It is a truth universally acknowledged that unmoderated internet sites devolve into 4chan or worse. Daily Kos, like most sites that have continued to function for significant time, has rules for moderation. One of these rules permits comments with certain kinds of prejudice to be hidden, because they are inherently disruptive to the site and disrespectful to site members.
Some of the forms of prejudice that are open to such moderation are misogyny, antisemitism, racism, and homophobia. Does this mean that Daily Kos has no misogynists, racists, and so on? Ah, me, no. It just means that folks afflicted with these prejudices have mostly learned to share their other, more constructive interests with the site, and save their misogyny or whatever for sites that relish that sort of thing.
How do we distinguish between a negative opinion and prejudice? An example may help us tease out the important elements. Meet Joe, a very nice young man who learned early in his life that he doesn't like children. He is uncomfortable around them, he feels insecure interacting with them, and he doubts that he has the range of abilities needed to parent them. In short, Joe has the important self-knowledge that he does not want to be a parent, and doubts he ever will.
Now, understandably, Joe would like to make a long term relationship with a woman who also doesn't want to have children. This is a key point in a marriage, and Joe is a wise man to know this about himself. However, given how many women do want to have children at some point, Joe's pool of possible mates is seriously constrained.
How does Joe react to this? He might say, "Oh, man, this is so discouraging! I have a lot to offer as a husband, but I just can't find a woman who shares my desire for a child-free life. I wonder if there is some interest group that might be more likely to have them?"
That is an opinion, and a thoroughly understandable one at that. I sympathize with Joe and wish him the best.
But suppose Joe reacts this way? "Women! Selfish bitches! All they want a man for is to get kids and then force him to support them! To hell with them!"
Joe has reacted to his life experience by becoming prejudiced, a misogynist specifically. I wouldn't wish him on any woman. But this reaction shows two key elements in prejudice: over-generalization that is objectively false and contempt for the object of prejudice.
Some reflection will show that these two elements, over-generalization and contempt, are common to various forms of prejudice. Consider these examples: Jews run Hollywood to keep us dumb, blacks are all criminals or welfare cheats, gays are cowards, Muslims are terrorists. All share the over-generalization and contempt.
Two specific forms of prejudice against religions, anti-semitism and Islamophobia, are included in the list of prejudice that can be moderated at Daily Kos. However the general form of such prejudice, anti-theism, in which all religion is treated as contemptible, is not (yet) included in the list. I would like to propose that it should be, when anti-theistic statements include the two characteristics of over-generalization and contempt. I have written before about anti-theism as an attitude that is distinct from atheism per se. The poll in that diary showed that perhaps a third of the atheists on site consider themselves to also be anti-theistic. Some commonly made over-generalizations have also been debunked.
Does having a prejudice make a person bad overall? Not necessarily, as I know from an example in my own family. My mother had a prejudice against Germans. Short, tall, fat, skinny, young, old - all Germans, all vile, all deprecated. Her aversion to Germans was so strong that during our European road trip, she arranged the route from Austria to Luxembourg through Germany in such a way that we did not spend a single night in Germany.
Now, to some extent, her prejudice was understandable. She had been a teen during the rise of the third Reich, her early married life was affected by WWII, and she had Jewish friends who had had family in the camps. But her aversion was not specific to Nazis, or extended to sympathizers and hangers on - it was all Germans, the illiterate Bavarian field hand who didn't know the government had changed, the babe in arms in Bamburg, the Berlin doctor trying to do the best thing for her patients. All Germans, all vile.
The prejudice went back to the unification of Germany. Her great-grandfather had an Iron Cross, "But before Bismarck! When they still meant something!" And the musical greats, Beethoven, Bach and the rest were too early to fall under the blanket condemnation.
She was aware it was a prejudice, and a few times she admitted that it was irrational. She tried hard not to pass it on to us and succeeded. Fortunately it was a very focal prejudice and the topic came up rarely enough that as a practical matter it made little difference.
Would moderating this kind of comment preclude all critiques of religion here? Of course not! Daily Kos already benefits greatly from people like Weinstein and Clarkson, with their work with the Military Religious Freedom Foundation and exposés of the Dominionists. These critiques are focused on specific topics, thoroughly researched, and connected to the overall mission of the site.
Would moderating this kind of anti-theistic comment affect many people? Not large numbers. Although a third of the atheists in the poll mentioned above self-described as anti-theistic few of them make such comments here. Only six or seven names come to mind as doing so with any frequency. All but one of those kogs has other interests as well and make contributions on those topics.
However, it would be valuable to reduce these comments, just as we try to do with anti-semitism or racism. A cup of vinegar in a gallon punchbowl makes a poor addition.