h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Now, I disagree that h2g2 is doesn't like to "question the established orthodoxy." Haven't they been open to articles about alternative religions like Paganism in the past? And haven't they already approved one on atheism? I really think it is controversially negative content they have a problem with.

If the entry spoke glowingly of every interpretation of God, and also included pithy advise for non-religious people, I think it would be approved. I think it is being rejected because h2g2 doesn't want to put an official stamp of approval on anything that trashes the beliefs of a significant number of members. What exactly will the staffers say to people who complain they are being discriminated against?

Perhaps, but you must admit that most of those articles are superficial... they don't dig into the essence of any of the issues. My Atheism article was very superficial, and what few teeth it had were ripped forcefully from its gums. They don't frown on select groups getting engaged in discussions, but they seem to want to avoid letting this kind of controversy into the Edited Guide, where it would gain a wider audience. And so, on the fringe we remain.

I'm going to try to get DNA to take a look at this thing. I rewrote the introduction, by the way, in a fit of fury. I think it's much... better now.

All this does raise an interesting question... beliefs vary, it is true, but what is the reason taht we feel that we have a fundamental right not to be disabused of our beliefs or opinions by forceful argumentation or satirical writing? How can people be so small minded as to feel threatened or discriminated against by the utterance of an opinion? It's madness. If Douglas Adams hadn't founded this site I would guess that he'd have a hard time getting entries in. This isn't the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy, it's the hitchhiker's guide to urbane and not-too-offensive topics to chat about over tea in Britain. It's bugging me more and more. I might give up on this site altogether.

I am sensing the temptation to get very defensive over this issue. Please don't take the entry's rejection personally, because I'm sure it isn't. Rejecting an entry does not mean the staff has rejected you or your views.

The edited Guide is *not* about opinions. That's one of the first rules about it. If the edited Guide were full of opinions, it would be a maelstrom of conflicting advice that would be incoherent to new readers. Be religious. Don't be religious. Be a pagan. Pagans are stupid. Christians are in denial. Atheists are gits. Why bother? There is a distinction between the edited Guide and the rest so people can find the useful info amongst the sea of opinions, and so new users have an easy-to-understand place to start at h2g2 before they jump off into the various forums.

The edited Guide is there to provide raw information and useful advice. To some extent, it is difficult to do this without any opinion. And humor while giving the info is encouraged. But while satire is allowed, using the Guide to vent your opinions and garner official status for them simply is not. The editors must feel Twophlag is crossing the line here.

And no, the Guide doesn't go deep into the topics it covers. That is also not its goal. The goal is to provide entries that are a length people will read and use. If I went into a 500,000 word entry on my greeting cards, it would be rejected or gutted too. Otherwise the huge majority of readers would see the length of the entry and avoid it -- thus learning nothing on my subject. This too can be a grey area, but in the end the editors must decide how much is too much.

DNA did write about the non-existence of God in the HHGTTG series. But he did so under the rubrik of a series of blockbuster books written by Oolon Coluphid, where the author was free to express his opinions because he represented nobody but himself. The Guide itself reported on the contents of these books in a matter of fact way, but it didnt' take sides, to my knowledge. I don't expect the real one will either. Why should it?

I have yet to read anything that suggests the editors " feel threatened or discriminated against by the utterance of an opinion." If they felt that way, there are far better tactics they could take. They could shut down this forum, for one. It simply seems to me they are unwilling to put an official stamp on the opinion, because they don't do that.

And yes, I did see the revision. It is exactly the sort of thing that proves the editors' points, which are that the entry is based on opinion and the author's goal is ultimately not to inform or give useful advice to the general readership.

There are forums for opinion on h2g2. This is one of them. The h2g2 Post is another. The virtual community as a whole constitutes another. The official Guide isn't it. In my opinion, this is why the entry keeps getting rejected. Perhaps the solution is simply to allow the entry to *be* composed primarily of opinion, and then advertise it in various places where opinions are allowed and encouraged.

Thank you for the links good Colonel! I take more pride on the three links I have in the "FREEDOM FROM FAITH FOUNDATION APPROVED GUIDE" Than the three I have in the Edited Guide. Sure we don't get on the front page, but people find us. I am content.

Thank you for some of the suggestions for additions to the WWJD entry everyone! I probably will add some of them! I can't believe I left the crucifixion out of it entirely! I had started it, left it sit for quite a while, then polished it up the other day. I had forgotten that I didn't finish the list.

Though the whole thing is really about getting to how Jesus whipped those making money off of God's worshipers. Did you know that there is a wwjd.com? dot-com, people! These are just merchants like the guys Jesus kicked out of the temple. It just sickens me. ick ick ick.

