Systemic censorship: Is free speech being targeted?

Even though I’ve already filed a complaint regarding the bans, I want to lay out my case one more time. It comes down to two red cards I received simply because I stood up for the reputation and honor of the Holy Father and the Catholic Church. I expressed my view that the attacks on the Pope regarding pedophilia are actually the result of a much deeper hatred toward the Church, specifically because its principles clash with neoliberal philosophy. And that’s what earned me a card on this post:

The second time, I attempted to provide a detailed rebuttal to Dawkins's slander against the Pope. Dawkins called the Pope an enemy of humanity, an enemy of education, a promoter of superstition, a criminal, and so on. Yet, the person who posted those insults didn't get a single card.

But when I stepped up to defend the Pope and respond to that previous user's comments, I was slapped with a card—again, under the guise of "trolling":

It seems obvious from where I'm sitting that the moderator Gregory Turner71 disagrees with my perspective. He clearly holds such contempt for my views that he hands out cards just because my way of thinking doesn't suit him.

Has it really come to this, where any argument made in favor of the Pope and the Church is penalized? Is it truly acceptable to call the Pope the worst names imaginable, yet the moment someone calls Dawkins a fool, a card follows immediately?

Alexander Hayes3 said:It seems pretty obvious from where I’m sitting—looking down from the cockpit, if you will—that the moderator Gregory Turner71 clearly doesn't buy what I'm selling. Honestly, it feels like there's such a level of disdain for my perspective that he's handing out warnings just because my way of thinking doesn't align with his own.

Yeah, this is exactly that kind of "psychoanalysis" approach that landed you that warning.

Gregory Turner71 said:Yeah, this is exactly the kind of "psychoanalysis" that landed you a ban.

And who exactly was I psychoanalyzing? Dawkins?

When people start mass-analyzing the Pope, suddenly everyone thinks it's fine. So, I guess it’s okay to psychoanalyze the Pope, but Dawkins is some kind of untouchable saint?

hollowtrucker77 said:Alexander Hayes3, the topic is about the Pope's visit to England, not about who the Pope is or who Dawkins is.
I pulled those posts because you aren't the only one who lost the plot here, but I’m asking everyone to please try to stay on track moving forward.
In fact, almost everyone in this thread has been flagged for extra warnings lately.

Look, Dawkins's comments were brought up specifically as a reaction to the Pope's visit to England. It isn't really a tangent—that quote from Dawkins is directly tied to the whole Papal procession in the United Kingdom.

But fine, I'll be more careful about staying on topic in the future.

Best regards,

hollowtrucker77 said: I've cleared the warnings. You aren't the only one who lost their cool here, but I’m asking everyone to make a genuine effort to stay on topic moving forward.

You just took my warning away, and now I’m getting hit with it again—on the exact same post. I can’t be the only one who sees this happening. It feels like we're watching a slow-motion train wreck where everyone is too busy arguing over semantics to notice the engine is on fire. Take the recent discussions regarding the Catholic Church's stance on modern social shifts. It’s becoming increasingly difficult to ignore how much friction there is between traditional doctrine and the way people actually live their lives today. I remember sitting in a small parish back in Ohio, listening to an old priest explain why certain traditions were non-negotiable, and even then, you could feel the tension brewing. Now, that tension has reached a breaking point. It’s not just about religion, though. It’s about the loss of a shared framework. When you look at how much influence figures like Dawkins have had on the cultural zeitgeist, you realize we aren't just debating theology anymore; we're debating the very foundation of how we perceive truth. People want certainty, but they also want total autonomy, and those two things are fundamentally at odds. The constant bickering on these boards doesn't help. We spend all our time nitpicking each other's logic instead of addressing the actual crisis of identity facing many Americans right now. It’s exhausting. from the second moderator (Brenda Cook4...but this time, I’m going to provide a much broader and more imaginative explanation:

It’s just trolling without any actual arguments. Instead of engaging, they just resort to patronizing you, acting like everything you say is stupid or "kindergarten level." It’s nothing but constant, baseless attacks.

Look, I know you're swamped with work and endless complaints from everyone else, but could you take a quick look at this post? I need an honest opinion: is this just a baseless attack without any actual arguments? I made a point to stay civil and address their points sentence by sentence, following the rules properly.

It seems this just confirms the general state of affairs regarding religion today: you can slander the Pope as much as you want without any fear of consequences. You can call him a pedophile, a criminal, an enemy of humanity, a Nazi, or an antisemite... yet somehow, Dawkins remains beyond reproach.

