Posts by steelskipper5

Jason Clark7 said:

steelskipper5 Asks:
You won't achieve anything at all with such baseless and unsubstantiated accusations...

Your insinuation that Islam is a barbaric religion is nothing more than baseless speculation...

I have no interest in discussing that specific law, especially since you previously brought up the Constitution of the US and then misinterpreted it... It is simply impossible to provide any further explanation... There should be no restrictions... Lower....

😂 He told me straight up that I shouldn't bother weighing in since I'm not an attorney...

Cutting it close...

If someone chooses to misinterpret your views or your teachings, they aren't actually imposing anything upon you...

Private matters belong within the four walls... in public, it’s a completely different story.

The fact that one Muslim disputes another over the interpretation of Islam is truly not something that the law concerns itself with...

It all depends on whether the laws of a weak or strong nation are in effect. You would be truly astonished if you paid any attention to the sheer variety of interstate litigation handled by the German courts, for instance...

A Catholic might eventually declare you a heretic, but from where I'm standing, it feels like you're just whining and scrambling for legal protection because your actual arguments aren't strong enough...

Accordingly, @rowdyhawk10's missionary work, while seemingly backed by certain legal protections, lacks sufficiently robust arguments... so he really ought to hold his ground... 😍

If you have clear arguments proving that the moderation isn't following the established rules, please post your question in the Administration Questions thread.
If you could just tone down the constant attacks that seem to fill up every single one of your posts on this thread, maybe people would actually start taking you seriously...

I appreciate the suggestion, but this is an issue that has been dragging on this forum for several years now... back when I first requested that the public affirmation of "religious-sectarian" piercing be sanctioned, and they simply turned a blind eye then, just as they are doing today...

Are you a lawyer?
I am not. And I stick to the most conservative lay reading possible, simply because it is the least likely way for me to stumble into something foolish...
Feel free to start a thread in the Legal section, and perhaps the attorneys there can tell you if you're allowed to interpret the law the way you are interpreting it here.

It is crystal clear to any layman (not to mention a professional) that rowdyhawk10 on 114 is acting contrary to the established rules of this thread, but to paraphrase Balasov poetically: "a thing is a thing, and a phalanx is a phalanx..."

Once they gather the required number of believers. I believe that figure is currently 5,000, though I haven't looked into it deeply.
Regarding property rights, they would have none in relation to the Islamic Community, but they could structure their theology however they see fit.

And until then? Though I suspect that might happen one fine day, or perhaps even sooner...😍

Find me a single instance where such an entry resulted in a ban.
In earlier discussions, the administration explicitly explained why such entries should not result in anyone being banned.

Should I try to telepathically present the deleted bans to you? 🙄

More baseless accusations. Either provide an argument or retract what you said.

Oops, I can't, because an active decree is in place and I cannot explain it to lowly 😂

No, you aren't. I clearly stated what I could say without violating the law you mentioned. It is written in that very same post; I didn't need to offer any subsequent explanations. You, however, cannot point to anything in your banned post that actually supports your interpretation above.

Of course I'm not, because you have the right to say heavy things that don't necessarily represent your opinion, whereas I obviously do not possess that privilege...🤷

Note that I am not a moderator. 🥳

Well, even though you know I didn't report you for your post...😍

So, this whole thread is basically operating on fascist ideology—is that really the peak of your argumentation, or do you just have nothing better to offer? 😲

😂 You're basically saying that since you aren't a lawyer...

It’s crystal clear to any layman (not even counting lawyers) that rowdyhawk10 is acting contrary to the Islam114 thread rules set out here, but to paraphrase Balasov poetically: "a sheep is a sheep and a phalanx is a phalanx..."

So, should I just telepathically present the deleted posts to you? 🙄

Of course I didn't, because you have the right to say harsh things that don't necessarily reflect your opinion, while I clearly don't have that privilege.🤷

So this whole thread is following some fascist ideology—is that the best you can do for an argument, or is that all you've got?😲

Susan Price30 said:Would it be better if he did it in a low, sneaky, or "cowardly" way instead?

