Posts by Roger Barrett2

mellowraven22 said:Yeah, even a worldview can be offensive, especially when you start dragging sexual orientation into the same bucket as white-collar crime. Look, you can choose not to be a criminal, but you can't just choose not to be gay. That's the big difference right there. If some specific belief system tries to claim those two things are equal, then the problem lies with that belief system—it just doesn't mesh with basic civilized values.

c) you clearly don't get the distinction between preaching Christian doctrine and doing disgusting things in its name. Want an example? Being gay being a sin is the same as corruption. Throwing gays in jail is doing something gross in the name of "correct" doctrine. Locking up corrupt people isn't. Clearer now?

Justifying anti-civilization or inhumane actions by saying they're written in some holy book just doesn't fly.

The phrase "core civilizational values" is basically a massive fill-in-the-blank placeholder. People just use it to mean whatever they want it to mean at any given moment. Let me be clear here: is there actually any part of Christian doctrine that is outlawed by U.S. law or somehow poses a threat to the state? No. It simply doesn't exist, so let's stop dancing around the issue. You can start making these arguments once Christian teachings and values actually become something you can be prosecuted for under the law. Until then, it's all just noise.

mellowraven22 said:Yeah, even a worldview can be offensive, especially when you start dragging sexual orientation into the same bucket as white-collar crime. Look, you can choose not to be a criminal, but you can't just choose not to be gay. That's the big difference right there. If some specific belief system tries to claim those two things are equal, then the problem lies with that belief system—it just doesn't mesh with basic civilized values.

c) you clearly don't get the distinction between preaching Christian doctrine and doing disgusting things in its name. Want an example? Being gay being a sin is the same as corruption. Throwing gays in jail is doing something gross in the name of "correct" doctrine. Locking up corrupt people isn't. Clearer now?

Justifying anti-civilization or inhumane actions by saying they're written in some holy book just doesn't fly.

That’s exactly what I was getting at, and it sounds like we’re definitely on the same page there. But I have to wonder—did you actually catch the nuance of what I was saying? There's a pretty significant distinction between our positions that I think we might be glossing over.

And what about the rest of my post? You didn't really say anything about it.

mellowraven22 said:But it wasn't even banned.

The thing is, nasty stuff written in holy books is still nasty stuff, and it should be subject to consequences just like anything else.

A few things regarding your statement here:

a) When you guys were giving me the runaround about equating homosexuality with corruption (since both are sins), I argued that you were punishing my worldview rather than me personally—because I haven't incited anything, insulted anyone, or disparaged... well, anyone. You’ve finally admitted it now.

b) Religion ceases to be a place of tolerance because of this. Who are you to decide, based on your own worldview (whether it's atheism or whatever), what constitutes "garbage" in Islam or Christianity??? Besides, what Christian "garbage" has actually been sanctioned by American law? FYI—there isn't any, because Christianity doesn't threaten a secular society at all—except perhaps in your head and clearly here on Reddit.

c) You clearly don't grasp the distinction between presenting Christian doctrine and committing atrocities in the name of that very same doctrine. Want an example? Being gay is considered a sin, just like corruption is. Throwing gay people in prison is committing an atrocity in the name of "correct" doctrine. Locking up corrupt officials is not. Is that clear enough?

d) If we start labeling disagreements over worldviews as "garbage," then what do we do about atheist "garbage"?

And finally, what about ego? Is his signature a provocation or not? Of course, you'll say it isn't. Pathetic. And scandalous!

Ultimately, is this the official stance of Reddit or just yours? Because if it is, then go ahead and sanction every "atrocity" you don't like, so we "scumbags" don't have to deal with your "disgusting" version of a supposedly tolerant debate.

Nicholas King said:I am firmly convinced that the whole reason they chose to put that specific quote in their signature is because they want to spread the teachings of the Quran.

No matter how much we try to play dumb or act like we don't see what's happening, quoting someone else's words in a signature—well, obviously not *every* single quote—is perhaps the most unsubstantiated way to mock someone.

Look, putting that statement in egov's signature is clearly a provocation aimed at Muslims, but if what that user wrote is actually a core teaching of the Quran, then the statement itself shouldn't be sanctioned.

If that’s what the Bible actually teaches, then we aren't talking about an insult; we're just stating a religious position or doctrine. Since I haven't spent much time studying the Bible myself, I wouldn't be in any position to judge whether something is offensive or just a matter of faith.

There you go, baby, looks like your fan club is growing by the day...👍

Brenda Cook4 said:Alexander Hayes3's opening post starts out exactly like that, though he only mentions it in passing to illustrate how certain things are deemed up for criticism (which they are, obviously) while others aren't.

