Posts by Roger Barrett2

Timothy Robinson2 said:What really bothered me was the warning and subsequent ban of a fellow user, Rob-Roy, specifically regarding this:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=3...5&postcount=70. That same user was later banned for these reasons: http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=617192.

To provide a bit of context, he received a strike because he lost his cool following a specific statement—keep in mind, we’re talking about the religion subforum here. He used an analogy, suggesting that making such a comment was as offensive as someone shouting profanities at your mother or sister, and that's what earned him the strike.

When he appealed to the administrator, Tyndall, the response was essentially:

The logic there implies that everyone should just endure the mockery of sacred things. I get it—we're on the internet—but banning someone for comparing two sacred concepts feels inconsistent with the reasoning provided above.

If we aren't supposed to care about "certain subjects" that people hold dear, and if mocking them is perfectly fine, then logically, that would include a person's mother. Consider the sentence:

For a devout Catholic or Christian, being insulted in that way can be more painful than being told their mother or sister is a whore.

Perhaps everything should be fair game and we shouldn't worry about anyone's feelings, but we are in the RELIGION section, and it seems hypocritical to penalize one type of comment while letting the other slide right here in this forum.

Anyway, I want to thank Roger Barrett2 for looking into this. It’s just proof that I’m not some random troll; given how many strikes I seem to rack up, you'd think I was a serial agitator, but there are plenty of other posts that show my actual style of participation:

http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=3...1&postcount=16
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=31279462&postcount=2
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=3...2&postcount=18
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=3...0&postcount=23
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=3...&postcount=118
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=3...1&postcount=16

http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=3...&postcount=172
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=3...0&postcount=25

I know I might sound like I'm whining, but these things genuinely bother me. There is a real person behind this username.

I often feel like I have a target on my back simply because I try to respond from a conservative standpoint. It also frustrates me that moderation seems to grant extreme tolerance to liberal views, while even more glaringly, blatant
trolling goes unpunished, yet any hint of sarcasm coming from a conservative perspective gets slapped with a strike.

I’ll just weigh in on this whole situation involving Rob Roy. I actually reached out to the moderator, blue bird, via private message about it myself. As for those other posts you mentioned, I’ve taken a quick look, but I'm going to pass on commenting on them for now. Honestly, without digging through the entire thread to get the full context, I don't feel like I could offer a truly meaningful or fair opinion, and there's just way too much ground to cover to do it right.

Look, I’m not Catholic, so the whole whole Eucharist thing doesn't really hold any weight for me personally. But even so, you can clearly see from an aerial view that calling another guy on Reddit a total scumbag is way out of line. I honestly can't wrap my head around the logic they used to hand out a ban for that kind of behavior.

I honestly don't even want to get into that comparison between hosts and... well, let's just leave it at that. "Freedom of speech" has become this convenient catch-all phrase people throw around whenever they feel like they aren't getting their way. It’s become a bit of a wildcard. That’s exactly why I suggested to Blue Bird that they put together a clear, definitive list—something outlining what’s actually permissible and where the line is drawn. If we had a set of guidelines to help everyone navigate how to express themselves, things would be much smoother. Right now, it feels like everyone is just making up their own rules on the fly, interpreting things however suits them best. That's precisely why we see so much unnecessary friction and constant clashing in these discussions.

Timothy Robinson2 said:I figured I’d post here since this thread is still active, rather than starting a whole new one. If it's possible, I’d actually like to request a permanent ban, just like the user mentioned above. I tried asking on the other board, but they weren't really interested in helping me out, so I'm assuming you guys handle these kinds of requests here.

Thanks, Timothy Robinson2

If you don't mind me asking, why the push for a permanent ban? It feels a bit extreme. Honestly, there aren't many people on the Religion board who can actually hold a decent conversation anyway, so it seems like a shame to walk away for good.

