Seriously, Jeff?

[Anonymous]

I get that what the Pope said is controversial, but does it really justify allowing a thread expressly devoted to attacking all Catholics and the entire Catholic religion to stand unchallenged and unfiltered? Why is it that time and again the only threads and posts bashing a religion or a religious figure that are allowed to stand on this forum are the anti-Catholic ones?

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1027817.page

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I get that what the Pope said is controversial, but does it really justify allowing a thread expressly devoted to attacking all Catholics and the entire Catholic religion to stand unchallenged and unfiltered? Why is it that time and again the only threads and posts bashing a religion or a religious figure that are allowed to stand on this forum are the anti-Catholic ones?

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1027817.page

Why is that time and again the only posters who don't realize that I can't possibly read every thread are Catholics (actually, that's not true, people of other religions make the same error, but Catholics seem to do it proportionally more)?

You know, every post has a button in the bottom right-hand corner that says, "report". You or anyone else could simply click that button and let me know about the thread. That's a lot less trouble than posting a diatribe about a non-existent conspiracy to bash Catholics.

Now that I am aware of the thread, I'll take a look at it. But, this is the first I have heard of it.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get that what the Pope said is controversial, but does it really justify allowing a thread expressly devoted to attacking all Catholics and the entire Catholic religion to stand unchallenged and unfiltered? Why is it that time and again the only threads and posts bashing a religion or a religious figure that are allowed to stand on this forum are the anti-Catholic ones?

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1027817.page

Why is that time and again the only posters who don't realize that I can't possibly read every thread are Catholics (actually, that's not true, people of other religions make the same error, but Catholics seem to do it proportionally more)?

You know, every post has a button in the bottom right-hand corner that says, "report". You or anyone else could simply click that button and let me know about the thread. That's a lot less trouble than posting a diatribe about a non-existent conspiracy to bash Catholics.

Now that I am aware of the thread, I'll take a look at it. But, this is the first I have heard of it.

If they reported and you deleted then they couldn’t play martyr.

[Anonymous]

I just contributed to that thread, and unless anti-Catholic posts were rapidly removed from it, I don't see any particularly nasty comments.

The Catholic Church has really asked for it, with its poor handling of pedophile priests, OP. It will naturally color all Catholic news reports.

That's not to say that other denominations, or indeed other religions, don't have the same problem: there was a news report years ago about pedophilia in madrassas, Islamic religious schools, and of course in a country where no one is ever allowed to complain about it. It made for graphic and awful reading indeed.

Abuse in strict hierarchical organizations like the army and religious institutions is everywhere, but our western media and victims' associations have made it come to the public's notice. Obviously we're going to talk about it.

[Anonymous]

The Pope’s comments about this caused a furor online days ago. I’m surprised it took this long to appear here.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I get that what the Pope said is controversial, but does it really justify allowing a thread expressly devoted to attacking all Catholics and the entire Catholic religion to stand unchallenged and unfiltered? Why is it that time and again the only threads and posts bashing a religion or a religious figure that are allowed to stand on this forum are the anti-Catholic ones?

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1027817.page

Now after having read that thread, I would really like to hear to which specific post you object? I did remove one post that was sort of, if not explicitly, profane. There is another post that I could probably be convinced crosses the line, but I've left it for now. However, generally I don't agree with your description that the thread is devoted to attacking "all Catholics and the entire Catholic religion". I think we can distinguish somewhat between Catholicism the religion and the institution of the "Catholic Church." I would not allow posts saying that all Catholics are evil or anything like that. But, criticism of the institution does not seem inappropriate.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get that what the Pope said is controversial, but does it really justify allowing a thread expressly devoted to attacking all Catholics and the entire Catholic religion to stand unchallenged and unfiltered? Why is it that time and again the only threads and posts bashing a religion or a religious figure that are allowed to stand on this forum are the anti-Catholic ones?

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1027817.page

Now after having read that thread, I would really like to hear to which specific post you object? I did remove one post that was sort of, if not explicitly, profane. There is another post that I could probably be convinced crosses the line, but I've left it for now. However, generally I don't agree with your description that the thread is devoted to attacking "all Catholics and the entire Catholic religion". I think we can distinguish somewhat between Catholicism the religion and the institution of the "Catholic Church." I would not allow posts saying that all Catholics are evil or anything like that. But, criticism of the institution does not seem inappropriate.

Ok, let's see. Here's what the originator of the thread said:

"That’s pretty rich coming from a man who (allegedly) chose a life of chastity." Accusing the Pope of not living a life of chastity without any foundation.

