Replies

Dear Moderators --

I believe a mistake has been regarding the banning of Siobhan for alleged "anti-semitism" pursuant to her post below.

If you had read the thread to which she was responding, surely you understand that she is talking about Muslims. It's not my understanding that bashing of Islam (or Catholics, for that matter) is a bannable offense in the same way "anti-semitism" would be.

I trust you'll review your decision and realize that a mistake has been made here. As you'll see from Siobhan's last post her keen Catholic sense about Kerry -- in addition to her substantive allegation of the "satanic" in Islam -- ought to make her a valuable addition to this forum.

It's important to remember that Islam is a heresy and indeed "demoted" Christ, if you will, in favor of Mohammed's sometimes clearly 'satanic' lies. The only Jews who betrayed Jesus were his friend Judas and, to some extent, his "rock" Peter who denied him thrice not even a day after pledging to follow him without fear unto death and the rest of the apostles -- save John -- who were too overcome with fear and confusion to stand by him through the crucifixion.

To: Destro; Askel5; Goetz_von_Berlichingen; Trebics; ELS; frogandtoad; Coleus; NYer; nickcarraway; ...
There are few people more hell-bent on the destruction of Christians than the descendents of those who betrayed Jesus for satanic lies.
Ping.
124 posted on 03/18/2004 6:37:57 AM PST by Siobhan (+Pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet+)

the banning of Siobhan for alleged "anti-semitism" pursuant to her post below

Are you sure about this? Post # 124 is still there. The comment hasn't even been pulled, nonetheless having the poster banned.

>>>There are few people more hell-bent on the destruction of Christians than the descendents of those who betrayed Jesus for satanic lies.

If that comment was posted on this thread, then clearly you are correct that it could only refer to Muslims, not Jews, since this thread is dealing with Muslim terrorism and not with Jews in any way. However, it's the second part that I don't get. Why would it be okay to say that Muslims betrayed Christ but not okay to say the same thing about Jews? Why is there a special code of PC speech regarding Jews, but not any other religious or ethnic group?

I see FR honored its internecine tradition this morning by stupidly banning another of its most choice and useful ornaments. As in so many other cases, this is fundamentally a matter of a moderator's misplaced zeal to uphold unwritten rules about how hate speech is to be defined and how punished -- not to mention a fine example of the way Victimhood Culture works by compelling society at large to submit to a consciousness-raising for the benefit of certified victim groups, in a purposely open-ended quest for imaginary offenses.

I shall be plain. Siobhan's comments, while pointed - as they ever are - were not hateful. They convey her disgust with Islam but they do not violate the Forum's posting guidelines. There was no profanity in the post. There was no personal attack. Finally, there is no racism, for the opinion Siobhan expresses with her wonted asperity - that Islam's radical opposition to Christianity derives from its heretical origin - is a strictly historical judgment.

It's a lamentable quality of this medium and the technology that supports it, that before they've even considered what they've read, readers leap to over-hasty conclusions and those charged with the prudent exercise of authority hand down ill (or un-) considered judgments. Not your finest hour, by a considerable margin.

"There are few people more hell-bent on the destruction of Christians than the descendents of those who betrayed Jesus for satanic lies."

It's pretty clear from context that this refers to Mohammedans.

But it's suitably ambiguous to someone with a guilty conscience -- say, hypothetically, someone belonging to a group that has relentlessly sought the de-Christianising of "the West" but nevertheless understands that the group's continued survival may depend on the willingness of these ex-Christian Westerners to be deployed as its armed surrogates.

If the hired help downstairs ever knew what master and his family were saying about them in private, they might just be inclined to hand in their notice and let master fend for himself. And we coudn't have that, now, could we?