# Religious Signature Lines



## MesquiteMan

I have had numerous comments from members that they feel the religious tag lines in some signatures violate the AUP prohibitting discussion of religion or politics. I would like to get an idea of what the membership thinks. THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRATIC VOTE and Jeff and I will make the final decision! I just want to get a feel of what the membership thinks. Please only vote. I don't want this turning into a discussion of religious signature lines!


----------



## hewunch

Happy to vote if I saw a poll


----------



## Dario

I think it should be allowed.


----------



## rdunn12

Where do I vote?


----------



## marcruby

I had to think for a moment because I don't think 'strictly enforced' is exactly what I want.    Then it occurred to me that you can't enforce it any way but strictly if you enforce it at all.

It's not that I find Christian slogans offensive, I just wonder what would happen if I suddenly took up using a Jewish slogan, or a Buddhist, or something controversial - like Muslim.

What is important to me is that IAP remains friendly 'neutral' territory where we can put out energy into arguing about how many coats of CA are really necessary.

Marc


----------



## rjwolfe3

What is AUP?


----------



## MesquiteMan

Acceptable Use Policy.  It is in a link at the bottom of each page, I believe.  It is where most of our policy is printed.


----------



## rjwolfe3

Ah makes sense.  

One other question:
Let's speculate that your belief is atheism or humanism and you use a quote from that viewpoint.  If you decide to ban religious quotes, would you also ban quotes that offend religious people?

FYI - I am neither - just interested in both sides of the argument.


----------



## marcruby

I would say yes -- I don't see a big difference between quotes on any side of that issue.

Marc



rjwolfe3 said:


> Ah makes sense.
> 
> One other question:
> Let's speculate that your belief is atheism or humanism and you use a quote from that viewpoint.  If you decide to ban religious quotes, would you also ban quotes that offend religious people?
> 
> FYI - I am neither - just interested in both sides of the argument.


----------



## MesquiteMan

Rob,

You bring up a good point. If religious statements are allowed, then this statement would have to be allowed:

"Allah Akbar, Americans are infidels"

I know most would scream if that was posted as a signature line, even our non-American members.


----------



## maxwell_smart007

Not the first part...Allahu Akbar just means 'God is great'....

But one could argue that the second part is a clear attack on members, which violates the AUP...

(I wasn't going to chime in, but you all started debating! :wink


----------



## Randy_

I voted; but none of the options really nail my particular view so I will email you with a comment.


----------



## les-smith

What's next? Do we start banning/deleting any posts that request prayer. As long as the signature isn't disgusting or hateful I don't see why things can't be left alone.

I feel pretty confident that the individuals who are part of the "numerous comments from members" group that object to the religous tag lines in our signatures will pale in comparison to those that will object to the banning/removal of the relgious tags lines. And rightfully so IMHO.

I believe that the policy as it stands now and how it is being controlled serves its purpose. IMHO if you ban/remove the religous tag lines in the signatures I think you will be instituting a policy that a lot of members will find insupportable and unsupportable.


----------



## W3DRM

I really don't care one way or the other but I really wish all these posts were related to pen turning...

Think of all the energy being wasted just discussing this issue that most likely will never really be resolved.

I say let Jeff and Curtis handle the issues and the rest of us just have fun turning pens!


----------



## BruceK

Ooh what a can of worms this one is.....

IMHO, What a person "believes" should be private and is not appropriate on a public forum which has members of many faiths.  I respect everyone's right to what they belief but this is a pen turning website.  Why should politics or religion enter into any of our conversations?  

Believe in what you want, I'm turning pens.


----------



## igran7

BruceK said:


> Ooh what a can of worms this one is.....
> 
> IMHO, What a person "believes" should be private and is not appropriate on a public forum which has members of many faiths.  I respect everyone's right to what they belief but this is a pen turning website.  Why should politics or religion enter into any of our conversations?
> 
> Believe in what you want, I'm turning pens.




Well said!


----------



## Rudy Vey

BruceK said:


> Ooh what a can of worms this one is.....
> 
> IMHO, What a person "believes" should be private and is not appropriate on a public forum which has members of many faiths.  I respect everyone's right to what they belief but this is a pen turning website.  Why should politics or religion enter into any of our conversations?
> 
> Believe in what you want, I'm turning pens.



Very well said!!! Totally agree!!


----------



## GoodTurns

Wow, just voted, looks like the poll is going to be a lot of help :wink:   quite balanced at this point!  Would MY tagline count as religeous?  It is song lyrics based on biblical verse....


----------



## Rifleman1776

Signature lines can give us an insight into what the person is really like. That is often missing with the anonymity of on-line discussions and, at times, can be important information.


