Regarding Religious Banners Etc

[Grantaire]

Would it be breaking the rules to make a picture of a catholic saint my avatar, or put a bannar of a saint in my sig, or change my name to that of a saint? Zarayna

[Takuma Nuva]

Yes.

[Grantaire]

I don't see how... the reference desk says "Religious statements are not allowed in your signature or avatar. This includes quotes from the Torah, Bible, Qur'an, or other religious publications, as well as statements, images, or signatures such as, "Jesus Loves You," "Proud to be a Christian," or, "PM me if you are a Christian." I don't see how making a picture of a person who happened to have been declared a saint by the Catholic church my avatar is making a religious statement...

[Argentum]

Because he's a catholic saint. Catholicism is a religion. Therefore it's a religious statement/image.~Argentum~

[Grantaire]

I also didn't see a rule against images, just statements.

[Bfahome]

It's pretty much the same thing. A giant picture of a cross or crescent or something isn't technically a "statement", but would still be against the rules.

[Gorag]

This includes quotes from the Torah, Bible, Qur'an, or other religious publications, as well as statements, images...

Mind if I ask why you want to put the image in your sig/avatar so badly? If there's a good reason aside from being Catholic (not saying you are or not, I don't know), BZPower might let you. At least it would help them understand better why.

[Grantaire]

Because I really like Thomas Aquinos would be the reason, most likely.

A giant picture of a cross or crescent or something isn't technically a "statement", but would still be against the rules.

That I can understand, considering that is more directly linked to religion.

[Bloody Nine]

Well, I'd figure that it would depend on how religious it is. Otherwise, Santa Claus, being Saint Nick, would also be sort of taboo, but... yeah. Looking up Aquinas, though, it seems that he would be a bit too tied to the whole religion part. Since he's based his philosophies and whatnot on religion, given the whole 'is absolute truth absolute truth' and how God figures into that. Though, imo, if you were to do Mother Teresa because of the work she did, then that would be fine. Basically, there's a difference between venerating a guy who happens to be a saint, and venerating a saint. Though I would probably make the question more specific next time, so people can help sooner.

Edited October 21, 2011 by Undying Light of the Lake

[Grantaire]

Mother Teresa's works were based intrinsically on religion. The only difference is that St. Thomas focused on the spiritual works, and mother Teresa focused on the corporal works... And Santa Claus is even worse, considering he was a bishop, and St. Thomas was only a priest. Therefore, if saints are outlawed, then pictures of santa are only allowed one month of the year. Also, I don't think it would be against the rules to make a picture of Plato or Aristotle, and their works are similar to Aquinis' But overall, St. Thomas is a historical figure, a philosopher, and a theologian. It is for that reason why I would want to have his picture as my avatar. Therefore, if St. Thomas would be outlawed due to his works, then every other person, whether existent or not, who has similar views would have to be outlawed. Gandalf for example, as well as every philosopher and theologian. The only reason I can see for Aquinos being outlawed is for the fact that he is a Catholic saint.

[Noxryn]

The difference is, this is a saint and is thus also used to represent the religion that venerates him as such. Santa Claus is, in modern times, a corporate image used to advertise products during the winter season and is not as secularly tied to religion as a Saint would be. Aristotle and Plato and Sophocles wouldn't be taboo to use, as people don't follow the ancient religion of the ancient Greeks and Romans, and those individuals were not religious figures in those religions, regardless. (So, from a religious standpoint, they wouldn't incite religious flamewars over the glory of Zeus or something). Regardless of intention, using a Catholic Saint in a banner, or avatar, would potentially open the doors for other members to use other figures from other religions in their signature or avatar, and there'd likely be an explosion of religious debates. And with what happened last time with a controversial topic, BZPower simply isn't mature enough to handle such discussions which is why they're banned in the first place. Removing a possible catalyst to such disunification of the community seems completely fair and practical to me, and this image would be such a catalyst. In the end, it'd do more harm than good on BZPower.