I think the God entry is fantastic, (its the one linked to on the Foundation page, right?) Its a very ambitious entry, but it doesn't seem inflammatory to me. Well, as inflammatory as my WWJD entry in that it tells the truth in such a way that can't be denied by the holders of those beliefs, but it doesn't paint them in a very nice light.

The best part of the entry HAS to be: "and practiced ceremonies where they drink His blood and eat His flesh, for fear of being thrown into a flaming pit." Completely and absolutly Christian doctrine!

I know I'm probably going to get drummed out of the FFFF for this admission, but here goes...

I spent Sunday morning in church.

I did it out of a love for my friends, and certainly not from any desire. They gave birth to their second son, and they badly wanted me to be the godfather (in fact, they're still kinda pissed at me for being away when their first was born). I read up on the duties of a godfather, and it turns out that the job requires me to be responsible for the child's "spiritual growth." Hey, I can do that...

Anyway, I was absolutely appalled at what I saw. I'd been in church many times before, but not since my deconversion. Things I had ignored or taken for granted before stood out and totally chafed me. The preacher went on about the "pain and agony" of sin, and how wonderful it was that Jesus took it away. What pain? And who asked him, anyway? The acceptance of a substitute for the crime of others was not only perfectly reasonable to them, but beautiful. If I commit a crime, I wouldn't let someone else serve my punishment... I am more moral than that. And I'll be damned if I'll serve someone else's punishment for them.

Then they got to the communion thing, and I wanted to be sick. Ritual cannibalism. The preacher smiles as he passes the cup of sacramental wine, saying "The blood of Jesus flowed for you." If this is the moral guide for our teachers and governors, then we need to do away with this thing, because I think we can all do better than this.

Don't worry about it CS. Sometimes my mum drags me. She's understanding though, about my lack of religion. Fortunatly, she's in a rather free-form Presp. church.

I really don't see a terrible problem with TG's God article. Sure, some things might have to be snipped to make it PC, but otherwise, it defines several interpretations of God in an informative matter.

-jb

I can sort of understand baptism of adults. But I really don't get (and hope I never do) the baptism of babies. I mean, does it really count as some sort of religious conversion if the person in question doesn't even know their own name? They certainly can't consent to the process. This was done to me when I was less than two months old, and I have the pictures to prove it.

Later on, I had the dilemma of trying to figure out whether I needed to expressly deny the consequences of my baptism. In the end, I simply told my parents during breakfast one Saturday morning that I wasn't a Christian and as far as I was concerned, the whole baptism thing was a wash. They didn't say much at the time, and I don't think they told anyone else either. Anyone who attended the ceremony (including a few relatives) is probably still of the opinion that I'm a Christian. Blargh.

I had occasion to tell my godmother about my beliefs, and she was quite shocked. Then she was rocked with another shock to the system when she realized that she had always thought atheists were horrible people, but there I was, the almost fine, upstanding young man that I am.

As for the rest, you have hit on the doctrinal difference between Catholics and Baptists. Baptists (my brother is one) believe as you say, that unless you know what you are doing and accept it willingly, the whole thing is meaningless. Catholics counter the argument by saying that baptism is a gift, and that a gift can be freely given to anyone, regardless of whether they can understand it or appreciate it. And of course, I'm in the "it doesn't matter either way" camp...

BTW, I thought it was very appropriate the way the child behaved. He was very content and quiet through the entire ceremony and church service, but only cried out once... when the actual annointing was taking place. From the mouths of babes, what?

Well at least there's the confirmation thing. And, hey, at least deconversion is allowed... it could be worse

I was raised a Catholic, so I might have a bias in that direction, but it seems to me that the flaw in the Baptist argument is "What if they're never old enough to decide?" One who dies young is doomed to hell just because they had the misfortune to die young? And of course, it isn't misfortune... it couldn't have happened unless it was God's will. Further evidence of the arbitrariness (is that a word?) of the divine being, if there was one. I think it is this sort of thing which makes me happier to believe there is not.

I thought original sin was a purely catholic doctrine, not a baptist one?

Naw, original sin is a popular doctrine, especially among the fire-and-brimstone varieties. One would be hard-pressed to find a fiery version than the Baptists.

In response to Fragilis' observations:

I haven't taken the rejection of this piece as an insult or as a personal attack (at least as far as I can tell). There is some frustration attached to my experience with the editorial process at this site that is probably making itself felt.

I'm not sure I can agree that the edited Guide is not about opinions. I think it is all about opinions, but safe ones. People write about their opinions of what different cities have to offer, what the best recipe for scrambled eggs is, where the best bars are, what they think about various cultural anomalies, or whatever, quite regularly here. I could argue the point here that everything ever taken to be a fact in the history of humanity was actually an opinion. The opinions presented in the context of this piece are presented as the opinions of a researcher who has resarched the topic carefully for ten years and is offering up the digested fruits of his study. Is the point of writing an entry on 'God' really to write something that won't offend or challenge anyone's conceptions?

