You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

I, however, read the TOS with slightly different emphasis, viz:


Thus, I do not read the TOS as barring all discussion of "sexual orientation, gender, race, color, religious views, national origin, or disability;" in my opinion they bar only those communications that are "knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, obscene, profane, threatening, harassing, offensive, vulgar, abusive, hateful or bashing."

Any discussion of value, or even of fact (since what is "fact" often depends on the reliability or credibility of the source cited for that alleged "fact") must of necessity deal with gradation, which of necessity means asserting that one thing or idea is superior (within the definition, express or implied, of what constitutes superiority) to another.

If the very assertion of superiority, with rationale for that assertion, constitutes banned discussion, OMNI would degenerate into the blandness of Barney the Purple Dinosaur and a "My, I'm OK, you're OK, we're all equally OK, and isn't it just wonderful that we're all OK" insipid saccharinity so severe as to cause diabetics to go into sugar shock.

I would agree that generally religion would not seem a fruitful field for rational discussion, since at a common level beliefs are not based on objective evidence and logic - indeed, "faith" has been defined as "belief despite the absence of proof". Further, it's difficult to continue a discussion when one party claims to be divinely inspired. However, there are at least three ways in which religion can be the subject of rational discussion (i.e., something beyond the "I'm right and you're wrong and you'll burn in Hell for that!" conclusory bombast):

1. The ethical structure of a religion can be rationally discussed and compared. If we hypothesize a religion that requires that every year 100 virgins must be thrown into a volcano after having been ravaged by the priesthood, one can discuss the ethical considerations in such doctrine, possibly comparing those considerations with the ones underpinning other religions or even civil law concepts.

2. Religions can be compared as tending toward or against realization of a particular (third) goal. For instance, if we hypothesize one religion that teaches that all non-believers must be put to death, and another that teaches a "live and let live" tolerance of competing beliefs, one can discuss which would be more likely to lead to a diminution in the violence found in the world today.

3. And, at an even higher plane, the logic of purported heresies can be debated, i.e., whether a particular conclusion follows logically from the doctrine and teaching of the religion. It may seem dry, but whether or not the Council of Nicea correctly resolved the Arian controversy ("The problem began in Alexandria, it started as a debate between the bishop Alexander and the presbyter (pastor, or priest) Arius. Arius proposed that if the Father begat the Son, the latter must have had a beginning, that there was a time when he was not, and that his substance was from nothing like the rest of creation.") is a matter that can be rationally discussed.

All of these are critical (in the sense of exercising close scrutiny, analysis and judgment) of one or more religions, yet I would submit none are violations of the TOS. Admittedly, the overly-sensitive are often "offended" where the objective observer sees nothing to be offended by (and some are offended merely when someone else suggests they may be wrong), but I doubt the FlyerTalk TOS were designed or intended to protect such sensitive souls from exposure to the real world.

Robust, adult discussion may result in some becoming unhappy; that's how it goes, and I don't think the TOS means to change that. If it does, OMNI will no longer be an adult discussion forum.