Anyone can read the linked post. The whole point is that any critique of the Pope is dismissed as "pure nonsense."

It’s particularly touching when Alexander Hayes claims "anyone can slander the Pope," even though just a few sentences earlier he says, "From this, more than anything else, it's obvious what an idiot Dawkins is. Because only an enormous fool could write about and criticize someone they know absolutely nothing about."

Of course, you’re entitled to your opinion of the worst moderator on this site—especially the one who handed you a ban over some comments regarding homosexuality.

I'm just saying that the post you flagged Alexander Hayes for doesn't actually support your reasoning. As I mentioned before, I haven't been following this specific thread closely and I don't want to get into Alexander Hayes's particular writing style, but in the actual post being linked, there isn't a single thing that aligns with why you decided to issue a sanction. But hey, that's just my take.

My view of you as the absolute worst mod is subjective, mostly because I’ve had more run-ins with you than with any other moderator here. I see that Lastan gets worked up over VeronikaN, and no Nick was constantly going back and forth with Shady. It seems everyone has their own "favorite" target. Well, you're mine.

That ban regarding the discussion on homosexuality? That water flowed under the bridge a long time ago. I'm not dwelling on it anymore. However, for reasons I can't quite pin down, I notice you occasionally fall into the same pattern of sanctioning things that shouldn't be sanctioned. And then I push back a little—there you go!

Brenda Cook4 said:So you’re actually suggesting we aren't allowed to comment on public figures here? If that's your take, then your understanding of freedom of speech and expression is a bit shaky... though, of course, you have no trouble starting threads anathematizing atheists and secularism.

Regarding the "cardboard" nature of the post—you seem to respond to almost every single sentence with a fresh attack, labeling everything as "child's play," calling things stupid, or dismissing them as pointless. You wrap it all up with that earlier line about how it's somehow "unacceptable" to speak ill of the Pope. Honestly, you just patronize your interlocutors, talking down to them instead of offering actual counterarguments to the points raised. You mostly just repeat what’s already been said.

Dawkins isn't some "sacred cow," but you clearly wish he were—say, if he were the Pope. Well, sorry, but that's not happening.

Bravo, Brenda Cook4, you’ve really outdone yourself this time. I'm not even getting into the subject matter or Alexander Hayes3's specific way of writing, but there is absolutely nothing in that post about anathematizing atheism, nor is he attacking every sentence or declaring everything to be "child's play." He only uses the word "stupid" twice.

Also, I wasn't aware that using a question was considered a form of verbal assault.

Since I've been around this Religion sub, you've consistently earned my vote for the worst moderator on the board. Congratulations.

Steven Clark2 said:You don't need to, because you aren't an idiot. Your mistake was simply a clumsy choice of words, which resulted in you being docked 500 points you didn't truly deserve. Even if you did earn them, someone could have been more reasonable and said, "Alright, we went a bit overboard there; just be more careful with your phrasing next time."

In truth, I would be quite interested to see whether, based on some standard in Rhode Island or similar, statements claiming the Catholic Church is a "criminal organization," or calling the cross "the greatest evil," could be considered serious offenses. There have been similar remarks made quite nonchalantly under the Religion category, where people seemingly felt they were being more popular by making the most provocative statements regarding Christianity (though that really just refers to Catholics, whereas Roger Barrett2 is, incredibly, a Protestant). I am genuinely curious if there are any legal grounds to view such comments as insults or as speech that incites intolerance and hostility.

steelskipper5, there is no point in labeling things that way, because you aren't correct. You cannot justify making those kinds of statements just because of your personal views on faith, especially not under the rather flimsy excuse of "free speech." Of course, you might even be right on the facts—but that isn't the main topic here—and that style of rhetoric only serves to discredit you. I honestly don't care how you take this, or if you get angry; I certainly don't harbor any ill will toward you, nor should you feel the need to lecture me on what does NOT belong in a conversation accepted by civilized society (furthermore, such speech can actually be actionable) or within this forum (personally, as an admin, I would delete posts like those without a second thought).

Well, look, maybe I am. I accepted my punishment quite willingly because I was reacting to a wrongful ban that Ego handed out to a user on a thread about the Legalization of H. relationship. Then, I ended up getting hit with the exact same ban by Brenda Cook4.

