Posts by Susan Price30

This thread isn't about whether Gandhi's quote contradicts the teachings of Islam.

I actually think it's quite significant, especially considering what Jason Clark7 is specifically complaining about. That's essentially the core issue here: presenting unofficial Islamic views as if they were official.

@ Brenda Cook4 - yes, something along those lines.🙂

Should we just shut down religion altogether?

Honestly, if you strip away everyone's right to offer their own interpretations of a religion as the absolute truth, there’s really no point in keeping this subforum open. All we'd have left is a bunch of atheists.

And that’s exactly what you took away from my post. It has absolutely nothing to do with what I actually wrote... wow.🙄☕

Take another look at the post above, please, and stop trolling. Don't go making things up that nobody actually wrote or twisting the main point of the post.

Gandhi's words are cited as principles that can be reasonably understood and embraced, rather than as sacred scripture that must be accepted without question just because they supposedly came from above.

To be honest, that Gandhi quote was thrown into this conversation without any real context, making it pretty half-baked and, frankly, stupid. It actually contradicts both the teachings of Islam—which is what this whole thread is about—and Christianity. Even the moderator of the Religion section admitted as much by opting to post a more "relevant" quote instead.

They really ought to be in alignment with the Constitution; that should go without saying, even if it isn't always the case. However, they need to be more specific than the Constitution itself. Therefore, the protections provided by the Constitution of the US—which, as I understand it, is one of the rare legal documents in America that explicitly prescribes the principles for its own interpretation—cannot be limited by a lower law.

That doesn't even apply here. What I'm getting at is that nobody has any right to do that—not even from a moral standpoint, if you want to look at it that way. Is it right to present the views of any follower group or sect as if they were the mainstream, official doctrine of the religion they originated from? I side with the majority here. These groups tend to misinterpret the core, fundamental teachings of their religion. On top of that—as we see in this instance—they go as far as equating the conduct of the official version with "fascist methods" or something similar. Where does he even get the right, or the audacity, to make such a claim?

Everyone has the right to share their perspective—of course they do. But you should be upfront about who exactly you're representing; the whole point is to stay authentic instead of selling a version of yourself that isn't real.

One shouldn't resort to any means necessary just to discredit a forum member who is presenting the official version of Islam.

And then, to top it all off, they go and quote Gandhi as if he’s some kind of authority. For what, exactly? It's not like Gandhi was a theologian or a subject matter expert. Regarding the matter at hand. I suppose so.🤣

That was my mistake. 😁 I honestly thought this was just a copy of a post from another thread where the author was complaining about the same thing.

However, my point about certain forum members on Religion having a habit of calling people out or trying to play amateur psychoanalyst with their interlocutors still stands—do they actually engage with the views and opinions being presented, or are they just attacking the person? It seems some people here aren't quite great at telling the difference. Or maybe they just don't know how to separate the two.

Brenda Cook4 said:The thing is, rowdyhawk10 isn't doing this "without reason" or just tossing it out as a side comment; it’s actually his reaction to being called a "sectarian" and things like that. As for the whole "comparing it to fascism" bit, rowdyhawk10 didn't go around calling anyone a "fascist." He was saying that, in his view, the way his opponents interpret Islam—by constantly badgering others—is very similar to the tactics used by fascist ideologies.

Jason Clark7 complained about this post:

Michael Anderson2
Joe has said before that Islam is a fascist ideology; this isn't exactly a new stance for him.

Joe says: "Islam is clearly a fascist ideology; anyone who can't see that is just blind to the truth."
As far as I'm concerned, Islam is nothing more than a fascist ideology (link).
Joe: "In my opinion, Islam should be banned as a fascist organization."

