Banned for 3-4 years because a former mod couldn't stand religion...

To the Honorable Board of Pardons, 🙂

I’ve lost track of exactly how long it’s been, but there has been a persistent bias against my profile within the religion section for a verryyyyyyyy long time.

If I had to guess, it’s been at least three years... 😲
I would love for an official review committee to look into this and report back to the community, as I am quite curious to see the findings myself.

(For those interested, I could provide a detailed breakdown of the situation, but frankly, it feels irrelevant now. It wasn't about the facts—which seem to hold little weight anymore anyway—but rather a case of "moderator syndrome," where someone simply wanted to hunt down and ban any user they personally disliked.

That predatory moderator moved on long ago, just as Buddha predicted, but the lamb, 🙂 hiddenpuma75 😁, remains, along with that lingering prejudice.

It seems a moderator's personal distaste can easily manufacture a reason for conflict.
However, since Buddha teaches in the Diamond Sutra that moderators are transient while the users and the forum itself endure, perhaps there is enough goodwill in the new, wise leadership to finally lift this undeserved penalty from me.

I would like to submit the following mitigating circumstances for your consideration:

a) My clean record, which can be verified by any local police department or even the FBI.

b) My graying hair and the simple fact that I am getting older.

c) The sheer volume of engaging topics I have introduced in the religion section—essentially my overall contribution
to this forum through numerous long-form essays written with a refined touch.🙂

d) The fact that I have been a member of this forum for a long, long, long time.

e) I have never belonged to a political party, a church, a sports club, an association, a clan, a clique, the moderation team, or the administration.

I am neither a soldier, nor a mercenary, nor an aggressor.
I haven't voted for the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party, though I did cast my ballot.

In short, I have always been, and will always remain, an SELF-SUFFICIENT THINKER. 🙂

Hoping for a favorable resolution,

Respectfully submitted,

hiddenpuma75 TM

I am wholeheartedly backing the request made by hiddenpuma75.

He hasn't actually been banned because of his obnoxious behavior—it’s more about the moderator's blatant favoritism ☕

Gregory Turner71 said:He hasn't been banned because of his unbearable behavior, but rather due to a moderator conspiracy.☕

It isn't a conspiracy; it’s intellectual dishonesty, which is a massive distinction.

For example:

Back when there were three atheist moderators on the religion board (which is absurd in itself—like having vegetarians moderating a BBQ forum or Republicans moderating a Democratic Party forum),
and when hiddenpuma75 opened the thread mentioned in my signature,

that thread was shut down pretty quickly because it didn't fit the ideology that scientists are actually atheists.

Even though everything the Nobel laureate stated was published in a SCIENTIFIC book, not just some random chatter at a bar.
==

But if you open a thread claiming the prophet Muhammad (may he rest in peace) was a pedophile,

or suggesting Jesus was actually a closeted homosexual because of his bond with John, those topics are debated until retirement.

So, on the religion board (while those three atheist moderators were in charge), you could say whatever you wanted about God, the church, religion, theology...

and even insult believers, calling them sheep or primitives because they fail to grasp deep artistic concepts—like an actress in a high-end modern theater in Chicago pulling a cross and the American flag out of her backside...
and that is called religious pluralism, freedom of thought... and peak art.

But if you happen to quote the Nobel laureate Christian Anfinsen from my signature, then a thread like that gets closed because hiddenpuma75's behavior is "unbearable."🤦

Ha ha!
Give me a break.

Seriously.🤣

That's how modern leftists operate.

As long as you agree with their views, it’s called democracy and freedom of thought.

But if you post something that doesn't fit their ideological narrative, suddenly you're an insufferable fanatic or a religious zealot who needs to be banned because some sensitive soul got offended.😵
==

I’ve seen this all before.
Between 1942 and 1948, the atheist authorities in Yugoslavia killed 622 priests and nuns out of pure religious hatred simply because they preferred crowns and Bibles over modern art and the avant-garde.
Just try opening a thread like that on the religion board without getting banned!

Let’s try this: provide a credible link within a reasonable timeframe regarding those 662 priests killed over the poisoning of modern art and the avant-garde, and you won't face a ban for blatant, revisionist trolling. Don't attempt to expand the debate or call for backup; simply provide a link to any historically relevant source.

William Bennett53 said:Look, let's try this: if you can provide a credible link in short order regarding those 662 priests killed due to the "poisoning" of modern art and the avant-garde, then you won't get banned here for gross, revisionist trolling. Don't launch into a debate or call for backup—just drop a link to any historically relevant source.

So, I basically need to map out my deep, metaphorical stream of consciousness? Hmm, sounds a bit tedious.
I feel like a writer standing before Cardinal Richelieu here. 😁

Alright, Officer 🙂...

