What about lefthanders?  Don't forget left-handers.  We've been discriminated against, too.  We're a minority as well.  We demand our grant from the government for being a minority and a statement from the church that self-declared lefthanders can be ordained, too.

LB - spawn of a leftie

That sounds like my old elementary school teacher (one room school - teacher was 'god') who would have changed us all to right handed if she could, or at least had us 'fixed' so we couldn't reproduce .  One day, I told her that, to me, SHE  was awkward.  She asked, "Do you want the strap?"  Is there more than one answer to that question that wouldn't result in the strap?  (Yea, she was a bully, for sure).

I see chansen is still stomping his feet.

I'm just doing what I do - pointing out the absurd in religion and religious discussion.  I'm also still trying to determine what passes here.

Testing...

And let me separate out the previous two:

I think this one should definitely stand.  It doesn't have anything the Axis of Evil of a stick figure, and arrow, and the name "Muhammad".

This one is a little more cloudy.  But it points out that, individually, the Evil marks have no power.  It is only when combined in an Axis of Evil that they become more powerful than you could possible imagine scribble marks could become.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, here's a ten thousand novel essay for you.

Chansen, since we've already removed these same pictures once today, you know they aren't acceptable. You don't have to post them again. If you want to discuss the Muslim tradition of not allowing pictures of Muhammad, that is fine, but -- as you know -- we've decided that these pictures are not appropiate for WonderCafe, especially when they are mocking of the Islamic tradition. I've already contacted you privately several times about this, so you know what our policy is. Thanks for cooperating and abiding by the user guidelines you agreed to when you signed up to the site.

Aaron (Admin2)

 There is a famous picture of Mohammed as a boy that is well known in the Shia world, and often reproduced. Could I post that on Wondercafe? Some Sunni think it is objectionable, in fact they think all Shia's Muslims art is  objectionable.

How about some very famous depictions of Christ, like the piss Christ, that some find very objectionable, but others do not.

From Wikipedia

Piss Christ is a 1987 photograph by photographer Andres Serrano. It depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist's urine. The piece was a winner of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art's "Awards in the Visual Arts" competition,^[1] which is sponsored in part by the National Endowment for the Arts, a United States Government agency that offers support and funding for artistic projects.

Sister Wendy Beckett, an art critic and Catholic nun, stated in a television interview with Bill Moyers that she regarded the work as not blasphemous but a statement on "what we have done to Christ" — that is, the way contemporary society has come to regard Christ and the values he represents.^[4]

 During a retrospective of Serrano's work at the National Gallery of Victoria in 1997, the then Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, George Pell, sought an injunction from the Supreme Court of Victoria to restrain the National Gallery of Victoria from publicly displaying Piss Christ, which was not granted. Some days later, one patron attempted to remove the work from the gallery wall, and two teenagers later attacked it with a hammer.^[5] The director of the NGV cancelled the show, allegedly out of concern for a Rembrandt exhibition that was also on display at the time.^[2]

If that's the case, why not just remove the postings of the other poster. Why erase the whole thread. How does a simple stick figure of anyone violate the wondercafe guidelines.

There is nothing wrong with pushing boundaries - how else would progress be made -however, one should examine the intent of the shove.

Is it to provoke open discussion or is it to denigrate another to elicit a violent reaction.  The latter intent merely shows that the initiator is hell bent on affirming their own convictions - they do not seek to elevate or illuminate but merely prove that their dogmatic belief is the one true perspective.

Using images as weapons is the easiest path to provocation.  There is not a collective group that does not see a certain image as denigrating their collective identity - African Americans cringe at Buckwheat, Jews at a hooked nosed Shylock, Aboriginals at the cigar store chief.  Images do not require intelligence and language skills to decipher the true intent; they burn through one's eye and into the brain where all the other images of insult and injury lay buried.