Edited October 21, 2011 by Spink

[Grantaire]

I was using the philosophers as a refutation of why St. Thomas would be outlawed due to his writings. As to Santa, well, although his image has been twisted, he is still a Catholic saint, and therefore falls into your following statement:

Regardless of intention, using a Catholic Saint in a banner, or avatar, would potentially open the doors for other members to use other figures from other religions in their signature or avatar, and there'd likely be an explosion of religious debates. And with what happened last time with a controversial topic, BZPower simply isn't mature enough to handle such discussions which is why they're banned in the first place. Removing a possible catalyst to such disunification of the community seems completely fair and practical to me, and this image would be such a catalyst

As the the above statement, I see your logic. Edited October 21, 2011 by The Assassin Archer

[Bloody Nine]

When I think of Mother Teresa, I think of a nice lady who did a lot of good to help the people of Calcutta and got a Nobel Peace Prize. It would be in poor taste to say that she did what she did only because her religion told her to do it, not because of the goodness of her heart. When I see Santa, I see a jolly old man who is some representation of Christmas, not as Saint Nicholas. This is the same way I can see JRR Tolkien as 'a great writer' but not have to include 'He's British.' It is possible to talk about the above two without bringing religion in the work. Otherwise, you wouldn't be allowed to have any modern people, since they all have a religion / political affiliation of their own. Thomas Aquinas, on the other hand, is a philosopher, a theologian and a priest. Invariably, his spiritual workings would dip into Christianity and Catholicism, which is flame war bait.

Edited October 21, 2011 by Undying Light of the Lake

[Ghosthands]

I think we must be careful here for fear of breaking the rules with this very discussion. However, I think that, as Thomas Aquinas could be considered a historical figure just as much as a religious one, it could possibly be all right.

[believe victims]

When I think of Mother Teresa, I think of a nice lady who did a lot of good to help the people of Calcutta and got a Nobel Peace Prize. It would be in poor taste to say that she did what she did only because her religion told her to do it, not because of the goodness of her heart. When I see Santa, I see a jolly old man who is some representation of Christmas, not as Saint Nicholas. This is the same way I can see JRR Tolkien as 'a great writer' but not have to include 'He's British.' It is possible to talk about the above two without bringing religion in the work. Otherwise, you wouldn't be allowed to have any modern people, since they all have a religion / political affiliation of their own. Thomas Aquinas, on the other hand, is a philosopher, a theologian and a priest. Invariably, his spiritual workings would dip into Christianity and Catholicism, which is flame war bait.

But both Mother Teresa and Santa Claus have a religious affiliation more direct than "it's my religion." The fact that they have other affiliations means that I could make my name Hitler if I wasn't using it with Nazi subtext.(and I'm making it clear right now that that wasn't a dig at religion in any way.)

[55555]

Regardless of intention, using a Catholic Saint in a banner, or avatar, would potentially open the doors for other members to use other figures from other religions in their signature or avatar, and there'd likely be an explosion of religious debates. And with what happened last time with a controversial topic, BZPower simply isn't mature enough to handle such discussions which is why they're banned in the first place. Removing a possible catalyst to such disunification of the community seems completely fair and practical to me, and this image would be such a catalyst

As the the above statement, I see your logic.

This makes sense to me, and I can see that happening.Though on the face of it Takuma's answer and the rule seemed kind of extreme, after reading Spink's post I tend to agree with them. St. Thomas Aquinas is a famous philosopher and it's possible that he would be allowed for that reason, but since you would be focusing on his saintliness and the way he is revered by the Church, it could trigger the effect that Spink pointed out. Though to me there's nothing wrong or even vaguely offensive about such actions, it could start a chain reaction that would cause trouble.Hate to say this, but I think I reluctantly agree with the Spinkster and Takuma here. :/- 55555 Edited October 22, 2011 by 55555

[Toa of Dancing]

The main thing I would foresee as being a problem is the setting said saint is in. Is it a picture of the man in nonreligious garb, not in a cathedral, etc.; or, is he in his priest's garb, performing a religious ceremony? If the former, you wouldn't necessarily be promoting the religion, but that he's a man you respect. The latter, however, would (by some) be taken as you asserting that Catholicism is better than all other religions. Same with Saint Nicholas. The jolly fat man in the red suit has, for all purposes, become a different being. The icon of Santa Clause is completely different from the bishop that actually lived. So yeah, if you focused upon him being a saint, it wouldn't be allowed. However, if otherwise, I'd assume it'd be fine.