Steven Clark2 said:🙏 Praise Jesus, Allah, Moon, Darwin, and all that is holy—that is precisely the point. Expressing an opinion and calling for something unlawful cannot be treated as the same thing; I believe exceptions must be allowed.

Those who are intelligent will understand. 🙂

Roger Barrett2—your only real fault was that you expressed yourself somewhat clumsily in that post which earned 100 points. I understood your meaning, but Twitter did not (even though they certainly shouldn't have slapped 100 points on it regardless; it isn't as if you started writing this yesterday or possess such outbursts, but still), nor did the administration. However, I have the impression that this will now be taken more seriously and reviewed carefully to prevent similar misunderstandings from occurring in the future. 🙂

I just hope this doesn't happen again. Honestly, I'd love to know if any of the admins actually took these explanations to heart or if they missed the point entirely.

Laura Martinez2 said:Question. What punishment does the Christian God prescribe for homosexuals? Furthermore, can one truly be a follower of Christianity without adhering to the laws and rules set by the Christian God? Do not mistake my inquiry for a provocation; I simply find your distinction unclear.

So, which of the following hypothetical posts would you argue should be sanctioned (if any at all):

Homosexuals should be stoned.

Homosexuals should be stoned because that is what is written in my religion's holy book.

My religion's holy book states that homosexuals should be stoned. As a member of that religion, I follow its rules.

Back to them again... alright. My response explains the Christian perspective on this issue (I can't speak for other faiths or what they teach—so bear with me)
.
The types of laws you're bringing up (like stoning) were strictly limited to the State of Israel. Those kinds of laws aren't applied anymore, nor is there a need for them, because the New Alliance ushers in a new era. This includes the arrival of the Kingdom, Jesus' sacrificial death, and an age of grace where even the most extreme deviations in human behavior can be redeemed... and so on.

Sin remains sin, and as such, it carries the penalty of death. However, that "death" no longer refers to physical execution here and now by civil authorities; instead, God will judge sin at the Final Judgment, where death signifies eternal separation from God's presence. That’s why Christians look forward to Christ's second coming, when He will judge both the living and the dead.

In short, saying that homosexuals should be stoned because... is wrong in the eyes of God and under the laws of the USA.

hollowtrucker77 said:Being gay isn't some kind of choice you make on a whim
Stealing, on the other hand, is a choice

It’s honestly like saying being left-handed is a sin and then trying to justify it by scrawling some nonsense on, I don't know, a wall somewhere
So, look, homosexuality isn't a choice, nor is it a crime, or even a minor misdemeanor
A sin would be darting across a street outside of a crosswalk, or even just having the desire to bolt across the road where you aren't supposed to, but it sure as hell isn't a sin to be left-handed, or blonde, or just plain clumsy

It is entirely possible that I'm failing to explain myself clearly here, but hey, that's why we're all hanging out in places like this—to talk things through and hopefully reach some kind of consensus

Look, I agree that under the laws of the USA, being gay isn't a choice, a crime, or an infraction—there's no debate there. However, from the perspective of Christian revelation (as it stands), being gay and xyz2 other things are considered sins by God. But—and I feel like I've said this seven or eight times now—just because something is a sin (in this case, being gay) doesn't mean it's a criminal offense.

Essentially, God said one thing in Christian revelation, and the laws of the USA say another. Fine, I get both, but I just don't understand why someone is penalized for expressing what is written in Christian revelation (in this case, me), provided they aren't claiming that a state's civil laws must align with religious ideals?

Again, I'm appealing to the distinction between expressing religious views and actually inciting or advocating for illegal actions based on those same religious views. Those two things are fundamentally different. For example: Saying that being gay is a sin is perfectly fine from a believer's Christian perspective. Saying that gay people should be stoned or thrown in jail because they are "wrong" is illegal and subject to sanction.

In my case, Twitter got it wrong, the admins confirmed it, and honestly, it’s a shame.