I can't speak for everyone else, but people who play with their cards on the table seem a bit more honest to me. As long as they aren't insulting anyone, posting nonsense, or harassing people, I suppose you can 'yell' all you want. If that's just his style, his method, or his temperament...

(p.s. This isn't a personal question directed at you, so there's no need to reply—please don't. Just a comment on the repeated 'accusations' being made here.)

I don't know about everyone else, but I feel like people who play their cards openly seem a bit more decent. As long as they aren't insulting anyone, typing nonsense, or harassing people, I guess you can 'go at them' all you want. If that’s just his style or his temperament...

(p.s. this isn't a personal question directed at you, so you don't have to answer—and please don't. Just a comment on the repetitive 'accusations' being thrown around here.)

Jason Clark7 said:Even a high-priced attorney couldn't have defended rowdyhawk10 better—bravo. 👏

Could we perhaps see some actual evidence of this constant badgering? What exactly constitutes "badgering," and in what way can it be equated to "the methods of fascist ideology," other than in the minds of those who simply want to insult a fellow forum member? If I used the term sectarian, I provided an explanation. Why is there silence regarding my questions, and why can no one produce specific posts of mine that are supposedly "similar to the methods of fascist ideology"?😕

Jason Clark7 said:Exactly, it’s just that you keep a leash on @rowdyhawk10 and those similar unofficial missionaries... that's how it's done so perversely... 🥳

...
Once you return from the KZB, I will be expecting your specific arguments regarding my supposed misinterpretation of the Constitution of the US...

What exactly did I get wrong regarding the Religious Freedom Act, and what logic are you using to dismiss my point? What do you even mean by "all religions"? There are officially registered organizations and there are those that aren't; the latter cannot simply follow the dictates of the former... What sources are they supposed to revise, and how are they expected to practice their faith? If that's the case, then the established groups are no longer truly free under the protections guaranteed by the Law—they would live in constant fear of someone demanding a forced revision of their religious doctrines at any moment... That goes beyond any legal definition of freedom; instead, it sounds like pure pressure, blackmail, and harassment.

...
Believe me, the fact that you few Muslims can't seem to agree on how to interpret certain passages of the Quran, or whatever else you people argue about, truly has nothing to do with the specific article or clause cited in this law...
...

The term "Muslim" is stretched far too thin in certain contexts. Especially within the Shia tradition, there is this calculated method of masking one's true ideological identity—not merely as a survival tactic against existential threats, which would be understandable, but as a way to subtly weave their own agenda into the beliefs of others. This isn't just limited to a handful of individuals; even the forum administration seems to maintain an atmosphere that protects those who undermine the official stances of the Islamic Community Institution. They present a facade, suggesting that "this is true Islam and those others are just stuck in frozen, outdated views," yet I have never once been given a straight answer here as to why they persistently refuse to adhere to the established rules... Islam114 So, that's how it goes... My own personal forum rule regarding this topic... The only thing left to do is investigate the official religious institution...

No, you simply cannot call your new religious organization the Islamic Community of America if an entity by that name already exists. You could, however, style it as the American Islamic Community... or perhaps the Pure American Islamic Community... 😬 That is exactly the same situation as with political party names...
...

You view the laws through a political lens, so they become just as flexible as politics itself—or perhaps you'd simply prefer them to be... as the old saying goes: "A fool's dream is a fool's reality."
Of course, the letter of the law is one thing, but interpretation can go any which way. It isn't impossible that at some point in America, someone might be barred from founding, say, a "Babin Islamic Community"—though that would be more a matter of political maneuvering than actual legal application. How likely do you think it is today (or ever, really) under the current Religious Freedom Act to establish another, for instance, a "Democratic Party Catholic Church"? And what kind of standing would it have compared to the original, regarding property, theology, and so on? What are the odds? While many would jump at the chance—perhaps even certain members of this forum's administration—this forum is one thing, while the real world is quite another. Here, we hide comfortably behind handles and bytes, but out there, we face one another eye to eye... face to face...

I am truly sorry that you interpreted my claim—that you failed to understand what I wrote to you, and that your response had nothing to do with my previous post—as an insult. I had no reason to insult you, nor did I intend to.