[Ghosthands]

When I think of Mother Teresa, I think of a nice lady who did a lot of good to help the people of Calcutta and got a Nobel Peace Prize. It would be in poor taste to say that she did what she did only because her religion told her to do it, not because of the goodness of her heart. When I see Santa, I see a jolly old man who is some representation of Christmas, not as Saint Nicholas. This is the same way I can see JRR Tolkien as 'a great writer' but not have to include 'He's British.' It is possible to talk about the above two without bringing religion in the work. Otherwise, you wouldn't be allowed to have any modern people, since they all have a religion / political affiliation of their own. Thomas Aquinas, on the other hand, is a philosopher, a theologian and a priest. Invariably, his spiritual workings would dip into Christianity and Catholicism, which is flame war bait.

But both Mother Teresa and Santa Claus have a religious affiliation more direct than "it's my religion." The fact that they have other affiliations means that I could make my name Hitler if I wasn't using it with Nazi subtext.(and I'm making it clear right now that that wasn't a dig at religion in any way.)

GODWIN'S LAW ALERT.

[Klak]

The main thing I would foresee as being a problem is the setting said saint is in. Is it a picture of the man in nonreligious garb, not in a cathedral, etc.; or, is he in his priest's garb, performing a religious ceremony? If the former, you wouldn't necessarily be promoting the religion, but that he's a man you respect. The latter, however, would (by some) be taken as you asserting that Catholicism is better than all other religions. Same with Saint Nicholas. The jolly fat man in the red suit has, for all purposes, become a different being. The icon of Santa Clause is completely different from the bishop that actually lived. So yeah, if you focused upon him being a saint, it wouldn't be allowed. However, if otherwise, I'd assume it'd be fine.

I guess this pretty much summarizes it. Then again, people have gotten away with worse in their sig, so I don't think a simple picture of a famous Catholic philosopher will do much, just as long as it's not too religiously suggestive. Besides, some people have political figures in their avvie without stating their alignment. No riots are happening here. This is a good question, because it applies to anyone who wants to put some other philosophical figures associated with religion in some slight way, such as Frederich Nietzsche, Socrates, Augustine, Watchman Nee, or Polycarp. Edited October 22, 2011 by MakutaKlak

[Legolover-361]

I honestly think that, if banners promoting homosexuality are allowed, a simple picture of a somewhat religious figure should also be allowed; to be safe, though, you should take Toa of Dancing's advice.

Edited October 21, 2011 by Legolover-361

[HordikaMode]

Wait, so now anything relating to religion is bad? If someone puts a cross or a saint in their sig they get banned now? 1st amendment, anyone?

[BioGio]

Two things: First, poutwuw, the U.S. Constitution has not impact on the rules of BZPower, as it is privately owned as well as an international website. Next, I would say that some more information on the picture you plan to use would be helpful. Takuma Nuva and Bfahome probably assumed that the picture would be religiously-themed rather than one about, say, scholasticism. Since actual staff members have made a decision, though, I'd say that it's probably not the best idea to try to get around it using a picture of Thomas Acquinas in a non-religious setting. ~ BioGio

[Astrotorical]

Wait, so now anything relating to religion is bad? If someone puts a cross or a saint in their sig they get banned now? 1st amendment, anyone?

I do not come under the 1st Amendment. We do not have your american constitution in other countries. I will be offended by religious banners etc. because of the horrors it has caused (R.I.P. Greek, Norse and Fijian and Aboriginal Religion).

[Cadias]

I would think that as long as you didn't portray him as a saint, there wouldn't be a problem. However, that's just me, and the others definetely have a point.

[alpha123]

If he's not looking obviously religious (like a big cross on his shirt or something), I don't see how it's different than, say, Steve Jobs. Heck, I doubt that many people would recognize a 100x100 picture of Thomas Aquinas anyway. Basically, if you're just portraying him as a philosopher and not doing religious stuff, I don't see why they could stop you.

[Toa of Nerds]

I can see what the staff is saying about religious banners maybe sparking flame wars about religion. However, I'm not sure if that will happen. In a similar vein are the kissing banners. Not only do they support a specific political view, but they also present a subject matter that is not apropriate for discussion on BZPower. If somebody posted a homosexuality thread in COT, it would get shut down, just like a thread on Christianity. My point is that while there have been several of these banners on the site, they have not sparked any sort of political flame wars to my knowledge. So is a simple banner of a guy who happened to be a saint any different? -don't touch my pocket protector

[Grantaire]

When I think of Mother Teresa, I think of a nice lady who did a lot of good to help the people of Calcutta and got a Nobel Peace Prize. It would be in poor taste to say that she did what she did only because her religion told her to do it, not because of the goodness of her heart. When I see Santa, I see a jolly old man who is some representation of Christmas, not as Saint Nicholas. This is the same way I can see JRR Tolkien as 'a great writer' but not have to include 'He's British.' It is possible to talk about the above two without bringing religion in the work. Otherwise, you wouldn't be allowed to have any modern people, since they all have a religion / political affiliation of their own. Thomas Aquinas, on the other hand, is a philosopher, a theologian and a priest. Invariably, his spiritual workings would dip into Christianity and Catholicism, which is flame war bait.