Those are just a few of his posts—there are dozens more like them, but I can't be bothered to dig through all of them. I actually took your advice, Golden Boy, and reached out to him. I asked him to define what he considers fascism, since that's clearly what he's implying, and my plan was to then challenge him to provide a concrete example that would prove his claim. But here's what happened:

Joe didn't bother responding to my post, nor did he offer any actual arguments to back up his insult.
I reported his post, and I did it twice within 48 hours.
The moderators ignored both of my reports.
My conclusion? It’s perfectly fine on this forum to drop such a massive claim without providing a single shred of evidence.

I generally agree that a certain version of "Islam" functions as a fascist ideology—specifically the kind being pushed by Golden Boy, Jason Clark7, and a few other loudmouths like them. Those who degrade their own faith through absurd interpretations and constant nagging..

What did the late Huein say? "Half of walking destroys the path." It’s honestly embarrassing to see how the global Muslim community has fallen short of such standards.

Because of this kind of double standard, it’s become normalized to see Muslims being assaulted in Abu Ghraib, mosques being leveled in Canada, or prisoners at Guantanamo being stripped naked and electrocuted—all while the rest of the world watches with total indifference. If this were happening to someone in Sweden, the entire globe would be outraged. But because it's happening to a Muslim, nobody bats an eye. It's all thanks to those self-appointed "gatekeepers" who claim to hold the keys to heaven, yet conveniently look the other way whenever something happens that discredits their own faith.

When they act like that, why wouldn't Joe also do the same?
Actually, Joe is much more subtle than they are; their approach is far more heavy-handed. Cheers.

It’s true—this isn't just some random one-liner. But I honestly don't get why anyone feels the need to call someone out or attack their views when they're responding to a third person on this forum.🤷 What exactly is the goal behind all of this?

That post isn't actually a response to what Jason Clark7 said when he claimed that... Why label Islam "sectarian" just because it deviates from the official narrative? So, most of those remarks in the post don't really make any sense, do they?

If Jason Clark7 hasn't actually provided any arguments to support his claim that certain interpretations of Islam are "sectarian," then he isn't really contributing anything besides personal attacks and unnecessary call-outs. Based on this post, it seems like he's just attacking people rather than making a point.

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... 👋

If he starts making things personal, attacking other users (just like in the example you provided above) without any actual reason during a debate, or equating your views to "fascism" just to discredit you as a conversationalist—I completely agree with you, that's textbook trolling.

And if I may add... this quote is much better than that one from Gandhi. You see similar teachings in other religions too (it's not just about the behavior itself; the INTENTION and the motive behind it are what define whether something is good or bad.)

You brought up a Gandhian quote... but there is a massive difference between what he said and the statement: "The quality of a religion is measured by how easily people can abuse it for their own interests." It all comes down to sincere approach, and you know the Hadith well: Actions are judged by intentions—the beginning of every deed lies in its niyyah (intention).

👍

I might argue that Islam is a volatile religion that responds to any criticism with violence. You could point to the reactions of Muslims regarding those caricatures of Muhammad as proof.

You can say that, but then anyone else who constantly uses those kinds of "tools" in a serious debate on the Religion forum would just be labeled as malicious (whether they're being hateful, blinded, or just hysterical)—basically a troll. And honestly, I think they'd be right.☕ because that doesn't count as a real argument.

It's probably just someone pushing things in the wrong place...

Jason Clark7 said:Regarding the religion thread on the PZK, I have submitted an appeal post concerning the fact that in that specific thread, rowdyhawk10 singled me out by associating "Islam" with fascist ideology. 😲
Despite my reporting that post and subsequently reaching out to the moderators to ask what possible arguments could justify someone being allowed to insult me by invoking fascism without consequence, my own post was simply deleted... while rowdyhawk10's post remains, which by all standards is off-topic and nothing more than trolling since he is commenting on administrative actions—the very kind of posts for which I have received warnings, while many others go unpunished by the moderators... 😕

Please pay close attention to why rowdyhawk10 is targeting me:

I actually agree that a certain type of "Islam" functions as a sort of fascist ideology—this version of "Islam" promoted by Golden Boy, Jason Clark7, and several other loudmouths who debase their faith through distorted interpretations and constant agitation.