Go tell that to the hundreds of other users who receive warnings or bans from the administration for such entries, or even milder ones, labeled as trolling or insults. Most often, they aren't even given the opportunity to explain their actions or justify their reasoning; instead, when they inquire, the administration simply waits until the next day to issue the penalty.

If you were using that kind of argumentation as a Catholic, I would argue against Catholics in much the same way (just look, by the way, at what I have written in my signature regarding the head of the Catholic Church, which I firmly consider to be a criminal organization).

Which doesn't excuse you in the slightest, because it is almost blatantly obvious here that we are dealing with an anti-theistic spirit that spreads through and fosters poor relations both within religions and between them. The best proof is rowdyhawk10, who tirelessly missions against Christians and even against official Islam, all while hiding under the guise of a Muslim—quite successfully sowing (inter)religious discord, while the anti-theists quietly hold his banner and smile... 👏

I was citing an example of what I could say that wouldn't necessarily leave me vulnerable to a successful defamation lawsuit; it doesn't necessarily reflect my true opinion.

And that is exactly why I spoke of "character" as an example of what I could say, so that I might be punished without the chance to clarify what the example was meant to illustrate... 🙄 whereas you are able to speak without consequence, and then, if necessary, explain later what the writer actually intended... 🙄

Of course, and what I said regarding "character" is just like what you said: it doesn't necessarily reflect my true opinion of your character. ☕

Instead of insulting me again when you feel I have insulted you, just report the post that upset you. That is what I did with your post, and now I must wait for you to return from vacation.

Believe me, I have offended enough people on this forum to realize that, quite frankly, it rarely pays off. It is better to just file a report and wait for the other person to receive their well-deserved penalty.

Of course, you are untouchable—not even the moderators can touch you. You simply echo our thoughts and constantly put us through the ringer, so when we offend someone, we’re in the wrong, but when you do it, you claim it “doesn't actually reflect true opinion.” Essentially, you consider yourselves superior and us inferior... though I’m not entirely sure which ideology's mannerisms this resembles.🤷
You don't step in because there is no profit in it, yet people still report things just to see if some money might fall from the sky, only to then "feel" bad about having to wait three days for a ban to expire before the other person returns... and apparently, one "had" to reply to them while they were on their "well-deserved" break, failing to show the basic decency of holding back a comment when the other party isn't even able to respond... 🍿

So, what exactly did I get wrong regarding the Religious Freedom Act—and what was your actual argument for trying to shut down my point?

What does "all religions" even mean to you? You’ve got officially registered ones and then you have those that aren't—and the latter group isn't allowed to just follow the lead of the former. What are their actual sources? What do they need to revise, and how are they supposed to practice their faith? Because if they don't, these first groups aren't actually "free" under what the Law guarantees them anymore. I mean, they should probably be living in constant fear, right? Just waiting for someone to come along and demand a total overhaul of their religious views. Honestly, that goes way beyond any legal concept of freedom—it’s nothing more than pure pressure, blackmail, and straight-up harassment.

The term "Muslim" is way too elastic—it’s stretched thin to the point of being meaningless. Especially when you look at certain Shia practices—there's this whole method of masking their actual ideological identity. It isn't even about survival or dodging some existential threat (which, honestly, would be logical)—it's more like they try to sneak their own specific ideology into everyone else's business. And it's not just a few individuals, either. The way this forum is run gives off a massive impression that the admins are actually cracking down on anyone who challenges the official stances of the Islamic Community Institution. They hide behind this thin veneer of, "Oh, this is what Islam is, those other people are just stuck in frozen, outdated views"—but meanwhile, I’ve yet to get a straight answer here as to why they stubbornly refuse to actually follow the rules. Islam114 topics So, basically... My own personal rule regarding this topic—just so we're all clear. So, they’re just digging through the official religious institutions now—that's where we're at? I guess it's all fair game.

