I believe I've been very tolerant with religious beliefs and disbeliefs, but the use of Satanic symbols is at least looking for trouble, already Drew made a comment and honestly I find it offensive against my beliefs.

USER: DeepPhreeze

I believe this should be stopped, lately some newbies are trying to cause problems.

I'm sure that if any member made a signature asking for people to tuirn to some religion or cult or even saying Jesus Loves You, there will be a lot of people asking for that sig to be deleted with reason, because this is not a place for religious propaganda.

Please delete this signature and tell the kid to stop asking for troubles.

This is worst IMO.

Iván

Interesting that the complaint relates to the symbol but not to the mention of the drug DXM in the sig.

Fitzcarraldo wrote: Interesting that the complaint relates to the symbol but not to the mention of the drug DXM in the sig.

Thats because I never heard of it!

Is my sig offensive too? I mean, it's kind of dreadful.

 -- Ivan

Is my sig offensive too? I mean, it's kind of dreadful.

Vompatti wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Fitzcarraldo wrote: Interesting that the complaint relates to the symbol but not to the mention of the drug DXM in the sig.   Thats because I never heard of it! I've never heard about it either, but if it's illegal, I suppose that this particular signature should be removed just because of the drug reference, right?

It isn't illegal. Irs an over the counter drug which is used in chest medicines. Google it.

And even if ir was illegal, does that mean that we can't show pics of canabis leaves too?

Alcohol is illegal in most muslim countries, should we ban pics of beer here too?

Is my sig offensive too? I mean, it's kind of dreadful.

 -- Ivan

There's one thing, I f I posted something like

JESUS LOVES YOU

JOHN 3:16

LONG LIVE TO THE POPE BENEDICTUS XVI

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: There's one thing, I f I posted something like JESUS LOVES YOU JOHN 3:16 LONG LIVE TO THE POPE BENEDICTUS XVI

Believe me, I'm a Catholic and believer, but a signature like this will bother me, because this forum is for people from every part of the world and every ethnic group. Some people may find offensive a relation to monotheism, others may hate Catholic Church (More than you believe, even some "so called Christians") I don't have the right to sell them my truth 24 hours a day.

There's also the perspective of the Atheists who with total right may believe this is at least discriminatory.

It's a slippery slope between political correctness and censorship, IMO. In the end, it's just words, images and ideas.

I always believe that there's freedom of belief unless I offend other persons, the problem i that my example is not offensive, but what if I sign "Torquemada is a saint and the Inquisition should be restored"? I'm sure the Jewish community among others will feel offended

Or what  if I use the symbol of the Templar Knights, I'm offending Moslems who were slaughtered by this so called defenders of Holy Land.

Well, using satanic symbols is offensive for most Christians and Catholics plus Jewish and Moslems, because is the symbol of all evil according to our beliefs.

About the "substance abuse" issue... to play "devil's advocate" (sorry Ivan) ...

to Snow Dog's point, where do we draw the line? Some substances are legal in some countries, and not in others.

Please Empathy don't pretend to be naive, the guy is not promoting the use of the drug for therapeutic purpose, he talks about it as the new order, this means illegal and irrestricted use.

I noticed the thread of the Danish cartoon images of Mohammed some months ago were also removed, I would object to this as well. I understand the concern was primarily about violent repercussions, but in an age with increasing censorship (at least in my country)  driven largely by religous fundamentalism, it appears we're easily cowed into submission these days.

I absolutely agree with the decision of removing those cartoons because  Who are we to attack the Profet of another religion?  Mohammed deserves the same respect we have for our Holy Men.

I don't believe in any inherent right of protection from being offended.

I don't believe in legal restrictions, IMO mentioning the word God in a school is alright if you limit this word to the believers and you don't force those who don't share the beliefs to praise God or be present at religion class. But that's freedom of choice, I'm a believer so I go to that class, if I'm not a believer, I don't go to that class.

But this signature is posted in an open forum and we should be carefull with offending any of the members.

There are discussions related to theology, but all of them have been civilized  plus posted in a determined Lounge, where those who don't care about Religion are free to visit it or not.

But this guy is not only making propaganda to Satanism, but promotimg the use of an illegal  (if not prescibed) drug as a way of life IN EVERY LOUNGE OF THIS FORUM, SO THERE'S NO WAY THAT WE CAN AVOID IT.

