You were right, I just got back from a very relaxing vacation.
p.s. I will be waiting.
You'll be waiting a long time for any further correspondence from me. I don't appreciate stalkers. Have a good life.
Good! I am glad that I was wrong, in assuming that you might have been evading your responsibility for your article. Clearly, you were not. Further, I must apologize, not only for that false assumption, but also for the rude and accusatory way that I posted to you.
Not as any kind of excuse, but as the reason, I think that my annoyance, even anger, at this type of libelous article, caused me to aim a little of that anger at you, personally. I was wrong, to do this. I hope that you will forgive me.
With that out of the way, let us see if we can discuss the merits of the article. I will try to keep from getting into blaming, and attacks on your person.
DG
Well, it looks as if I am going to have to start the ball rolling:
The first part of this article concerned an attempt to make a Catholic shrine, or holy place, open to religious activities by other religions. I am not concerned about, or attempting to contradict, that part of the article.
[For the record, I believe that Catholic shrines belong to the Catholics. No one else should try to interfere with their activities at their shrines.]
Unfortunately, I find that I must take issue with the remainder of the article, because of three major faults:
1. It constitutes propaganda.
2. It contains many false and malicious statements.
3. It contains several serious lapses in ordinary logic.
The centerpiece of this modernist philosophy is that all religions
should be treated with respect because they are all worthy of
respect.
It may well be, that " all religions should be treated with respect because they are all worthy of respect," is " The centerpiece of this modernist philosophy..." I do not argue that point. My position is, rather, that we should treat ALL people with respect, and that respect should preclude our uttering slander about their religions.
But Catholics must take serious issue with this stance
because it is lacking both moral and intellectual validity.
Unfortunately, instead of proving this point, Tuttle attempts to slander every religion except Roman Catholicism. This constitutes not only "bearing false witness," but also an exercise in bigotry, which also is an invitation, or a permission, for other bigoted people to vent their collective spleens. The validity of this statement is contained in post 26, above. [I have an idea that post 26 is some sort of sarcastic comment, but it is still inflammatory, and is an exhibit of bigotry.]
I am hoping that discussing this article will result in our asking ourselves:
1. Whether it is appropriate to post such blatant propaganda.
2. Whether false and bigoted statements have any place in an attempt to prove a "religious" point.
3. Whether we, as Christians, should accept, or turn a blind eye to this sort of article, EVEN if it "feels good"-- that is, fits in with our own secret bigotry.
DG
p.s. As I am able, I intend to post more about the remainder of this article.
p.p.s. [Unless the article is sooner removed.]