Look, we have moderators here on Religion who live in a deeply Catholic environment—people who actually understand the concept of "sin." When I draw a comparison between homosexuality at the level of sin versus any other immoral act (regardless of whether it’s legally punishable or not)—which is also considered a sin according to the Letter (and sin is always something detrimental to both the individual and society)—that's when I get banned. After I spent three or four rounds explaining my point extensively and thoroughly (after all, anyone can misinterpret things or make a mistake, right?), I just got ignored. It seems pretty obvious that the goal of moderating Religion, in my case, isn't fairness, but rather the refusal of the mods to admit they've made a mistake.

The reason I got flagged was that I allegedly incited animosity and equated being gay with criminal corruption. I didn't incite animosity, nor did I equate homosexuality with corruption, except on the level of sin (both are sins in Godly eyes). John Doe's example is a glaring instance of inciting animosity (he outright insulted all Catholics) and equating the Church with criminal activity, yet somehow, that's perfectly acceptable.

So, am I really the only idiot here? Am I the only one seeing the problem?

Basically, based on your own criteria, either penalize John Doe or apologize to me.

Brenda Cook4 said:He didn't get any 500 points at all...

Yeah, you're right—it was 100 points, not 500.

Brenda Cook4 said:Well, look, someone could technically sue steelskipper5 for libel (if what he said was untrue) through a private lawsuit, but he has every right to express his opinion regarding an organization (rather than individuals), especially within the context of the thread he's responding to. On the other hand, you can't engage in discrimination or demonize people based on their sexual orientation—that's illegal under U.S. law, and it violates forum rules too. So, as far as I'm concerned, no points deducted and no ban for you.

Aha, I see where you're coming from. So, I'm allowed to call Step Out and Contra criminal organizations because they happen to work against the interests of the state (regardless of what that entails), but I can't say anything about gay people as individuals? Is that really the point you're trying to make?

So, if I say being gay is a sin in Godly eyes, just like XYZ2 other things (regardless of whether those things are illegal or not), that counts as discrimination. Yet, when he calls the entire Catholic Church a criminal organization (which, by definition, means a group of people organized to commit crimes), that somehow isn't discrimination? Clearly, I need to head back to school because I'm obviously an idiot.

"Demonization"? Please, let's not throw labels around so lightly. Not every disagreement constitutes demonization, and just because we view something as bad doesn't automatically mean we're demonizing it.

It isn't illegal to be gay in America, so there’s no such thing as discrimination on my part; I haven't forbidden anyone from being who they are, nor am I calling for them to be prosecuted. I simply stated that I believe it’s detrimental to society (much like XYZ2 other issues) and that I don't believe they should be granted the right to marriage or any other kind of marital union. To me, it just doesn't make sense.

steelskipper5 said:I am not equating an institution with criminal activity. I am arguing that a specific institution is a criminal organization—meaning, instead of actually doing what they claim to stand for, they operate for their own gain at everyone else's expense. And since there's more and more evidence showing organized cover-ups of crimes (like pedophilia, for instance), I think that claim, strictly speaking, holds water. It doesn't really matter that most of this is being proven in foreign countries, because the Catholic Church is one single, universal, and indivisible entity.
The only conclusion I'm drawing from all this is that I disagree with people who view it as some wonderful, beautiful organization, and I don't want to give them my money. Your post was all about limiting the human rights of people you happen to deem immoral.

By that logic, I guess my comment about the Pope's signature is probably offensive and punishable too.

The context doesn't really matter here—and honestly, it isn't as different from what you think as you might imagine, but I don't have the time to dive into that right now. What matters is that you labeled the Catholic Church a criminal organization—essentially an IBM group of people teaming up specifically to carry out criminal activities. On top of that, you aren't distinguishing between individuals; you're just throwing everyone into one big bucket.

In my view, neither your remark about the Pope, nor my post regarding gay rights, nor your claim that the Church is a criminal organization should be considered punishable. However, given the specific criteria the moderators set and the admins backed, I fully expect you to get sanctioned.

steelskipper5 said:Look, if what I said is actually against the rules, then I’m assuming it’s just as illegal to call CNN, Duke Energy, or Amtrak corrupt outfits—or to label some political party a criminal organization, which is a phrase you see popping up on this site all the time. Or at least it used to be, anyway... I haven't been keeping super close tabs on things lately.

Fine. If my comment really was such a massive violation, then whatever.
But you, Epignosis, should probably realize that your own statement was straight-up hate speech and honestly deserved a 500-point penalty or even a police report.

I went to great lengths to explain exactly what I said and how I said it, making sure even someone who wasn't paying attention could follow my logic. There is absolutely no basis for claiming my post was hate speech or warranted a legal report. I have no intention of repeating that entire explanation again.

Look, if I'm not allowed to equate the immoral actions of an individual with criminal activity, then you shouldn't be equating certain institutions with criminal activity either. That is my entire point.