----------



## leehljp

What a person believes is Personal, but it is in not private. What they believe in (if it is good, or supposedly good) should reflect in who they are and the way that they express themselves - what ever faith or non faith system they believe in. That should not be suppressed. It is not private. 


However, speaking of "private" - privately own companies and privately run organizations that are opened to the public (such as local mom and pop stores or larger privately owned stores) have a right to control such situations as they see fit. If religious pushing becomes overt and "in your face", then limits have to be set. 

If it is merely "there" - but not "in your face", then a question of tolerance becomes the issue. It is "intolerance" that is rising its ugly head. "Community" will be the victim. Intolerance is the outcome, not silence, not private faith. Please note that there is a distinction between "being there" as visible in a tag line versus being "in your face" as a challenging statement. 


Being a "non-believer of any faith" and pushing for the removal of "faith statements" is also just as aggressive, "in your face" and challenging. Intolerance is what that is, but it will probably win for the sake of peace.

But this is what happens when one "flaunts" their "beliefs" in an aggressive challenging manner. It becomes taken away for all - for the sake of peace. It might have to come to that. I hate to see it. The fact of this "thread" being here is a hint in that direction. 


This theme makes it harder for our moderators, and will take its toll on them too - if only in future PMs.

Many of you have been into restaurants and even businesses that have a bulletin board that allows you to put a business card there. Religious, non-religious, advertising a competing business as well. We don't get upset at diverse business, religious organizations posting a business card there - and the establishment doesn't get up in arms and make an issue out of it either. We don't read all of them and if we do see one we don't like, we don't dwell on it or demand it be taken down, respectfully, we (well most of us) move on to the next. Why can't that be done here?


"Community" allows for diversity, or at least should. But if we don't police ourselves, leadership will have to.


----------



## Skye

I think it's very simple.

Signatures are not part of the discussion, so they should be allowed. 

Man, people's sensitivity levels here consistently *amaze me*. I come from a lot of forums. Gear heads, muscle heads, chopper builders, and I've never come across a group of people with such delicate and offendable sensibilities. It's amazing... in a bad way.


----------



## Dario

Skye said:


> Man, people's sensitivity levels here consistently *amaze me*. I come from a lot of forums. Gear heads, muscle heads, chopper builders, and I've never come across a group of people with such delicate and offendable sensibilities. It's amazing... in a bad way.



I agree and seems like the whiners are winning (or whinning? :biggrin.

I am sure someone will be offended by this ("personal attack") statement and will probably get me reported too. :frown:


----------



## alphageek

I think "no change is necessary" would be the closest to what I feel (but not really an option in the list)


----------



## Randy_

MesquiteMan said:


> .....*Please only vote*. I don't want this turning into a discussion of religious signature lines!


 
Can't begin to express how impressed I am that everyone respected Curtis' wishes and refrained from posting comments!!!


----------



## Dario

I also agree with Hank and Gary.


----------



## skywizzard

I think the problem also becomes one of interpretation.  For example when I selected my signature for this forum I never thought of it as having any religious implications, but after this thread I can see where some might think it does.   I don't envy Curtis and Jeff's job of making that decision....


----------



## THarvey

I agree with Hank's comments.  Personal beliefs are part of what makes individuals unique.  Unique individuals associating together form a community.

If tag lines discribing an individual's preferences should be removed, then all tag lines should be banned (including those advertising websites).

I was equally struck by the tag line quoting George Orwell's "Animal Farm."

*"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." *from Animal Farm by George Orwell​
If only "religious" tag lines are considered off limits, does that not mean that non-believers would be considered more equal than believers?

I do not, for a minute, think that my tag line is going to change or influence someone's belief system.  It is an expression of who I am and what I believe.  Nothing more and nothing less.

At the same time...I am not so weak minded that someone else's tagline will influence what I believe and hold true.

If a tagline is abusive, defamitory or offensive to the general populas, then it should be banned.  Otherwise, I think it sould be considered an expression of individual personality.

Just like any other member post,  I have the option to read or not read anything here.  There are some members, whose post I do not read, because I know I generally disagree with their statements.  Excersing my right "not to read" does not in any way infringe on their right to post.  Nor, does their post offend me, because I have chosen not to read it, anyway.  Neither of our "rights" have been abused, and both of us remain happy.

Now, I suggest we have a collective cup of coffee :coffee: and go back to making beautiful pens together.  After all, isn't that what brought us all here in the first place?