I mean, if you look at things through a political lens, laws become just as flexible as politics itself—or maybe that’s just how I’d prefer to play it. I guess there’s a reason people say the truth is whatever you make it. What Grandma likes, that’s what she dreamed about.
Look, sure—the law says one thing, but how people interpret it? That can be anything. It’s not like it’s impossible that at some point in America, someone might get blocked from starting something like the "Babin Islamic Community"—but honestly, that would be more about political spin than actual legal reality.

I wonder how realistic it actually is—today or maybe anytime in the future—under the current US laws to set up something like an "DNC Catholic Church" here in America? And what kind of rights would they even have compared to the original establishment—I mean, when you look at property ownership, theological standing, and all that other stuff?

Tell that to the hundreds of other users who get slapped with warnings for trolling or insults—even when their posts are way milder than this. Most of them don't even get a fair shake to explain what they were actually doing or if there was some actual reason behind it—and sometimes, after they try to reach out or communicate, the administration just goes silent the next day instead of giving them a chance to clear things up before dropping a penalty.

Look, there’s absolutely nothing you can say to justify that—it's pretty obvious what's happening here. We're seeing this blatant anti-theist spirit running rampant, and it's doing nothing but fueling bad blood, both within religious circles and between different faiths. If you want proof, just look at rowdyhawk10. He’s constantly out there missionary-style attacking Christians, but he’s also taking aim at official Islam—all while hiding behind a Muslim identity. Honestly, he’s quite successful at sowing this kind of interfaith discord, and I suspect the anti-theists are quietly cheering him on from the sidelines.

Exactly—that’s my point. I only brought up the whole thing about honor as an example to show what I *could* say... and then I get penalized without even getting a chance to explain why it was just an illustration in the first place. Seriously? 🙄 So, you get to say whatever you want without any consequences—and then, if you actually get called out, you can just pivot and try to explain away what you "really meant" later on. Typical. 🙄

Oh, sure—nothing can ever be done about you guys. Not even by the moderators. You just take our thoughts and run them through an EKG to see how much they stress us out. So, when we call you out, we’re "just being abusive," but when you go after us, it’s somehow just an example that “doesn't actually reflect true opinion.” I guess that makes you guys superior and us the inferior ones? Honestly, I’m not even sure which ideology this kind of attitude belongs to. 🤷

Matthew Anderson said:The English is criminally bad.

Nicholas King said:The actual reason for this thread will come a bit later, but first, let’s look at some general patterns regarding how Americans swear.

I don't really feel like dissecting the semantics of every single common profanity—that would be an incredibly tedious task, much too long. However, there are a few potent examples that actually force one to pause and reflect for a second.

So, do people actually think about the swears they utter? Is there some psychological component (let’s not even get into the background 😬) when choosing a specific insult, or do we just blurt out the first thing that pops into our heads without any real consideration of what we are actually saying?

For starters, take the notorious "suck my dick" (or alternatively, "stick it up your ass") that you constantly hear coming from macho types and homophobes: do they honestly believe that "the one doing the sticking" is somehow less gay than "the one receiving" (and we're talking about guys who would rather lose a vital internal organ than be perceived as gay—or at least want to maintain that impression 😬), or do they simply fail to process the literal meaning of their own words?

And here we go, slowly approaching the reason for the topic: yesterday, I had the pleasure of reading on a forum that I am, Quote, "annoying as hell". Let's ignore the context for a moment—it's truly irrelevant and uninteresting (one might say, terribly annoying 😁)—but the phrasing itself is quite intriguing: why, exactly, would a penis be considered "annoying" (implying it requires great effort; that it is exhausting—according to Merriam-Webster)? 😕

I once heard an explanation for the common phrase "stupid as hell"—the explanation was, admittedly, kindergarten-level (the idea being that a dick is stupid because it cries when it's having its best time 🤦), but it was an explanation nonetheless. What kind of explanation could exist for the "annoyance" of male genitalia—specifically such massive annoyance, given that the compound phrase is used as a much stronger figure of speech than "you're very annoying", "you're indescribably annoying", "you are soooooooo annnoyyyyying" or any other way to describe someone's immense exasperation? Nothing comes to mind for me, absolutely nothing.