There are minors in this forum, is this the example we want to give? 

Where do we draw the line? Easy, every religious or political discussion should be restricted to the Non Music Related Lounge, taking good care that nobody offends any other person's beliefs.

Sean and I had a 10 page debate about Atheism against Religion, but there was not a single insult, we agreed in every moral issue, and anybody who didn't cared for that debate, simply didn't visited that thread.

Iván

Sorry not offending, only an example which I hate as much as any normal human being:

Tristan Mulders: And what if any member changes his signature to:

(obvious Nazi flag deleted)

Would you find it offensive enough???????

Iván

And here ends tha case for the prosecution, M'lud!

I cannot consider it is a offensive signature actually. What do you think about most covers of metal album than? Quite a few of those are demonic/satanic, would you like to see those removed from signatures as well?

There are hundreed of white supremacy Rock bands that use this symbols in their concerts. And worst, this groups use Religion as an excusre to justify their acts saying ythat God is white and only a WASP nation must exist.

Would you like to see those banners remoived from their covers as well.

There are lots of Southern Rock bands admired by many people here using confederate flags and a racist discourse in their songs, is that OK???? No IMO.

We can't do anything against those bands, but we can do something here.

I agree that if it is deliberatly insulting to groups by writing things that are hurting people than it should be removed but this banner does not.

The use of satanic symbols in signatures is a deliberate attempt to hurt people with religious beliefs.

Why can't a racist talk? Why can't an homophobic talk? Because it's offensive to some peopleif AND I 1005 AGREE, IF a member would make a signature against homosexuals or Latins and I'm sure everybody will disagree.

I believe something like that would be repulsive, as I believe this symbol is repulsive.

That's valid perspective.

But I also was raised in a country where everyone is free to practice whatever religion they choose,and are free from prosecution because of it.

I really can't understand you, if your info is correct you live in USA.

A country in which school principals can loose their jobs if the word God is mentioned, a country where God can't be mentioned in public institutions, a country where a Circuit Judge was fired and sued because he commited the sin of hanging the Ten Commandments over his head (Even when he argued that it was a reference to a legal code).

I don't believe people is allowed to practice whatever religion they want, at least not in Public places.

But at the same time a country that accepts that a bunch of Fundamentalists force the Governments of several States to place before any book about evolution "This is only a theory, as valid as Creationism".

So what irrestricted Religious freedom are you talking about?

Sorry Wizard, but his is as absurd as saying to a guy that signs with The Nazi Flag: "It's just a picture, if the Svastica offends you, don't join the Nazi party"

Sorry Wizard, but his is as absurd as saying to a guy that signs with The Nazi Flag: "It's just a picture, if the Svastica offends you, don't join the Nazi party"

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Sorry not offending, only an example which I hate as much as any normal human being: Tristan Mulders: And what if any member changes his signature to: (obvious Nazi flag deleted) Would you find it offensive enough??????? Iván

Isn't Satan a symbol which has understandably gained much power as an icon of evil?

The swastika, as a symbol, however, existed http://history1900s.about.com/cs/swastika/a/swastikahistory.htm - LONG before Adolf Hitler . Symbols are powerful tools, but they must be combined with an ideology in order to be fully effective. I don't see anything in that signature that openly attempts to spread a particular ideology.

Sorru man, the Svastica is a Nazi symbol and is oriented towards rthe right side.

The Hindu symbol is oriented towards the left.

And if it's just a symbol, why did you deleted it???????

Here's what truly bothers me. Has anyone actually PM'ed or otherwise contacted DeepPhreeze to ASK him what the signature means to him? Or were the Thought Police immediately invoked?

That's what Trotsky PM'd me yesterday's night before all this avalanche of ´posts started.

This is my issue with "political correctness"... if any personal conviction or message that could _potentially_ offend is banned, what of any importance is left to say?

Don't talk me about political correct, I live in Perú, a third world country in which the Government has more urgent issues to worry about than what is correct or not, like what is 40% of the population going to eat tomorrow.

There's no ACLU, and some small groups are not taken in consideration, because if people don't have enough to eat, won't care if their religious rights are affected.

Here people go to a determined Church and pretend not to be Catholic just because this people feed them is they swear they're Jehova Witness or Evangelists.