Images are cheap and effective because one can easily dismiss those collective cries of insult by saying "oh its just a picture, get over it".  But the target knows, recognizes immediately, the message in the medium.

The first rule of pushing boundaries is, don't be surprised when others push back.  If the intent is true and just, it will win out.  If it is a projection of bigotry it will, one hopes, wither.

LB

Whereas the Greeks gave to will the boundaries of reason, we have come to put the will's impulse in the very center of reason, which has, as a result, become deadly.

     Albert Camus

Personally, I find this specific piece of "art" absolutely disgusting (regardless of the "artist's" intent) and the artist himself to be a repulsive pig.

I find the picture repulsive.  It is not creative to piss on something it is animal like and the dodderheads who have the artist $15,000 were not artists by any stretch of the imagination.

*quoting LB*

"Using images as weapons is the easiest path to provocation.  There is not a collective group that does not see a certain image as denigrating their collective identity - African Americans cringe at Buckwheat, Jews at a hooked nosed Shylock, Aboriginals at the cigar store chief.  Images do not require intelligence and language skills to decipher the true intent; they burn through one's eye and into the brain where all the other images of insult and injury lay buried."

I think this is important, and points to the slippery slope between hatred-inciting images and controversial ones. 

Like many people, I like to photograph images I encounter that intrigue me.  One of those images is of a large, faded plaster statue of the virgin mary with a pigeon sitting on her head and pigeon crap running down her shoulders.

Hatred-inciting?  Bad taste?  Controversial?

I just took a picture.  I didn't create the image.

If you did one of Christopher HItchens (chuckle chuckle har har), the marginally educated 'expert' (CHOKE, CROAK) who barely graduated from University (3RD CLASS DEGREE) , some atheists on the site would be in an uproar.  I don't know why Admin doesn't remove it.  I'm no prude, but it goes beyond the bounds of good taste and intelligent comment.  Freedom of expression is one thing.  Being a jerk for the sake of being a jerk is another.  Somebody needs to seriously get a life and something lacking in today's world ..... MANNERS.

I think the question is whether one has the RIGHT to be rude, ignorant and spiteful.  In this country, one does.  That's what makes it OK to vote Conservative, after all.  So long as one's actions or words don't incite violence, they are OK in this nation.  And we are, for the record, considered one of the more restrictive of Western nations.

On this site, it is clear that the rules are more stringent than they are in society at large.  That is the right of the sites owners and administrators.   I don't personally like that, nor do I like all of the nitty gritty of how it is practiced, which is why I shouldn't be an administrator here.  But however I may feel about the balance of that policy, it has certainly been consistent, and that is a value worth affirming.  

On this site, you can't use your free speech rights to mock and denigrate other religions, nor can you use it to mock and denigrate on a personal level.  You can use it to mock and denigrate the religion of the site's owners, and you can use it to mock and denigrate political views, and the ability of posters to construct cogent arguments.   Those basic guidelines have been pretty consistently enforced since the site opened.  They shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who is around here often.

Hi chansen,

I appreciate that your intent is not anti-muslim, I also appreciate that a segment of Islam is not going to get that message.  It is roughly similar to the Bobblehead Jesus dolls which brought a smile to some Christian lips and a frothing rage to others.

Communication isn't always as straightforward as we would like it to be.

I appreciate that also.  Intended or not it will be considered a provocation and, whether or not that justifies certain reaction, it will provoke some sleeping dogs which should be left to lie.

Fair enough.  That endeavour has consequences.  If the only ones who would be made to pay those consequences were those who engaged in the activity I would have no problem with that.

Fair enough.  So long as you do not tread in the areas covered by those religious laws.  As soon as you cross the line there are consequences.  The same holds true here right?  WonderCafe might be more tolerant but everything doesn't fly here.

Members have been banned for crossing lines.  They were free to say what they wanted and yet there were consequences.

