I propose that RP ban all Questions/Discussions relating directly to RELIGION. What are your thoughts?

I think no matter what subject is brought up there will always be someone who does not like this are that I say no with all do respect , also that is how each subject should be brought up and discussed with respect for your brothers and sisters

The root cause of many of our problems today is our inability to calmly discuss beliefs we disagree with. If we cannot learn to come to terms amongst ourselves, we shall never be able to negotiate reasonably with the outside world. I'm actually fairly surprised at how well many of the discussions have gone. Many of us are pretty stubborn about our beliefs and we don't easily accommodate others views. But when the opposing view is presented with respect, you can at least agree to disagree without rancor or hatred. That's an important step in understanding each other. By the same token, those who refuse to extend respect or are determined to just hate will expose themselves for what they are. After a while the haters get tired of being ignored and they drift away.
I am very apprehensive at the idea of restricting any subject matter unless there is an overwhelming outcry or a legal reason.

Check out the three threads in a row I just saw on RallyPoint. This happens quite a bit -- similar themes in successive discussion threads. I thought this was neat.

CSM (Join to see) I feel your pain, brother. I don't think any one thing should be banned from discussion. In time, after all the subjects that are red flags for members become banned, we will be left quoting regulations. There is a huge problem with desrespect and members not knowing how to discuss and debate without resorting to becoming bullies on the playground. There are members who offer no valuable support of the community and exist merely to enrage people when a religion thread populates. Religion is a hot issue in the military and is going through waves of changes in our culture. We have to stay up with the developing situations as it pertains to all of us. We can't just shut it down because this month we are all having a nervous breakdown dealing with individuals that need to be tagged and bagged by the head shed.

It does get touchy with religious (and political) topics CSM (Join to see), but banning various topics is not the answer. I think RP would be in danger of losing more members by dictating topics than by allowing them to remain. I think that SSgt John S. has given a good response.

I strongly disagree with banning all religious topics. You learn something, and you learn who has respect for their fellow soldier and who's just a big whiny baby who'll use their rank to shut people up. That's useful to learn.

While I don't think your proposal is necessary CSM (Join to see) I do understand the sentiment and know that it's coming from a good place and not a wish to silence others. I think the RP staff should start actively suspending or banning people who cannot have a respectful discussion here.

Debate can be lively. It can be heated. It should never resort to actively attacking someone.

One thing that would help (and it's been said before) is for all members of this site, serving members and veterans alike to remember that this is a military site and you should maintain your military bearing. Be a professional! I've been out of the Navy for 20+ years now and when a 25 year old Lt addresses me or I respond to their comment I act like I'm the enlisted man I was and say sir when appropriate. When a CSM or MCPO makes a remark I respond with all the respect due to them, even if they are my contemporary in age. Why is this so hard to do? You voluntarily joined this site knowing it is a professional military site. If you behave as if your chain of command can see your posts then most likely you will moderate yourself. That applies whether you are active or if you are retired or a veteran.

I wish I could agree to shutting down the topics but I can't. I do however believe RP should be shutting down some people who just cannot moderate their own behavior.

I disagree. I support both sides. I agree folks should be able to practice their religion freely and discuss freely. But I also agree with the folks who are frustrated and feel that they're getting slammed or forced to participate in religious ceremonies and freely discuss that.

Additionally, I don't feel we should ban religious ceremonies, but no one should look down on anyone who respectfully declines to participate. But I also agree that if atheists or other non-religious groups want to have ceremonies, they should be able to as well. What would be best is if both groups respected each others' rights and didn't disparage the other group. We all have rights.

We live in America. Freedom of speech is our hallmark. Sometimes it's gonna be real uncomfortable for either side. But that's what it takes to truly be "inclusive" and "Diverse."

Didn't we all sign up and swear allegiance to the Constitution? That means all of it and not just from our own viewpoint.

I can go either way on this one CSM (Join to see); Personally I will not post on some questions on here though as I know what might come of it.

It does amaze me how rude people can act on the internet when I know very few would be able to do that in person.

I owned and operated one of the two largest internet chat sites back when that was the thing. Because I wanted a clean environment, unlike everything else that was out there, one of our rules was no discussions of religion or politics, my reasoning was that it rarely ended good. That was a wide open chat network where people were not EXPECTED to have some sort of discipline and respect as you would think anyone with an honorable discharge would. I would not ban topics of discussion from a site such as this.

However, I would, as everyone of us SHOULD be accustomed to, enforce standards and remove the problem. It is not a topic problem, it is an internet problem, people are under the impression that you cannot reach out and touch them on the internet so they say whatever the hell they want, nothing to do with free speech, just straight up bad discipline.

Freedom of expression has never meant that a person could use language however she or he saw fit. Freedom of expression was defended on the grounds that rational discourse paid off immensely with respect to education, politics, and personal growth. However language as a tool can serve more than just this purpose. Language can be used in many ways, including as a tool to hurt others.

Traditionally even the most liberal societies have not supported the freedom of expression in this form. Note, for example the long history of legislation forbidding slander and libel. Language can also be used to harm by means of threats, epithets and harassment. Again, such uses of language and expression have traditionally been proscribed and with good reason: None of the benefits of rational discourse accrue in such cases and many harms are generated.

There is, however, recognition that speech has to be protected from government censorship or control, etc. That for a democracy to work people must be allowed to express themselves. And that if we respect individuals as human beings people must be allowed to say what they mean. This is not a license to say anything anywhere, however.

NO suggestion is made that there is such a concept as absolute freedom of speech. Life would be quite unlivable if everyone were to be encouraged or for that matter permitted to speak their mind without second thought for the consequences. Absolute freedom of speech would constitute an infringement on freedom to live.

There appears to be a fairly common mis-perception that freedom equals license; that being free to do something means you possess an irrevocable license to do it. What seems to be lacking is an understanding that our "rights" also confer an irrevocable responsibility to exercise our freedoms intelligently and responsibly.