When  the police makes a document, one of the questions they ask is your religion.  The President swears in front of a crucifix when he accepts trhe office (well 90% of the people is Catholic), so I never worry about political correct.

The only political correct thing here is having enough to eat tomorrow.

Certainly, the easy solution is to ban any direct religious or philosophical discussion from this forum (and that's what I suspect will continue to be the solution), but is that the right decision? I say no.

Have you read my previous posts? I believe political and Religious debate must be admited, I've posted in several, but in the right place, a lounge for themes not related with music.

A place where anybody who feels offended by religion may avoid a determined thread or a person that considers political discussion is searching for troubles can never visit, without being forced to recieve oiffensive messages everywhere.

Iván

I just want to ask you this ... when I first joined my avatar was a hammer and sickle, my username is still that of the founder of the Soviet Red Army and my signature is still a quote from him ... does anybody interpret that as open promotion of Communism? I can certainly see it being perceived as such! Does anybody then perceive that promotion to be offensive?

I believe I've been very tolerant with religious beliefs and disbeliefs, but the use of Satanic symbols is at least looking for trouble, already Drew made a comment and honestly I find it offensive against my beliefs.

USER: DeepPhreeze

I believe this should be stopped, lately some newbies are trying to cause problems.

I'm sure that if any member made a signature asking for people to tuirn to some religion or cult or even saying Jesus Loves You, there will be a lot of people asking for that sig to be deleted with reason, because this is not a place for religious propaganda.

Please delete this signature and tell the kid to stop asking for troubles.

This is worst IMO.

Iván

What is so offensive about that?  Its a symbol... its not religous propaganda.  Thats like saying that wearing a cross is religous propaganda.  He's not asking you to join any religion, he merely has a Seal of Solomon in his signature.

Did you know that symbol was not originally used by Satanists?  The Seal of Solomon has been associated with many groups over the years, including the Freemasons.  In fact, the way he is using it is associating it with the supposed "New World Order"- not directly with religous beliefs at all... its closer to a political statement than a religous one.

Trotsky wrote: Empathy wrote: Trotsky wrote: I just want to ask you this ... when I first joined my avatar was a hammer and sickle, my username is still that of the founder of the Soviet Red Army and my signature is still a quote from him ... does anybody interpret that as open promotion of Communism? I can certainly see it being perceived as such! Does anybody then perceive that promotion to be offensive? Not I. Now if you had an avatar or sig file glorifying Stalin or Mao... I'd personally find that quite distasteful, but I wouldn't ask you to remove it. I would likely comment that I found it distasteful and disrespectful, however. I just remembered that my avatar is now (and has been for a couple of months) Trotsky's tombstone

That can be seen in an ironic way - I always thought of it as a tombstone for communism.

I haven't noticed those sigs that brag about accomplishments, I'll have to watch more closely.

The Progtologist wrote:

But I also was raised in a country where everyone is free to practice whatever religion they choose,and are free from prosecution because of it.

I really can't understand you, if your info is correct you live in USA.

A country in which school principals can loose their jobs if the word God is mentioned, a country where God can't be mentioned in public institutions, a country where a Circuit Judge was fired and sued because he commited the sin of hanging the Ten Commandments over his head (Even when he argued that it was a reference to a legal code).

I don't believe people is allowed to practice whatever religion they want, at least not in Public places.

But at the same time a country that accepts that a bunch of Fundamentalists force the Governments of several States to place before any book about evolution "This is only a theory, as valid as Creationism".

So what irrestricted Religious freedom are you talking about?

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: The Progtologist wrote: But I also was raised in a country where everyone is free to practice whatever religion they choose,and are free from prosecution because of it. I really can't understand you, if your info is correct you live in USA. A country in which school principals can loose their jobs if the word God is mentioned, a country where God can't be mentioned in public institutions, a country where a Circuit Judge was fired and sued because he commited the sin of hanging the Ten Commandments over his head (Even when he argued that it was a reference to a legal code). I don't believe people is allowed to practice whatever religion they want, at least not in Public places. But at the same time a country that accepts that a bunch of Fundamentalists force the Governments of several States to place before any book about evolution "This is only a theory, as valid as Creationism". So what irrestricted Religious freedom are you talking about?

