So I just had an OP hidden by the jury in Religion

Apparently, the actual headline, which is literally true, was just too much for some. I can see why some might feel that way, but it was not my opinion, nor did I add anything to it. In fact, I ensured that the OP title was in quotations and noted that it was the actual headline.

My question is, while I disagree, I can see why it was hidden, so can I repost the OP without the headline, or would that be seen as trying to circumvent the rules?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12189145

And the jury decision..

At Sat Feb 11, 2012, 03:35 PM, an alert was sent on the following post:



REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

I'm in agreement w/ op but headline has hurtful reference (cocksucker)

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sat Feb 11, 2012, 03:46 PM, and voted 4-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I'm of two minds on this one. It's a nasty headline, but I think the subject is important. I vote to leave it.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: Some posts are made simply to test the boundaries. I think this is one of those cases. Hide it.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: I am an Orthodox Jew and I DO FIND THIS UTTERLY OFFENSIVE!!!!!!!!
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This is borderline. The headline is factually correct, but chosen for maximum shock. Perhaps a different approach would be to PM the poster, or post in the thread, asking them to go with a less inflammatory headline?
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: Went to the linked site, which few will do. I realize it IS the title of the article, but that does not excuse its use. This is ONE person's attempt at being recognized for an opinion and is way over the top. I find it inappropriate as it is presented.

CONSEQUENCES OF THIS DECISION

You will no longer be able to participate in this discussion thread, and you will not be able to start a new discussion thread in this forum until 4:46 PM. This hidden post has been added to your <a href="/?com=profile&uid=260446&sub=trans">Transparency page</a>.

a petty, cold-hearted psychopath...

If you agree that corporations are not people, then you must also agree that religious organizations

are not people either. The result of this is that non-people corporations and religious organizations do not have Constitutional rights.

No one persons freedom of religion would be infringed by ensuring employers (in this case, it was a religious organization) must abide by the law. No individual Catholic that is opposed to contraception would ever be forced to dispense or take it, ergo no civil liberty infringement.

I think the Dems/Liberals missed a big opportunity to continue with the "corporations are not people" meme and give it more traction for a Constitutional Amendment.

Today was a very special day.

I got a bunch of hearts. Wow. For a poster who is as despised as much as I am (you should see the remarks by jury members when I alert on a post. Unbelievable.) I was really touched that several of you gave me hearts. I mean, they had to come from my compatriots here, right?

Thanks brothers and sisters. I really appreciate it.

Conventional Logic vs. Religious Logic

Chopra...explained.

There was an armed home invasion across the street from my house two nights ago.

No one was hurt, but they did put the people living there down on the ground, took cell phones, wallets, ransacked the place...


It happens. Yes, it can happen to you. Or me.

Am I still just a paranoid gun nut for having a way to protect myself and my family from savages like this? Please justify your answer of you say yes.

How respectable is a degree in Theology?

Your opinions, please. And your reasons why or why not.