"What a POS. This man who helps to cover up millennia of sexual abuse of children has no moral authority to ever call anyone selfish." Using an acronym for a clearly profane phrase to insult the religious leader of billions of people all over the world, and accusing him of assisting in cover up sexual abuse cases again without foundation.

"I’m good and done with Catholics." This isn't "attacking all Catholics?" What is, then?

Substitute any of this for any other mainstream religion, and it would be stricken in a heartbeat.

It's obvious that the originator of the thread started it to attack the religion generally. It's a vicious introduction to the topic and you know it. Just because you agree doesn't make it ok.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get that what the Pope said is controversial, but does it really justify allowing a thread expressly devoted to attacking all Catholics and the entire Catholic religion to stand unchallenged and unfiltered? Why is it that time and again the only threads and posts bashing a religion or a religious figure that are allowed to stand on this forum are the anti-Catholic ones?

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1027817.page

Now after having read that thread, I would really like to hear to which specific post you object? I did remove one post that was sort of, if not explicitly, profane. There is another post that I could probably be convinced crosses the line, but I've left it for now. However, generally I don't agree with your description that the thread is devoted to attacking "all Catholics and the entire Catholic religion". I think we can distinguish somewhat between Catholicism the religion and the institution of the "Catholic Church." I would not allow posts saying that all Catholics are evil or anything like that. But, criticism of the institution does not seem inappropriate.

Ok, let's see. Here's what the originator of the thread said:

"That’s pretty rich coming from a man who (allegedly) chose a life of chastity." Accusing the Pope of not living a life of chastity without any foundation.

"What a POS. This man who helps to cover up millennia of sexual abuse of children has no moral authority to ever call anyone selfish." Using an acronym for a clearly profane phrase to insult the religious leader of billions of people all over the world, and accusing him of assisting in cover up sexual abuse cases again without foundation.

"I’m good and done with Catholics." This isn't "attacking all Catholics?" What is, then?

Substitute any of this for any other mainstream religion, and it would be stricken in a heartbeat.

It's obvious that the originator of the thread started it to attack the religion generally. It's a vicious introduction to the topic and you know it. Just because you agree doesn't make it ok.

Objecting to the word, "allegedly" is pretty nit-picky. At first I was bothered by the accusation of covering up sexual abuse, but then I found this:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/explosive-letter-claims-pope-francis-helped-cover-cardinal-mccarick-sex-n903936

So, the accusation is not without foundation.

I consider your objection to the post about being done with Catholics.

[jsteele]

jsteele wrote:I consider your objection to the post about being done with Catholics.

I meant to say that I "will" consider your objection. I also just realized that is the same post as the others.

[Anonymous]

OK, Jeff. Fine. It's pretty telling, actually -- your response to complaints about Catholic bashing on your website is consistently "how can I do anything about it when you don't report it?" Then, when reported, you defend the bashing.

Your website. You win. Just stop pretending you care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, Jeff. Fine. It's pretty telling, actually -- your response to complaints about Catholic bashing on your website is consistently "how can I do anything about it when you don't report it?" Then, when reported, you defend the bashing.

Your website. You win. Just stop pretending you care.

[Anonymous]

The previous post speaks volumes. A Catholic complains about the Pope being referred to as a piece of sh*t and the response is further ridicule of the religion. Nice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The previous post speaks volumes. A Catholic complains about the Pope being referred to as a piece of sh*t and the response is further ridicule of the religion. Nice.

It’s a ridicule of OP. Poor OP who being burned at the stake for her religious beliefs.

[Anonymous]

I am a Catholic and PP I agree that the post about being 'done with Catholics' should be removed, if anyone posted about being 'done with Muslims' it would rightfully be removed.

But I also think you are being really over dramatic. At the end of the day the (big) church has behaved abhorrently in the last few decades. There are ramifications to that. It has made me consider my own affiliation with the institution.

I think objecting to people calling the pope names is tricky. The pope is unique in being a major public political figure in the world and also being the head of a church. There really is not another institution like that, there is no single person leading and speaking for the Muslim or Hindu or Jewish religions. And the Pope is not just a religious figurehead, he comments on the events of the world. He is a living figure and as such is spoken about like a living figure who is making choices.

Jeff lets people call Biden and Trump and Netanyahu and Queen Elizabeth POSs and I think that the pope falls into the category of living political figures who are fair game for people to have strong feelings about.

[jsteele]

I decided the the line about being done with Catholics was inappropriate. Because that was part of the original post of the thread, I've removed the entire thread. Posters are welcome to start another thread on the topic while using less discriminatory language.