I'm only going to make this one post. I don't want to debate anything.

1. Concerning those underlined in red: In my personal opinion, lef-wing/right-wing/etc. radical ignoramuses have made these cases so. If the constitution doesn't specifically allow for benign policies reguarding references of God and all other things relating to these subjects, then we should amend it. The USA should strive be a utopia for all people, and if certain people would stop making rediculous arguments like those outlined above, our society would nearly be that. Fundamentalists are the root of all evil, or at least it seems so to me.

Hey Stonebeard, I never said I agree with that, I'm only mentioning FACTS there are at least three cases that reached the Supreme Court in which Principals were fired for allowing religious references.

The case of the circuit Judge is well documented, he lost his position but he was declared innocent (Of course he was never elected again).

I'm against this kind of Fanatism, I don't have a problem with other religions or even Atheism but if something is praising a form of evil that is clearly against 4 big religions, it should be considered offensive.

2. Concerning the one in purple: As long as it isn't obscene or grotesque, I think society has to accomodate for it. Obviously no satanist can slaughter a sheep or anything like that, but a benign religious act should be accommodated. EX: Some people may get offended if, as if out of nowhere, a Muslim gets down on the ground and faces Mecca right in the middle of a sidewalk at midday. They may be offeneded, or felt imposed upon, but the Muslim should be allowed to do it, and the people should not care. It's those people who care about stuff like that, in any religion, society, and political field, and people who try to keep to old ways instead of embracing the future that are the root of all evil.

The Coran or Moslems beliefs are not against any other Religion, by the contrary, they are very similar in many aspects, they have some Fundamentalist, well some Christian groups claim that only white people can go to Heaven and the Bob Jones University didn't allowed dates between people from different races.

Is Bob Jones University guilty of racism because it has a rule restricting interracial dating? Students of all races attend here and live in racial harmony and respect for one another as Christians. If there is discrimination in the policy, which race is discriminated against? Black, white, or yellow? Each person dates within his own race. For there to be discrimination, one race would have to be treated differently than the other. (...) Bob Jones University opposes one world, one church, one economy, one military, one race, and unisex. God made racial differences as He made sexual differences. Each race and each sex should be proud to be what God made it, and none should reproach the other. http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/bob_jones/bju.htm - http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/bob_jones/bju.htm

Any religious refernce MAY BE dangerous in a public forum (look at the quote, this is how things end some times),  but Satanism is a direct attack to almost every Religion.

BTW: I'm not a Fundamentalist, I'm totally against Fundamentalism (For God's sake, the last time I went to mass was in December because my Grandmother died) even if it comes from Christians or Catholics, I kept my mouth shut when a couple of members made fun the day the Pope (Our spiritual leader and God's direct representative for us) died, even when an idiot insulted his memory, but there's a point when things can get out of hand.

The guy from the signature was reasonable enough to retiire it, i don't even bekllieve he's a Satanist, probably he thought it wa fun to create some reaction, or maybe just found it cool, I don't know or care, but he made he correct decision IMO.

Iván

That's my point precisely, Satanism isn't considered a formal religion, because it's main purposeis to attack the beliefs of other religions (Most of them), this is not Atheism, which is a valid position, this is ANTI Theism, ewhich ois a form of discrimination.

A few years ago I saw on TV a guy from one Satanic group making a scandal because the IRS and later the Supreme Court denied for hem the tax exemption granted to every Church, so apparently the Supreme Court who always cared about protection to the suposedly rights of the minorities, considered that Satanism wasn't a valid religion.

Not even the watchers of the rights protested against this decision.

Anyway, Stonebeard, as Ivan stated, he was simply pointing out the apparent hypocrisy in "separation of church and state" policies here, and frankly, he's got a very valid point. I agree with many of your comments, though.

Thanks Empathy, that's exactly what I pretended, I believe the right watchers go too far sometimes and theCourts fall in their game. Judges are afraid to take rational decistions because the ACLU (Not sure aboutthe letters) may fall against them and acuse them of harrassing the minorities.

It's absurd that a Judge can't place theJewish Tables of the Law, because want it or not, like it or hate it, it's a legal code so it has aplace in a courtroom.