I haven't been able to Google anything particularly meaningful on the subject, so I'm left wondering: if you were to encounter an association linking a dick to "annoyance," would you view it as a completely accidental and unconscious choice devoid of meaning, or do you believe that when people are swearing (and it's safe to assume we swear when our self-control is diminished), they occasionally stumble into a Freudian slip?

Susan Price30 said:

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.

Actually, that Gandhi quote was put there within the context of what was being discussed, and honestly, it's a pretty vague—if not just stupid—quote. Especially since it goes against both Islam (which is what this whole thread is about) and Christianity, for example. Even the Religion moderator confirmed that by picking a "more relevant" quote.

Susan Price30 said:

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.🤣

everyone has the right to share their side—obviously. But then they should actually state what it is they're representing—don't try to sell something you aren't, that's the whole point, I think.

and don't use every dirty trick in the book just to discredit a forum member who is presenting the official version of Islam.

....and then, to top it all off, quoting Gandhi as an argument. An argument for what? It's not like Gandhi was a theologian or an expert in the matter anyway.🤣

rowdyhawk10 said:You could eventually start this thread yourself, but just make sure you use your own handle: "Jason Clark7 Mus Islamski bistrolog." 🙂 You don't have the right to open this thread about me. In fact, nobody else should be opening it either—it's my business alone. And honestly, I suppose there's also the question of whether I even have the right to start a topic like this myself.

Personally, I don't see steelskipper5 as someone who acts in bad faith. I haven't known him since the very beginning of this forum—I think he was around back on that first one—but I can say with certainty that he possesses exceptional character. His level of education is also quite notable, if I may say so. I would argue, quite responsibly, that his conduct is better than many Muslims who post here. Or, perhaps to put it in terms you might better understand, steelskipper5 is... Islamic. He carries himself with more integrity than many Muslims I see on this forum, and honestly, from what I’ve observed in my own life outside of these threads, too. (steelskipper5, please forgive me if my use of "Islamic" came off wrong—there was truly no malice intended.) He stays fair and principled in his dealings with people. What’s more, he never seems to stoop to the level that so many other Muslims tend to sink to.

I largely—though not entirely—agree with his take on this.

Why am I backing him?

First: steelskipper5 didn't bring up that point just to take a shot at Islam; he was simply laying out how the U.S. Constitution works. His intention was to clarify that American police don't make arrests over blasphemy, which means the Islamic community couldn't exactly turn around and say, "Arrest steelskipper5 because of what he said." It’s the same reason we don't have rules against blasphemy here on this forum. I guess you seem to think that only your particular set of preconceived notions should be treated as the definitive word on Islam.

Secondly: (regarding why I support steelskipper5): It isn't true when you claim that Islam is separate from the behavior of Muslims. It really isn't. Islam isn't some software package or a picture hanging on a wall that we can judge detached from life. On the contrary, we measure it by what it stirs up in people. The spirit of Islam manifests precisely through the conduct of its followers, because it influences—just like any other religion—the morals and actions of its adherents. If it makes Muslims better people, then it is a good religion. If it turns them into savages or inspires them to act wildly, then there is clearly an issue with that faith, or perhaps with how those savages represent it, or maybe with a dormant clergy that refuses to condemn them because they are too afraid... much like how Cerić coddled the extremists during his tenure while aggressively meddling in the domestic politics of Canada (acting quite conspiratorially before the elections). He is the perfect example of how we have degraded ourselves as a community; the rot starts at the top. Bottom line: Islam is measured by the behavior of Muslims! Especially if such behavior isn't sharply and publicly condemned by the highest authorities.

Gandhi: "The quality of a religion is measured by how much better it makes people." Could it be any clearer? 🤷

Where I might supplement steelskipper5 is simply this: Islam is not what many violent individuals claim it to be when they speak in the name of this beautiful faith. Because just as there are those who would burn cartoonists alive, there are also those who laugh at such caricatures and simply move on with their day... and even if that same cartoonist were in trouble, they would step up to help! To me, those are the true Muslims, though to the other group—the arsonists—they are seen as nothing more than church rats or traitors. I’ll go even further: a true Muslim would defend anyone being attacked by a mob, even if it meant defending the very artists behind those caricatures. That is the true spirit of Islam living in the hearts of genuine believers.

