Well...let's see...per the article: A GOP activist who prosecutors say kidnapped and raped women that he met online and...
at
Hey, Chuck, I tried to help your discernment level with the all caps and extra-large font.
You see, when a story mentions...
...the Lds church three times...
...an Lds temple recommend...
...a Mormon missionary who served his mission in Venezuela...
...that he targeted LDS women...
...an Lds singles Web site (twice)..
...along with another Lds specific Web site...
...then it qualifies for the
[Tell us, Chuck, have you been consistent and ever complain about even ONE of those Roman Catholic abuse stories winding up on the RELIGION section? No? Why not?]
OH...and another article on Peterson also said he attended the Mormon school, BYU.
Bottom line, Chuck: I don't need your "permission" to put an article with at least nine specific religious references in the "Religion" section just because, per your level of discernment, you don't quite think it qualified as being "religious" enough...
I didn't complain, I explained why someone might react the way they did to the post. Explaining is not complaining -- if I didn't think the thread belonged, I'd hit abuse and let the moderators decide.
I ignore the threads about catholic abuse -- heck, I ignore religion threads here as much as possible, since they became open grounds for hatred and division. SOmeone thinks they are doing the Lord's work, and who am I to judge, but I don't see it, I find it offensive and disturbing, but while it seems to be allowed to take potshots at people now, I'd rather not get into these arguments, so I just want to stay away.
I sometimes get tricked because the threads are so clearly political that I miss that people are playing the "religion" game.