It's quite something that you're so eager to hand out sanctions—let's just see what the moderators have to say about this whole situation.

Who’s actually losing their mind here—is it me, or is it everyone else?

So, here we go. Our friend John Doe decides to equate the Church to a criminal organization, claiming, "I honestly think we're talking about a literal criminal enterprise working against the people" I flagged the post, yet it stays up without any penalty whatsoever.

Fast forward back two months, when I made a comparison linking homosexuality to corruption What did I get for it? A 100-point deduction and a three-day ban with the explanation: "Reason: inciting animosity by equating homosexuality with: 'Yes, gays corrupt society just like corruption, prostitution, and alcoholics do.'"

Look, corruption is a crime punishable by law, whereas being gay isn't. How am I supposed to make that distinction without hitting a wall? Now, John Doe does the exact same thing—inciting animosity by comparing the Church to a criminal element—and suddenly everyone is looking the other way.

I'm calling for consistency: either he gets the same 100-point hit and a three-day ban, or you apologize to me for the mistake made in my case. That’s the only fair way to handle this. There is no middle ground.

Gregory Turner71 said:"It's bullshit," or to put it more politely, "it's bad." Personally, I don't see why that's such a big deal. And no, you wouldn't give me a red card just for saying that.

I think this really goes back to that old saying, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"—or in this case, truth is. If I were to compare being gay to corruption on the grounds that they're both sins in the eyes of God, you’d probably throw a penalty flag on me. But when Slat compares religious parents to anatomy, he isn't trying to be offensive; he's just using colorful, literary language to make a point. It's about expression, plain and simple.

Anyway, thanks for the response!

Topic: Raising children with faith

Is this level of discourse actually allowed here? We’ve been debating conservative parents who send their kids off to those summer religious retreats—Camp Woodstock. Sweet and I are somewhat in agreement that what happens at those camps is problematic, but then he goes ahead and labels the parents themselves, saying, "Any parent who would do that to their kid is a total piece of work!!"

If that kind of language is permitted (I reported the post in question, but nothing was done), does that mean I can turn around and say that parents who adopt through same-sex couples are also just total ......? Personally, I feel like that would cross the line into being offensive.

I’m really just trying to understand the posting guidelines here.

rowdyhawk10 said:Forgive me, but the way you present a Bible verse and then attempt to justify it feels a bit like an evasion. Personally, I am against homosexuality, just as you read on that page, and I agree that it is contrary to nature. However, if I were to quote the Quran, I suppose I would also deserve a warning. I hope you see the distinction. We don't live in a theocracy, nor is this a strictly religious forum. No one has the right to express views that contravene the laws of the United States or international human rights charters, which bind America as well, even if such views appeared a thousand times in the Bible or the honorable Quran. We all agreed to abide by those rules when we registered for this forum.🙂

Okay, if I did that, I apologize, and I truly am sorry... I will go back and check your posts. It is possible I mistook you for another individual who is also a priest. If that is the case, I will apologize to you—not just once, but a thousand times if necessary.

The Christian view that homosexuality is unnatural doesn't violate any laws in America—at least, not as things stand right now. Even if federal laws were to shift, the Church isn't going to suddenly change its tune just to stay current. They’ll keep preaching against homosexuality, theft, lying, greed, and immorality in all its forms. At the end of the day, their moral compass isn't dictated by whatever happens to be trending in the legal system.

rowdyhawk10 As I was saying:


Look, if I messed up, then I’m sorry—I truly am. I’ll go back through your posts right now to set things straight. It’s entirely possible I mixed you up with another priest I was talking to earlier. If that’s the case, please accept my apologies. I’m more than willing to say sorry a thousand times over if that's what it takes to make it right.

Hey, don't sweat it—mistakes happen to the best of us!

rowdyhawk10 said:In my opinion, the moderators were technically correct to issue Roger Barrett2 a ban, though I find the severity of the penalty a bit underwhelming. Honestly, they should have gone with at least a 500-day suspension. He essentially equated homosexuals with the absolute worst elements of society—people like thieves or those involved in bestiality. That’s particularly problematic given that Roger Barrett2 has a track record of hate speech, especially regarding his support for destroying mosques in Canada, his spreading of Russian disinformation, and several other instances.

Even hollowtrucker77 agrees with this. Here. That was an excellent response, quoting: I suppose when someone assumes they can just blather on about whatever comes to mind—insulting others while hiding behind the excuse of "God told me this way"—it really just comes down to poor math on the part of whoever calculated that logic in the first place.It basically boils down to this: even if the Quran states that a thief should have their hands cut off, you don't get to advocate for that kind of practice on a platform like Reddit. It’s the same deal with the Bible. While it is true that certain lifestyles are equated with criminals or bestiality within those texts, a user doesn't have the right to present those views as their own personal stance here.