That's pretty much it. I've had enough of gays and corruption for one day...

hollowtrucker77 said:no Nick, you could take the Bible, the Quran, and a handful of Vedas, throw them all in a pile, and claim they say being gay is a crime, but the reality remains the same: being gay isn't a criminal offense, and making a claim like that on this forum is a one-way ticket to getting banned.
The same logic applies to those people who were given advice on how to physically lash out at their wives, or pretty much any other specific details like that too.
Hiding behind the authority of holy scriptures doesn't magically make a statement true or correct.

If something is already codified in the US Constitution, there’s really no need to redundantly include it in the forum rules.
The forum is obligated to respect the laws and the Constitution of the USA.

"Intolerance" is such an ill-defined term that it basically just stays at the discretion of the forum administration.

hollowtrucker77 - But why do you keep dodging the core issue and dancing around the sidelines??? Here we go again with the connection between gay rights and corruption—fine, let's try this once more: if you can't see the difference in this example, you're essentially confusing pouring water into acid with pouring acid into water. If I argue, based on Christian doctrine found in the Bible, that being gay is a sin just like corruption, withholding wages from employees, or being disrespectful to parents and xyz2 other things, I am by no means suggesting that all those things should be criminalized. To suggest otherwise is pure idiocy. We don't live in a theocracy, and that certainly isn't what Jesus taught.

Now, since Christianity has so many different facets (as ego mentioned in that "Arguments on Religion" thread), my comparison is strictly based on what you might call a spiritual or faith-based foundation. In God's eyes, these things are sins—they are wrong because they go against the morality and the ideals that God established. However, under the laws of the USA, they aren't. That's the bottom line. I don't see a debate here. Do you?

Man, I am honestly exhausted from trying to explain something this straightforward.

The plague of bizarre signatures on Religion continues. Now it’s popped up on Twitter too: "So, does that mean you'd be willing, in the name of your god, to pick up a stone and smash a woman's skull just because she cheated on her husband? Yeah... and I should mention I wouldn't feel an ounce of pity for her, by denni."

It honestly looks like a coordinated effort between certain moderators over at Religion and one specific admin—I genuinely don't grasp the purpose behind these kinds of signatures. What are they trying to achieve?

And I have another question—was denni issued a warning for this post? From what I can gather through my chats with the mods and admins, advocating for murder (regardless of the reason) is a punishable offense and against the rules, which usually results in a strike—just like it would for me. Yet, I don't see any strike issued, and on top of that, BB actually puts that exact statement in her signature? What is going on with you people? Look, I'm just a simple believer, so I'd appreciate some clarification on this whole display of vanity.

Honestly, when I first opened up the forum this morning and saw this ad staring me in the face, it actually gave me a bit of a jump. Then I just sat there thinking about how incredibly aggressive it is. Long story short, I’m not a fan.

Matthew Grant9 said:

Roger Barrett2 Asks:
That’s exactly why I stay far away from the whole political circus! I’ve always lived by this little rule of mine where I just try to be straightforward and tell it like it is—though, okay, I suppose I sprinkle in just a tiny bit of wisdom and tact so I don't accidentally start a fight!

Look, I’m really not trying to turn this into some big political debate or anything like that, but honestly, come on!
Try to see things from their perspective for a second! Now, I know this might come off sounding a little bit like I’m sucking up—and honestly, I’ll be the first to admit that's a bit embarrassing to even think about saying—but I really do think it's worth stepping into someone else's shoes for a moment.
Since he’s the admin, it feels like most of those totally unhinged posts end up landing right on his doorstep, especially from people who can't seem to hold back their colorful little insults when they're filing a complaint! It honestly seems like he spends pretty much his entire day dealing with folks who somehow manage to blame him personally for absolutely everything that goes wrong.
It’s honestly kind of like being an MTA driver out there on the streets!
And then you just end up becoming... well, a little bit of a bummer yourself!
So, we end up having to ask him to change his own signature—which, let’s be honest, is entirely up to his own good graces—and then you just go ahead and start throwing around all these imaginary bans!