Mother Teresa was a missionary nun. She founded an order of nuns. That easily puts her on par with Aquinos. Read some of Tolkiens works, or C.S. Lewis'. They are as controversial as Aquinos' writings. Philosophical, and well I'm not oversure of Tolkien, I know that Lewis wrote several religious works, such as the problem of pain, the screwtape letters, and the great divorce. Therefore your point about St. Thomas' works is false.

The main thing I would foresee as being a problem is the setting said saint is in. Is it a picture of the man in nonreligious garb, not in a cathedral, etc.; or, is he in his priest's garb, performing a religious ceremony? If the former, you wouldn't necessarily be promoting the religion, but that he's a man you respect. The latter, however, would (by some) be taken as you asserting that Catholicism is better than all other religions. Same with Saint Nicholas. The jolly fat man in the red suit has, for all purposes, become a different being. The icon of Santa Clause is completely different from the bishop that actually lived. So yeah, if you focused upon him being a saint, it wouldn't be allowed. However, if otherwise, I'd assume it'd be fine.

Avatar? most likely a headshot. If I did a full body shot, I would definitely get a picture of him in his habit, in fact, I doubt I could get a picture of him not in habit. My point about Santa Claus was mostly in reference to Spink's statement about loopholes.

I guess this pretty much summarizes it. Then again, people have gotten away with worse in their sig, so I don't think a simple picture of a famous Catholic philosopher will do much, just as long as it's not too religiously suggestive. Besides, some people have political figures in their avvie without stating their alignment. No riots are happening here. This is a good question, because it applies to anyone who wants to put some other philosophical figures associated with religion in some slight way, such as Frederich Nietzsche, Socrates, Augustine, Watchman Nee, or Polycarp.

I was not aware of the second, but if that's allowed, then a pic of a saint should definitely be... Also, St. Augustine was as closely associated with religion as Aquinos.

Wait, so now anything relating to religion is bad? If someone puts a cross or a saint in their sig they get banned now? 1st amendment, anyone?

I do not come under the 1st Amendment. We do not have your american constitution in other countries. I will be offended by religious banners etc. because of the horrors it has caused (R.I.P. Greek, Norse and Fijian and Aboriginal Religion).

Your problem would fall into the problems some people had with the gay banners; namely prejudice. If you wish to continue this thread however, we will have to set up a non BZP place to discuss. Edited October 22, 2011 by The Assassin Archer

[Angel Beat]

In a similar vein are the kissing banners. Not only do they support a specific political view, but they also present a subject matter that is not apropriate for discussion on BZPower. If somebody posted a homosexuality thread in COT, it would get shut down, just like a thread on Christianity.

Umm, no, the kissing banners do not support a specific political view at all. Also, there were threads about homosexuality in the past, but they were closed due to flame wars, for instance.

[Legolover-361]

Umm, no, the kissing banners do not support a specific political view at all.

What about the fact that many people find it an inappropriate subject to show younger children? Or the controversies surrounding the concept? Even if the subject isn't political in and of itself, it's been rooted deeply in politics.

[Toa of Dancing]

The main problem is, what do you allow, and what do you not? If we allowed depictions of Jesus, I'd likely have one in my sig. And I'd respect anyone who had Muhammad in theirs. However, a depiction of ancient Mayans slaughtering people on an altar would cause massive controversy. And even the other pictures get picked up by others and start a flame war. Yeah, I wrote this in hot blood beating a dead horse, so I removed this paragraph. Yet again, do we get rid of everything controversial? There goes the RPG Forum, the Epics and Short Stories Forums, anything with weapons, anything involving love, anything involving magic. And that'd be the whole site, seeing as Bionicle uses elements, which must be magic! I'm not the staff. Black Six and the rest are. They try to do their best to do what they can. Thus, we follow the rules they set down. So again, if it contains religious material, then try to leave it out. If it's a picture of a man associated with religion, yet the picture itself contains nothing religious, then according to the rules it's fine. If you think someone could take offense for any reason, then why take the risk?