Tim


----------



## ed4copies

Skye said:


> I think it's very simple.
> 
> Signatures are not part of the discussion, so they should be allowed.
> 
> Man, people's sensitivity levels here consistently *amaze me*. I come from a lot of forums. Gear heads, muscle heads, chopper builders, and I've never come across a group of people with such delicate and offendable sensibilities. It's amazing... in a bad way.


 
Skye,

I tend to agree with your statement, up to the last line.  The management of the IAP attempts to keep the forum a "friendly" place.  Personally, I lobby for the "no corpses, no foul" - if there's a little bleeding - you'll heal.  But, we (you and I and others who think this way) need to realize that Jeff is attempting to keep the atmosphere pleasant.  The "motorcycle crowd" are less sensitive types, yes.  And I, personally, enjoy a good debate - if you can't defend your politics and religion, people SHOULD challenge you.  BUT, should that happen on a PENTURNERS site???  THAT is the heart of the question here.  And that is NOT a bad thing.

Repeating a line I use often, "This is MY opinion, YOU are ENCOURAGED to have your own!!!"


----------



## Dario

Randy_ said:


> Can't begin to express how impressed I am that everyone respected Curtis' wishes and refrained from posting comments!!!



LOL...I must be one of those who read and stop once I think I got everything already.  Didn't even knew that line was there!!! :biggrin::redface:


----------



## GaryMadore

Randy_ said:


> Can't begin to express how impressed I am that everyone respected Curtis' wishes and refrained from posting comments!!!



Hey - Don't moderate! 

Seriously, didn't see that part.

I deleted my post, and apologize to Curtis for not reading/heeding his wishes. Doh!

Gary


----------



## TheGuy

*Freedom of Speech*



THarvey said:


> If a tagline is abusive, defamitory or offensive to the general populas, then it should be banned. Otherwise, I think it sould be considered an expression of individual personality.
> Tim


 
I am a BIG believer in the freedom of speech.  In fact, even "if a tagline is abusive, defamitory or offensive to the general populas" it should be left alone.  Either that, or ALL taglines should be banned.  I am not offended by ANYTHING, including somebody trying to take my life.  (Just allow me to defend myself).  If they believe that I do not belong on this planet, that is their opinion/belief.  I respect people for acting on their beliefs. Just respect me for acting on my own beliefs. :biggrin:


----------



## mrcook4570

It's funny how a controversial topic will bring out the advocates of 'penturning only topics' yet nothing is ever said when someone posts a joke, vacation experiences, upcoming surgeries, death or illness in the family, loss of a pet, other turning, other forms of woodworking, and other trivial chatter.  

I, personally, enjoy all aspects of this site.  All of the similarities that we share and differences that we exhibit make us who we are and make this a fun and interesting place to visit.  I enjoy learning who each person is.  EVERY statement can be taken as a religious statement - it just depends on your point of view.  

By censoring statements that reveal who a person is, that person becomes just an anonymous poster.  And if you truly want 'penturning only topics' read the articles in the library.  Ninety-nine percent of all penturning questions can be answered there without the need for comment or debate.  The other one percent can be answered by reading texts in other fields (such as cutting threads) and using those techniques to make a pen.


----------



## alphageek

Randy_ said:


> Can't begin to express how impressed I am that everyone respected Curtis' wishes and refrained from posting comments!!!



D'oh... I too missed that.. Curtis should have 'Ed-ized' that part


----------



## Dario

mrcook4570 said:


> It's funny how a controversial topic will bring out the advocates of 'penturning only topics' yet nothing is ever said when someone posts a joke, vacation experiences, upcoming surgeries, death or illness in the family, loss of a pet, other turning, other forms of woodworking, and other trivial chatter.
> 
> I, personally, enjoy all aspects of this site.  All of the similarities that we share and differences that we exhibit make us who we are and make this a fun and interesting place to visit.  I enjoy learning who each person is.  EVERY statement can be taken as a religious statement - it just depends on your point of view.
> 
> By censoring statements that reveal who a person is, that person becomes just an anonymous poster.  And if you truly want 'penturning only topics' read the articles in the library.  Ninety-nine percent of all penturning questions can be answered there without the need for comment or debate.  The other one percent can be answered by reading texts in other fields (such as cutting threads) and using those techniques to make a pen.



Good post Stan.

Yep, we won't need a forum if we cannot be a community.  With it comes the good and the bad that exists in the real world.

As I mentioned countless times...I haven't turned in almost a year now.  If this place is only for penturning topics...I would have vanished a long time ago (that may be a good thing for IAP though lol :tongue


----------



## TheGuy

*I apologize*



alphageek said:


> D'oh... I too missed that.. Curtis should have 'Ed-ized' that part


 
I apologize for posting comments.  I missed that as well.  Moderator, I don't know how to erase my post (or if it is even possible here), but please do so for me if you wish.


