Weird signature?

I’m wondering if it’s actually permissible to include a statement like this in a signature:

women are less valuable than men in certain sectors. They are only equal when it comes to reproduction. (by. mirzakv, self-identified Muslim)

particularly in the religion section where the user's handle and his religious affiliation are explicitly mentioned—if I’m not mistaken, shouldn't such a post be flagged for sexism?

I worry that doing this essentially fuels animosity toward Muslims; I fail to see what purpose highlighting a user's faith serves in the context of such a claim.

What’s even more baffling to me is that the moderator for the religion board, http://forum.us/member.php?u=213, is actually the one who put this statement in his signature.

I see a lot of people including quotes from other forum members right in their signatures. Honestly, as long as whatever they’re sharing doesn't break any of our community rules, I don't see why there should be an issue with having it in a signature. After all, those statements were made publicly in the first place. 😁

That said, whenever you decide to quote someone, you really ought to give them credit. It’s just common courtesy, and besides, you wouldn't want anyone accusing you of stealing someone else's intellectual property! 😁 🤣

Ugh, I am seriously about to lose my mind here!😠
I don't think I've ever actually crossed paths with @mirzomkv or @ego on this forum, so maybe it’s not really my place to weigh in... but I just can't help myself, I'm absolutely itching to say something!🙂

At the end of the day, I just wanted to point out that in much the same way that @mirzomkv's comments offend one specific group of people (women), @ego's signature does the exact same thing to another group (Muslim Americans).
It’s honestly the same kid, the same level of maturity, and sometimes they even use the exact same rhetoric... it’s just the subjects of their sentences that keep switching around.

And let's be real, what they're doing is equally unfair, tacky, and just plain rude. All these insults actually say way more about who they are than the people they're trying to target. Even if you throw five pairs of gloves at them, being insulting is still being insulting! It would probably serve them better if they started looking at people as individuals instead of just grouping everyone under labels like "women" or "Muslims."

In a civilized society, this kind of behavior is just incredibly grating, and there, I said it!😁

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.

Roger Barrett2 said: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.

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.

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.

Roger Barrett2 said: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.

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.

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.

It’s a bit awkward—if you can even call it that—to try and hold a debate with someone whose username is purple and who carries a nearly identical quote in their own signature. 😁 (By the way, you misspelled "certain" in your post.)

However, unlike you, ego includes the addition "declared Muslim" in their signature, which—as I mentioned before, and I realize this is impossible to prove—is offensive insofar as it (I guess) suggests, "See? This is how a Muslim perceives things."

Quote : for the third time: sure, one could always just give a little smirk (something like this: 😁) and say, "Oh, noooo, please, you're just letting your dirty imagination run wild, noooo"—but honestly, what is the point? Why does it matter so much in that signature that Mirza is a "declared Muslim"?

Furthermore, the whole situation becomes even more awkward when a moderator starts dealing with these petty little jabs.

Finally, besides citing verses from the Quran in your signature, there is also an added comment that serves as a mockery of Shady—that last sentence (regardless of how much we stay silent about it) clearly implies, "Just look at what Shady doesn't consider to be violence."

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:It’s a bit awkward—if you can even call it that—to try and hold a debate with someone whose username is purple and who carries a nearly identical quote in their own signature. 😁 (By the way, you misspelled "certain" in your post.)

However, unlike you, ego includes the addition "declared Muslim" in their signature, which—as I mentioned before, and I realize this is impossible to prove—is offensive insofar as it (I guess) suggests, "See? This is how a Muslim perceives things."

Quote : for the third time: sure, one could always just give a little smirk (something like this: 😁) and say, "Oh, noooo, please, you're just letting your dirty imagination run wild, noooo"—but honestly, what is the point? Why does it matter so much in that signature that Mirza is a "declared Muslim"?

Furthermore, the whole situation becomes even more awkward when a moderator starts dealing with these petty little jabs.

Finally, besides citing verses from the Quran in your signature, there is also an added comment that serves as a mockery of Shady—that last sentence (regardless of how much we stay silent about it) clearly implies, "Just look at what Shady doesn't consider to be violence."

I figured things would get a little awkward, but hey, that’s just part of the job description. You gotta balance what you actually believe with the responsibilities of running a site like Reddit. Since I’ve had this handle since long before I stepped up as an admin, anyone could go digging through my old posts and try to throw my past comments back in my face from back when I was just some random user.

(By the way, you're typing "certain" wrong.)

That’s just how it is in the original. 🙂

Quote : for the third time: of course you can always pull it off, as long as you've got the right smile (like this: 😁It’s like, people just start shouting, "Noooo, stop! You’re just being dirty-minded!" or whatever—but seriously, what's even the point of all that? Why does it actually matter if Mirza puts "declared Muslim" in his signature? What's the big deal?

You really ought to check with ego about this. Might be a little awkward or whatever, but honestly, I don't see it as some massive sin. The guy who wrote that quote in his signature was just being himself—he declared his faith, plain and simple. There's nothing fake about that.