I could have written an equally biased piece about stupid television shows and noone would have batted an eyelash before approving it. For some reason, though, because a fair number of people attach emotionally to, and find some sense of personal validation in, the firm conviction that an omnipotent bloodthirsty uber-ape is watching them from the sky, a choice has been made to avoid affronting them. I find this ridiculous. Following this precedent, I could demand that it was a matter of personal conviction to me that the earth was flat, and demand the editors remove all references to a round earth, were I only in the majority.

I think you've missed the boat a bit with the comments on length. Not sure if you're hinting my piece is too long or what, but the editors specifically told me to lengthen it several times now. I have to confess to being mildly annoyed by your admonition that the editors aren't 'threatened blah blah blah'. I was referring to the readership, not the editors. I just think the editors are imposing an unreasonable limitation on the sort of content they'll allow in here, but I suppose it does make some sense to try not to piss off the majority of your readers. Even so, if somethign you read bothers you, perhaps it means you aren't challenging yourself enough and need a kick in the ass. Being afraid of words is just a few steps short of full-fledged book burning. "There is no adequate defense, except stupidity, against the impact of a new idea"

Your post sort of degenerates into a lecture in the last two paragraphs, Fragilis. Sorry to say I sort of rolled my eyes and chuckled. I recognize that sarcasm and parody aren't to everyone's taste. I suppose I could tone the thing down, and politely allow for the possibility that a gaseous vertebrate is the supreme being of the cosmos, and give the notion some serious consideration, but that would be an insult to the intelligence of anyone not possessed of such a notion. Besides, I think the acid pen does have its uses. Jonathan Swift had his modest proposal. DNA had his Guide. Perhaps the H2G2 site isn't, in the end, the place for that sort of thing. That is a real tragedy in my mind, and a waste of potential.

Perhaps I did degenerate into a lecture. I have had similar discussions in the past with researchers trying to float an entry to the Edited guide that included a controverial opinion very dear to them. It seems that no matter how I make my main point, it doesn't get through. The gist, again, is that the edited Guide is there to inform and advise, but you can't do either if you alienate someone first. What I receive in response is usually a huge childish rant implying that the Guide should bow to their need for personal fulfillment and drop whatever other goals it may have. I haven't yet figured out a way to argue this emotional point, even though it would clearly be bullocks if the Guide did this for everyone.

Honestly, this is the first time I have gotten an intelligent response. I suppose I was anticipating more of the usual nonsense again, and was trying for a preemptive strike. In short, I went a bit over-the-top because I have gotten frustrated with other people at h2g2. It wasn't anyone's fault here.

And to clarify, the paragraph about length was really addressed to Colonel Sellers. He complained about having his entry on atheism "gutted" a couple of posts above. I never meant to imply that your God entry was too long, because I don't feel it is.

I think it's an excellent entry, and I've said so before. Perhaps at this point, I should wave the white flag. Can we agree to disagree?

Well, I suppose it would make sense that an entry on god would be rejected. It does say in the guide instructions that the entries should be about fact and not fiction and god is a mythological being after all...

I notice they approved an article on Daleks the other day - kind of puts a hole through that theory. Mind you, Dr Who always seemed far more real and terrifying than Biblical stories to me when I was a child...

Just for the record... Like most other people here I couldn't really see what was wrong with TG's God article. But as Fragilis (? - sorry, I haven't got time to check) says above, ultimately who really cares what the editors think about it - we've got our own patch of sanity here on this forum and let's just be grateful we can do our own thing here. The mainstream is and always will be a dull place full of dull people doing nothing in particular - but it has to exist, otherwise the (non-lunatic) fringe wouldn't have anything to define itself against. So round and round we go...

Well, the Guide isn't about fiction. But it is a fact that lots of humans watch a television show with Daleks in it, and lots of humans believe in a supreme deity. I feel the Guide is okay reporting on these, as they are part of the human mythology.

Actually, I used to laugh at Daleks when I was four years old. I never understood how anyone could find them scary.

Did the Daleks get as far as America then? I always thought they were very much a British fad - lightweight, low-budget, full of whimsy to the point of being rather comical. Yes, they were a bit laughable really, but back in the lo-tech seventies we had to suspend disbelief a little and use our imaginations...

(Just joking)...

Yes, some Americans are familiar with Daleks and Doctor Who in general. It is shown on PBS, a public television station that is partly government funded and partly funded by individual and business contributions. It typically airs very late at night during the weekends here, so American Doctor Who lovers are a relative minority.

I didn't see the Daleks until after Star Wars came out, because I was rather young at the time. Perhaps this has something to do with my inability to suspend my disbelief.