We are aware that there are segments of Islam who will respond to images of Allah with very little patience.  Just as we are aware that some dogs will respond to certain stimuli in predictably violent ways.  Some dogs, do not respond well to children running in the house.  It triggers a predatory reflex.  To deal with that reflex we need to engage the dog and prevent the children from running until we have augmented that dog's behaviour.  Encouraging all the children to run will not cure the dog.  In all likelihood it will result in a child being hurt.

So, we can exercise our freedom of expression, knowing that it is going to enrage a potentially deadly dog or we can engage the dog and seek to modify its behaviour so that running becomes safe.

I don't know that Islam is a taboo subject here anymore than Judaism is.  I think that the bar for discussion on these subjects is higher.  Unfortunately, there is a great deal of ignorance about other faiths and even when we want to have a simple discussion we don't always choose our words carefully.

I remember a thread a while back where a poster included what she thought was a cute little poem.  Some other members took offense and the post was removed.  I don't believe offense was intended.  Offense was definitely received.

Thank you for the compliment.  Admin does a relatively decent job of letting the place pretty much police itself.  Sometimes they jump in, too soon for some and too late for others.  While I tend to respect their decisions I don't always agree with them.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I reported that 'picture' to Admin as offensive.  Would the average Joe in the UC who helps support this site be upset if they saw what was being posted at the Church's expense?  You can bet Mission and Service contributions would fall.  I can think of ways to inform those who aren't online or on Wondercafe of the gross depiction of Christ. (Even as a grad student, I was a bit of a rabble rouser).   Although not a member of the UC, I have several friends and influential contacts who are clergy and employees of the United Church who would take this objection seriously.  What is your major mental malfunction that says it's okay to do this?  In  the words of Daffy Duck (another famous theologian) "That'th dethpicable". 

However the question for me is not about being able to be rude, or spiteful.  The question is how does determine if one is being so.

What is consider rude, can be considered holy or  political by others.

The Piss Christ shows how one  educated Roman Catholic can consider a picture to be a profound pro-Christian piece of art. While others who are not as knowledgable, such as Australian teenagers find it offensive. 

This piece of art also shows how this question is not just an Islamic questions.  In Israel there have been riots over art created by Jews that other  Jews consider offensive. 

The problem with taking sides on the questions of pictures of Mohammed is that you are risking taking sides in a an internal religious debate. Would you want Christianity solely defined inside the Islamic world by Pat Robertson? or Cardinal Ouellet.?

My knowledge of Islam is limited. Most Islamic scholars that I have read are of the type that are feminist, pro-peace and tolerant.  They find the version of Islam practiced by Sunni Wabbists as offensive.  Not because it is different, but because they claim that their version is the only correct one.    Shia muslims, and Sunni muslims in the east ( Indonesia) have no problems with images of the prophet .

My own view is that all of creation is holy. I would not post an image that I found to be offensive, but I understand why people are posting pictures of Mohammad. They are doing so for political reasons, and not to be offensive.

I would disagree in the sense that LGBT people have been mocked and denigrated since the beginning of Wondercafe.

However that has changed after much debate, and now the admin will delete such posts that do so.  they even went back and deleted the older posts that did so, after having a better understanding.

While I disagree with the decision of admin to delete Chansen's post of a stick figure, I support their ability to do so. I see it as part of the process we must all travel in determining when certain lines are crossed that are unacceptable.  It contributes to a healthy debate, for which their decision is only part of the process and not the end of a process.

Hopefully it will end with more tolerance all arouind, and not only will stick figures not be banned, but the people who post them will not feel a need to do so.

It is hard to make adminstrative decisions like this, but it is necessary. 

My favorite Islamic writer is Irshad Manji. I first discovered this Canadian when she was host of CITY TV's  Q TV. ( A Queer TV Show.) She later came to be known as an Islamic intellectual who challenges the very idea that Islam is an intolerant faith.  http://www.irshadmanji.com/

She wrote "The Trouble With Islam Today: A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith."