Why ban religious teachings in Public Schools? Maybe make it optional, this will be an irerestrict respect to the freedom of everybody, if you don't want to take a Religion class, well, you have 20 other options.

The problem is politic and economic, every Religion will ask for classes and there would be no budget to pay teachers for every Religion in all schools, and the politicians can't allow that, because minorities also vote.

But on the other hand and because the Intelligent Design followers also vote, they are allowedto put in books about evolution that thisis only a theory as valid as Creationism or Intelligent Design.

Sorry guys, but I find this absolutely contradictory, even when I believe in God and Evolution (Which is probably some form of Intelligent Design, which is close to my beliefs), but to place thatb Evolution is only a theory is absurd even for me.

USA in their fight to protect the right of everybody is falling in the limitation of the rights of everybody. If you can't teach every Religion....Don't teach anyone. If you can't teach Ateism (Well hard issue to teach about except for some humanist Philosophies) then don't mention God.

As Bob Jones said I don't discriminate banning interracial dates, because I ban them for everybody......Holy God!!!!!! Thanks Heaven his tax exemption as University has been revoked.

Iván

Sorry not offending, only an example which I hate as much as any normal human being:

Tristan Mulders: And what if any member changes his signature to:

Would you find it offensive enough???????

Iván

I've just made this sig in Paint in about 30 seconds. Is it appropriate?

It could offend neo-prog fans.

 -- Ivan

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Sorry not offending, only an example which I hate as much as any normal human being: Tristan Mulders: And what if any member changes his signature to:   Would you find it offensive enough??????? Iván

Definitely... but than you're promoting mass murders who have hurt people emotionally from all over the world, not looking at religions..

Tristan Mulders wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Sorry not offending, only an example which I hate as much as any normal human being: Tristan Mulders: And what if any member changes his signature to:   Would you find it offensive enough??????? Iván   Definitely... but than you're promoting mass murders who have hurt people emotionally from all over the world, not looking at religions..

Just in case, I'm not promoting anything, it was just an example, there's nothing as repulsive as the Nazi party or the lunatic and nurderer followers.

I agree it's offensive, as i believe some other things are offensive, but others don't,  take for example that coexistence message, I find perfectly valid, he's not attacking anybody the message promotes unity (Even if the guy is trying to make a point).

Iván

int_2375 wrote: Good idea.  I made a new sig to promote unity.  Unfortunately your thread does not promote unity.

Never said anything about your signature even when it was an attempt to make a mockery of things some of us believe in. As a fact I said good words about it

Now your reaction is absolutely childish as a baby making noise in a desperate attempt to be heard, espécially when this thread has been closed for more than a week.

But probably because you aren't able to be listened in musical terms you create a contradictory and absolutely moronic statement in your signature.

Ok, if you want to be remembered as the Revolutionary wannabe  idiot go on, it's not my problem any more, I have more important things to worry about in my life and in this forum.

Iván

I'm not the one who had the "coexistence" signature, for your information.

I should had imagined you were incapable of something like that.

I have no idea what "you aren't able to be listened in musical terms" means.  Sorry, I just couldn't interpret your English in this case.  (No offense, I know its not your primary language).

I haven't read any interesting or trascendental contribution from your part to this forum or to Prog Archives.

And BTW: I'm entitled to feel offended by messages against my beliefs, if the Administration and owners agree, well you should accept it and if not, I will have to do the same thing.

I'm merely pointing out how stupid you starting this thread was.  You were so offended by a symbol on the internet that you had to make a thread to report it.  Now THAT'S "as childish as a baby making noise". 

Because this forum is a place where civility and respect almost always is present, but this concepts may be too complex your understanding.

Why should everyone bend over backwards for easily offended persons such as yourself?  Your opinion that it is offensive is irrelevant and represents the minority of this board, based on most of the responses I saw.

You haven't been here enough time, I've read posts asking to ban name of albums because they contain profanities, and I gave my position in disagreement, but never had the "brilliant" idea to choose worst names or lyrics to make mockery of other person's beliefs.

Basically my signature is the same as the Coexistence one, which you complimented, only I used Satanism and Christianity, and suddenly you found it offensive. 

That is a natural contradiction and a silly attempt to attack our beliefs with the excuse of plutrality.

Nobody can love Jesus and Satan at the same time unless he's an idiot, because a person that represents divinity for many and goodness for almost every religion, can't be worshipped with the evil simultaneously. 

