Posted on 01/20/2010 3:36:53 AM PST by markomalley
I have noticed a recent upsurge of the use of virulent anti-Catholic websites be some of our calumnizers and detractors in recent weeks.
I know that this is sort of a cyclical thing that never really disappears, but just fades in and out.
Anyway, I am wondering if there would be any interest in openly refuting these sites as a caucus. In other words, post the anti-Catholic article from the source and then rip it to shreds.
A recent example of such an article that can be easily refuted is ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH PUTS MARY ON THE CROSS
I will ping the RM to this to see if such an exercise could be a caucus under some specific guidelines.
Is there any interest in this type of thing within the caucus? Your feedback please.
Please see the above vanity.
If we were to have such an exercise, could we retain a caucus status on a thread...provided the article references Catholic doctrine only? Naturally the comments would not be able to detract, calumnize, or even discuss other confessions' specific beliefs either, but that should be a given.
Please advise. Thanks.
“Easily refuted” is an understatement, it could have been on just about any street in the world by anyone.
It would be nice to have such a resource, I await the Religion Moderators input.
For those of us who were never taught apologetics at tender ages, are there good resources out there so that we can give substance to the "that statement isn't true" refutations.
Later. Have to do the work thing.
I am always for a good ecumenical brawl, but I do not always have time.
I don’t think this idea agrees with the caucus philosophy. If someone on FR wants to agree with what you are refuting, why can’t he? If you are able to soundly refute it, why do you need a caucus protection?
For that to work you need a different designation, that encourages robust debate but discourages off topic posts.
As you know, typically when one subject is done, the side that is not satisfied finds another subject, to create an illusion of ongoing, even winning for them debate.
The article about Mary on the Cross is worth maybe a dozen posts. But do you have any doubt that on an open thread there will be hundreds of posts on some other subject, equally silly, equally requiring refutation?
On the other hand, if you post this in a caucus, make a dozen posts and the article is “refuted” you will not stop the anti-Catholic propagandist, who will say “that wasn’t an open thread”.
How can one limit debate to one topic, I don’t know. However, it would be a useful designation generally, because offtopic posts are detrimental to any debate.
Anyway, flag me if anything develops, I’ll try to pitch in.
It could however be the subject of an "ecumenical" thread.
I think, the forum in general, and not just the Religion section will benefit from one new format, which I would call “Academic” threads.
Anyone with any opinion is allowed in an academic thread. However,
- posts must stay on topic
- external references must be sourced
- “bump to the top”, “amen to that”, “LOL”, and similar posts that bring no new content are not allowed.
I appreciate the fact that moderators cannot be asked to become online rapid-response one-man editorial boards to sort out what is and what is not on topic, is legitimate reference, etc. But they don’t need to: the moderators only need to enforce demands for substance that others raise. It should not be harder than analyzing posts for mind-reading, for example. And consider the payoff you will receive on the noisiest interminable catch-all threads: now any substantive debate will be branched off to an academic thread, leaving the troll thread to die.
I think this is a very good exercise. However, I wonder if we should really have that in an open forum — since this is a debate, we put our view, the other side(s) put their. This is assuming that the other side means to debate and not just slander.
An Academic thread would be good, however, I see physical difficult in policing this.
I wouldn’t even say that it is a case of a bigot catching a priest off-guard. It was more likely a case of a bigot simply fabricating a story.
If I say I went to the “Church of XYZ” and saw the minister slaughtering goats and then saw all of the XYZers drinking the goat blood does this somehow make it true? The irony is that it DOES become the truth if my audience WANTS TO BELIEVE that XYZers drink goat blood.
And in reality that is ALL that bigoted publications do, they tell other bigots that what they WANT TO BELIEVE is the truth.
It can be self-policed.
X: You guys drink goat blood
Y: Source, please
Y: Moderator, no source
Moderator to X: Show source
Moderator to X: Leave the thread.
Or, source is furnished by X and examined. A finite process.
That would be funny if it wasn’t so true. On our latest 5000+ thread, I got so fed up of the “you drink goat blood” argument and random photographs that I posted the reverse, idiotic argument. And the thread has degenerated into comedy central. We should have a forum where we can respectfully debate a central point with a group of Protestants — say the idea of the Baptists with their emphasis on adult baptism. I do believe we can have a serious, respectful debate with them on that, but for a gameload of doctoring, quizzical posters (Bashem, Hashem, Trachem) who destroy any meaningful debate with a nonsensical or out of context post or link or picture.
Threads degenerate because there is no mechanism to keep then healthy. The Caucus mechanism merely excludes controversy. There should be a way to foster controversy, yet do justice to the sincere debaters.
Agreed. Even *SOME* of the detractors are capable of some serious thought...if they are forced to stay on topic, that would be helpful.
But I think the *pat* answer would be "that's what the Ecumenic label is for"
I have yet to see where an ecumenical thread actually worked. They usually either have the bulk of the comments pulled by the moderators or they are entirely ignored.
But an ecumenic thread will do nothing to a propagandist because his whole purpose is to drag your faith down, not to explain his.
Neither a caucus or an ecumenic thread will close the deal, if the objective is to refute others. You need a format that is open to hostile views being expressed for that.
Which comes back to the original reason for proposing something for consideration.
The propagandist will rely upon certain well-worn argument patterns. Those can be found on numerous websites and are ruthlessly plagiarized from one to another (perhaps with an occasional word change, but that's it).
A reference for us to be able to quickly refute that line of argument (and once refuted to simply ignore the thread) I think would be beneficial.
That is the reason I would propose a caucus designation: because the purpose is not to argue the proposition with those who believe it but to develop a ready resource for those of us who want to put it out of its misery when it pops its ugly head up, regardless of how many of 25 million pages contain it.
(But apparently we have to give the other chance an opportunity to defend the proposition, even though it has nothing to do with positively asserting their beliefs...it only has to do with dragging down somebody else's beliefs. Oh, well)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.