----------



## DocStram

MesquiteMan said:


> Please only vote. I don't want this turning into a discussion of religious signature lines!



............ :biggrin:


----------



## Rarest wood

maxwell_smart007 said:


> Not the first part...Allahu Akbar just means 'God is great'....
> 
> But one could argue that the second part is a clear attack on members, which violates the AUP...
> 
> (I wasn't going to chime in, but you all started debating! :wink




The Actual meaning of "Allahu Akbar" is without doubt *"Allah is Greater*"  which means in point of fact "Allah is greater than your God" is does not mean at all "God is Great". Now you will all know why it is used as the rallying cry of the muslim. I Just wanted to clear that up as it is so often misquoted here in the western world and its helpfull to have a clear understanding and to see where other world views are coming from. I am not a muslim myself.


----------



## Russianwolf

:neutral:


:RockOn:


----------



## les-smith

Quote:
Originally Posted by *MesquiteMan* 


_Please only vote. I don't want this turning into a discussion of religious signature lines!_




TheGuy said:


> I apologize for posting comments. I missed that as well. Moderator, I don't know how to erase my post (or if it is even possible here), but please do so for me if you wish.


 
I'm going to go out on a limb here, I'm pretty sure I'm right, but I have been wrong in the paste. Crow doesn't taste all that bad. But, I don't see a need for some people to apologize for posting a reply because Curtis hadn't added that part before we posted. Please chime in Curtis if I'm wrong. Just don't want folks feeling bad that they did something wrong if they didn't.

Maybe we should delete this whole thread and do another duplicate poll without the option to reply. Then things can't get stirred up anymore. I think this one got stirred up before we were told not to reply and then it was to late. But really, this thread seems pretty tame compared to some that have got going in the past.


----------



## maxwell_smart007

Rarest wood said:


> The Actual meaning of "Allahu Akbar" is without doubt *"Allah is Greater*"  which means in point of fact "Allah is greater than your God" is does not mean at all "God is Great". Now you will all know why it is used as the rallying cry of the muslim. I Just wanted to clear that up as it is so often misquoted here in the western world and its helpfull to have a clear understanding and to see where other world views are coming from. I am not a muslim myself.



I'm just curious; why is it that you think it's misquoted?  I've never heard your interpretation before...

Send me a PM when you get a chance...I'm interested.


----------



## MesquiteMan

Les, that line was there when I last edited the original post at 9:59 pm.  Only 2 or three posts had been made by then.

That said, I do not have a problem with the replies as long as they stay civil and don't start discussing religion or politics!


----------



## Grizz

The effeminate-tizing  of our culture is running smooth bore.  Great day some of you need to let your tenders drop and get over it. 

Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet sweaty things.


----------



## Skye

hughbie said:


> h
> if i were to put in my tag line something against christians......but in favor of something else......would that be a problem?



Posting in favor of something else is one thing.

Posting against something is another.


----------



## mywoodshopca

I think they should be allowed.  They took God out of schools and see what mess they are becoming now..


----------



## Jeff-in-Indiana

I am Pro-HUMAN, and Pro-THICK-SKIN .. 

Opinions vary  .. is ROCKY ROAD really the only true flavor ? :rotfl:


----------



## jkeithrussell

Grizz said:


> Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet sweaty things.


 
I've always adhered to a modified version of that saying.  I thought the second "don't" was a "do"; as in, pet the sweaty things, but don't sweat the petty things.


----------



## its_virgil

Each time a poll is started it turns into a discussion. I think I'll start a poll to decide if we should end the poll taking. I never vote and think they are a waste of time. Jeff owns the forum and what he decides I will abide by. If one's tag line offends then don't read posts made by that one. We have better things for which to use our bandwidth than polls.
Do a good turn daily!
Don



MesquiteMan said:


> Please only vote. I don't want this turning into a discussion of religious signature lines!


----------



## MesquiteMan

Don,

Not sure where you are coming from here.  As part of the management of this forum, I started the poll to take the pulse of the membership on this issue.  Are you saying that I should not have started the poll and should have just suggested a policy change to Jeff without user input?


----------



## skeenum

I was tempted to refrain from entering into this thread, however, I have not seen this point of view expressed yet (hinted to, not expressed).
If you ban religious tag lines then ban all tag lines, let's simply sign our names and move on. 
To my way of thinking the tag lines, religious or song lyrics, or quotes or anything else used for that purpose, is intended to let everyone else know something about the person posting and is not intended to be controversial or start a discussion about the religion, politics or good taste of the party posting. The tag lines are how people identify themselves and/or wish to be identified by others, good, bad or ugly.
Should a member post something using a tag line I find offensive then I won't read posts by that member.
Thanks for letting me express my views.