As for the fact that the Islamic clergy remains silent about this savagery, or offers only half-hearted, reluctant condemnations of such brutality... or fails to denounce criminals like Osama bin Laden and others like him... it only proves that Islam is in a dire position. The clergy has frozen the faith in a dead letter from centuries ago. If Muslims want what is best for themselves and the world, they face a massive effort to wake up from this archaic slumber and catch up to the modern age. The train of time is moving and it waits for no one. Those who leave themselves frozen in the past will look to the world like a Neanderthal corpse found in an Arctic ice block from 15,000 years ago. By the way, instead of supporting steelskipper5 in his condemnation of these anti-caricature savages, you are attacking his character. Is that truly the spirit of your faith?

You see? This is the true Islam and the true Sunnah of Muhammad. The solution isn't street violence or attacking cartoonists. It is understanding the other person. If you understand this Hadith, and if you consider yourself a Muslim, then apologize to steelskipper5 for attacking his character; you had no right to say such things to him. steelskipper5 is a man of great integrity and a truly good person. Think about this. Selam

Second thing: Look, here’s why I’m backing steelskipper5—because what you’re saying is just plain wrong. You can't claim that Islam isn't defined by how Muslims actually act. It totally is! Religion isn't some piece of software you can just run, or some framed picture hanging on a wall that we can judge from a distance—it's much more than that. Out of life.Quite the opposite! I think we should be judging him based on what he actually stirs up in people.

I guess I’d have to jump in and back up steelskipper5 on this one—it’s just that Islam isn't at all what those violent types claim it is when they try to speak for such a beautiful faith.

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...🍿

Look, what you wrote doesn't even touch the actual point—and it definitely doesn't justify how the admins are acting. Laws might technically sit below the Constitution, sure, but they're still consistent with it at the same time. It’s not that complicated.

Look, their whole goal here is to provide a much clearer explanation—mostly because there are certain people (yeah, I'm looking at you) who, whether they realize it or not, just completely misinterpret the Constitution.

Look, buddy, you better pay attention to this— The Law on the Legal Status of Religious Communities—honestly, I don't know where to start with this one. It’s just... it's a mess. I guess if you actually sit down and read through the fine print, you'll see how much room there is for interpretation, which—let's be real—is usually where things go sideways. It feels like it was written to be intentionally vague, maybe? Just enough wiggle room to keep everyone guessing. It's a headache, frankly.

Let's get down to brass tacks:
<sadržaj i način očitovanja>

Look, it’s pretty obvious to me—and I guess anyone with half a brain—that it's totally illegal for one religious group to force their specific beliefs or ways of practicing on another. I mean, come on... to any sane person, the legal side of this is crystal clear. It's just common sense. ☕

and pay close attention to this specifically:
<title>

Basically, you're free to start a religious group, but you can't tuck it under the umbrella of an existing one. In other words, you can't take your own "free-thinking" interpretations and call them Islam. ☕

resorting to insults when you lack actual arguments always shows that you don't have anything better to say.😍

Islam isn't defined by how Muslims behave, just like this forum isn't defined by how its users act (even though this forum has way more authority over its users than Islam does over Muslims). It's like you wouldn't blame the latest Mercedes model just because a drunk driver crashed it.🙂
I'm afraid you know your arguments are weak, but hey, if trashing Islam makes you feel better, go ahead—do it privately or here.🙂

as far as you're concerned, the shame of your behavior should be enough punishment; you'll have to live with that reputation for the rest of your life.🍿

Jason Clark7 said:That is quite an anarchic approach to religion. The Constitution protects freedom of worship in the sense that if you aren't satisfied with an established religion, you can, under certain circumstances, register a new one—besides, you should probably read the Law on the legal status of religious communities before taking such a stance.😉

By your logic, anyone could patent any invention or brand name and claim rights to it, yet religions supported by hundreds of millions of followers have no right to protect themselves from malicious distortions...🙄

Specifically, if you are speaking about Islam, you must adhere to the official stance or clarify that your view is merely your own opinion rather than an Islamic one... otherwise, legally speaking, it constitutes libel.