The main difference between you and I is, that I believe in doing what is right, in the eyes of God, and the community of believers.  You determine what is right by  what " influential contacts who are clergy and employees of the United Church " believe.

Which is strange since you do not belong to the UCC.

Don't be pretentious or presuming, Alex.  You know NOTHING about me.  I was raised in the UC and I've seen it from all three sides.  I've had a career in human services, including church related employment, in which I did what was right for the people I worked with and represented.  When I was director of a substance abuse program in a major Canadian city (being a certified addictions consellor), I did what was right for my clients and their families even if it flew in the face of the administration.  I sat in the same room as people with criminal records, including murder, drug abuse, prostitution, child molesters, etc. with nothing between them and me but a desk and a third party whether a medical worker or social worker or corrections worker, especially when assessing female clients.  I really don't give a hoot what others believe, including the UC.  I care what I believe to be proper and fair.  This alleged 'community of believers' that you claim to be part of (and, I would ask just what they believe if your actions are any indication of their priorities) is such varied group they would differ on what is the 'right' thing.  Play the 'suffering servant' card somewhere else, please.  I can smell it coming a mile away.  I could be in a coma and smell it coming.  Smell ya later! 

To quote the famous Judge Judy:  "Don't *** on my leg and tell me it's raining."

I just received an e-mail from chansen telling me that he has been banned from WC because of his activity on this and the previous (now deleted) thread. Administration has the right to do that, of course.  I don't deny that. I also have the right to disagree. chansen and I agreed on nothing until these threads came up, but I respected him. He called things as he saw them, and as someone who thinks that we are now so afraid of offending anyone that we've robbed our society of any real spirit I enjoyed the sometimes spirited debates we had. As a result of all this, I also will be withdrawing from the Discussion forums, at least for a while, until I've cooled down about this. This whole issue of the Muhammad pictures has been bothersome to me. There have been a lot of posts about the rules which supposedly say that we're to post nothing offensive to "other" religions. That word "other" keeps coming up. I can't find it in the rules. The closest I found was this:

That refers to ANY religion or other minority groups, not just "other" religions. And yet, Alex has pointed out that posts have been allowed which have offended the LGBT community, it's been a virtual "open season" on fundamentalist Christians almost since I've been here, which is about 3 years now, and no one seems worried about removing the "Piss on Christ" picture posted above. It's the obviously selective and arbitrary application of these guidelines of conduct that bother me. It's also the hypocrisy of the United Church of Canada having launched WC with ads that were deliberately designed and  intended to offend (I know - the bobble head Jesus and the same sex wedding cake were only intended to provoke discussion, we never thought they'd offend anyone - and if you believe that I have some pristine beachfront property in Louisiana that might interest you.)

The previous discussion (now deleted) on this topic got rather heated. If memory serves, I may well have made a post which contributed to the decision that banned it. If so, I apologize to the community, because the thread, while heated, was very worthwhile.

Enjoy the discussions. I will not leave WC entirely, only because I have to keep our church page updated and for whatever reason folks at the church like me to post my sermons here as a blog. Nice that some of them think they're good enough for that.

Blessings to all,

Steven

All I know is that you have seemed to openly threaten the administrators, the M&S fund and others on this site, by using the contacts you have inside the UCC.

Do you refute this?

Also if you are going to threaten people at least reveal who you are. Otherwise you come off as the "devil- as a metaphor" or a person  out to cause problems, not to resolve problems through dialogue.  

Perhaps you were not threatening people, but only intended to illustrate a point, I would welcome you to clarify your position.  Perhaps you were tring to say I do think others would agree, or that you did not agree, but it came off as a threat. 

As to being part of a community of believers, I would agree and say that they would have a variety of positions. However they are open to dialogue.  What they are not hoping for is to "Bring Quebec and the rest of Canada humbly to their knees before Almighty God.!" as you have stated, but instead are hoping for God to reveal herself inside each of us.

