[Gamecock]

If you read the article carefully you will see the author is talking about a historical perspective.

Not a reality.

[Gamecock]

Please see my #27.

The thread does no such thing. It points out a misunderstanding of a previous generation, and the perception that some may have.

The thesis is what separates Catholics and Protestants, and that is doctrine.

Interestingly no one is addressing that.

[wagglebee]

If you read the article carefully you will see the author is talking about a historical perspective.

FALSE!

Despite the recent thaw in relations between American Protestants and Roman Catholics, Protestants still need to be anti-Catholic for reasons having very much to do with liberty.

No educated person would conclude that the phrase, "still need to be anti-Catholic," is talking about historical perspective.

[Petronski]

If you read the article carefully...

I already have.

The second sentence is a statement of fact. To pretend it is not meant as a discussion of his view of reality is ludicrous.

[boatbums]

I think some are incapable of hearing any criticism at all (sound like our president?). Once certain words are said the thinking stops and the reacting starts. I could understand the scope of what this article stated quite clearly and it, in NO WAY, should be taken as antagonistic against anyone personally.

It is only particular religious doctrines that are disputed here and they should be allowed to be talked about in context without the ravings of pseudo-offended and pseudo-persecuted individuals who need to grow-up. IMHO