If u want a news community that won't censor u for saying such things their is always !news_summary@hilariouschaos.com

Just a theory, but speaking from experience, perhaps people are just tired of hearing that particular accusation, especially in the instances where it's not even correct. It's the easiest thing to throw around and have some kind of large desired effect.

PTB for sure.

Anti-religious sentiment is something that a lot of people get really, really wrong here. Because they don't understand the difference between three things:

1. The religion itself - a set of moral and epistemic beliefs, rituals, behaviours. e.g. "Christianity"
2. The religious community - people who claim to follow #1. e.g. "Christians"
3. Religious institutions - a power structure using #1 to rule over #2. e.g. "the Catholic Church".

OP is clearly criticising #3 and only #3. That's completely fine. Discrimination would target #2 instead. And it's clear that rule 4 is about discrimination, otherwise "anti-religious sentiment" wouldn't be lumped alongside homophobia, racism, etc.

Amend community rule 4 to remove the reference to religion. WTF is it doing there as a rule in a news community in the first place? Is LW being run as a theocracy now?

Ideally this should be amended in a way that people can still criticise #1 and #3 just fine, but doesn't let you to target people based on their religion or lack of. Things like [for example] "Christians are all disgusting and rotten" should still not be allowed; but things like the mod's comment towards Atheists should not either.

...in any other instance I'd propose people to escalate the issue to the admins, but given LW's tendency to screech at people not willing to put up with crap, that is likely useless.

Look, I agree with you about religion in general and in particular Catholicism.

That being said, the opinion I now present is a bit of a Devil's Advocate position:

The moderators of lemmy.world's worldnews community want to create an inclusive environment, and doing so means that they have to accept that the majority of the world (up to 85%) identifies as religious. (Stay with me, this is going somewhere)

Whether I like religion or not, I've met a lot of those people, and I'd say at least a quarter of them are decent people, religion be damned. They practice what they preach, so to speak.

So perhaps the moderators are doing their best to give users, including religious users, charitable interpretations of their interactions with others. Meaning that disparaging the entire religion might set off a lot of fighting that they would rather not moderate, and they also don't want to make the moderately religious feel unwelcome.

I agree with your assessment that the comment probably shouldn't have been removed, it's a bit overkill.

I'm just trying to put myself in the shoes of a moderator who wants to keep the amount of moderating they do to a minimum, and they could either accept that the majority of people may very well be religious or they can make an echo chamber full of atheists like us.

I think the rule is fine and getting rid of it is just asking to make a large portion of the world in a world news community feel unwelcome. Not every person inside the Catholic church is literally a child rapist, no matter how much they have done to enable child rapists in their ranks.

Like I said, I think removing your opinion (that could handily be backed up with evidence) is overkill... but at the same time maybe it was to prevent a flamewar from being started. Who knows.

Finally, Pope Francis sucks but is still a lot less sucky than most of the right-wing Cardinals who are closer in politics and ideology to that of Donald Trump and want to get back to sitting on gold thrones. Francis has at least tried to change the church marginally for the better, no matter if what he's done fails to come close to what needs to be done. He's literally up against his own theology and half of the Cardinals (if not more) of his own church. Perfect is the enemy of good and all that nonsense.

Anyway, that's my two cents and me trying to give charitable interpretations to the actions of the moderators.

I saw this in the modlog and it also came off weird to me. It’s definitely BPR or PTB but you got the ban reason wrong? It says rule 6 right there, not rule 4.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.

So… I kind of see this? The original post was about the pope’s health. Your comment was removed along with a slew of other much less defensible and off topic comments so I can see how a mod might just go in there and remove them all for being off topic.

TLDR, you didn’t deserve a ban but I think you mischaracterize the reason for the ban and it’s not as serious as your title portrays it. Make those comments in a place where it’s relevant (i.e. under a post about sexual abuse) and you’d be a-ok I’d wager.

PTB

"If you wanted not to be accused of sex abuse, you shouldn't have sexually abused all those children."

Just a statement that hurts someone's feelings doesn't mean it needs to be silenced. Especially since no one is really disputing the facts at this point. This is my problem with "civility" in general as a metric of allowed-ness. Sometimes the truth is not civil. As long as you're not being deceitful or picking a fight for no reason (Which, I realize some people might disagree and say this is. To me it is not.)

Here's Bill Burr clapping back in a very classy and very ruthless way at a morning show host who is trying to give him grief about being mean to the church: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBE9vyQEa8E&t=65s

“There is only what is and that's it. What should be is a dirty lie.” - Lenny Bruce

Also, related: “Take away the right to say ‘fuck’ and you take away the right to say ‘fuck the government.” - Also Lenny Bruce

PTB for sure, you are criticizing a religious institute that is not and will never be discriminatory, as it is not targeting people for their religion.

Honestly this is starting to get to apologia levels of it, where some admins might consider federating with that community to be a liability. Since you know, at this point they're sticking up for child molesters. That's pretty bad, and could be very iffy for some servers. Who knows, this might be the turning point where !worldnews@lemmy.world and !news@lemmy.world end up getting global/admin blocked on different servers.

​

I fully acknowledge it wasn’t a long ban and the rule was in place, so it was perhaps a BPR or YDI in that sense.

No way, when I was falsely banned from news it was a 3 day ban and I only found out days after it expired, an unjust ban is an unjust ban. Even if it was for 20 minutes, yes you can ban someone for 20 minutes, expiration is calculated by a fixed unix time stamp:

{"community_id":[commID],"person_id":[userID],"ban":true,"remove_data":true,"reason":"[Reason]","expires":1731916333}

That's not particularly important though, what matters is that it doesn't matter the ban length, it matters if it's unjust, and here it was unjust, without a doubt.

PTB

Common .world L

PTB