----------



## jimbob91577

*Considering we are discussing it...*

Let me start by saying I don't have a problem with what folks have as their taglines religous or not.  If I were just joining the Assoc and tried to put something that describes me as my tagline only to be rejected because it was mildly religous, I probably wouldn't bother completing the joining process.

On the other hand, I firmly believe that people's actions, comments, and behavior should determine their prolonged membership.  For example say someone chose to use porn for their avatar - I hope that would warrant a ban on posting until said user changed their avatar.  If someone began preaching to folks on the forum, I would expect the same response.

I guess what I'm getting at is unless the tagline is outrageous in nature, as determined by the moderator :biggrin:, then there shouldn't be a problem with it.  The community should respect that the Mod is doing his/her job and live with things such as avatars and taglines.  If the Mod decided that porn avatars and prostelitizing were acceptable, then I expect the community would evaporate.  

Further, the same question could include Advertising, as accoring to the AUP Advertising should only be listed on the Individual or Business Classifieds Forums - yet several folks have their websites listed in their taglines, and most of those websites offer products to be purchased.  

But this is just my $.02....


----------



## its_virgil

You can start any poll you want.  But, can a poll really get the pulse of the membership? I personally think they are of little value. I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers. 
Don


MesquiteMan said:


> Don,
> 
> Not sure where you are coming from here.  As part of the management of this forum, I started the poll to take the pulse of the membership on this issue.  Are you saying that I should not have started the poll and should have just suggested a policy change to Jeff without user input?


----------



## MesquiteMan

Don't worry, Don, you did not ruffle my feathers!  Sorry it may have come across that way.  If my feathers were ruffled that easily, I would not have stuck around as the moderator here!

And yes, I do think this poll has give a lot of insight into this matter.


----------



## alphageek

jimbob91577 said:


> Further, the same question could include Advertising, as accoring to the AUP Advertising should only be listed on the Individual or Business Classifieds Forums - yet several folks have their websites listed in their taglines, and most of those websites offer products to be purchased.
> 
> But this is just my $.02....



From the AUP: "Links in signatures are permitted provided they point to your personally owned web site(s)."


----------



## ironman

Im sick and tired of Political correctness and the fact that people should not say god in the pledge of allegiance. This country was based on freedom and individual rights so the fact that someone says i cant say what i believe in or whats on my mind i think is unconstitutional.


----------



## rockb

Definitely allow the religious signature lines.   There are LOTS of religious folk here.  Thanks Curtis and Jeff for the work you do.


----------



## MesquiteMan

ironman said:


> Im sick and tired of Political correctness and the fact that people should not say god in the pledge of allegiance. This country was based on freedom and individual rights so the fact that someone says i cant say what i believe in or whats on my mind i think is unconstitutional.


 
I agree completely with most of your sentiment but please remember, there is no freedom of speach on a privately owned forum.


----------



## bgio13

I too have been following this thread and I agree that the tag lines are a way people use to identify and express themselves. I also find that people use their avatars and user names in the same way. If we ban religious tag lines then we should ban all tag lines. And while we are at it we should ban the use of user names because someone feels that (Jeff in) Indiana is an offensive state or finds guns (Rifleman1776) offensive, and use our real names. And after that we should ban the use of avatars because someone finds a certain college or movie offensive. This is such a great forum because the answers to a question you might have are as varied and unique as the individuals themselves and this should show in our tag lines as well as avatars and user names.


----------



## mywoodshopca

Simple fix for it!!


> *Thread Display Options* - these include:
> 
> 'Visible Post Elements' - whether or not you want to be able to see *Signatures*, Avatars and Images in posts




Dont like seeing signatures and need something to complain about? uncheck that box 

The forum belongs to Jeff, he has the final say, but honestly folks, whoever is complaining.. cant you find something better to do? Instead of complaining about trivial things just to complain, go do something productive. Make a pen for the troops overseas, visit a random senior in the nursing homes and take a few minutes to show you care, help a neighbor with something, ask the cashier at the store the next time your there how they are doing.. just do something to make it a better place instead of finding something to fuss about.


----------



## rjwolfe3

While we are at it, let's get rid of tag lines with Gaelic phrases that roughly translate into "Kiss my butt".:tongue::tongue:
Or is that allowed still?


----------



## MesquiteMan

I have all the information I need.  I am now going to close this thread.  Don't anyone send me hate mail for closing a thread now!


----------

