Facebook censors image of Santa kneeling before baby Jesus, calls it ‘violent content’


Soros is shorting Facebook stock … and Facebook is investigating Soros.




Breitbart and lifesite want the Christian to be constantly outraged over supposed “attacks”.

Happy Holidays everyone!!



One of these days I’m going to use one of my AI tools to look at some posts here on CAF. Lots of of (including me) have patterns in our sentences. One of yours is statements of the form

I wonder what mine may be. But back to the topic…

Here are some hearts just for you. . :sparkling_heart::sparkling_heart::two_hearts::heart::heart::heart::heart::heart::heart:


Not sure what you are getting at. But take a look at the thread about the case being dismissed.

The court documents are open to be accessed by the public. If you feel that I have misrepresented anything let that record be your source of what arguments were filed.

It wasn’t an excuse. It was the argument presented to the courts over several cases. Under the usage that I know an “excuse” is a pardon for a fault or folly. I haven’t been convinced of a fault or folly committed by those defending themselves as it relates to the cases in question. (I can think of many faults that are not relevant to the case) If you are using a different sense of the word “excuse” and would like to make your stance more clear sharing it may be of assistance.

1 Like


ThinkingSapien . . .

If you feel that I have misrepresented anything let that record be your source of what arguments were filed.

No. I don’t think that at all regarding the court case.

I think the defend-facebook arguments morph to reflect whatever the argument de jour is for Facebook that day (that instance) and change frequently. Not from “you” personally necessarily here, but from defenders of Facebook as a whole.

People can read it and see it.

Morphing such as . . .

There is no censorship here.

To . . .

There IS censorship here, but they can do it anyway.

Or such as . . . .

It is probably “groups or users” (who these “groups or users” are, who knows?) that are manufacturing this “censoring”.

Or a post implying if you do not agree with Facebook those people (like LifeSiteNews) are just plain ignorant (“Lifesite doesn’t appear to have understanding for how these thigns (sic) work.”). And that is not persuasive and comes off as arrogant and condescending.

And I posted quotes reflecting that morphing of excuses.

But there is always an excuse.


ThinkingSapien . . .

Here are some hearts just for you. .

Thank you ThinkingSapien.

Hearts out for you too! Prayers as well. (And you please pray for me too.)

1 Like


The headline makes it sound like the company itself is censoring religious images, which is not the case. It’s a confusing headline.



Carmelite1983 . . .

The headline makes it sound like the company itself is censoring religious images, which is not the case. It’s a confusing headline.

That is a reasonable excuse Carmelite1983.

And if this was the only time I saw this type of thing occur from Facebook, or an equally distributed proportionality from my experience, or no internal memos etc. discussing these things in general terms, I might be inclined to agree with it.

But for me at least I would have to fall into “credulity” to think there is not at least some purposeful aspect from Facebook in these constant re-occurrences.

So you and I will just have to disagree here. And I am OK with that.

And other readers will have to draw their own conclusions.

And if they all draw different conclusions than I, I am fine with that too.

1 Like


You’re probably right.
I don’t really trust fb either. They definitely have an agenda of some kind.

1 Like


It has been pointed out above, that we should concentrate on big-time, large scale, overt persecution against Chrisitians worldwide.

And I agree with that thought for what it affirms.

But what it implicitly denies is that these persecutions grow out from “within a man”.

These persecutions against Christianity (the worst ever in history by the way) come from within the heart of man.

These anti-Christian persecutions metastasized out in seed form, from (in part) bad ideas.

And if these bad ideas are not opposed, they will continue to rot the cultures they infest.

So we need to (as St. John the Baptist says) lay the ax to the root of these issues and at least in part, courageously oppose these ideas that have such disasterous results. Even when they are in seed-form and are more difficult to see. Perhaps especially so.

An image of Santa apparently worshipping Jesus.

How sublime.

Yet we still see opposition to this.

From the words of our Lord and Savior Jesus, we should EXPECT this opposition.

JOHN 15:18-20a 18 “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.19 If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. 20 Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you . . .



In reality, we don’t - at least we haven’t in this thread.

1 Like


dvdjs . . .

In reality, we don’t

In reality, we do.



Their agenda is to make a profit for their shareholders.



How dare they!



I think the potential ambiguity may come from the conditions under which something could be said to be “censored” not having been agreed upon. In a world in which statements are only allowed or not allowed there may be more agreement among those discussing it that a particular event constitutes censorship, even if they disagree on the justifications. But if a statement can be allowed, not allowed, or viewable only when the user takes an additional step that third option, this doesn’t quite meet what conventional usage of “censorship.” Under the third option the statement is still being allowed. But it’s visibility might be lowered.

This disagreement also occurred in the PragerU v YouTube case where PragerU argued that their videos not being visible when someone turned on “restricted mode” was censorship. The videos that they state have been censored have accumulated at least hundreds of thousands of views. And we’ve seen another video with the same level of visibility get millions of views. I don’t think the censored/not censored dichotomy fit well for this scenario.

An example: PragerU says this video is censored from YouTube. You can go and view the video in it’s entirety on YouTube right now in it’s original form at the original link.

I think we generally expect content to have various levels of visibility and accessibility, such as movies that we might not want a child to be able to see. There may be additional barriers put up with the intention of restricting a child’s access to the movie

That’s fine. I’m not trying to persuade.

It may. It’s an honest expression of my thoughts on their style of reporting. I don’t think very highly of LifeSiteNews (or BreitBart).



It may. It’s an honest expression of my thoughts on their style of reporting. I don’t think very highly of LifeSiteNews (or BreitBart).

Fair enough ThinkingSapien.

I’m not attempting to get you to think very highly of them either.

But I do think very highly of them and think their stories are often-times, excellent.

And the topics Breitbart and LifeSite report on, sure beat (for me anyway) reading day after day about “Trump’s” handshake or some other manufactured rage pretending it is “news”. (Booorrring and not newsworthy in my opinion.)

That is part of the reason some of “the big guys” keep attempting to silence Breitbart and LifeSiteNews.

(And anyone reading these forums know,
I assert ALL the news outlets are biased.)



Here ya go, two more bits of info on some censorship and access revocation.

December 11, 10:00am - Google’s rep is to give their testimony to congress on among other things apparent bias against conservatives.

After being present for one day Milo Yiannopoulos has been disallowed to collect funds on Patreon (statement from Patreon)



Twitter, Facebook, and Google all discriminate against traditional values and Conservatives. Twitter wouldn’t even permit LiveAction to purchase pro-life ads, but Twitter permitted Planned Parenthood to buy ads.

1 Like

closed #77

This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.