It doesn't really make much sense, does it?

The real beauty of taking this approach is that there’s absolutely no guesswork involved regarding where I stand with someone or what my actual intentions are! It lets me just let it all out and vent completely, which honestly is such a lifesaver for keeping my own sanity intact and saving my nerves from unnecessary stress.

Are we really going to talk about messing with someone else's nerves? Honestly, if you decide to get under someone's skin, just know that once they start hitting back, there is absolutely no end in sight!

Well, it looks like ego finally went ahead and scrubbed "declared Muslim" from his signature, but that Tyndy guy just won't let it go! He’s still hanging around, just waiting to drop his next hilarious little pearl of wisdom.

Oh, wait! I totally missed that! It looks like there were three separate cheers for Tyndall!🙂

An "imaginary ban" is just a metaphor, like a thumbs down—a way of saying he messed up. Beyond that, I have a bit of an allergy to authorities who think they're above any form of criticism. I'm perfectly fine with being criticized myself, so I feel I have the right to critique others. Obviously, I can't actually issue him a ban.

He isn't "to blame for everything," he just made a mistake in this specific instance. Whether he decides to update his signature or not is his business. The world keeps spinning regardless.

My frustration disappears the moment I say what I need to say. Right now, I am perfectly at peace, which is my secret to looking so youthful for my age... ha, ha, ha.

Matthew Grant9 said:Good grief, were you trained in mining or something?😬 Sending you a big hug!😁

Seriously though, please try to stay patient and keep things civil, even when someone's response or opinion really gets under your skin.🙂
We aren't going to accomplish anything this way.

This is exactly why I stay out of politics. I live by a pretty simple rule: just be direct and say what’s on your mind—though I do try to sprinkle in a little wisdom and tact so I don't look like a total jerk. The beauty of this approach is that people never have to guess where I stand with them, and more importantly, I don't waste my energy playing mental games. It keeps my blood pressure manageable.

Anyway, ego went ahead and stripped "declared Muslim" from his signature, but Tyndall is still hanging around, waiting for the next ridiculous thing to happen.

mellowraven22 said:Look, you’re being totally shameless and dishonest right now. You’re twisting my words, straight up, and implying things I never even said. Just... please, don't do that anymore. It's not cool.

So what? If you honestly think my personal connections have anything to do with this, you're dead wrong. 😉

Matthew Grant9 I can't even begin to explain what I was thinking when I saw that... honestly, just wild. It’s like people don't realize how much this actually matters. You look at the way things are moving right now and you just have to wonder if anyone's actually paying attention. Probably not. Most people are just scrolling through, looking for the next distraction while everything else shifts under their feet. Anyway, my point being—it's all about the long game, even if it feels chaotic right now. Just my two cents.
Look, if we’re being honest and this whole thing was just some jokes that spiraled way too far out of hand... I mean, after everything that's been said on here, maybe the only thing actually worth doing is for both of you to just change your signatures. Seriously. On a personal level, I'm asking you guys. Please. Just do it.

I mean, I’ll probably be there, just waiting around for whatever ridiculous thing he says next to grace us all. This one is actually kind of my favorite.

Look, since signatures are basically nothing more than a few short lines, taking things out of context is pretty much inevitable at this point. Honestly, I’d go as far as to say it’s practically a tradition on most forums, whether you're looking at local boards or big international ones. It just happens.

Now, moving on to the actual issue...

So, you're an admin? If that's the case, you should really be setting the standard instead of acting like this. It feels like a mockery, or maybe just a subtle provocation—I can't quite tell which one it is, but it's definitely being done with a smirk. What happens if everyone starts quoting each other like this? There would be no end to it.

Look, as just your average regular user, I’m officially handing down a permanent ban until you fix that signature—and that goes for both you and ego!

mellowraven22 said:Look, you’re being totally shameless and dishonest right now. You’re twisting my words, straight up, and implying things I never even said. Just... please, don't do that anymore. It's not cool.

