Posts by rowdyhawk10

Roger Hughes14 said:Well, look at that... the Pope right next to the Pope.

😂

Look at the people posting here. Honestly... Christianophobia is a real thing...

Roger Hughes14 said:Well, look at that... the Pope right next to the Pope.

😂

Look at the people posting here. Honestly... Christianophobia is a real thing...

...

Rules that the Religion Forum moderators often seem to overlook:

The role of a moderator:

• Maintaining an environment that fosters constructive discussion.
• Maintaining equality and respecting the individuality of every single member...
• The realization of civilized standards and legal norms of conduct.

New topics need to actually fit the specific Reddit sub they are posted in; posts are meant to be discussion starters.

• Any off-topic threads or posts that don't align with the subject matter will be moved or deleted.
• Any blatant, frequent, or excessive off-topic posts will result in an "off-topic" warning.
• Vulgarity isn't exactly something I'd advocate for.

Making things personal is really never a good idea.

• Constantly stirring up conflict is generally considered trolling.
• It is particularly undesirable to engage in personal attacks or to go out of one's way to incite nationalistic, religious, or similar types of conflict.
• Personal analyses and specifically starting threads targeting other users on Reddit are strictly prohibited.
• Violating this rule will result in a "trolling" warning.

Any form of personal insults, disparagement, or discrimination against our members was strictly prohibited.

Henry Hernandez7 said:Well, if this actually happens, I suppose I should leave a few parting words for my favorite people here.

-you all were wonderful companions, even during the times I was being difficult
-it was never my intention to be contrary just for the sake of it
-a special shout-out to the best moderator on the entire site—Nice
-I hope you can find it in your hearts to forgive my "sins" (though I don't mean to spark a debate here)

I'm hoping we won't reach a forced goodbye before things finally settle down... best regards.

Susan Price30 said:It’s easy for you to say that—you don't have to deal with a part-time schedule like we do.😁
Setting that aside... I guess I did write "i"I suppose there's some truth to what Jason Clark7 was saying about the situation. It feels like we're just circling the drain at this point.Giving anyone that many points just isn't according to the rules. My apologies to rowdyhawk10 (for everyone), and I hope you have a pleasant holiday season.

Jason Clark7 said:Is this response just you acting on your own whim, similar to how things were handled with the Religion PDF? I thought we always looked to the admins for guidance on this forum because nothing is supposed to be decided without a "consensus among all PDF mods."🤔

Gregory Turner71 said:

rowdyhawk10 said:

I think hiddenpuma75 should be allowed to post in the Religion section again. I’d suggest that the current moderation team look over their previous decision regarding his partial ban from that subforum, maybe out of a sense of goodwill. Greetings to everyone.

No.

Let's take a look at just a few of the topics hiddenpuma75 has brought up over in the Religion section.

I wonder what aspects of other religions you all find appealing or respect.
Is oral sex considered a sin?
The Gospel according to Parsifal.
The Parsifal flute with divine lips — Rumi da
I suppose one could wonder whether Adam actually had a navel.
If you were ever to encounter Jesus and could ask him just one single question, what would it be?
A Priest from an island community killed a cat by hanging it
God should probably sue Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike
Where do our thoughts actually originate?
Architecture of the sacred—or how I felt in a cathedral versus a mosque
Imagine the earth was visited by a super-intelligent Being! What religion he chooses would be interesting to ponder.
Sixteen crucified saviors
(Sensational) I think I found a factual error in Catholic theology
Famous Westerners on Muhammad

I suppose hiddenpuma75 should be allowed to post in the religion section again. I would suggest that the current moderation team for Religion reconsider that previous decision regarding his partial ban, perhaps out of a sense of goodwill. Best to everyone.

Jason Clark7 said:Why this applies to user Golden Boy but doesn't apply to rowdyhawk10? Why the double standards? 😕

Why is there even a need to label people as fascists and question whether they are doing the right thing just because they write this or that? What kind of conversations are those? I have absolutely no tolerance for such things, even when they are wrapped up in some sort of quasi-defensive subordinate clauses...