Finally, you’ve actually gone and added that little jab to your signature alongside all those Quran verses. It’s basically just a direct shot at Shady—that last sentence pretty much screams, "Hey everyone, look at what Shady doesn't count as violence." Even if they're staying quiet about it, it's totally obvious.

Honestly, messing around in signatures is totally fine if you ask me. They aren't even part of the actual discussion on Reddit, so who cares? It’s legit.

Roger Barrett2 said: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.

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.

mellowraven22 said:I figured things would get a little awkward, but hey, that’s just part of the job description. You gotta balance what you actually believe with the responsibilities of running a site like Reddit. Since I’ve had this handle since long before I stepped up as an admin, anyone could go digging through my old posts and try to throw my past comments back in my face from back when I was just some random user.

(By the way, you're typing "certain" wrong.)

That’s just how it is in the original. 🙂

Quote : for the third time: of course you can always pull it off, as long as you've got the right smile (like this: 😁It’s like, people just start shouting, "Noooo, stop! You’re just being dirty-minded!" or whatever—but seriously, what's even the point of all that? Why does it actually matter if Mirza puts "declared Muslim" in his signature? What's the big deal?

You really ought to check with ego about this. Might be a little awkward or whatever, but honestly, I don't see it as some massive sin. The guy who wrote that quote in his signature was just being himself—he declared his faith, plain and simple. There's nothing fake about that.

Finally, you’ve actually gone and added that little jab to your signature alongside all those Quran verses. It’s basically just a direct shot at Shady—that last sentence pretty much screams, "Hey everyone, look at what Shady doesn't count as violence." Even if they're staying quiet about it, it's totally obvious.

Honestly, messing around in signatures is totally fine if you ask me. They aren't even part of the actual discussion on Reddit, so who cares? It’s legit.

Now, look—despite my frequent, shall we say, colorful references to certain... anatomical regions 🙂, I am far from being a deadly serious individual. However, in this specific instance, I do believe Ego's signature is improper (specifically because of that "declared Muslim" addition). You're setting a precedent that other users will—rightfully so, and even more often without cause—cling to, essentially saying, "Well, if a moderator can get away with it, why can't I?"

It would be quite an interesting experiment to try out a signature like "All Americans are just like this—Steve, declared a Mexican," and then we could see exactly how long that survives before getting nuked. 🙂

Nicholas King said:Now, look—despite my frequent, shall we say, colorful references to certain... anatomical regions 🙂, I am far from being a deadly serious individual. However, in this specific instance, I do believe Ego's signature is improper (specifically because of that "declared Muslim" addition). You're setting a precedent that other users will—rightfully so, and even more often without cause—cling to, essentially saying, "Well, if a moderator can get away with it, why can't I?"

It would be quite an interesting experiment to try out a signature like "All Americans are just like this—Steve, declared a Mexican," and then we could see exactly how long that survives before getting nuked. 🙂

Listen, there are already plenty of signatures like that out there and I don't see them changing anytime soon. Don't ask me to go find examples for you right now because I'm just not feeling it 🙂.

It would be pretty wild to run an experiment with a signature like "All Americans are just like this—Steve, declared Mexican," and see how long that actually lasts before getting nuked. 🙂

If Steve is constantly making his nationality a thing in his posts and feels like it's a huge part of who he is on this forum, then it'd be totally fine.

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.

Roger Barrett2 said: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.

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.

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.🙂.

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.

Roger Barrett2 said: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?

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?

Just look at my first paragraph.

Look, my life as a private citizen has absolutely zero to do with how I handle things as an admin. They're two completely different worlds.

So, like, where exactly is this "right" to make everyone equal written down? And where does it say that Christianity doesn't have the "right" to voice its own stance on anything?

That's not what I said.

You’re still spinning this around like I didn't get the point. Trust me, I did. There's a massive difference between presenting scientific facts and then using those "facts" as an excuse to commit atrocities—you know, the whole litany of horrors like burnings, mass incarcerations, torture, and criminalizing people. That's a completely different ballgame.

Calling people out to do those kinds of nasty things—or even trying to justify them—is just as much of a reason to slap someone with sanctions. Honestly.

Roger Barrett2 said: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?

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?

Just look at my first paragraph.

I don't know, man. Just feels like everything is shifting under our feet lately. Sometimes you look at how things are moving in the US and it just hits you—nothing stays the same for long. You gotta stay sharp.

So, here’s the deal with the law right now. If you go out there publicly spewing hate—we're talking racial, religious, gender-based, ethnic, or even skin color stuff—you're looking at serious jail time. We're talking anywhere from three months up to three years behind bars. It covers anyone trying to spread that kind of vitriol or if you start preaching about one group being superior or inferior to another based on race, religion, gender, or whatever else. And it doesn't just apply to people shouting on street corners, either. If you use a computer system to spread, distribute, or make anything available online that denies, downplays, or tries to justify genocide or crimes against humanity... yeah, you're facing those same exact penalties. The law is pretty clear on that part.

@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?

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.

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.