So what? If you honestly think my personal connections have anything to do with this, you're dead wrong. 😉

Matthew Grant9 I can't even begin to explain what I was thinking when I saw that... honestly, just wild. It’s like people don't realize how much this actually matters. You look at the way things are moving right now and you just have to wonder if anyone's actually paying attention. Probably not. Most people are just scrolling through, looking for the next distraction while everything else shifts under their feet. Anyway, my point being—it's all about the long game, even if it feels chaotic right now. Just my two cents.
Look, if we’re being honest and this whole thing was just some jokes that spiraled way too far out of hand... I mean, after everything that's been said on here, maybe the only thing actually worth doing is for both of you to just change your signatures. Seriously. On a personal level, I'm asking you guys. Please. Just do it.

I mean, I’ll probably be there, just waiting around for whatever ridiculous thing he says next to grace us all. This one is actually kind of my favorite.

Look, since signatures are basically nothing more than a few short lines, taking things out of context is pretty much inevitable at this point. Honestly, I’d go as far as to say it’s practically a tradition on most forums, whether you're looking at local boards or big international ones. It just happens.

I think this is my final word on this thread. Honestly, I'm exhausted by the back-and-forth—there isn't much left to say...

Look, I'm a Christian, so I don't have a habit of being "shameless, dishonest, or rude" by misrepresenting what people say; if anything, I might occasionally misunderstand someone. But let's look at the statement
"the garbage written in religious texts remains garbage and should be subject to sanctions as such." What exactly is that referring to?

Since I've asked both you and hollowtrucker77 several times whether any part of Christian doctrine, faith, or practice actually violates American law—and I haven't received an answer (though I know it doesn't)—it leads me to a pretty obvious conclusion. It seems expressing religious views is being shut down simply because it goes against the editorial policy of this forum, likely because it clashes with a humanist, naturalistic, or atheistic worldview.

So, when you talk about "garbage in religious books," you aren't talking about people doing stupid or awful things in the name of their faith (something we both agreed was wrong), but rather the actual doctrines and beliefs found within those scriptures.

Cheers, and sorry for drifting slightly off-topic!

hollowtrucker77 said:neither mellowraven22 nor I banned Christianity from the forum, we just banned you.
as for whether a certain belief is actually part of Christianity or if it's just your personal interpretation—well, who's crazy is who, you can figure that out with Christianity yourself; just make sure you stay in line with actual legal regulations and basic standards of civilized behavior.
in any case, you can't go around posting such garbage on the forum without consequences; whether Saint Peter, Allah, or Satan revealed something to you is entirely your own problem.

hollowtrucker77 said:neither mellowraven22 nor I banned Christianity from the forum, we just banned you.
as for whether a certain belief is actually part of Christianity or if it's just your personal interpretation—well, who's crazy is who, you can figure that out with Christianity yourself; just make sure you stay in line with actual legal regulations and basic standards of civilized behavior.
in any case, you can't go around posting such garbage on the forum without consequences; whether Saint Peter, Allah, or Satan revealed something to you is entirely your own problem.

That isn't true. You didn't ban Christianity; you banned me. I have no idea why there's such a desperate need to hide behind that logic, especially since mellowraven22 openly states that Christian doctrine contains vile elements, and I see you're saying the same thing. You didn't ban "my interpretation" of Christianity; you banned Christianity itself.

So, I'll ask you again: was any part of Christian doctrine in violation of U.S. law? It wasn't. So, what exactly are we debating here? Are we talking about how everything boils down to the editorial policy of Reddit, which (as Tyndy pointed out) has the right to manage its own moderation?