Theologically I believe all of creation is holy, and I feel it stifles creativity and change to threaten others.    However it is difficult to determine what is sincere, and what is not. Hopefully I am wrong and you are sincere. I just might be reacting to other situations I have had with people who I have been deceived by.

 It's a shame Chansen has been banned. I do not agree with him, theologically but he has been a bright light and also spoke with an authentic voice, backed up by a consistant view point.   

I am in a poor position to judge the actions of the admin, because I have called for limits on posters in the past. I also know that once you have limits, than inevitably that will affect people you agree with at times. however some limits are better than none.  I remember when wondercafe started, the intent was to have no limits. I had a long chuckle over that.  Then soon  people started using names like "God". So it was changed that people could not use names of divinities as handles.  I agreed. Also at first people were using WC as a platform to attack the LGBT community. That has changed too. It was in it's first year the place to go to attack LGBT people, and that was wrong.

i just wish chansen would have seen, that WC is in process, and refrained from doing what he was specifically told not to do, and instead continued a debate on what is right and wrong.  To do so would not have meant he was wrong, but to understand that others/we are limited.

Hi Rev. Steven Davis,

Seriously!?  

I haven't found much in this thread which is out of character for chansen.  Nor have I found anything on this thread which I believe warrants a ban.

Admin reserves the right to make mistakes.  Small and colossal.  This lies somewhere in between.  Probably leaning more to the colossal.

Respectfully Rev. Steven Davis WC speaks for The United Church of Canada as much as you or I do.  This is not about the denomination this is about the administration.

Fair enough.  I don't think leaving in protest will change much.  I respect your decision to withdraw.  

Grace and peace to you.

John

Who am I?  I am the eggman (Woooo), I am the eggman (Woooo) I am the walrus, KOO KOO KA JOOB.  As you may have guessed, I don't take you or your 'intimidating' stance seriously.  BTW, I rarely threaten, I usually go right for the jugular.  Personally, I think you're a joke.

I too am saddened that Chansen will no longer be posting here. I found his posts amusing. However, as with other posters who have ultimately been banned Chansen was forewarned. He continued to push the boundaries - as was his right - and as a result faced the known consequences.

Posts that offended the GLBTs of Wondercafe have also been removed. Posters who consistently pushed the boundaries of insult to this particular community were equally warned and subsequently banned.

Posts that crossed the boundary and became insulting to individuals on this site have been removed. Posters who persisted in that behaviour were warned and again banned.

If one looks beyond one's personal ox being gored, one will see that the response of Admin has been consistent. It has also been Admin's reaction to the people in this community. Admin responds to posts that are flagged offensive by the users - if no one flags a particular post or thread it will remain.

In our haste to defend an individual's personal freedom we often overlook the community's freedom to set its boundaries. It becomes an issue of competing rights.

For me, the end result of the competition must be protecting the rights of the vulnerable and powerless within the community.

LB

 Ethics at work is often not the simple choice of right versus wrong, but of reconciling competing 'rights'.

     Michael Rion

For me, I could care less if Chansen is banned or not. I do find it amusing though that he got banned for insulting Muslims by posting pictures of drawings of Muhammed (after mutliple warnings to stop) , but had free reign to insult other faiths with glee. Oh well. I for one will not lament his banning.

Admin gave chansen many private warnings to delete a pic which is in violation of the codes of conduct.  Chansen refused to remove the pic.   Admin still did not ban chansen.  Admin removed the pic himself.  Chanson put it back up.  Admin gave chansen a public warning to remove the pic.  Chansen did not.  Chanseon was banned.   He was practically daring admin to ban him.  This is all public knowledge so that you have found nothing that warrents a ban means you have not been pay  much attention to this thread.