Alexander Hayes3 said:I literally just got my post pulled, and then I get hit again—on the exact same thread ( )—by another moderator (Brenda Cook4), though this time they used a much broader, more "creative" justification:

It’s pure trolling without any actual counter-arguments, just condescension and talking down to me like, “this is stupid, this is kindergarten level”—just straight-up insults, one after another.

Look, I know you're swamped with work and dealing with endless complaints, but please, just read this post and tell me: is this really an attack devoid of substance? I was being perfectly civil, addressing everything point by point.

To me, this just highlights the general vibe over on the Religion board, where people can slander the Pope to their heart's content without any fear of consequences : calling him a pedophile, a criminal, an enemy of humanity, a Nazi, an antisemite... while Dawkins is treated like some untouchable saint.

So, what are you saying? That we aren't allowed to comment on public figures on this forum? If that's your take, then you clearly don't have a very clear grasp of freedom of speech and expression... yet you have no problem starting threads anathematizing atheists and secularism.

Regarding the flagged post—you respond to almost every single sentence with an attack. Everything is "kindergarten stuff," everything is "stupid," everything is "pointless." And then you wrap it up with that previous line about "how is it even possible to speak ill of the Pope." You're simply patronizing your interlocutor, looking down from a height, and instead of offering counter-arguments to potential claims, you mostly just repeat what’s already been said.

Dawkins isn't some "untouchable saint," but it seems like you'd prefer if he were—say, like the Pope. Well, sorry, but that's not happening.

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.

Roger Barrett2 said:Bravo, Brenda Cook4, you’ve outdone yourself again. I’m not even getting into the heart of the debate or Alexander Hayes3’s specific way of being himself, but there isn't anything in that particular post about anathematizing atheism or attacking everything by calling it a "kindergarten." He only uses the word stupidity twice.

Also, I had no idea that using the format of a question was considered a personal attack now.

Ever since I joined this Religion forum, you’ve consistently voted me as the absolute worst moderator on the site. Congratulations.

Alexander Hayes3's opening post basically starts off exactly like that—it was just mentioned in passing to show how he assumes some things can be criticized (of course they can) while others simply cannot.

Anyone can read the linked post. The bottom line is that any criticism leveled at the Pope is dismissed as "stupidity level N."

It’s particularly touching when Alexander Hayes3 asks, "how can anyone slander the Pope," when just a few sentences earlier he claims, "From this, more than anything else, it is obvious what a total moron 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 on the worst moderator on the board—especially one who penalized you over those comments regarding homosexuals.

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,

I’m not sure if you grasp the situation here. My responses in that controversial thread were directed at Dawkins's claims, not at any specific user on this forum. I am effectively in a debate with Dawkins himself, not some random guy online. Because of that, I find it completely incomprehensible that you, acting as a moderator, feel the need to defend Dawkins's honor by handing out warnings.

Brenda Cook4 said:The point is that any criticism leveled at the Pope is immediately dismissed as nothing more than "stupid" or "nonsense."

No, that’s not what I meant. My point was that calling Ratzinger an enemy of education is just plain stupid. nLook, I’ve spent years digging through almost everything that tenured professor has published since 1968. I don't just skim the surface; I follow his speeches, his addresses, and every single encyclical like they're daily news. So, if you need me to justify having an opinion, here it is: Pope Ratzinger isn't some enemy of education. In fact, he is the absolute antithesis of that.

To suggest that Ratzinger is an enemy of education is simply absurd. In my opinion. It’s honestly so profoundly stupid that I find it hard to even wrap my head around such pure nonsense. Does having this opinion mean I deserve a red card?

I’m done arguing with you. I'll just wait until... hollowtrucker77 I’ll take a moment to actually look at what's going on here and let things play out exactly how he wants them to. As for me, I'm done. I won't be posting in this thread anymore, and I'm certainly not interested in arguing with anyone.

Peace be with you.

Alexander Hayes3 said:@ Brenda Cook4,

I’m not sure if it’s sinking in that my replies in that controversial post were aimed at Dawkins's claims, not at anyone else on this forum. I’m essentially picking a fight with Dawkins here, not some random user. So, it feels incredibly bizarre that you, acting as a moderator, feel compelled to defend Dawkins's honor by handing out red cards.

