Patters

In this forum, we have often saved our harshest language for people like Bush, Kennedy, Sheehan, Cheney, Osama bin Laden, the Pope, etc. But, now, at least two people have implied that insulting the Pope is akin to insulting Catholicism, so to call the Pope a name -- and I have called him a Nazi, given his past membership in the Hitler Youth -- is an act of prejudice against Catholics, and thus against the rules of the forum.

We can say that people like the Pope are in a special category, but would that also include people like Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran? Is he in a special category too? What about Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell or Martin Luther King, who some believe the Lord communicates through? What about past Popes, such as those Popes who incited the Inquisition? I think it would be difficult to put Popes off limits from harsh criticism.

Although I don't think the Pope should be off limits, it's worth discussing the question and finding out what people in the forum think. If we did have a rule, what would it say?

wistahpatsfan

The pope is NOT off limits. As you said, if he is, then every politician is. At the very least, anyone who claims to have a special relationship with God is, and that would include Bush, not to mention someone who was in the Hitler Youth and has power (monetary as well as psychological) over many more people than the POTUS. You might as well close the political forum if you put on such a restriction.

Those who believe that the pope is "god's representative on Earth" have a right to that belief, just as anyone else is entitled to their belief that he is just another politician.

Harry Boy

__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)

In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself

BruschiOnTap

Anybody who formerly held the post of Grand Inquisitor is fair game

__________________
Mannings never prosper

wistahpatsfan

NO ONE expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Real World

Guys, and gals, make fun of, criticize, and support whomever you want. Just understand that what you say will have a backlash. If someone in here wants to say that homosexuals are X, or catholics are Y, or Blacks are Z, etc...go ahead. So long as you remember that your actions will draw responses. Don't go offending people, or offending something you know they hold dear, and then expect them to be happy about it. Worse off, don't go criticize a figure of such importance, and then close the thread like a wussy when people call you out on it.

Just my 2 cents.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

QuiGon

I think my thoughts on this subject have already been well established but, for some reason, you seemed interested in having me reply directly to this thread so I shall restate my opinions...

1) Firstly, I maintain my opinion that moderators should not post on contentious subjects. Patters has demonstrated his own hypocrisy and bias against conservatives in this forum, and given much more leeway to liberals. I would much more respect the opinion of a moderator who was above the fray much more than one who is a willing participant in the fray.

2) The political forum should have (and, I believe, does have) more leeway than the football forums. If you enter a poltical forum you should expect to see a lot of contentious arguing from both sides. It's all part of the game of posting here.

3) There should be consistency applied across the board. If someone can insult Catholics, then others can insult the gays. If someone can insult white people, then others can insult hispanics. My biggest issue isn't when someone insults the Pope, but rather with the double standard being applied.

4) An individual has every right to respond to someone who criticizes the Pope or Hispanics or gays or whatever and call that person a bigot, a hypocrite, a racist, whatever. Patters, I know you think you're a good liberal who is tolerant and open minded and accepting of diversity but fact is you are the leading bigot and most closed minded individual in this forum.

Does that answer the question..?

DarrylS

There is a difference here, essentially this is a private board, and Ian should weigh in on what he believes the limits should be. We can suggest whatever we want, however he has final say. There are other venues, i.e. white supremist boards.. that you can pretty much say what you want to say, this is a different place and has fairly high standards.

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.

Real World

I think people need to lighten up, wake up, and and be more realistic. If you insult Mohamed, a muslim may take offense. If you insult the pope, a catholic may take offense. If you insult homosexuals, a homosexual may take offense. If you insult Massachusetts, Seymour in Texas might take offense, and of course, if you insult his inflatable doll, Agenda Boy might take offense.


Kidding!

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

Patters

A couple other people have expressed similar sentiments, but most people seem at least reasonably content with the way things are. Ian certainly is. I have challenged people time and again to look through the threads and posts I censored and prove to me that I apply an uneven hand. I don't deny I make mistakes, but I try to only get involved when things get obviously out of hand.

It does have much more leeway. I rarely censor things, but if you look at the posts of yours that I censored, and I'll be glad to pull one up, you delivered a long list of insults with very little substance. I have censored others who did the same thing.

There is consistency across the board. I censor general attacks on Christians, gays, Hispanics, blacks, though its very rare that someone does that. As far as the Pope goes, he's an individual, and there are a great many Catholics who do not regard him the same way you do. At any rate, censoring criticism of the Pope would require us to also censor criticism of other religious leaders, such as the Ayatollah of Iran.

In this forum, because of rules requested by Ian, we don't allow stereotyping or personal attacks. Insulting the Pope, Bush, Kerry, bin Laden, Hillary, Cheney, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Gene Robinson (the gay Episcopal bishop), or any other prominent individual is not an act of stereotyping. If I called Catholics Nazis that would be against the rules of the forum, but I did not do that. Do you understand the issue here?

Even with stereotypes, I simply ask that people qualify generalizations by saying "some" or "most" gays, women, blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, Catholics, Arabs, etc.