The entire thread shows how the Religion moderator is giving rowdyhawk10 a pass while indirectly accusing me of fascism whereas others get an immediate warning for the exact same thing 😲...

Michael Anderson2 said:rowdyhawk10, I’m right there with you—you’ve got my full atheist support. Though, honestly, I suspect that might do more to irritate the Muslims here than actually help your cause... 😁

Paul Kern12 said:Forgive my intrusion here. I notice there seems to be quite a bit of commotion surrounding rowdyhawk10—it almost appears as though he is some sort of protected figure within the religion subforum. Is it possible—and I say this without seeking any disciplinary action—to characterize a belief system that disagrees with our "protected" individual as fascist??? For instance, take today:

So, according to rowdyhawk10, all young Christians are neo-fascists...
I have noticed that he tends to use such labels for anyone who holds a differing opinion.
In my view, this style of writing is simply not appropriate—nor does it seem fitting for someone who claims to be a believer.

rowdyhawk10 said:With the Paris Commune, the church was brought to its knees and looked like it was finished. Same with Mussolini. With Hitler, even more so! But it rose from the ashes and grew even stronger. The French Revolution is slowly fading, but instead, we see young neo-fascists in all Western countries now, proudly carrying their "crosses of truth"... We see them as followers of one church, but this time split into thousands of different sects... Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Adventists, Neocatechumenalists...

Bulgarian Christians - neo-fascists (click)

Paul Kern12 said:So what...
It seems contradictory to me too—the way you two support one another so intensely—and how you're essentially acting as his defense attorney.
When someone writes that they see young neo-fascists emerging within the ranks of a certain church (which, I suppose, is currently fractured into a thousand different sects) who might eventually reunite once things settle down...

The text itself is as clear as it can possibly be, though you are free to interpret it however you wish—you certainly have that right.

Sandra Gonzalez3 said:Then why is it considered Hanafi in Fiqh too?

How did we even end up with this idea of an "official" forum-style Hanafi legal school anyway?

History doesn't even matter right now because the topic already has an official madhhab assigned to it, so all those historical disagreements are totally irrelevant at this point...

Sandra Gonzalez3 said:@shadyev, looks like it turns out Imam Abu Hanifa didn't even have any stances on Aqidah—the "guy" was just strictly about the Fiqh. 🙂

I don't even read you guys over there (let alone write 😁), lost my will to bother ages ago. Not even sure what logic you used to pick the Hanafi school as the official one for that top-tier thread of yours, but if you're gonna assign an official Fiqh school to a topic, then go ahead and assign an official Aqidah school too and get the whole problem solved. People who actually know their stuff will know which theological direction would best "fit" alongside the Hanafi legal school.

There's no need to mix in the history of Islam here at all, and honestly (IMO), it’s not nearly as big of a deal as those two points above.

crimsoncrane24 said:Just checking in, sort of...
I have no intention of getting into a fight with the moderators, because clashes with them almost always result in me coming out on the losing end.
I first showed up on this forum back when rowdyhawk10 was a moderator, and I ended up getting a warning from him because of my specific way of expressing myself at the time.

It is pretty obvious there is some resentment toward rowdyhawk10 among nearly all the Muslim users here, mainly because almost everyone has been sanctioned by him during his time moderating the PDF section.
I won't argue whether those actions were justified or not, since the judge is always right.
If I may say so, many people viewed his past—and even current—actions toward Muslims as destructive, though you don't get banned or warned for having that opinion.
I am not against rowdyhawk10, but I am definitely for the community.

rowdyhawk10 said:If a Muslim woman lives in a lawful and honorable marriage with her husband of Christian faith, then she cannot be, nor can he, an adulterer according to the laws of the United States and all UN charters.

Keep that kind of labeling for the backwaters of Asia and Africa. You have arrived in civilization.

