Jani, it's ironic that you end with the phrase no matter who's freedom of expression it constricts when, a little earlier in your post, you say Several threads have mockeries in them, or blasphemies not today, but in the archives that shouldn't have been allowed. If you want real freedom of expression, not just selective niceness to people, then there is no place where I can post my opinions about my beliefs without worrying about who is not going to agree with it. How could there be?

You say you agree with Claymor's comment, I'd be willing to wager that if a group of Hindu's were first to ask there would be less flak. I can't answer for anyone else but I've made sure that my comments here refer to a religious/spiritual forum, not to christianity, as have quite a lot of other people. (I didn't realise there was the same debate in the Poser Forum, and I'm not planning on going there; life's too short). The reason I've kept my comments broad is because I would object to R'osity altering its focus to privilege any belief system (religious, political, whatever, including my own) over any other subject matter. Perceptions of this place would very quickly change: "Renderosity's that religious art site, isn't it?" The focus here needs to remain on art, not subject matter, in fact it's a small sub-category - 3D art. It would be very easy to skew that focus, and to privilege one very emotive theme could do just that. I find it strange how you can recognise that christianity is such a hot topic, and yet fail to see the most likely outcome of giving that hot topic such a prominent place in the site organisation. Don't you see the contradiction there? Or are you imagining that creating a forum to discuss christian art would somehow make those flame-wars you mention less likely to happen? As you said, if it has anything to do with christianity, you can bet your bottom dollar that it will get flamed.

There are good reasons why that's the case, and here I'm going to address christianity directly, rather than the subject of religion/spirituality. I'm not a christian but I live in a notionally christian country. The head of my state is also the head of the church. The prime minister of my country is a professed christian and has spoken openly about the fact that his beliefs affect the way he does his job. I went to a christian school and was required to attend church all through my childhood. So religion, and christianity in particular, affects the way I live my life. It affects the laws and social norms that govern my behaviour. The christian hold over the legislative process in this country, for instance, meant that I couldn't legally have sex until I was 21 years old. Believe me, that would have been a serious problem had I obeyed the law; as it was, I put myself and others at risk of prosecution. Even as a non-believer, you see, I have reason to engage with christianity: it affects, and sometimes threatens, my interests.
I therefore reserve my right to object to anything that you or anyone else believes in. I also reserve the right to do so in robust terms, whether you like it or not - that bit is your problem. Anything that stays within the TOS is fair game around here, and if you can't cope with the hairier end of that spectrum, you're also free to withhold your expression. Which do you want, Jani - 'freedom to' or 'freedom from'?

Regardless of any of our wishes, in reality a religious art forum would end up discussing religion more than art, and it would quickly become half prayer-group and half flame-pit. In other words, a sub-forum of OT on a specialised subject. Anything else would be (a) a pipe dream and (b) a violation of free speech. Easier, don't you think, for the PTB to simply not go down that road in the first place?