The conclusion I'm drawing is this: on this site, religious opinions aren't being suppressed because they violate the law (because they don't), but rather because they happen to irritate a certain humanist, naturalist, or atheistic worldview. If that's the case, then have some backbone and put it in the official site rules instead of hiding behind the legal code. If I had known that was the standard, I wouldn't have joined this community in the first place.

hollowtrucker77 said:So what, are we just going to declare it perfectly legal to draft contracts on a newborn calf next??
it says in the holy book
🙂

Let’s get one thing straight once and for all: laws are mandatory, whereas religions are optional.
Religion or faith is a deeply personal matter for the individual, while the law applies to everyone, period.
Hate speech is a violation of the law, and frankly, nobody cares what someone read in their holy book—or any other book, for that matter—whether they printed out their own copy or decided to proclaim it sacred...
Hiding behind imaginary authorities like that isn't going to fly here on Reddit, at least not as long as we live in a secular nation.

Is he in Islam?

Aside from that, I’m not actually asking for this kind of thing to be codified into law. My point is that a person should have the right to say that something is okay or not okay based on their own convictions, faith, or religion (regardless of the topic). Those are two fundamentally different things—demanding that something becomes official law versus simply expressing one's religious perspective on a matter.

hollowtrucker77 said:So what, are we just going to declare it perfectly legal to draft contracts on a newborn calf next??
it says in the holy book
🙂

Let’s get one thing straight once and for all: laws are mandatory, whereas religions are optional.
Religion or faith is a deeply personal matter for the individual, while the law applies to everyone, period.
Hate speech is a violation of the law, and frankly, nobody cares what someone read in their holy book—or any other book, for that matter—whether they printed out their own copy or decided to proclaim it sacred...
Hiding behind imaginary authorities like that isn't going to fly here on Reddit, at least not as long as we live in a secular nation.

Now we're just circling the drain again: has US law ever actually processed or declared any tenet of the Christian faith to be illegal??? I don't think so. So, it really all comes down to the moderation policy of Reddit rather than the Law itself.

Jeremy Young19 said:I’m genuinely curious: does an assertion like this, especially when you tack on the author's religious affiliation, qualify as inciting intolerance toward a specific faith group?

Well, obviously it isn't, but let's just sit tight and wait for an official answer...

mellowraven22 said:Where is this coming from now? Like, where did I even say something like that? No, what I'm saying is that "it's in the holy book" or "that's just my religious foundation" isn't an actual argument you can use when you're appealing a ban or a strike.

Why didn't you just say that from the jump? Instead, you guys just drag me through the mud on this topic after I already complained about the ban you gave me, and now we're doing it again here.

I just figured it was obvious to someone with over 1,000 posts.

Fair enough, though I didn't quite catch what you meant by: "OK, great, let's apply that same logic to other religions. If the Bible says homosexuality is a crime, then we'll sanction that too." It sounds like your "that" refers to "other religions."

mellowraven22 said:Where is this coming from now? Like, where did I even say something like that? No, what I'm saying is that "it's in the holy book" or "that's just my religious foundation" isn't an actual argument you can use when you're appealing a ban or a strike.

Why didn't you just say that from the jump? Instead, you guys just drag me through the mud on this topic after I already complained about the ban you gave me, and now we're doing it again here.

I just figured it was obvious to someone with over 1,000 posts.

Actually, it isn't. I read the rules ages ago, and not once did anyone explain my ban by citing "Reddit editorial policy." Usually, people bring up U.S. law or, as you mentioned, "the government."

IOW—the policy here seems to be to penalize anything that offends non-believers, atheists, or agnostics regarding institutional religions. In other words, institutional religions are allowed to state their views only up to the point where they don't offend "the government," whatever that's supposed to mean.
IOW—you've essentially made yourselves the law, which is fine, but then don't complain (not the admins, but I've seen users say it) about how free speech isn't allowed on other religious forums or how the users there are terrible, because you're doing the exact same thing.

And if I have to judge you by your own logic: since Mirzek's statement counts as hate speech, then go ahead and slap him with a 500-point penalty. And give ego and yourself 1,000 points (since you both have hate speech right there in your signatures), because you aren't just spreading those same views in every single post, you're actively provoking other Muslims. Are you going to do that? If not, why not?

mellowraven22 said:Alright, cool, so let's just apply that same logic to every other religion then. If the Bible says being gay is a crime, we should be handing out sanctions for that too, right?