1) Anyone who actually puts in a little effort can find the data (I believe an American victimology society published it) stating that between 1942 and 1948, 622 or 662 priests and nuns were killed. I can't recall the exact number, but I am certain they were murdered out of *odium fidei*.

2) They were killed by the avant-garde.

3) Back then, the avant-garde was essentially the Communist Party—that's what they called themselves. It means they thought they were incredibly progressive and sophisticated because they arrived at the shallow idea that God doesn't exist and everything connected to Him should be wiped out.
They did this in Albania, Russia, Tibet, and now in the modern era, they use "artistic and avant-garde"
labels on religious forums once they gain a little power—like when three moderators happen to be atheists.
4) They were killed because the avant-garde
believed the time had come to eradicate backward opinions and people, and that someone finally had to implement the "final solution." That was actually the answer one forum user gave when I asked how such a thing was possible. Unfortunately, search engines aren't helping me confirm that specific sentiment right now.

5) Using the phrase that they were killed for modern art is my metaphorical expression. It’s my way of saying that crimes born of hatred know no time, borders, or logic. Instead of modern art, you could plug in any term you like.
Because to kill someone, or to send them to a purge, YOU NEED A PRETEXT.

Essentially, Socrates was killed because he poisoned the youth, and those hundreds of priests and nuns were killed because they poisoned the youth.

I could have just said it was "due to modern art," which was my ironic way of putting it. It was meant to be understood that way, but William Bennett53 is demanding a link to my metaphors and proof of "the poisoning of modern art." It's hard to find a literal link online for one's own flow of thought and metaphors, especially when they are as slippery as these are if you try to take them too literally. 😉

" The avant-garde could invent any excuse. Whether it was Socrates in Greece or the clergy in the former Yugoslavia from 1942–1948.

a) They poison the youth.
b) Counter-revolutionaries are against us (and our "art").
c) .........
d) ...just type in whatever you want.

For example
:
e) Insufferable behavior where someone quotes a Nobel laureate just to irritate us, and the only way to prevent the public from seeing it is to ban the topic and hide hiddenpuma75—which is a historical analogy to the purging of those priests. (All in the name of MODERN INTERPRETATIONS OF ART).

===

Your question is linear, and you read my text linearly.

"Poisoning," the "avant-garde," and "modern art" are all terms linked to Socrates, the Communists, the massacre of those clergy members, a single purge, a single vulgarity, a certain theater in a river town, a cross, and an American flag being pulled from... well, you know.

It’s incredibly tough to share my deeper reflections and metaphors—much like those historical forum parallels we all know—just as it’s nearly impossible to explain $E=mc^2$ or wave function collapse in plain, everyday English. 😉

My point was meant to be universal; I used artistic metaphors (inspired by that local theater in San Diego that operates with a similar vibe and methodology to our religion sub-forum moderator).

Basically, we can poke fun at them, but they aren't allowed to mock us—if they do, they're labeled "fanatical primitives," and their behavior becomes absolutely intolerable.

(That's why the title mentions how you can pull a cross and an American flag out of a pretentious theater production in San Diego; it's the ultimate way to show contempt for someone who holds those things sacred.)

==========

It all boils down to this:

Back when the religion board had three atheist moderators, you could have written that Muhammad was a pedophile or that Jesus was gay, and believers would have just been treated like sheep without anyone batting an eye.

But the moment you show up quoting a Nobel laureate from my signature, suddenly your behavior is "unbearable" and you're accused of being biased. >

That is pure intellectual dishonesty—it's exactly what I meant by "modern art" (referring back to that San Diego theater and the religious sub-forum).

👋

@ hiddenpuma75
May your night yield clarity😁

@ *.*

As I wade through these brief snippets of thought, I find myself compelled to relay a plea from an exceptionally contemplative individual known as hiddenpuma75
.
Let us consider the fundamental "why"
Regardless of the flaws in his own convictions—starting with those dogmatic assertions found in certain signatures... to quote the sentiment: I believe only an idiot can be an atheist!
(which implies, by extension, that I am one 😁) and regarding theses that intrude upon the sanctity of revered religious figures who possess a solid foundation, or the theory concerning the flock versus baseless claims about the slaughter of shepherds and shepherdesses being the true motive—these are merely waves of thought rather than calm seas.
A believer is someone who awakens, yet refuses to alter their state of consciousness out of a fear of becoming an idiot. However, the negation of all negation inevitably leads to the position of

And so... exercise some mercy... allow him the genuine path to become what he can be, or to simply be what he is.

timšel

Thanks, and take care. I honestly couldn't care less whether someone gets their partial credit cleared for Religion or not—I'm sure the sub-moderator over at the Religion board can weigh in on that while the thread is locked. However, when it comes to the Philosophy department, we aren't going to have any circus acts happening here.