as possible) I wouldn't want HIS job or Curtis' --- but they know that!
 
Charles and Ed, I agree with you both 100%.

I did not start this thread, nor am I one who complained. I merely responded with an opposing opinion. If Jeff decides only to allow only religous signatures, so be it.

I have no problem having dialog over my beliefs, or having my beliefs questioned. If you want to question how I view life, do not be offended if I question yours. Questions are not personal attacks, and I do not normally take them that way.
 
mrplace said:
You are trying to defend your position with emotions and personal attacks. I have presented several cases for either banning or allowing, I have no problem either way. Whatever is done, needs to be equal for all parties.

===================================
I think we have offically crossed the line with this discussion.

Sorry Curtis.
Click to expand...

Personal attack? It's just the way I feel and I should be afforded such. Ring a bell?

Bottom line is you're being passive aggressive in order to aggravate a topic in hopes that it wipes out everything. Your talk of "personal attacks", your "banning" and your "crossed the line" is all further proof of this.

It's nothing new, nothing forums haven't seen before.
 
mrplace said:
You are trying to defend your position with emotions and personal attacks. I have presented several cases for either banning or allowing, I have no problem either way. Whatever is done, needs to be equal for all parties.

===================================
I think we have offically crossed the line with this discussion.

Sorry Curtis.
Click to expand...

Mr. Place,

I agree with you on this one, who cares what is posted in the signature line, whatever happened to having thick skin and letting things roll off of your shoulder.

I actually like his quote, i think it is different. but for some people to start attacking one's beliefs is wrong and should not be tolerated.

the bottom line is that some people on here are looking to pick a fight and there is no reason for one.
 
Skye said:
Bottom line is you're being passive aggressive in order to aggravate a topic in hopes that it wipes out everything.
Click to expand...

As I have stated several times in previous posts, I did not start this discussion, I only responded to it. I have not complained about anyone's post or signatures. So for you to try to place blame on me, is an attempt at a personal attack, and is so demonstrated by the continued comments that I somehow had a hand in this topic being started or in Curtis taking a poll on the topic.

My signatures are not anything new. The current ones have been in place for almost a year. They are not targeted at any specific religion.

If I would not have posted an opposing opinion, it could have been construed as silent approval. More or less the same thing as allowing our school kids to wear t-shirts proclaiming "Jesus is God" and then making another child cover up their Darwin Fish, or American Atheist Logo.

I can not say it enough, I do not care what anyone's personal beliefs are, but one belief should not be respected or accepted more than another, at another persons expense.

Leave the religious signatures, but all religious signatures should be allowed, even if they conflict with others beliefs. If you are not willing to overlook my signatures, as I should have to overlook yours, then they should be removed.
 
mrplace said:
Leave the religious signatures, but all religious signatures should be allowed, even if they conflict with others beliefs.
Click to expand...

A conflicting religious signature would be a positive statement from a Wiccan, a Buddhist, a Muslim, Scientologist, a Christian. They can live side by side with a little common courtesy.

A signature that tries to defame, to belittle or combat a different religion or religion as a whole, is another thing.

It's not a difficult concept to grasp. You can make a positive personal statement that conflicts with someone elses beliefs without causing a problem.

You can profess your own beliefs without directly bashing those that oppose it. All you have to do is care enough to try to be civil. Unfortunatly, you're the only one who can make you care.
 
I'm getting a lot of PM's asking "are you reading this thread?"

Yes, I am following this discussion with great interest.

Keep it civil, it'll stay open. So far, ok.
 
Since you seem to think my signature is "bashing" or defamatory, can you factually disprove either of my statements, or otherwise prove they are inaccurate?

For me to be Defaming, the statement would have to be inaccurate.

Questioning what others state as fact or truth is not belittling or defamatory, it is an attempt to put the facts in the open for everyone to see and scrutinize.

A statement such as "Jesus is the way, the truth and the light" or Jesus is the savior" could be construed negatively by more than one religion, as well as Atheists, because you have made a claim that their belief is not accurate, and that they are in error believing the way they do.

It seem you would like to suppress or ban what you disapprove of and only allow what you agree with. So, with you taking that position, I have to take the same position in defense of mine.

If you where willing to live with mine, I would be willing to live with yours. That is not the case judging from your posts. You want to edit signatures that support Atheism, but want to leave those that are supportive of Evangelical beliefs. This is neither fair or acceptable to either party.