Also, is any Christian doctrine actually subject to sanctions under US law? Let's not forget the church speaks out against homosexuality and corruption alike. Has any official complaint ever been filed against the church for that? Nope. The second the law states that some Christian article goes against this or that specific statute, Reddit would have the right to sanction posts about Christianity or Islam. Until then, this whole sanctioning thing you're doing is totally illegal and is basically just harassing believers and their views.

Look, some things that are perfectly legal under US law aren't allowed by the editorial policy of Reddit because it's a private site. The owner—who, in this case, acts through their representatives—can make whatever rules they want whenever they feel like it. If they suddenly decided, I don't know, to ban every single user whose username starts with the letters E or T, they are absolutely free to do that.

Are we seriously talking about sanctioning other religions based on Christian principles?

mellowraven22 said:Alright, cool, so let's just apply that same logic to every other religion then. If the Bible says being gay is a crime, we should be handing out sanctions for that too, right?

Also, is any Christian doctrine actually subject to sanctions under US law? Let's not forget the church speaks out against homosexuality and corruption alike. Has any official complaint ever been filed against the church for that? Nope. The second the law states that some Christian article goes against this or that specific statute, Reddit would have the right to sanction posts about Christianity or Islam. Until then, this whole sanctioning thing you're doing is totally illegal and is basically just harassing believers and their views.

Look, some things that are perfectly legal under US law aren't allowed by the editorial policy of Reddit because it's a private site. The owner—who, in this case, acts through their representatives—can make whatever rules they want whenever they feel like it. If they suddenly decided, I don't know, to ban every single user whose username starts with the letters E or T, they are absolutely free to do that.

Why didn't you just lead with that? Instead, you've been dragging this out, pivoting the conversation away from my initial complaint about being banned and turning it into whatever this is we're doing here now.

mellowraven22 said:So, I’m looking at your take—this idea that a sentence in egov's signature, which was actually written by mirzekv, should be off-limits for any forum mods because it's backed up by the Quran? Yeah, we aren't doing that. We aren't letting that slide, period. If anything, using that as an excuse just makes it look like pretty obvious hate speech. Using the "it's in the holy book" defense isn't going to work around here when it comes to stuff like this.

Assuming for a moment that it actually is written in the Quran—then sure, you're right.

Furthermore, is any tenet of the Christian faith subject to sanctions under American law? Let's keep in mind that the Church speaks out against homosexuality and corruption quite often. Has any legal complaint ever been filed against the Church for those stances? No. The moment the law dictates that a specific Christian doctrine violates one statute or another, then the forum has the right to sanction posts regarding Christianity or Islam. Until that happens, this kind of policing is essentially extrajudicial; it feels like harassment of believers and their deeply held views.

@mellowraven22 - let's not overcomplicate this too much

*true or false:
- Is your stance as an admin basically that certain things written in the Bible are considered abominations, and because they are abominations, they ought to be sanctioned?
- According to the Constitution, should specific parts of Christian doctrine be subject to legal punishment?

From the very start, you mentioned that Christian doctrine contains abominations, but you never explicitly said that performing uncivilized acts in the name of that doctrine is the issue. So, just to clarify—when we talk about "abominations," are we agreeing that it refers to both the actual atrocities committed in the name of the Christian faith (things like burning at the stake, imprisonments, the Crusades...) AND the core tenets of the faith itself? Is that what you're getting at?

mellowraven22 said:Look, I think saying "people with different sexualities shouldn't be lumped in with criminals" is pretty damn straightforward.

Sure, talk all you want, but once Christian doctrine and values actually become punishable by law, then we can have this conversation.