Coexistance doesn't say I am Christian, Jewis and Moslem at the same time, it only gives a message using the three religious symbols,

 You are so completely negative about some things I just have to call you on it.  "I don't like this sig, make it gone", "Phil Collins ruined Genesis".

Phil Collins is another issue, this is a musical forum to express musical opinions mainly, not to promote something that will attack personal beliefs of other members.

If somebody doesn't like a band or a musician he's free to do it, but to attackl the basis of ANY religion, is not correct.

You took the bait, hook, line, and sinker when you replied to my signature, showing just how hypocritical you are.

If I ever had problems is because I can't be an hypocrite, if I see something black I say it, the same if it's white, better dedicate to talk about music than to provoke justified reactions of the people.

Iván

DeepPhreeze wrote: I'd also like to add that my participation on these boards will likely be brief; I get treated a lot better and taken more seriously on the Dextroverse.

Oh god I couldn't agree more.  So many of the prog fans on the internet are just off their nuts.  You know, they that people are idiots for liking different types of music, stereotype entire genres (hip-hop namely) based on what they see on MTV, etc.  I have rarely met these pretentious, conceded losers on drug-related forums.  Lol, some 3rd/4th plateau DXM trips can really change you for the better.

I don't even know anything about Satanism, but I, unlike some, didn't automatically dismiss it as evil.  It bothers me that people pick and choose what religions are offensive and what are not.  If it was a cross in your sig no one would have said anything.

The difference uis that I don't use the cross as a symbol in my sig to avoid problems, and even when I'm absolutely moderate, I don't even go to mass except when somebody d9ies, there's a Baptism or a wedding.

Not even the Fundamentalist Christians who were self-banned from here used their beliefs as a religion.

Check what this guy says, he placed the symbol to offend and provoike people, that's wrong per se.

BTW: I studied Theology, so I know what Satanism stands for, maybe thet's why  feel offended.

My point with the cross and Baphomet was that its best to respect ALL beliefs, unless their is something seriously inhumane about them, and as far as I know Satanism (or at least some schools of it) doesn't entail that.

Honestly, from now on I won't worry about this, but I just expressed the reaction of another member who protested twice and my own.

Ivan do you get that worked up about bumper stickers or t-shirts you find offensive?  Do you report people when you see that they have a symbol related to Satanism on their t-shirt? 

This is absurd and you know it, don't try to be a smart a$$, street is free there are no rules, but this is a forum with rules, most of us respect them to make of Prog Archives a pleasent place:

Site rule N° 1 says:

1. No Vulgarity, profanity or bigotry. We ask all members to refrain from using "foul language." Profanity - the deliberate denigration of another person's belief, will not be tolerated. Our membership is global, and thus represents a host of spiritual and religious beliefs. Given this, profanity is tantamount to personal attack (see next entry). Likewise, there is no place in this forum for bigotry (this includes religious bigotry, racism, and sexual discrimination) which are also considered to be personal attacks. http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13083&PN=1&FID=3&PR=3 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13083& amp; amp; amp;PN=1&FID=3&PR=3

And our Satanist member says his purpose here is:

DeepPhreeze wrote:

We like to shock, annoy, pester, and generally offend those who we feel are 'blind and obedient'.

So it's clear, this is in deliberate denigration of other person's beliefs, HE SAID IT, but that's not all:

Our membership is global, and thus represents a host of spiritual and religious beliefs. Given this, profanity is tantamount to personal attack (see next entry). Likewise, there is no place in this forum for bigotry (this includes religious bigotry, racism, and sexual discrimination) which are also considered to be personal attacks. http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13083&PN=1&FID=3&PR=3 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13083& amp; amp; amp;PN=1&FID=3&PR=3

And this guy said:

DeepPhreeze wrote: 

Let's not forget that everybody has their own right to their own flag, own activities, and own religious (or in my case anti-religious) beliefs

This goes against rule N° 1 again, so, he's in fault, not those of us who believe this is wrong, b4eing anti religiopus is clearly an attack against religion.

He can be anti anything, but he's not free to offend and denigrate those who don't share his ant religous convictions.