Nope. Admin makes the rules.   Admin has decided that somehow the pic chansen posted was disrespectful to moslums.  I do not know enough about the moslum faith to comment on whether nor not Admin is correct in that call.  Admin is within their rights to make that call.  Chansen did not remove the pic after repeated warnings so he left Admin no choice but to ban him because he was not respecting Admin or the Wondercafe Guidelines of Conduct.   The wondercafe Guidelines of Conduct are a legal document and therefore subject to interpretation (which means they are grey and broad) but Admin has the final say on the interpretation.

I am not going to comment on this because it is Church politics and I can't make a fair comment since I don't know a lot about the Church politics.

The protest will change nothing.  Admin makes their decisions and Chansens' banning lies with Chansen and Admin.  Even if 10 or 20 of us stormed off to protest Chansen's banning it would make no difference.  Chansen was banned.  He got private warnings, he got a public warning.  He dared Admin by publicly defying Admin.  You can't help a guy like that.

RevJohn, CHansen was banned long before you gave him your answer on this thread you should answer people a little faster you never know who is going to be gone next.

Do you hear that sound?  It's as if irony meters for miles around are crying out in agony.

Look, a few items above are incorrect.  I'm not about to re-hash it all, but you're account is less accurate than anything written about this situation thus far.

Since the chansen ban has been lifted, I offer the following:

RevJohn (and Serena, although I suspect you've lifted my words from John's post) - you've quoted me slightly out of context. What I referred to was " the hypocrisy of the United Church of Canada having launched WC with ads that were deliberately designed and  intended to offend." (Obviously, I've put in bold what was left out of the quote.) I'm suggesting it's hypocritical to launch this thing with an advertising campaign that everyone knew would cause offence to some Christians, and then to say, "but we don't want to offend anyone." If not hypocritical - at least inconsistent!

And as I've said, I absolutely agree that Admin has the right to apply the rules. I'm just suggesting that it's being done - again - inconsistently. The "rules" do not say that we can offend other Christians but no one else. The "rules" refer to "any religion." I trust that the next time someone says something offensive about fundamentalist Christians (I'm not a fundamentalist by the way; just noting the inconsistency) it will be removed.

Hi Rev. Steven Davis,

I think that we might be talking past each other.  I get what you are saying about the ads heralding the opening of WonderCafe.

I think that we need to keep in mind that while The United Church of Canada owns WonderCafe and funded the Emerging Spirit Campaign there is creative control of content.  Admin's decision to ban is Admin's decision it is not The United Church of Canada's decision to ban.

As I mentioned upthread to chansen I think that WonderCafe is tolerant of self-criticism (Christians bashing other Christians and it happens both ways across the theological spectrum).  WonderCafe tends to be more sensitive of other criticism (Christians bashing other faiths.)

I recognize that my delineation is probably an over simplification.

Frankly, I'm divided about removing "offensive content" simply because there is no objective standard that all members can look to for guidance.  

That is probably discussion for another thread.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I certainly hope not.  As I understand it, WonderCafe is meant for discussion, not just the exchange of pleasantries.  If I want to talk to the nice old lady across the street about her petunias and the weather, I have that option.  With religion, there are errors and inconsistencies and evil and all sorts of things associated with religion that deserve the light of inquiry and discussion.  I've certainly learned about Christianity and the bible since I started coming here - both from members and from referencing sections.  Suffice to say, I've read more of the bible in the 16 months since I came to WC, than in my 37 earlier years combined.  What I've read has impressed, bored, and appalled me, but then, that has always been my experience with reading bits of the bible.

As the Draw Muhammad Day threads were running concurrently with threads where members were posting implied threats of hell and eternal suffering, one of the points I was trying to make was, you can get away with almost anything, so long as you have religion on your side.  The threat of hell is meaningless to me, and I can laugh them off with the amount of respect those threats deserve.  But to someone who believes, and especially a child, threats of hell are very real, and very dispicable.  What I've done in these threads is so very tame in comparison.