Christianity isn't some monolith where everything is either totally banned or totally allowed. It’s not one single block. There are parts that are fine, and there are parts that aren't. Simple as that.

Hey, I said that myself, so clearly we agree on that point. But did you actually grasp what I was getting at? Did you see the difference?

I got it. You're the one who didn't.

And what about the rest of my post? You didn't comment on any of it.

That's because it had nothing to do with the actual topic. Those were just my personal takes, and there's no point debating them here—especially when people just throw out cheerleading or go straight for personal attacks instead of addressing the argument. And honestly? The attacks are super obvious. It's more effort spent on creative trolling than anything else. This kind of lazy trolling is just insulting, really.🙂.

In your last paragraph, you claim this isn't your personal opinion, then immediately pivot to saying we shouldn't attack the person, only the viewpoint. But now you're saying "I think..."—which makes it your viewpoint, so what am I allowed to comment on here? You seem to miss the fact that it’s often impossible to decouple a person from their stance, especially in a discussion like this where you are personally presenting a specific view on religion. This isn't trolling (though it was a decent, if unsuccessful, attempt at a spin on your part); it's a discussion about the subject matter, which inherently involves you as an individual holding a certain position regarding faith.

So, where exactly is this "right" (to not be equated) written down? And where does it say that Christianity doesn't have the "right" to express its views on anything else? If you want to go that route, just state clearly that on this forum, one can only discuss Religion insofar as it doesn't infringe upon others, rather than treating "Religion" as a broad institutional belief system. You're stripping away the "right" for one group while granting it to another—on what basis?

mellowraven22 said:Look, I think saying "people with different sexualities shouldn't be lumped in with criminals" is pretty damn straightforward.

Sure, talk all you want, but once Christian doctrine and values actually become punishable by law, then we can have this conversation.

Christianity isn't some monolith where everything is either totally banned or totally allowed. It’s not one single block. There are parts that are fine, and there are parts that aren't. Simple as that.

Hey, I said that myself, so clearly we agree on that point. But did you actually grasp what I was getting at? Did you see the difference?

I got it. You're the one who didn't.

And what about the rest of my post? You didn't comment on any of it.

That's because it had nothing to do with the actual topic. Those were just my personal takes, and there's no point debating them here—especially when people just throw out cheerleading or go straight for personal attacks instead of addressing the argument. And honestly? The attacks are super obvious. It's more effort spent on creative trolling than anything else. This kind of lazy trolling is just insulting, really.🙂.

Says who? Is that your personal take? Or are you presenting it as an objective fact that somehow becomes off-limits for debate? Give me a break...

And regarding those parts that aren't "fine" (by whose metric, exactly?)—what happens next? Are they supposed to be banned or something?

Once again, you're spinning this as if I'm the one who missed the point. I didn't. There's a massive difference between presenting doctrine and committing atrocities in the name of that doctrine (things like burnings, imprisonments, torture, criminalization...). I'm asking you again: show me which Law, regulation, or whatever rule on this forum prohibits expressing Christian doctrine or subjects it to warnings or bans?

mellowraven22 said:Look, I think saying "people with different sexualities shouldn't be lumped in with criminals" is pretty damn straightforward.

Sure, talk all you want, but once Christian doctrine and values actually become punishable by law, then we can have this conversation.

Christianity isn't some monolith where everything is either totally banned or totally allowed. It’s not one single block. There are parts that are fine, and there are parts that aren't. Simple as that.

Hey, I said that myself, so clearly we agree on that point. But did you actually grasp what I was getting at? Did you see the difference?

I got it. You're the one who didn't.

And what about the rest of my post? You didn't comment on any of it.

That's because it had nothing to do with the actual topic. Those were just my personal takes, and there's no point debating them here—especially when people just throw out cheerleading or go straight for personal attacks instead of addressing the argument. And honestly? The attacks are super obvious. It's more effort spent on creative trolling than anything else. This kind of lazy trolling is just insulting, really.🙂.

Just look at my first paragraph.