So, because I supposedly debase my faith through "distorted" interpretations and agitation, I am to be branded within the context of a fascist ideology?? 😲

I am by no means ignorant regarding Islam, and unlike rowdyhawk10, I possess a fundamental understanding of Islamic studies that he clearly lacks... 🙄 I always adhere to the official interpretations provided by the Islamic community of Canada (to which the Islamic community of America belongs), which is protected under the U.S. Constitution—specifically the provisions guaranteeing freedom of religion. However, it seems that if one opposes rowdyhawk10's Shia missionary tactics and instead defends the official stance of the Islamic community, one is met with the administration's mindless approval and is harassed to the point of being associated with fascism... 🙂

I am once again calling upon the administration to re-examine these events and specifically identify what arguments exist for rowdyhawk10 to target me in this manner. What exactly am I interpreting "distortedly" regarding Islam that has no basis in the official regulations of the Islamic community of Canada? If necessary, let us take these contentious points to the actual institution of the Islamic community and request an official ruling. (Though we have already done this on certain threads where rowdyhawk10 was presented with a fatwa from the Islamic community, yet the behavior remains unchanged...) 🤷

You called his interpretation of Islam sectarian (in a different thread), and you aren't the only one. Plenty of others have commented or debated certain Islamic teachings he presents here that aren't official or legitimate, and now he's retaliating in kind. It's the same old pattern.

He also labels other Muslims on the forum as "Wahhabis" or uses other terms whenever it suits him to defend his alternative views or present them as the only truth.

Specifically, if you're discussing Islam, you need to stick to the official stance or clarify that it's just your personal opinion rather than Islamic doctrine. Otherwise, legally speaking, it's just slander.

The same applies to everyone else, 😉but there will always be sects. I agree with you that it would be better to specify when a view isn't the official position, but rather an alternative (or distorted) version that deviates from mainstream Islamic perspectives and interpretations.

Gregory Turner71 said:

/cut/so next time you won't be such an obvious troll pretending to be a believer...

Insulting other users would easily earn you a ban for this. You have just enough points to trigger a three-day suspension.

And you still haven't answered me: how can you possibly know who is actually participating there and who isn't?

I assume more objective (or reliable) mods, like Uncle Sam for instance, would likely issue a strike for trolling, rather than insults.😁

(Plus, if I recall correctly, on the religion board they always emphasized that calling someone a troll during a debate is unnecessary trolling itself—it's not the same thing)

So much for your objectivity...

So much for your objectivity...

After roughly 8-9 years of moderating the same subforum, wouldn't you say-- no, not 9 days or 3 months, because then any potential error in judgment might just be a coincidence or one off.

Gregory Turner71 said:Maybe we should just separate the Pastafarians from the Flying Ravioli sect too...

Or perhaps we should just head over to the standard Christmas thread once a year and have people congratulate everyone on the "holidays of the sun god," just like you did. You know, unlike all the other mods or forum members on that thread.

(By the way, there was actually a dedicated thread about this on PZK back when it was relevant)

So it turns out that, unlike the other moderators in this subforum, that theoretical "everyone is equal" vision the Head Admin promotes for this forum—in practice—seems to work a bit differently for you, since you're part of the "old guard" (part of the former administration, right?). I certainly wouldn't say Uncle Sam or Blue Bird act this way... or that they seem to have any hidden, yet clearly personal, agendas.

From what I can see, the goal is "protecting one faith from another"...

I am NOT advocating for that. Not in the sense of "shielding" one person from another beforehand (which would obviously be wrong).
It just seems to me that the biggest target for trolls and trolling posts in these discussions is anything involving Catholic doctrine or faith. Whether it's out of ignorance or something else...
So my suggestion was simply that a specific subforum, or perhaps several, might solve this issue that has proven so difficult to fix despite all our attempts. That's all.🙂

silentridge8 said:Given that highlighted part—"equal conditions for everyone"—it doesn't mean any specific group can claim "equal rights" whenever they feel like it. If we let that happen, we'll end up with a situation similar to what happened in the United Kingdom, where summary courts were granted legal status alongside British courts.🤦

(Perditicee !! 🙂, I've missed you 😘)

Only one thing comes to mind: in what exact way would opening a major thread about Catholicism (on top of what's already there) or a dedicated sub-forum actually threaten or diminish the rights of any religious minority in America?