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.😉

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?🙄

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.

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...) 🤷

Anthony Jackson2 said:Is it even possible that this user just doesn't get what you guys are explaining? 😁

Brian Edwards6 said:The BNC is strictly for people who are currently banned.👍

Susan Price30 said:calling it an official religion, a state religion, or—in certain countries—more commonly referred to as the official Church is a totally legitimate way to put it. And honestly, it doesn't even have to imply a theocracy (like, the United Kingdom has a state religion and isn't a theocracy, LOL).

Susan Price30 said:So, Catholicism is basically the official state religion here in America—or at least that's how things seem to work sometimes.

Susan Price30 said:To continue... lol

It happened almost simultaneously, or shortly after, the previous moderator stepped down—largely due to pressure from the long-suffering forum veteran there—and right after I received a brief DM informing me that I had been partially banned for being a "clone." No specific handle was provided, no name for this supposed clone, and zero further explanation. Even after I reached out to a former admin to complain, I couldn't even get a clarification on what was going on or who they thought was a clone.

By the way, the controversial thread is located here.

The strangest part of the whole thing is that this alleged "clone" wasn't even posting in the religion subforum (except for a few posts) at that time; they were posting in the general discussion area on one or two topics. So, I have no idea how it is technically possible to issue a partial ban in the religion section because of something happening on a completely different tenth subforum, even if the allegations were true.

And all of this is happening while the religion subforum has a moderator who constantly refers to Catholics on the board as "people i n f e c t e d w i t h the virus of dogma" (who need to be "enlightened"), people who are mistaken (so they must be "enlightened" and led back to the "right path"), etc., etc.

As for what this individual thinks about violence against women, for example, here is a bit more here
.
quote

1. According to the esteemed Islamic AUTHORITY Morteza Motahari (in the work I linked above), lightly spitting in a woman's face is a response to her requesting such a situation. THIS IS NOT BEATING WOMEN OR TRAINING ANIMALS, as you and ego described it (I linked your and his posts!) BECAUSE A WOMAN SIMPLY ASKS FOR IT, SHE ENJOYS IT... The Quran leaves SUCH A POSSIBILITY open, based on a woman's request. That is how our authorities interpret it!!!!

'Lightly spitting in their face if they ask for it??' 🤦...and then there are the other extreme sexist outbursts or even the blatant justification of violence against women —well, that's a story in itself. And this is someone who (back then or years before) moderates a subforum on the main site??

Is this how positions of power are abused, by handing out partial bans however they please?

After that moderator was replaced, his friend—who is also a former moderator—is now working to get rid of everyone who was "responsible" for him being removed from moderation immediately, right now, or what?

Could that have been the reason for my partial ban? Because, sorry, but the reason given is clearly false and absurd at the same time.

One more question: since we've had three new moderators in the religion subforum since then, who actually decides on or reviews a request like this? Is it the new moderators on the subforum, or the administration? What is the "procedure" if one even exists? Since Blue Bird came onto the moderation team right around that time, and neither i-s-l-a-m-i-c nor Uncle Sam were moderators back then, the only person who might have anything to say is ego—and even then, I'm not sure how much ego knows about the details or the motives of those former moderators to speak on anyone's behalf.

Can the administration please provide an explanation? Who decides on the potential removal of a partial ban given the circumstances and everything else?

I am sorry you feel that way, though it is quite likely you have mistaken me for someone else. 😁 I haven't posted in the religion section since 2010, so it feels rather strange that anyone would still remember the "energy" behind posts written years ago.

Furthermore, when I used to post there, I was only active for a few months and it wasn't even my primary subforum.😉

I'm sorry you feel that way, and honestly, you probably just confused me with someone else 😁 because I haven't posted in the Religion section since 2010. It feels pretty weird that anyone would still remember the 'vibe' or energy behind posts someone wrote years ago.

dustyranger64 said:Alright, sounds good.
I mean, I'm not even sure why you're dragging me into this—I don't moderate DZ, so I don't even see the reports you're talking about. 🤷