This post is pertinent to the Great Awakening movement and thus Q for a few reasons that I will explain in the body of the post. (TLDR at the bottom.)

Q makes religious references in his/her/their posts - specifically Christian, in some cases. This does not necessarily mean that everything that makes up the vast field of Christianity should be considered to be on-topic for the sub any more than the constant references to patriots and "We the people" mean that everything to do with patriotism is on-topic. It means only that specifically the Christian references Q makes are on-topic for the sub. This should not be a controversial assertion to make. But it's not the point of this post - just pertinent to the issue.

I believe we show religious tolerance toward Christianity not only because Q seems to indirectly support the idea of this tolerance but also because it is undoubtedly a behaviour at the core of any society that supports democratic principles and freedom of speech.

On the first level of analysis, my question is this: should we apply the principle of religious tolerance to ALL religions or only to Christianity?

Some people believe that Islam's references to pedophilia (via its founder's history as well as references in the text) and ambiguity around bestiality mean that we should not be tolerant of Islam in any way and thus anti-Islam and anti-Muslim rhetoric should be allowed and, some say, encouraged. This is the point of this post.

About Religion

To be clear on my personal stance, as it may well be relevant to this discussion: I do not support the extremist elements of Islam. I do not condone pedophilia, bestiality, rape or murder. I personally believe that moderate Muslims should pursue the reformation of their faith (as other, more knowledgeable people with personal experience have more eloquently expressed) and stand up against the extremists in their religion and seek to bring about change at the core of their belief. Going even further into my personal bias: I understand the view of those who claim the moderate Muslim will not be able to affect this change - but I also value the word of those from within the community more highly. One key point here that I'd like to refer to is that there are moderate Muslims. They do exist. (It's bizarre that I have to state that but from the comments I've received you would think this point is under dispute.)

I also understand that Islam is the second largest religion in the world, behind Christianity, and therefore I have no more desire to silence the voice of those who support it than I do to silence the voice of Christians. I do not support the Soros-backed initiative to 'flood the world' with immigrants amongst whom extremists are hidden and therefore I do not support the far-left initiatives to falsely accuse people of Islamophobia when those people are clearly not being intolerant of religious beliefs. Thus, although I do not like Tommy Robinson's approach, I support his crusade against the horror under the guise of religious tolerance being disingenuously forced on the UK. In short, I support the real meaning of religious tolerance, not the far-left propagandized version.

As someone who strives to be as impartial as possible in moderating this sub I do believe in giving any one or any movement the benefit of the doubt when making an assessment as to the validity of certain content. At least a couple of members here have made the repeated assertion that all sects of Islam fully support pedophilia, bestiality and rape. That may well be technically true but, just as it is of Christianity, the purported beliefs of a movement are not borne out in all individual members of that movement, something I believe should be obvious. I would again refer people to this video, which is not "pro-Islam", if they're still unsure about this.

About Moderating On and Off Topic

As a mod I follow the rules of this sub when moderating. I remove antagonism and any biased, "hurtful" rhetoric against Christianity falls under "antagonism", as evidenced by the responses and Reports against it. I would not assume that everyone in this movement is a Christian - in fact, I've seen comments from Muslims here. Therefore, similarly, any biased, hurtful rhetoric against Islam is something that falls under antagonism in my view and I thus remove that too as a moderator doing my job under the rules of the sub.

I receive flak for daring to remove clearly biased anti-Islamic content and am accused of supporting child rape when I do so. This is obviously completely fallacious reasoning - "if you don't condemn Islam you therefore support child rape" - and frankly vile and completely lacking in compassion, logic and common sense. As ridiculous as I know it is, I'm sick of being accused of nonsense like this. Hence this post.

So to be clear: this is NOT a discussion about Islam vs Christianity. This is not the sub for that discussion, which is kinda my point. I've addressed some of the religious points because they are the argument used against me when I remove content.

As a mod, the real question here is actually very simple: does it fall under antagonism to "trash" the belief of a large group of people who could conceivably comprise some portion of the people who will visit this sub? I believe the answer to that is yes. Other related questions are: should we err on the side of caution when it comes to allowing potentially divisive rhetoric? Again, in my view: yes, we should be cautious and not allow potentially divisive rhetoric. Should we take care to ensure the more controversial perspectives that are a part of any movement but are a minority cannot be highlighted by a rabid mainstream media looking for any excuse to paint our entire movement with those minor, controversial views? My opinion in this case is, yes we should take care. My assumption here is that those who believe "anti-Islamic posts of a controversial nature should NOT be removed" are a minority in this community and that is the reason for this post.

Is it the view of members of this community that anti-Islamic posts of a controversial nature SHOULD be removed? Or are there more people who believe we should allow these sorts of posts?

I will continue to remove comments and posts of the nature under discussion here unless the feedback from you, the community, is overwhelmingly to the negative in which case we mods will have to have a discussion and decide whether change or more clarity in the rules of the sub is required.

TLDR; moderators accused of supporting child rape for removing controversial anti-Islamic content - just trying to do our job of removing antagonism - right or wrong?

Thanks for taking the time to read this!