If it were the sole main topic or the only sub-forum available, then perhaps one could argue there's preferential treatment for one group, but I honestly have no idea what that would even look like.

steelskipper5 said:The United Kingdom maintains an official state religion, so it isn't exactly a secular nation. Since the Head of State also serves as the head of the state church, you really can't compare that setup to how things work here in America.

Perhaps the most striking difference is that America isn't quite as secular as the UK when it comes to separating church and state. In practice, the American Catholic religious community holds such immense sway over our political life and the national establishment that they essentially function as a state religion—unlike the dominant Protestant nations.

I suspect the term "state religion" can be interpreted in several ways—ranging from the absolute models seen in Islamic theocracies to the Lutheran systems in Scandinavia, where the faith holds official status on paper but exerts almost zero actual influence on political life.

I honestly don't know how else to break this down so it finally clicks for you.

Fine, whatever... I'm done 😁

Thanks for the effort and for explaining it.

X

Daniel Ward87 said:
I will attempt this one last time.

Even if we happened to be living in Vatican City, where most people also identify as Catholic, I suspect the owner and administration of Reddit would maintain their current stance. In other words, regardless of your location or who makes up the majority around you, the fundamental principle of Reddit remains: equal rules for everyone.

I provided examples above regarding the Spirituality PDF or that subforum dedicated to alternative beliefs, which was split into several specific and entirely separate sub-subforums. How then do you explain that?

Daniel Ward87 said:No, there won't be a specific sub-forum dedicated exclusively to Catholicism or whatever you want to call it.

We’ve already laid out the reasons for this so many times that I won't even get into it again. Just because most believers identify as Catholic—making them the majority in that sense—doesn't mean Reddit needs a specialized section just for them. This isn't an American national forum owned by the state; it's the private property of an individual who has decided they don't want it that way.

Right now, we are discussing how to structure a sub-forum that would cater to "more religious" discussions than what we currently have, but that would apply to any faith, not just Christianity. I can't share more details yet since we're still in talks and I don't want to speak before a final decision is made.

In that regard, Christianity—or Catholicism, or whatever—won't receive any special treatment compared to other religions, because the core principle of this site is that everyone gets equal treatment.

That's exactly what I was thinking, and it's been stated here many times before, among other places like the PZK.

The important thing is that Tarot, fortune telling, or magic has several sub-sub-forums, or the almost entirely inactive Spiritualist section has its own entire sub-forum after they requested to be split from the main site, yet American Catholics have nothing like that in the Religion sub-forum.🙂

Besides, if you look at just the first two pages of that sub-forum, about 80% or more of the threads deal with Catholic questions. Without that, what would the sub-forum even narrow down to? Maybe that counts as "special treatment" for Catholics too—the fact that the discussion mostly revolves around that and rarely strays far? And logically, that's what most people want to talk about anyway.

What did I say? I'm not denying that there is a Catholic majority in America, but I am not denying the separation of Church and State.

For example, like many of the others who moderate this site, I don't belong to that majority.🤷 That's not the primary point of this thread, but maybe it is actually relevant when you consider that the only Christian moderator who has been handling the religious sub-forum since the beginning stepped down from moderation very quickly due to intense pressure and the politics involved. And as far as we know, a Catholic moderator has never even been on the Religion sub-forum... and the fact that none of that is happening is no coincidence.

I believe that once we hammer out the details, many people will be pleased. It will provide a solid foundation for exploring topics far beyond just "Catholicism."