I am not promoting banning, I am promoting tolerance by all parties. If all parties can not tolerate, then that only leaves removal to be fair.
 
I don't know what to think about all of this, I voted, but didn't comment on the mess yesterday, but I will now, I think this whole thing has gotten to the point of being ridiculous, I honor every persons belief system, as I expect them to honor and not defame mine nor bring me harm, when that happens then it will be settled as expediently as possible with the best of my ability and with my last breath. If we want to get totally asinine lets ban pens made from BOW all together and cross refill discussions, in the past few months I've seen way to much hostility and flame postings.
Personally I think that as individuals we all have opinions, which are not unlike certain bodily orifices in that we all have them. I tend to be Agnostic, but I still go to church, when one of our members asks for a prayer I pray for them, were I to lay claim to any organized religion, it would most likely be the O.O.B.D. I realize that we are human and as such are flawed, some more than others.
This was a great family a short while ago, I remember when several members needed help, and many of us did as much as we could, some did more than they could. None of us asked for any recognition, I personally wasn't interested in receiving any reward for my contribution, and I'm sure that most of the others were as I just helping a friend. Why can't we just let this rest, if you wish to praise God for all he has done for you then do it, if you wish to praise Buddha, Mohamed, or your favorite tree, then do so, but please don't try and force your beliefe or lack there of upon me.
I've yet to be offended by any ones signature lines, although I think Cav has aimed a few of his directly at me :embarrassed: and he hasn't used any religious references, To quote the great Rodney King "why can't we just all get along" lets remember Veritas et equitas, all that matters are these simple words An ye harm none, do what ye will.
 
Defaming, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

You may CALL me anything you like. I am NOT defamed, unless I choose to be. You are a stranger, in a far-off part of the country or world. You know little about me. WHY should you be able to influence MY opinion of ME!!!!!?????

You may make a nice pen, or a crappy pen - that, assumedly, is what brought us together. IF we become friends, your opinion takes on somewhat more value to me. However I was really wrong about one OJSimpson, whom I thought I knew after watching him on Television and in sports. I know MUCH LESS about most of the members of the IAP.

Having said that, I once thought I was an atheist, or at least an agnostic. My views have changed. That cannot happen if you close your mind. Let the LIGHT in and don't let Mudder worry you, your brain is in your SKULL, so opening your MIND is fairly safe.

And Jeff, good judgment!!
 
THarvey said:
MrPlace:

You and I will never agree on our personal beliefs. However, I fully agree with your last statement.

I, for one, do not find your tag lines offensive. Why? Because they make a general statement that expresses your personal beliefs. Neither quote attacks another individuals belief system, or personal choice.

As I stated in the other thread, personal beliefs are one of the things that make individuals unique.

I think that anyone that is truely rooted in their beliefs can hold those beliefs without attacking the belief systems of others. If not, then I would question if they truly believe or are they still trying to convince themselves by down playing an opposing view.

If I cannot support my beliefs, without attacking others, then my beliefs mean very little.

In a community forum, such as this one, we should be able to agree to disagree without becoming disagreeable.
Click to expand...

Good post and I agree.

Oddly I see valid points from both camps (as much as I disagree on some) both are right in their own ways.

Bottom line, we just need to learn to respect others...even if it is very difficult. :)
 
Has anyone checked the poll recently? It seems pretty clear to me what the members of this site are saying. My hat is off to Jeff and Curtis for allowing such a spirited debate. I just hope we don't adopt a policy to indulge a few at the expense of many.

John
 
my .02

MrPlace's signature are stating his beliefs. He chooses to not believe in God. OK, his choice. Other people's state their beliefs including scriptures. They believe in God. OK, their choice.

If you don't like someone's belief system, that is your choice. But no one should have the audacity to think they get to control what others believe or control others from stating their beliefs.

If there becomes a need to remove one person's beliefs from their signature then it would only be appropriate to remove everyone's beliefs from their signatures.

I personally think we should all learn to be more accepting of others' beliefs. Keep all the signatures. Stop whining when you see something you don't like if it is just a "I don't like this" issue or a "I don't agree with this" issue.

GK
 
Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
mrplace said:
You want to edit signatures that support Atheism, but want to leave those that are supportive of Evangelical beliefs.
Click to expand...

By what means does your sig promote Atheism?

Does it do it by touting it's own positive merits or does it by badmouthing another's?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom