Criticism: When is it unacceptable for a discussion board?

[darkstar3]

I recently got into a debate regarding the Catholic Church, and I laid down what I think was a very fair criticism of their actions in the pedophilia scandal and the support they continue to receive. This was apparently branded as unacceptable for discussion.

So my question is this: When exactly does criticism of religion become unacceptable for a discussion board regarding religion? What lines have to be violated? Truth? Bigotry? Base insults?

I submit that criticism becomes unacceptable as soon as the majority membership, or the majority of the power group, disagree with it. What say the rest of you?

[laconicsax]

1. Sounds about right. n/t

There are significant double standards in forum moderation. It seems that it's unacceptable to discuss the RCC's tacit endorsement of serial child rape, bu relentless threadjacking about atheism as a 'religion of mass murder' is just peachy.

[trotsky]

2. You have to keep in mind...

that some individuals are so obsessed with protecting their church and attacking its enemies (atheists), that they scour groups like this and patrol the R/T forum looking for anything that might constitute an "attack" on particular believers. I am reasonably confident that they find the actions of their church and its hierarchy deplorable, but their devotion to it is so great that they simply must protect it from any kind of criticism.

[Stuckinthebush]

3. That is very cult-like of them

Oops...that may have crossed the line. :-)

[cleanhippie]

4. I asked in ATA why my thread titled "The Immorality of the Christian Religion" was locked.

Told me it was a broad brush smear against christians. I responded that it was critical of RELIGION, not religious people, and he stated we will just have to disagree.

:shrug:

[darkstar3]

5. That sounds curiously like my fifth sentence.

[cleanhippie]

6. I know. eerie, huh?

[Rozlee]

10. Well, that's crazy. We've had wide-spread discussions of the cultism of

the Mormon religion, Scientology and other Christian sects, as well as the rigidity of evangelicals. Even though these denominations are subsets of general Christianity, it can still be considered painting with a "broad brush." These discussions have occurred on the non-forum discussion boards several times and the posts have been stinging and cutting. We've poked fun of Mormonism and "magic underwear" and other tenements of that religion untold times in the general DU boards. We've hammered Scientologists and their tendency to hurt their family members by withholding life-saving health treatment for them. I think you just got caught up with someone that was offended with your views and used pettiness to keep them from being discussed.

[darkstar3]

11. Mormonism is not in line with the majority membership or majority power.

Neither is scientology.

[Deep13]

7. Pretty much. Personally, I think if it is true, there is no basis for complaint.

The only counter-argument would be to demonstrate that what you wrote isn't true, or is not as true as you claim, or is irrelevant to the issue. "Shut up, that offends us," is not an argument.

[onager]

8. Has anyone else noticed...

In R/T for the past few days, there seems to be an influx of low-count posters complaining about all the nasty atheists.

If I were just a little more paranoid, I'd suspect either (a) mass sock-puppetry. Or (b) somebody brought over a bunch of new recruits from another board. Apparently a board where most of the denizens deeply believe atheist = Stalinist.

Yeah, it must be paranoia...

:hide:

[laconicsax]

9. It has been noticed.

You have to remember, it's a very common flawed argument. After all, doesn't totalitarianism show that atheism is awful? :eyes: