An open letter to Admin: This morning Bill Hancock posted an absolutely stunning AI image of Jesus Christ on AI Artistry and Creation. It was summarily removed by the Moderator because...

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

This morning Bill Hancock posted an absolutely stunning AI image of Jesus Christ on AI Artistry and Creation. It was summarily removed by the Moderator because it allegedly violated the Forum rules. Bill then posted the same image to the Christian Photography Group but was told AI images were not allowed.

We now face a conundrum. If the image was a photograph of a painting, it could be posted in Photo Gallery or Chit-chat with no questions asked. I am forced to ask if the image was removed from AI Artistry and Creation because of its religious context. Did I miss the prohibition of religious images on UHH or the relegation of them to Christian Photography Group?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

Longshadow wrote:

Thanks Longshadow

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I suppose no images of Ra are allowed either!

Oooooo.... We better watch pictures of churches also

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Curmudgeon wrote:

This morning Bill Hancock posted an absolutely stu... (show quote)

Unfortunately, you're asking the WRONG ADMIN. Local subsections are managed by UHH community members. In the case of AI Artistry and Creation, that local admin is member = Rongnongno.

And then again, you're mistaken about Christian Photography Group. That subgroup is managed by member = sinatraman.

Your issue(s) should be addressed to the responsible community members, probably via Private Messages - PM - where this post belongs in Chit Chat anyways. This final issue has been reported to ADMIN.

terryMc Loc: Arizona's White Mountains

Longshadow wrote:

I suppose no images of Ra are allowed either!

Oooooo.... We better watch pictures of churches also

While I personally have no religious beliefs or affiliation, neither do I have a problem with religious imagery as long as there is no discrimination and anyone can post their pictures freely. I happen to like to photograph churches, temples, and other places of worship, and do so at every opportunity, mostly because of the artwork and architecture which is often stunning. But I think to be fair, if you ban some, you must ban it all. Likewise, if you allow some, you must allow it all.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

terryMc wrote:

While I personally have no religious beliefs or affiliation, neither do I have a problem with religious imagery as long as there is no discrimination and anyone can post their pictures freely. I happen to like to photograph churches, temples, and other places of worship, and do so at every opportunity, mostly because of the artwork and architecture which is often stunning. But I think to be fair, if you ban some, you must ban it all. Likewise, if you allow some, you must allow it all.

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

Actually I'm not. Admin always has the final say about conduct on Ugly Hedgehog. Something this important does not belong at lower levels. This is potential sanctioned suppression of religious freedom by Rongnongno. As far as I can tell religious content is not prohibited in the rules of any subsections.

This issue certainly does not belong hidden from the membership which PM would do. It also, I believe belongs in the General Photography Discussion where it can be reviewed and considered by the widest possible audience.

Thanks for reporting it to Admin. It saves me doing it.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Curmudgeon wrote:

Actually I'm not. Admin b always /b has the fina... (show quote)

Then, post it again in the ATTIC, where the whole issue probably belongs.

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

CHG_CANON wrote:

Then, post it again in the ATTIC, where the whole issue probably belongs.

Don't you mean "Hide it in the ATTIC". I remember when that attitude resulted in ...

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Curmudgeon wrote:

.../...

The issue is the same as when you asked to post an image that included nudity. You asked first, and the answer was 'no'. Anything that proletize for whatever will always have a 'no' as an answer.

You do not like it? It is your right.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

CHG_CANON wrote:

Unfortunately, you're asking the b color=red WRO... (show quote)

Sinatraman is long gone. Not sure why.

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

Rongnongno wrote:

The issue is the same as when you asked to post an image that included nudity. You asked first, and the answer was 'no'. Anything that proletize for whatever will always have a 'no' as an answer.

You do not like it? It is your right.

You got the wrong guy. I never asked you for permission to post anything, nor would I. I think the word you were looking for was proselytize which means: "To try to persuade someone to change their religious or political beliefs or way of living to your own." I don't find that proselytizing is prohibited anywhere on Ugly Hedgehog

I don't like it. You are correct, that is my right.

hj Loc: Florida

Rongnongno wrote:

The issue is the same as when you asked to post an image that included nudity. You asked first, and the answer was 'no'. Anything that proletize for whatever will always have a 'no' as an answer.

You do not like it? It is your right.

So you're saying even pictures of Budda, Mohammad and other religious leaders will also not be permitted because they PROSELYTIZE? Does that apply also to political proselytizing from republican to democrat and vice versa?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

hj wrote:

So you're saying even pictures of Budda, Mohammad and other religious leaders will also not be permitted because they PROSELYTIZE? Does that apply also to political proselytizing from republican to democrat and vice versa?

The plot thickens.......