No one has the right to spout such horrors at others by citing religious rules, because the rules of this forum aren't based on Sharia or the tenets of any religion. The forum rules require every member to refrain from insults and maintain decent speech, and they prohibit anyone here from calling someone else an adulterer. 😢

Brenda Cook4 said:In what sense are you interpreting the law? The law guarantees freedom of worship, not a ban on "heretics." What does "revising dogma" have to do with anything here? And who exactly is doing the "revising" if someone just expresses an opinion? Look, even the Catholic Church has its clear dogmas, yet not every Catholic agrees with everything said. That doesn't mean the Catholic Church is suddenly "under threat" or that it needs to "revise" its official stances on faith. Should the Catholic Church have to run every single thought by all other Christians, or would the moderators here just delete them, give them a partial ban, or what?

The term "a few Muslims" is being stretched incredibly thin here. Especially within Shia circles, there are methods used to mask one's true ideological identity—not necessarily to protect oneself from existential danger (which would make sense for anyone), but rather to sneak one's own ideology into others. It's not just about "a few Muslims"; it's also about the forum administration, which gives the strong impression of cracking down on those who undermine the official stances of the Islamic Community Institution while hiding behind the veneer of: "this is Islam, those are just rigid, frozen views." Yet, we've never been given an answer here as to why they stubbornly refuse to follow the rules of Islam 114—essentially, they are breaking their own forum rules regarding this topic just to dig at the official religious institution.

Just look at this: by this logic, they are attacking 200 million Shia followers. By that same standard, Catholics would probably have to treat Protestants the same way, with governments allowing some groups while banning others.

As for the main topic, this has been answered plenty of times (including in this thread): these interpretations belong to the Hanafi legal school, and any other views should be noted as such. Did rowdyhawk10 clarify that this was just his personal opinion? Did he explain *why* he interprets it that way? In what way did this actually "threaten" the official stance of any religious community? 🤔

Kenneth Barnes7 said:The very premise of the main topic emphasizes that answers will be provided
in accordance with the Hanafi legal school, which refers to questions of fiqh (meaning legal matters).

Susan Price30 said:I’m quoting from this same thread where nobody bothers to distance themselves (maybe adding a disclaimer that it's just a personal view or interpretation), but instead they flat-out claim their opinion is the official Islamic stance. It isn't.

Why I think the ban was undeserved. Basically, moderator Brenda Cook4 stated in this post that one serious concept (in this case: Islam) cannot negate another concept (in this case: Christianity) so I explained that such is the Islamic stance. I pointed out that Christians, under church influence, have developed a mistaken view regarding sanctity, which is why they are bothered by the views on Mary and Muhammad found in Islamic tradition. Yet, this was punished as trolling.

So it’s no wonder someone gets angry or "makes a scene" over such blatant and perfidious misrepresentation. Personally, I don't see the issue.
(Either it's intentional misrepresentation, or the person is genuinely unaware of what they are saying or writing; in either case, perhaps there should be some way to monitor this for the sake of discussion quality and to protect all other forum members.)

Jason Clark7 said:What was it that I told him that proved so critical... Cultist...?😕 Besides, I am actively working to obstruct his attempts at spreading sectarian views under the guise of missionary work for Islam...☕ Does that really give this forum any right to tolerate him placing me in the context of fascism... 😲

He went around labeling other Muslims as "Wahhabis" whenever it suited him... simply to shield his own fringe interpretations of Islam and present them as the only legitimate way forward...

Isn't it perfectly obvious what kind of logic is being employed here... 🙂

The same applies to everyone else... 😉 But sects will always exist, and they always have... I find myself agreeing with you that if such a thing were to be published, it would be vital to emphasize that this does not represent an official position held by any authority, but rather something else entirely; an alternative—or perhaps a distorted—interpretation that deviates from the mainstream Islamic perspective and its traditional understandings...

Exactly. Someone really needs to start a thread about Shady's "Islamic" bistro... 🙂 They can debate that topic until they are blue in the face, provided they steer clear of anything involving institutional Islam or official state-sanctioned responses... 👋

Jason Clark7 said:Not exactly—more like outright illegal. To be secular means separating church and state, not stripping a religion of its core teachings... 🙄

No. The Constitution protects freedom of worship by guaranteeing it, treating all religions as separate from the state and equal under the law. I don't need to consult some statute that sits hierarchically below the Constitution just to understand how the U.S. Constitution protects religious freedom. I only need to read the Constitution.