A moderator's job is to react to low-quality, inhumane posts, not to be an expert in exegesis. Even when it comes to actual knowledge, I suspect Reddit probably understands Christianity better than 99.9 percent of the Christians on this forum. ☕

So, what is the actual point of a forum titled Religion - Institutional Belief?
If Christian or Muslim viewpoints can't be expressed here—if they belong in the mainstream media, at theological conferences, or in public squares, but not on this Forum—then what exactly are we doing here?

rowdyhawk10 said:In my opinion, the moderators were technically correct to issue Roger Barrett2 a ban, though I find the severity of the penalty a bit underwhelming. Honestly, they should have gone with at least a 500-day suspension. He essentially equated homosexuals with the absolute worst elements of society—people like thieves or those involved in bestiality. That’s particularly problematic given that Roger Barrett2 has a track record of hate speech, especially regarding his support for destroying mosques in Canada, his spreading of Russian disinformation, and several other instances.

Even hollowtrucker77 agrees with this. Here. That was an excellent response, quoting: I suppose when someone assumes they can just blather on about whatever comes to mind—insulting others while hiding behind the excuse of "God told me this way"—it really just comes down to poor math on the part of whoever calculated that logic in the first place.It basically boils down to this: even if the Quran states that a thief should have their hands cut off, you don't get to advocate for that kind of practice on a platform like Reddit. It’s the same deal with the Bible. While it is true that certain lifestyles are equated with criminals or bestiality within those texts, a user doesn't have the right to present those views as their own personal stance here.

A moderator's job is to react to low-quality, inhumane posts, not to be an expert in exegesis. Even when it comes to actual knowledge, I suspect Reddit probably understands Christianity better than 99.9 percent of the Christians on this forum. ☕

Look, rowdyhawk10, there are two things here we need to clear up. First, when I grouped homosexuality with those other issues, I was simply stating that both are sins—things that are unnatural and wrong from a divine perspective. I wasn't making a comparison between people, nor was I calling for gay individuals to face criminal prosecution the way we would for rapists.

Second—where on earth are you getting this idea that I supported tearing down mosques in Canada or pushing fake news from Russia? You’ve clearly mistaken me for someone else. The only topic I've ever touched on regarding Islam was the debate over banning minarets in Switzerland, where I actually voiced my opposition to that ban. Feel free to dig through my post history and see for yourself. Hate speech? I’ve never once been flagged for hate speech on this forum, so again, you've got the wrong guy.

Edit: You can also check my infraction history; you'll see that not a single one of them is for hate speech.

hollowtrucker77 said:Roger Barrett2, have you finally realized that you're the only one left who thinks Twitter actually messed this up?
And regarding what the moderators are doing... well, they're moderating.
They’re just doing their jobs by keeping the subforum readable and preventing a flood of nonsense from people who desperately want to be seen as religious, pious, or deeply spiritual.
Look, you don't need to belong to some specific, recognized religious denomination to recognize when someone is being outright insulting or intentionally trying to start a fight.
A moderator's actual job is to remain objective, not to take sides or try to "understand" where one particular group is coming from.

The issue isn't that I got a card but that my card and ban haven't been lifted even after I explained my position on Reddit. It’s perfectly clear from Romans 1 that when Paul lists sins, he includes homosexuality along with disobeying parents, greed, and so on. From that perspective, every sin listed there is harmful to society and represents unnatural behavior. This isn't about criminalizing one thing or another—and honestly, I'm surprised no one has even commented on that.

My position isn't an insult or an attempt to stir up trouble; it's simply presenting a viewpoint in accordance with Christian doctrine.

That’s why I asked whether it’s better to have insiders or outsiders serving as mods.

Brenda Cook4 said:I really have to bring up an answer I saw once on Yahoo Answers—it was pretty much the same way I felt about this—and it goes something like this:

This isn't a "religious forum." It's a forum designed for discussing religious topics. Atheism is one of those topics. It’s a lack of belief in God, not a lack of belief in Linux operating systems or The slow food movement, so discussions regarding atheism definitely belong here.

* This isn't a "religious forum." It's a forum for discussing religious themes. Atheism falls under that umbrella. It represents a lack of belief in God, not a lack of belief in Linux operating systems or The slow food movement, which is why conversations about atheism fit perfectly in this section.

If that's the case, then they might as well just rename the whole subforum to Religious Forum or something along those lines.