No, that misses the point entirely. I said calling Ratzinger an enemy of education was "stupidity at its f-ing peak." As someone who has read nearly every book this long-standing university professor has published from '68 to today—and as someone who regularly follows all his speeches, addresses, encyclicals, and audiences—I believe I have every right to hold the opinion that Pope Ratzinger isn't an enemy of education, but quite the opposite.

Therefore, claiming that Ratzinger is an enemy of education in my view is such sheer nonsense that it's hard to imagine anyone uttering something even more senseless. Do I really deserve a red card just for having that opinion?

And look, I have no intention of arguing with you anymore. I'll wait for hollowtrucker77 to find a moment to look over what's actually happening here, and then we can let him decide. I won't be posting any more on this thread, nor will I argue with anyone else.

Peace be with you.

You weren't carded for your opinions—you were carded for trolling. When someone makes a claim and you respond with nothing but constant "stupidity at its f-ing peak" remarks, that isn't a discussion.

On top of that, you included this blatant example of being condescending in that very same post:

Unknown said:Pope Ratzinger, in his blind rage, had the audacity to compare atheists to Nazis.
Alexander Hayes3
Pope Ratzinger and blind rage in the same sentence? And then you expect to be taken seriously? Have you perhaps actually read the entire speech?

But most importantly, this closing P.S.:

P.S. It is interesting how much hate speech, incitement of religious intolerance, slander against the Holy Father, and the spreading of absolute nonsense regarding the Church and Catholicism is permitted here...

..so, your argument—when it isn't just pure nonsense or playground behavior—is that it's all hate speech, that it supposedly incites religious intolerance, and finally, that everything said was just "spreading stupidity and nonsense."

Pis&prosper

Brenda Cook4 said:Plus, you’ve got this whole condescending tone going on in that very same post:

Good grief, was that really enough to warrant a red card? I mean, wow... 🙏 👍

Alexander Hayes3, just a little heads-up: don't go stirring the pot—there's really no point... because the "religion" subforum here isn't actually meant for debating theology, it's more about keeping those kinds of debates under control... 🙂

We really ought to stick to sanctioning actual hate speech. Just hand out cards for the real stuff. Honestly, the way Alexander Hayes3 and Lastan got flagged was just silly—for God's sake, this isn't some prestigious research institute like MIT or NASA; it’s a forum. It’s a virtual town square where any idiot should be allowed to voice an opinion.

Wasting energy reporting people for everything else is just beneath us. If I think someone is making garbage arguments or just talking nonsense that has nothing to do with the topic, then fine—their own post is the punishment. They get deleted or ignored by anyone whose intellect I actually respect.

Look, if someone gets a kick out of acting like a preschool teacher, who am I to stop them?

I'll probably just end up getting accused of trolling myself. 😲

Tyler Bishop56 said:We should only be sanctioning actual hate speech. Give people warnings for that, not for the kind of nonsense that got Alexander Hayes3 and Lastan in trouble. For God's sake, this isn't some academic institution. It’s a forum—a digital town square where any idiot should have the right to voice an opinion.

Oh, really? Then why on earth am I sitting here with about five pages of cardboard? 🤷 I'm not even complaining. 🙂

Once, I got roasted over Bridget Jones's underwear. Did I push back? Not even a little bit. 🙂

Tyler Bishop56 said:They'll probably just accuse me of trolling. 😲

Not a chance. The second I mention underwear, I get another one of those love letters from that murderer. 😁

Look, I’m not exactly a religious person, nor do I go looking for spiritual guidance, but this entire thread is nothing more than a massive display of moderator incompetence and sheer arrogance.

I forced myself to sit through this entire post, and I’m still sitting here wondering why on earth he got banned. If we’re calling this trolling, then 99% of everything posted here is just trolling. The guy literally stated that Hitler's Catholicism says more about him than it does about Catholicism, which is a perfectly valid point. He also buried that nonsense about being an enemy of education and all that other stuff.
This ban is just another ridiculous move.

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

dustypanther6 said:I actually made an effort to read this entire post through, and I must admit, I am still struggling to grasp the reasoning behind the ban. If this was intended as trolling, then it seems like nearly every single post on this platform falls under that category. The individual clearly stated that Hitler's Catholicism serves as a reflection of his own character rather than a commentary on the faith itself, which is a perfectly valid distinction. He also dismantled the absurd notion that education is somehow an enemy, among other points.
This disciplinary action feels like yet another instance of senselessness.

xx