Facebook declares Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters 'abusive' and 'spammy'

I usually talk the exploits of the religious right but something happened on my blog this morning that's highly "interesting."

After writing my morning post, I went to place it on Facebook but got the following message:

This message contains blocked content that has previously been flagged as abusive or spammy. Let us know if you think this is an error.

It's been like this all day, leading me to ask is it conceivable that some folks aren't happy with what I am posting.

I wouldn't be surprised. It's been a "fun" week with the Family Research Council making a complete fool of itself and Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association competing for the jester's title.

Of course it could be anything from a Facebook glitch, to someone striking back because Glenn Beck got fired, to someone getting angry at the plain truth of my anti-religious right words.

I mean let's count down the five most potentially offensive things I have said recently:

5. In the piece Scott Lively has a vicious homophobic breakdown, I said the following:

I have a certain classification when it comes to homophobes I talk about.

Peter LaBarbera is fun to laugh at. Matt Barber is a useful idiot. Paul Cameron is stewing in a sauce of irrelevancy. Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown are fishes who soon will be hooked by their own carelessness. Peter Sprigg and Tony Perkins are bumbling fools.

But when it comes to Scott Lively, I think of crosses, garlic, and holy water.

4. In the post Sorry Newt, but the American Family Association IS a hate group, I said:

. . .if the American Family Association is a Christian organization, then God must have lowered his standards.

3. Then there this comment in the piece Family Research Council accidentally admits truth about hate group charges:

FRC is not as blatantly hateful as the Klan, but that makes the organization more dangerous. Under the veneer of respectability and morality, FRC either passes off junk science or presents social science in a wrong manner to deliberately smear the lgbt community and make us appear - inaccurately - as a public health risk and a threat to religious liberty.

2. And then there is the consistent way I always seem to pick on anti-gay spokesman Matt Barber (or as I call him, my pet). Hey! It's not my fault that he seems to always be talking about gay sex and then implying that God has led him to do such like he did in the post  Matt Barber - 'Homosexuals are picking on me!'

All I did was make the observation that if Barber obsesses about gay sex because of God, then God has a warped sense of humor.

1. Or it could have been my simple observation of those who took part in Peter LaBarbera's "Truth Academy" in the post Porno Pete LaBarbera's Hate Academy begins today

All I said was:

These are not Christian people. These are liars motivated by vicious homophobia and anti-gay animus so pathological that they probably should seek psychiatric care.

I mean come on, Facebook. Were these comments truly abusive?

It doesn't because I figured out a way to place my posts on Facebook regardless. Still just the idea that someone thinks my blog posts are "abusive" or "spammy" just boggles my mind.

And I'm just getting started, you daisy-headed freaks!

UPDATE - It looks like the Facebook no longer considers me "abusive" or "spammy" anymore. At least for now. LOL