People do have the right not to be threatened or personally degraded, but they simply do not have the right not to be offended.  WC could implement this as a policy, but I hope they don't.  It would stifle the place.

My account of the banning is 100% accurate except for the typo giving RevJohn credit for RevStephenDavis's threat to leave wondercafe because a member was repeatedly warned for going against the guidelines of conduct.

I am sorry I quoted what you said and gave RevJohn credit.  That was a typo.  As far as removing hateful things about fundamental Christians......I plead the fifth on that ...would love to commment but can't.

That's not why I suggested I might leave, Serena. I was asking for a consistent application of the guidelines, and suggested that others had done what chansen had done without being warned/banned, etc., apparently because in spite of the guidelines which refer to "any religion"  it's OK to speak offensively of some religious groups but not others.

I'm retired, so I'm excused, but do you guys actually have jobs that you work at?  I thought structural engineers would be almost as busy as, say, ministers?  Aren't there little old ladies to visit, tea to be sipped, hospitals to be visited, sermons to be prepared, etc.?  Well, what do I know, I'm just some old, retired, disabled geezer.

Not even close.  Admin deleted the first image without messaging me, but did reply in the thread that he had deleted the image.  I never "refused" to delete the image.  Not once did I refuse to delete an image.  I was asked to change my "Not Muhammad" avatar, presumably because "Not Muhammad" is seen by admin to be the same as "Muhammad", and I complied, to the apparently acceptable "Not a prophet" avatar.

Basically, I wasn't nearly as stubborn or defiant as you allege.

No, it just did not happen like that.  I did not put the original image back up.  I linked it, which was apparently fine, as the link was never removed.  Hell, it's still at the top of this thread.

I was testing the waters with tamer images.  Some passed, some did not.  It was amusing to see what passed and determine the boundaries.

And your version of "public knowledge" is to twist the facts, so I don't think you get to use the phrase "public knowledge"

It doesn't matter how many times you write it - I never refused to remove an image that admin requested be removed.  Not once.  If you want to see the thread, I have it saved on my hard drive and I'll mirror it when I get a chance.  The copy you saved in your mind is hopelessly corrupt.

I was banned at or about the time that admin thanked me for abiding by the site rules, presumably tongue planted firmly in cheek.  A completely different admin reinstated me, saying the ban was only to make sure I understood why I was banned, but reinstated me before I even had a chance to explain to her why I thought I was banned, but quickly after Steven and John expressed their support (thanks again).  Things work oddly around here.  Perhaps the other WC administrators quickly realized that Aaron messed this one up and was on shaky ground, but I never got a message from Aaron stating that the ban was for the purpose of confirming I knew why I was banned, so I assume that was not his intention and other admins are just covering for him.  Something tells me Aaron is not in favour of my reinstatement.

Still, Everybody Draw Muhammad Day was a moderate success, considering it was a small FaceBook endeavour.  Images of "Muhammad" are more widespread now than ever before. At some point, they may be so widespread that media outlets begin to show images without fear, as extremist muslims will run out of stamina to carry out all the attacks required.  Once images of Muhammad are ubiquitous, there will be no reason to create more Muhammad images, and the whole thing will die out.

Now, please excuse me while I log out of this account and log into my sockpuppet account to agree with myself.

None of my designs have collapsed yet.  That I'm aware.

I was busy all day and just got to this thread so some of my comments are already about things that happened in the past (hours ago).  Chansen was banned.  I was sorry to hear this.  Although he was sometimes annoying and sometimes obtruse and one time he tried to tell me that as I Christian I couldn't think a certain way because I couldn't 'change the rules',  but I also found many of his posts interesting, challanging and sometimes amusing.   But in this thread I thought that Chansen was trying not just to push the limits but to get himself banned.  I'm not sure why.   I found that Admin had a great deal of patience with him, contacting him privately and warning him, removing posts, etc. before banning him.  He had lots of opportunity to step back - but he continued to flaunt his behaviour.  I don't know what else Admin could do.