Edited October 23, 2011 by Toa of Dischordant Dancing

[Bloody Nine]

ToD, might want to cut that second paragraph there. Especially the last sentence. Not even joking here. I was not aware that you had to be a Christian and had to found an order of nuns to do good things, TAA. And I never brought up CS Lewis. But if you insist... My point was that you can easily discuss Teresa and Tolkien in a non-religious context. The Nobel Peace Prize is given irrespective of religion. She could have been Hindu or Buddhist or Atheist, and that wouldn't change what she did! Lord of the Rings, same thing! Either I'm dense and missed the subtext, or there's nothing there! A guy who made his career on theologizing and philosophizing, not so much. That's sort of what I was saying... You can discuss Teresa for her good works, Tolkien and CS Lewis for the merits of their WORLD-BUILDING AND PROSE (As debatable as Chronicles of Narnia is, given the lion subtext), but you can't discuss what they're doing for their own beliefs, or their essays related to said beliefs. People are multi-faceted. There are aspects of them that do not relate to religion. Helping people is not a religious calling. Writing a book about people going to toss the One Ring into Mt. Doom is not a religious calling. Heck, even magical lions and doors to another world is not religious, so long as you don't go into the parallels. But it would be much harder to find such an aspect for a career theologian and philosopher. If you do, more power to you. If not, then them's the breaks. Also, this convo is getting a bit too out of hand for me. I don't even know how the other subject got in here, but I don't like it. If you still don't get what I'm saying, then fine. I wash my hands of this.

Edited October 22, 2011 by Undying Light of the Lake

[Klak]

I see that ULotL, ToD, Legolover, and even Zar, who I found myself disagreeing with on another site, are all making some good and valid points. This is an interesting debate, but again, we have to be careful that we don't cross any lines. I hope the admins answer this though, with consideration to the good points on either side. I myself have no problem with Aquinas being put in someone's sig, even if I'm not Catholic. Still, this site has specific rules, and we have to be a bit careful.

Edited October 22, 2011 by MakutaKlak

[believe victims]

Just thought I'd point out right now that the kissing banners actually have nothing to do with the subject as they have nothing to do with religion, so don't beat a dead horse, especially when it's not your horse.

[Velox]

Actually, they do have to do with religion, as some religions do not condone it and people get offended by them because of their religious views [also for other reasons, of course, but that is a reason]. PM me if you feel like we need to discuss it more. But even so, the topic should be dropped. All that's happening is adding fuel to the flames, and people are going to start getting offended if these things are continued to be debated. Let's just wait for a higher-level staff to give his say so that we can know for sure whether not such images are permitted, okay? Thanks guys.

[Toa of Dancing]

Sorry about that, removed it. Just irked by it. @ULotL: (Yes I realize you probably won't read this.) That brings back the subject of all philosophers. Is Plato outlawed, then? Aristotle? You probably couldn't find a painting of them doing something not related to their philosophies anywhere. It's a fine line, hard to draw for a membership of many different faiths and other beliefs. That's where the staff come in, and why this is so hard for them, and why I hold utmost respect for them.

[Black Six]

Religious content is not allowed. If you want to use something that has religious aspects, but is not primarily associated with religion, that's fine. Thomas Aquinas would probably not be a good thing to use as he is most widely known as a saint.

Wait, so now anything relating to religion is bad? If someone puts a cross or a saint in their sig they get banned now? 1st amendment, anyone?

Yes, as has been in the rules for years, you cannot have religious content, except for certain specified exceptions. We're not going to ban anyone just for doing that though. It would be removed and they would be warned. The First Amendment applies to the US government restricting the freedom of speech of its citizens. It does not apply to a privately owned and operated website. We can prohibit and censor anything we deem necessary.

I honestly think that, if banners promoting homosexuality are allowed, a simple picture of a somewhat religious figure should also be allowed; to be safe, though, you should take Toa of Dancing's advice.

As I've sad in the past religion and sexuality are two completely different things. Yes, some religions have certain ideas about sexuality, but that doesn't mean that the rules that apply to one should apply to the other.Thread closed.