In the sense that—if you're referring to my previous post regarding "Catholicism" being synonymous with the faith itself—
it won't be treated as a distinct branch of science separate from other Christian denominations that might warrant their own dedicated space. Is that what you're getting at?

If that's your point, could you please explain the reasoning behind it?

Then again, by denying that there is an official state religion in America, you've already made quite a statement...

It’s absurd how certain "special interest groups" have their own dedicated PDF manuals—just a random example, but you get the point regarding these thematic files. I assume these aren't meant to be used to convince people of their supposed importance, yet we see endless debates over identical problems and solutions as if we were electing a Pope on Reddit.

I could not agree more.🙂🙂

But what I really want to understand is the logic behind why, for instance, the thread about Jehovah's Witnesses was separated from other similar groups and granted top-tier status. It isn't that I have an issue with top-tier threads—quite the contrary—but the admin's argument regarding potential issues with opening a top-tier Catholicism thread simply doesn't hold water when you look at the precedent set by the Jehovah's Witness thread.

That leads directly to the argument concerning the official (or, if we're being politically correct, predominantly) religious group within any given society.

If one specific dominant religious group (Jehovah's Witnesses) is singled out from all other similar groups just because they happen to be the most numerous, then if we apply that exact same logic and guideline, where exactly is the issue?

Daniel Ward87 said:He isn't trolling; he's just telling you that America is a secular nation. You really ought to understand what that implies, especially when you claim something is a "state religion."

Whether you call it an official religion, a state religion, or—as it's more common in certain countries—the established Church, it's a perfectly valid term. It doesn't necessarily imply a theocracy (for instance, England is one of those places with an established religion, yet it's certainly not a theocracy, lol).

It can also signify several different things within the framework of a secular government.

Some people prefer the term dominant religion, which is essentially what I was getting at...

Here is a snippet from Wikipedia regarding the matter:😁

State religions can manifest in various ways—ranging from nations where clergy and leaders of state religions hold only ceremonial or symbolic roles, to countries where state religions enjoy special status or government financial support, to nations where they play a central role in political life, meaning their representatives hold authority over all other state institutions. Examples include the Lutheran state churches in Scandinavian countries, and a modern example would be Iran.

Are you trolling, or what? Because what’s written here clearly makes no sense...

By the way, this post is directed at the admin, and given the arguments presented, I hope we can get some clarification.

-- If one group—Jehovah's Witnesses—has been singled out from all other similar sects, on what basis was the decision to separate them made? Was it based on their number of followers, or perhaps their level of interest and appeal, unlike other similar groups in America that clearly don't have a top-tier topic?

If that was the logicbehind it, then what the admin wrote above (the argument that other Christians [about 3% of the population] would want or request a separate top topic) doesn't seem to make much sense if we are using the Jehovah's Witness topic as our example.

Daniel Ward87 said:I don't have anything against opening a Catholicism thread, but that would mean all the other denominations have the right to open their own too. Honestly, that would just clutter up the Religion section, though it might be okay to think about a new religion & society pdf where everything could be housed together. Regardless, we need to clarify the purpose and the naming of the ppdf. Ultimately, the final call rests with Anderlon, not just the admins.

Which others? Some already have their own dedicated top-level threads.

For instance, Jehovah's Witnesses are separated from similar groups, so the logic—'maybe some other similar groups will want their own top-level thread too'—is hard to justify since none of those other groups have complained or asked for a top-level thread like the Witnesses did. It’s likely that specific group was singled out because they have more followers or generate more interest than others.

Could we just rename the existing top thread to "Catholicism"? That would be more specific, especially since Catholicism is the official state religion of the US; it clearly isn't Protestantism or anything else. Besides, the current top thread (Christianity) doesn't focus much on general Christianity outside of Catholic doctrine. Most discussions there revolve around Catholic teaching rather than anything else.

As for separate subforums, the moderator mentioned several months ago (maybe even over half a year ago) multiple times that there is absolutely enough content to split this off into its own subforum immediately (regardless of what it's called), so there shouldn't be any issues on that front...