However I see he is back.  Welcome back, Chansen.  I hope to see more of your wit and wisdom  (this was not your finest hour). 

Not always, LB. I have flagged a few myself. I can't recall one single time when Admin actually responded. It seems to me that some posters get way more response than do others.

jae, I too have flagged posts.  I've never received a personal response from Admin.  Sometimes nothing happens and I presum that the offense wasn't great enough to require attention, or at least publc attention.  Sometimes the post is removed, and on very rare occasions the offender is banned.  I think that probably by the time I flag a post someone else has also found it offensive.  I imagine the Admin looks into each one that is flagged and then makes his decision.  I don't expect a personal response or comment from Admin. 

I did not flag this one although I found it offensive.  I think by the time I discovered the thread Admin was already involved.

 Thanks for raising some of these points Chansen. Just to clarify, you were banned for reposting pictures (including variations on the original and some completely new ones) that mocked the Muslim tradition of not picturing Muhammad after we had removed them and asked you several times not to continue to post them. As I've mentioned several times in this thread and the original one on the same topic, this isn't acceptable on WonderCafe. 

Nobody's on shaky ground here. Everyone on our admin team agrees this is not acceptable. Another admin replied to you because that's who opened the email you sent. But we spoke about it first. 

As I wrote to you in a WonderMail, we didn't want to ban you, but since you continued to do what we asked you not to, then we disabled your posting abilities. After we heard from you we re-activated your account. This is fairly normal, especially for those who are being banned for the first time.

Our policy on images of Muhammad remains the same, especially on those that outrightly mock the Muslim tradition. We've decided not to allow those. For those like Rev. Steven Davis and Alex who perhaps wonder about a double standard, they are right. There is a different standard when it comes to potentially offensive pictures of Jesus. Taken in context, as a site hosted by a Christian denomination we have more latitude on WonderCafe for Christians to participate in respectful discussion about what is appropriate / inappropriate and valuable / offensive when it comes to images of Jesus. This is in part what WonderCafe is about, and several of our ads have invited such discussion. Islamic history and traditions are quite different in this area, so we have chosen to respect that. And it's not really up to us as admins to make judgments on this. 

I hope this helps clarify what is going on here. Basically all of our moderating decisions on this site are judgment calls, so yes, perhaps we make mistakes sometimes, but I don't think that is what has happened in this case.

Thanks everybody for your contribution to this site and for making so many of the discussions so rich and helpful.

Peace,

Aaron (Admin2)

The only thing I flag is spam.  I've probably lost out on untold millions of Nigerian royal wealth because of it.

The position I take, for example, if someone wants to denigrate people for their inborn nature or other such trait that is not by choice, then the best course of action is not to sweep them under a rug, but to expose their (often religious-based) bigotry for what it is.  But then, I'm also quite content to let Holocaust deniers speak, because their case is so easily and convincingly disproven.  If you deny the messages of others, it just looks like you have something to hide.  If they are fools, they'll prove it themselves.  If they're not, they'll prove it themselves.

 I am just disappointed I have not had any replies to my belief that  there is a "Muslim tradition of not picturing Muhammad "  rather than it being a tradition of extremists.

The only people who have responded (and I missed the original discussion, before it was removed) have not objected to posting the picture, or one poster  who has responded by hurling insults at me, without addressing the issue. (ironically he also breeched the Rules of Conduct on Courtesy and Respect in doing so, like he has to so many others numerous times).  I  have posted sources which explain that banning images is not a Muslim tradition. 

I would like to see some source that says otherwise. However not from some political or leader of a sect that believes  all other forms of Islam, other than his own is false. But a source that accepts Islam is one of the most diverse religion, and accepts other variant other than the author is legit.

None of my parishioners have become atheists yet, either!

Isn't it nice to all be back together; one big happy family again!

One big happy disfunctional family.

Or should it be disfunctionally happy?