What you wrote misses the point entirely and doesn't justify the administration's behavior. While laws sit below the Constitution, they exist to work in harmony with it, providing necessary details specifically because certain individuals (yourself included) tend to misinterpret the Constitution, whether intentionally or not. Therefore, my friend, please pay close attention to the Law on the legal status of religious communities specifically:

Article 2.

Religious communities independently and freely determine their internal organization; governing bodies, hierarchy, and jurisdictions; the entities and persons representing the religious community and its organizational forms; the content and manner of expressing their faith; maintaining ties with their central authority and other religious communities; associating with other religious groups; and other matters regarding their operations in accordance with the Constitution of the United States.

In short, it is unlawful for any authority to impose a different content or method of expressing faith upon a religious community—honestly, this should be legally obvious to anyone with common sense... ☕

And take note of this even more specifically:

Article 8.
...
(5) The name and symbols of a religious community may not be identical to the name and symbols of a religious community previously entered into the Registry.

So, while you are free to establish a religious community, you cannot mask it under the title of a previously registered one. In other words, you cannot claim your "free" interpretations and beliefs are actually Islam.☕

That assertion has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote, nor does it have anything to do with logic in general. One could struggle to find any connection to horse racing if they tried hard enough...

Resorting to insults when you lack valid points always serves as a clear indicator that you simply have no better arguments to offer...😍

...

I could, for instance, claim that Islam is a savage religion that responds to every critique with violence. And one could point to the reactions of Muslims regarding Muhammad caricatures to support that claim.

Islam is not the same thing as the behavior of its followers, just as this website isn't defined by the conduct of its users (though this site certainly holds far more authority over its users than Islam does over Muslims). Nor can we blame the latest Mercedes model because a drunk driver caused a crash while behind the wheel. 🙂
I fear you are aware of your own poor reasoning, but feel free to continue disparaging Islam if it brings you some sort of personal or online satisfaction...🙂

You’re accusing me of slander, regardless of whatever the Islamic community of Canada had to say about the specific case. I wish you the best of luck.

As for you, the mere fact that you have to live your entire life with such conduct should be punishment enough; you really ought to consider the shame of carrying oneself that way...🍿

steelskipper5 said:Wait, you think we're talking secular? 😬

The Constitution protects freedom of worship in the sense that if you don't like one of the recognized religions, you can register a new one under certain circumstances—anyway, maybe read the Law on the legal status of religious communities before taking a stance.😉

No way. The Constitution protects freedom of worship by guaranteeing that very freedom and treating all religions as separate from the state and equal before the law. I really shouldn't have to dig through some law that's hierarchically below the Constitution just to understand how the U.S. Constitution protects religious freedom. I just need to read the U.S. Constitution.

So anyone can patent any invention or brand name and claim rights to it, but religions with hundreds of millions of followers don't have the right to protect themselves from malicious distortions?🙄

That claim has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote, or with common sense in general. Honestly, I'd struggle to find a connection between that and horse racing.

Specifically, if you're talking about Islam, you have to stick to the official stance or clarify that it's just your opinion and not "Islamic," otherwise, legally speaking, it's considered slander.

No, honey. That would be blasphemy—which, in most parts of the civilized world, isn't even a crime anymore, regardless of how much certain Islamic countries have been leading the charge lately to make criminalizing blasphemy a global standard.

I could say, for instance, that Islam is a violent religion that responds to every critique with aggression. And I could back that up by pointing to the reactions of Muslims toward caricatures of Muhammad.
And you want to sue me for slander? I don't care what the Islamic community in Canada has to say about any specific case. Good luck with that.

Finally...

Do you remember the story of the man who for months threw waste and filth into Muhammad's courtyard, right in front of his doorstep? One day, the man fell ill, and since nothing was thrown into the courtyard that day, Muhammad went to the neighbor's house. The man asked, "Why have you come?" And Muhammad replied, "I didn't find anything in my yard today, so I feared you might be unwell. I brought you some fresh dates to help you recover." The man wept.