 I don't know what the laws are in Peru (and I swear, I mean NO disrespect towards your country), but here you couldn't get away with reporting someone for that, because of freedom of speech. 

Clearly you know nothing about Perú, our country is permisive, we're allowed to pray and use symbols of religions in schools or public places with absolute freedom unless they offend other's beliefs.

We have worst problems to worry about here, like as I said before our real problem is what most people is going to eat tomorrow.

Without it we wouldn't have the ability to protect our riights... and I can't see why any intelligent forum would be set on restricting that freedom, and why you, if you truly believe in freedom of speech, would go enforcing censorship of harmless symbols on this forum?

But there are also rules here, if somebody comes to: "shock, annoy, pester, and generally offend those who we feel are 'blind and obedient"  he's attempting against the rules of the site, and even says louudl he's here to offend and perster anybody who he feels is wrong.

This is bigotry, sectarism and attack, I didn't made the rules, but I accept them when I joined the forum.

Iván

We agree in that, it's only semantics.

By the way, the pentragram is not just a Satanic symbol as I'm sure you know too.  Though the one that bothered you did have other markings which indicates that it is Satanic.  I'm agnostic and religious symbols do not bother me -- be they whatever.

That's not a Pentagram Logan, it has a figure of a goat inside and it's called Baphomet ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Pentagram_with_one_point_down_% - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Pentagram _with_one_point_down_%  ).

It's been said, but one shouldn't discriminate against any religion here.  If one is to ban the pentagram, even a Satanic one,  one must also ban the cross and other religious symbols.  I'm uncomfortable with the supression of such freedom of expression.

I do my part, never in more than 4,000 posts I have made any propaganda to my religion except when debating about Religion against Atheism with Sean in an interesting and respectful 10 pages debate.

I won't say anything against something that I don't consider offensive, but I will never post any propaganda to my religion.

BTW: I created two more offensie threads, one about a lurker using despective ter,ms against gay people (I'm not gay) and another one about a guy who made racist comments against any coumtry that is not USA (This guy was later banned as a troll).

As a believer in freedom of speech (though it must have its limits of course), I don't think religious discussion should be taboo either. 

Neither do I, had a very long and absolutely respectful debate with Sean about Relligion vs Atheism in http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6555&KW=God&PN=0&TPN=11 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6555&a mp;KW=God&PN=0&TPN=11  but it was in the right lounge where anybody who doesn't want to see uit cant avoid it.

If we poke fun at other's belief systems, I see no problem with that either -- a thick-skin and a sense of humour (self-deprecating particularly) helps one have a happy online life, and life in general, I think.  By the way, we often interpret posts and postal intent differently depending on our disposition (biases and attitude).

I don't agree with that, because what I consifder funny can be offensive for other person, this is a multi cultural forum, and it subsists only becausethere's mutual respect.

Iván

And what about the Nazi flag? I'm sure that a lot of people will feel offended with absolute right, wghere is the limit? Common sense marks it.

So I can't put up a picture of the flying spaghetti monster? It's mocking religion that denounces science, but it's just a satire. You got a beef with that?

What about political cartoons? I could put up 'The Leftersons' and my fellow Liberals would get pissed but they wouldn't ask me to take it down.

The cartoons abou Mahoma were banned, and I absolutely agree, maybe you would find them funny from your anti religious perspective. I find this drawings repulsive and offensoiive.

All prejudice/racism/sensitivity to religious symbols means to me is that people are unsure of themselves and their own beliefs. That's it. That's all I see. To me, you're showing immaturity to the highest degree by telling somebody else that the way they expressed themselves is wrong.

Open the doors, what if we start using anti gay signatures or anti Latin otuives, what about the KKK sytmbols, etc? Where you put the limit?

I didn't damage property, I didn't kill anyone. When it all comes down to it what was my crime?

Not everything has to be a crime to wrong.

All 4,000 members of this forums avoid using religious symbols (NO OTHER MEMER HAS DONE IT UNTIL YOU CAME) for respect to the other members. Why should you change this?

Iván

Why is it that as soon as you tell someone "no" they start to throw their toys out of the pram?

What exactly are you trying to do when you write statements like:

"I'd also like to add that my participation on these boards will likely be brief; I get treated a lot better and taken more seriously on the Dextroverse"

I,I me,me....

You'd get taken more serously if you grew up....