Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Religion Moderator
It is disingenuous to complain that your confession is being maligned when you are NOT using the caucus designation to protect the thread from challenges!

No, it is disingenuous to establish standards of moderation which are inherently inequitable, and irrational. I've explained why they are inequitable: Jews come in for special protection, but Catholics are to be subjected to special opprobrium. I shouldn't have to explain why that is unjust to any person of good will. I'm sorry that we don't seem to have suffered enough throughout history to suit you, but I refuse to accept a standard which does not grant me or my co-religionists the same degree of human dignity which is due to everyone. To suggest otherwise is bigotry, pure and simple. But bigotry against Catholics is tolerated here as it would not be tolerated against any other group. See, for example, Philip Jenkins' The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice. For the record, Jenkins is an Episcopalian.

The poster of an article is quite literally "asking for it" when he omits the caucus label.

Rubbish. No one ever "asks for it", but we Catholics seem to get it anyway. The standard of common civility always applies. Those who do not wish to abide by it make take their food fight to the Smoky Backroom, if it still exists. It will certainly contribute nothing to a civilized discussion.

... labeling another Freeper ignorant ...

I've explained to you that "ignorant" simply means "uninformed" or "misinformed". It is a statement of objective fact, not a personal slur. I will ask you once again to stop calling people out for this.

... but do not make it personal.

But as a matter of logic, these things are personal. To claim otherwise to abandon rationality.

You can repeat this nonsense as often as you like, but repetition will not make it any less nonsensical. I simply don't know how to explain it more clearly than I already have. But it is a principle of Thomistic philosophy that an unjust law is no law at all, and it is legitimate to ignore it. Indeed, under certain conditions, there is a moral obligation to disobey it. Unless and until you are willing to establish standards of moderation that are rational and equitable, you should expect to continue to receive complaints on these matters.

I'm sorry to put things this bluntly, but we Catholics have had a target painted on our backs for many years here, and it is profoundly tiresome to be constantly put on the defensive. I can't imagine why JimRob is willing to have FR be a haven for anti-Catholic bigotry, but that is what it has been for quite some time. Nor do I see how allowing it to become this serves the stated purposes of FR as a whole.

Once again, no member of this forum should be the subject of bigotry; and every member of this forum is entitled to civility. Anything less, and the whole religion forum is an exercise in futilty.

96 posted on 02/15/2007 8:54:28 PM PST by neocon (Be not afraid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]


To: neocon

97 posted on 02/15/2007 8:59:00 PM PST by murphE (These are days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed but his own. --G.K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies ]

To: neocon
But it is a principle of Thomistic philosophy that an unjust law is no law at all, and it is legitimate to ignore it. Indeed, under certain conditions, there is a moral obligation to disobey it.

My job is to keep the peace on the Religion Forum. And I will do what I must to see it done.

Therefore if you ignore the guidelines - or if others do at your urging - there will be consequences.

98 posted on 02/15/2007 10:32:19 PM PST by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson