Posted on 03/31/2014 7:54:31 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
Guess what? You can't read minds so you don't know what I think or don't think. I already explained my reason for saying it, take it or leave it.
It gave no examples of anti-protestant bigotry. Period. If you think it does, and I suspect you may well know that it does not, then you have an urgent need to educate yourself and gain some perspective.
If "bigotry", as it is normally defined, is "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own; the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot", then the examples given in the Freepmail I saw, and see quite often on these threads, fit the term to a tee. That you refuse to even acknowledge that they were, only further cements your OWN prejudices. You already know, and have acknowledged, that we shouldn't drag disputes across threads, so linking to them in an open forum post would be against the rules. It's not fear that stops it, but a respect for the rules. That's why I started pinging you to posts I see as examples of anti-Protestant bigotry and prejudice. SURPRISE! You deny them just like you did the others given to you.
It isn't because non-Catholic Christians are offended or "lose their minds" whenever Catholics say things that would CLEARLY be taken as hatred and bashing were the roles reversed, no, the ONLY reason I brought them to your attention was your past inability to admit what any other objective person easily could.
Again, ridiculous. It’s just that people often get things wrong. One thing that you have wrong is what constitutes bigotry. You constantly confuse legitimate disagreement, as in your example, with bigotry, which is to be found in many notes written here by Protestants.
Sure, some people may get some things wrong, no one denies that happens. It is the frequent complaint of Roman Catholics here who confuse disagreement with bigotry. Some cannot tolerate ANY criticism of Roman Catholicism and see everything as hatred, bashing and anti-Catholic no matter what the disagreement was about. Once again, you are asserting that bigotry "is to be found in many notes written here by Protestants", yet you fail to say WHAT they are or HOW they are examples of bigotry. Perhaps YOU are the one who needs some perspective and education.
Are you saying that there is no anti-Catholic bigotry on FR? Because the subject of this discussion is the non-existence of anti-Protestant bigotry here.
The subject was about your past complete inability to admit that anti-Protestant bigotry happens on the forum. That's the ONLY reason I pinged you. Is there some anti-Catholic bigotry? Once and awhile, but there is plenty of anti-Protestant as well, and it's ridiculous that you can't see it - EVER.
I don’t think anyone should try to avoid injured feelings. Instead, we should try to tell the truth, while remaining within forum rules. The problem with the Catholic-bashing here is not injured feelings, it is the constant reiteration of falsehood. Catholics respond not with complaints about injured feelings, but with corrections to those falsehoods.
We aren't supposed to personally attack anyone. But, I agree that telling the truth should always be the goal whether or not someones personal feelings are hurt. And, again, you complain of "Catholic-bashing" and how it's CONSTANT. If someone says something wrong about what Catholicism "officially" teaches, then they should be corrected - provided that what is said is differentiated between what is actually against official teaching or what someone sees being done in spite of official teaching. There are several MAJOR doctrines with which I disagree with Catholicism and I can defend why I disagree with solid Scriptural proof and, in some cases, even historically, as well. Yet, the very idea that ANYONE would come on a thread and state this, it is taken as "bashing", hatred and bigotry against the Roman Catholic Church. Such responses like this are totally offbase for people wanting to participate on the threads. It IS disruptive to take everything and anything said against ones religious beliefs personally.
You haven’t observed that; you have projected it. Catholics here have responded to unwarranted or false criticism by contradicting the error, not, as with a small group of FR Protestants, with bashing and bigotry. Those things are exclusively yours.
Again, you imagine you know what I observe and think. Stop it! You don't. Non-Catholics here respond the same way you say Catholics do, yet you claim it's done with bashing and bigotry and that it is "exclusively" on the Protestant side. I don't think you spend very much time at all on the RF, because, if you did, you wouldn't say that. You prove once again the absolute intolerance of criticism - no matter how warranted it is.
And we deal with it much better than does that small group of Protestants of which I wrote earlier. Besides, this didn’t start with Catholics complaining about bad behavior by Protestants; it started with Protestants claiming that Catholics were acting badly, and my challenge to Protestants to prove it. In response, this small group of Protestants has tried to change the subject to Catholic complaints about Protestants.
Not some of you. Why is it that the majority of Religion Forum threads are opened by Catholics? Why do so many of them have as their BASIC point a provocation against Protestants? This very thread was a repeat of the same thing not two weeks ago and EVERYTHING being discussed here was already discussed there. Why the need to constantly cover the same ground over and over if it is not to intentionally rile the non-Catholics on Free Republic? I'm weary of countering the same lies about Protestantism year in and year out. I get irritated that the same lies get repeated by the same people even after they have been thoroughly disputed. I really don't believe the intent is to "help" anyone. The smug, self-satisfied, superior attitude of some SHOULD be exposed for the farce it is.
I said there is no anti-Protestant bigotry. Your task is to prove it. Instead, you chose a few quotations that do not reflect anti-Protestant bigotry, and continue to assert that they do.
It WAS proved. You chose not to see it as such. It doesn't mean it doesn't qualify. You claimed:
It seems to me that many of the posts by Protestants betray very real, very deep, and frighteningly malign hatred not only of the Catholic Church, but of Catholics. That, of course, is one of the necessary elements of bigotry. And, although I’m sure you will counter with, “So’s your mother,” I don’t know, nor have I ever met, a living Catholic who hates Protestants simply for being Protestants. This is not to say that an individual Catholic may not hate an individual Protestant, but the kind of hatred that exists on the Protestant side simply does not exist on the Catholic side.
That you see real, very deep, frighteningly malignant hatred of both the Roman Catholic Church as well as Catholics, themselves, only shows a paranoia and persecution complex that makes NO sense whatsoever on an internet, anonymous website. You won't find any posts from Protestants thrilling to a return of the Inquisition and the gleeful condemnation of everyone who isn't a Protestant as their just desserts. There is plenty of hatred on that pretend pristine side of yours. Open your eyes, actually BE objective - if you can. You WILL see it.
The weak become bullies when the power structure supports them.
That's actually funny. Your religion has plenty of experience at being bullies and in power. That you say the Religion Moderators are also biased against Catholics only cements even further that persecution complex facade. I appreciate the job they do and they will admit that when they get complaints from BOTH sides of imagined bias, they know they are doing their job right. FR couldn't pay me enough to do their job - and these people are volunteers!
“The smug, self-satisfied, superior attitude of some SHOULD be exposed for the farce it is.”
Thank you. The heart of the matter stands exposed.
“Guess what? You can’t read minds so you don’t know what I think or don’t think.”
If we had to read minds to understand what other people are saying, no one would ever know what anyone meant. No mind-reading was necessary.
“I already explained my reason for saying it”
But you weren’t telling the truth.
“take it or leave it.”
I wouldn’t touch it with a ten-foot pole.
“If “bigotry”, as it is normally defined, is “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own; the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot”, then the examples given in the Freepmail I saw, and see quite often on these threads, fit the term to a tee.”
Wrong. You should find some impartial judges, whose decision you can live with.
For a start, claiming that Catholics are completely intolerant of Protestantism and Protestants is utterly ludicrous. Catholics tolerate Protestants in every correct sense of the word.
You present every example of Catholics believing differently from yourself as bigotry. Only a bigot does that.
“The smug, self-satisfied, superior attitude of some SHOULD be exposed for the farce it is.”
Thank you. The heart of the matter stands exposed.
“That you refuse to even acknowledge that they were, only further cements your OWN prejudices.”
Wrong again. None of the hypotheticals you have presented as “examples” of anti-Catholic bigotry, supposedly equivalent to anti-Protestant bigotry, have actually been bigotry of any sort. You tried to turn the tables, saying, if such and such were said about Catholics, wouldn’t it be bigotry? The answer has always been “no,” followed by a facepalm and a chuckle.
“You already know, and have acknowledged, that we shouldn’t drag disputes across threads, so linking to them in an open forum post would be against the rules.”
What a lame excuse. If there were examples of anti-Protestant bigotry on these threads, you could post in those threads and ping people to your own posts. That is not against the rules.
“That’s why I started pinging you to posts I see as examples of anti-Protestant bigotry and prejudice. SURPRISE! You deny them just like you did the others given to you.”
Of course. When you point at something that is clearly not bigotry and claim it is, no right-thinking person is going to agree that they are something they are not.
“whenever Catholics say things that would CLEARLY be taken as hatred and bashing”
You haven’t produced a one. You’ve just taken instances of legitimate disagreement and misrepresented their nature.
“were the roles reversed”
No, you have reversed the roles, and it’s still not bigotry.
“any other objective person easily could.”
You should really do some reality checks.
“It is the frequent complaint of Roman Catholics here who confuse disagreement with bigotry.”
There again you assert the existence of that which cannot be found, and again you try to change the subject. The subject is the non-existence of anti-Protestant bigotry. You cannot demonstrate the existence of anti-Protestant bigotry by whining about Catholic statements regarding the bad behavior of some FR Protestants.
“The smug, self-satisfied, superior attitude of some SHOULD be exposed for the farce it is.”
Thank you. The heart of the matter stands exposed.
“Some cannot tolerate ANY criticism of Roman Catholicism and see everything as hatred, bashing and anti-Catholic no matter what the disagreement was about.”
Projecting again. That’s how some Protestants here on FR act; not the Catholics.
“Once again, you are asserting that bigotry “is to be found in many notes written here by Protestants”, yet you fail to say WHAT they are or HOW they are examples of bigotry.”
That’s because I refuse to allow you the cheap tactic of changing the subject.
“Once and awhile”
That expression is “once in a while.” There is no English expression, “once and awhile.”
“but there is plenty of anti-Protestant as well”
No, there isn’t.
“and it’s ridiculous that you can’t see it - EVER.”
It’s ridiculous that you assert it.
“The smug, self-satisfied, superior attitude of some SHOULD be exposed for the farce it is.”
Thank you. The heart of the matter stands exposed.
“There are several MAJOR doctrines with which I disagree with Catholicism and I can defend why I disagree with solid Scriptural proof”
No, you try to defend your position with egregious misinterpretations of Scripture.
“it is taken as “bashing”, hatred and bigotry against the Roman Catholic Church.”
No, it’s not. Legitimate disagreement is taken as such. It is only “bashing”, hatred and bigotry that are taken as “bashing”, hatred and bigotry.
“Such responses like this are totally offbase for people wanting to participate on the threads.”
They might be, if Catholics actually did such things.
“Again, you imagine you know what I observe and think. Stop it! You don’t.”
I know as much as you have exposed here, so stop telling me I don’t know a lot about what and how you think. I do.
“Non-Catholics here respond the same way you say Catholics do”
Time for a reality check.
“You prove once again the absolute intolerance of criticism - no matter how warranted it is.”
What are you talking about? I tolerate it. However, there is nothing in tolerance that precludes calling it what it is.
“Why is it that the majority of Religion Forum threads are opened by Catholics?”
Well, Catholicism is so much richer than Protestantism that we have a lot more to talk about.
“Why do so many of them have as their BASIC point a provocation against Protestants?”
None of them do. Only a bigot sees the simple offering of information as a provocation.
“This very thread was a repeat of the same thing not two weeks ago”
One of the facts of FR is that each and every post is missed by a number of people. There have been many times that someone has pointed out that an article was previously posted, and I had not seen it the first time around. I’m only taking your word for it that this article was previously posted. I would assume, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that the person who posted this article did so in good faith that it was new. You assume that it was posted as a “provocation” to Protestants. Now which of those mind-sets is typical of the bigot?
“The smug, self-satisfied, superior attitude of some SHOULD be exposed for the farce it is.”
Thank you. The heart of the matter stands exposed.
“Why the need to constantly cover the same ground over and over if it is not to intentionally rile the non-Catholics on Free Republic?”
Some of these issues have dragged on for hundreds of years. You’re complaining that they get brought up a couple of times in a decade?
“I’m weary of countering the same lies about Protestantism year in and year out.”
Name two.
“I get irritated that the same lies get repeated by the same people even after they have been thoroughly disputed.”
Disputed is not the same thing as rebutted. And stop trying to “turn things around” by taking statements that are true of some FR Protestants and falsely asserting that Catholics act that way. It is some FR Protestants who repeat the same lies about Catholicism even after they have been thoroughly rebutted, and Catholics who are weary of countering the same lies about Catholicism year in and year out. Protestants have no standing to make any such complaints, as no such thing has occurred.
“I really don’t believe the intent is to “help” anyone.”
Now, there’s a surprise. /s
“The smug, self-satisfied, superior attitude of some SHOULD be exposed for the farce it is.”
Thank you. The heart of the matter stands exposed.
“It WAS proved. You chose not to see it as such. It doesn’t mean it doesn’t qualify.”
Actually, my smug, self-satisfied, superior opinion on this matter is correct. You are mistaken.
“That you see real, very deep, frighteningly malignant hatred of both the Roman Catholic Church as well as Catholics, themselves, only shows a paranoia and persecution complex that makes NO sense whatsoever on an internet, anonymous website.”
That would only be true if I were wrong, which, you know, I’m not.
Further, the same people posting on any anonymous Internet Web site have real lives in the real world, where they are autonomous beings capable of real actions.
“You won’t find any posts from Protestants thrilling to a return of the Inquisition and the gleeful condemnation of everyone who isn’t a Protestant as their just desserts.”
I wonder if we’ll see any posts from Protestants who have a functioning sense of humor. By the way, you should ping me to that post. If you can.
“There is plenty of hatred on that pretend pristine side of yours.”
Projecting again. American Catholics in the late 20th and early 21st centuries simply do not hate Protestants. You might think we did in the 19th and early 20th centuries if you only looked at the way we disguised ourselves and our horses with sheets and curtains, and rode out at night to terrorize those of a different religion.
Oh, wait: that was Protestants. Still, all is forgiven.
“Open your eyes, actually BE objective - if you can. You WILL see it.”
Only if I am hallucinating.
“The smug, self-satisfied, superior attitude of some SHOULD be exposed for the farce it is.”
Thank you. The heart of the matter stands exposed.
“Your religion has plenty of experience at being bullies and in power.”
As does yours. But I was not talking about a religion. I was talking about the situation here on FR.
“That you say the Religion Moderators are also biased against Catholics only cements even further that persecution complex facade. I appreciate the job they do”
I’m sure you do. By the way, if a persecution complex is only a façade, then it does not really exist.
“and they will admit that when they get complaints from BOTH sides of imagined bias, they know they are doing their job right.”
That is very shallow thinking. It was, I believe, Karl Marx who advised, “Accuse others of what you do.” Every cynical liar knows that he can confuse an issue by that means. In this vale of tears, getting complaints from both sides is more likely to mean that one side is lying than that one is doing one’s job right.
“FR couldn’t pay me enough to do their job”
Why? What consequences could you suffer in this “internet, anonymous website?”
“The smug, self-satisfied, superior attitude of some SHOULD be exposed for the farce it is.”
Thank you. The heart of the matter stands exposed.
Regarding the issue of bigotry itself as a pejorative word, that standard accepted definition, is inaccurate (like the standard one for "faith," which usually is defined as believe without evidence), as it would classify all Christians as bigots who reject any and all creeds, beliefs, or opinions that fundamentally differs from their own, such as deny at the least that there is a God, a Redeemer, and eternal life, etc. and that idolatry and homosexual relations etc. are sin,
Rather, i think it a reasonably definition of bigotry, if it is to be a pejorative word, would be that of "a stubborn intractable adherence to one's own opinion irrespective of and intolerant to evidence to the contrary." Such as an atheist who refuses to even allow a Creator God as a hypothesis while entertaining "space seed" explanations (since the natural mind can conceive of this, and such are unlikely to be omniscient judges, and pose no eternal consequences) despite warrant that would at least allow this as the possible Cause behind the effects.
Similarly, to dismiss Catholicism with such broad statements such as that "Catholics have zero faith in Christ" or "most Mormons are completely biblically illiterate," and to make other absolute statements despite evidence to the contrary, or repeatedly pastes damning quotes or arguments against such but refuse to look at the evidence that reveals their fallacious nature ,would reasonably be understood as bigotry.
This would also include adamantly asserting with no evidence at all that there never have been a bit of bigotry on a very active forum over the course of its 17 year history, a claim that basically infers omniscience, or an a piori position that their cannot be any as the subjective definition of the prosecutor would never allow any examples to qualify as that. And then place the burden of proof on those who object to this absolute denial, to find examples to the contrary, and which proffered examples of-course are dismissed. (Which is like arguing with some libs on Huffington Post.)
Therefore this and nonobjective statements such as cited above are not considered bigotry when stated of Prots, as the prosecutor refuses to to provide an basically clear definition for bigotry by which to judge things. Lacking such one can stubbornly claim there is no bigotry since that persons own subjective perception is the definition.
And which is most ironic when made by a RC, since their boast is that their faith and morality is not based on subjective interpretation but the veracity of their magisterium. Yet it is consistent with Rome since she autocratically declares Truth, and what is right and wrong by fiat. As another RC expressed, Rome does not infallibly interpret, she declares, including that she is infallible.
But RCs interpret Rome, and can autocratically assert undocumented declarations despite documentation that disagrees with them, or charge Prots with fabrications and poor scholarship when they were the ones guilty of it, but which both sides can do.
And thus while modern official RC teaching does not support such assertions that Prots have no faith at all in the real Christ, and Scriptural evidence testifies that they do (and RCs sing many of their songs), such can be stated and autocratically denied as being a bit bigoted.
The Bible warns of "unreasonable men" in so many ways, and appeals to sound reasoning and examples what is not, (Lk., 13:15; Rm. 6:15-17) and states that "the wisdom that is from above is first pure, and without partiality, (Ja. 3:17) thus its conclusions are a result of objective examination of the evidence. But which souls came to trust in the Lord Jesus, but which is discouraged by RCs in order to ascertain the validity of RC teachings, as that would be doubting her claim to assured veracity.
But RCs are not alone in making unsubstantiated broad assertions that misrepresent opponents teaching (as this threads very article does re. "the Protestant's Dilemma") and in being intolerant of substantiation that contradicts them, and unreasonable in dialogue. While this is less predominate among Prots than among RC reactionaries, in both cases it evidence a lack of a valid argument and ends upon being an argument against them.
Meanwhile, the Roman magisterium does not provide an official clear definition of bigotry, yet writings which its site contains do censure bigotry. One quotes Chesterton that "Bigotry may be called the appalling frenzy of the indifferent." (G. K. Chesterton, Heretics, p. 20) This "may be" but is not much of definition, but it is followed a statement that, "Only someone who seeks to understand another person's point of view can be genuinely respectful of it." (Bishop Donal MURRAY; http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/cultr/documents/rc_pc_cultr_01031996_doc_i-1996-stu_en.html) This non-official statement is made in the context of seeking to work peace in Ireland, yet Rome abounds with disrespect of Prot viewpoints from the past when Rome did not feel the need to sound respectful of the views of opposition, and which is related to the discord at issue.
Another document cites fear of the alien as bigotry, ( http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/weeks-prayer-doc/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20070710_week-prayer-2008_en.html) and another expresses that one who engages in a dignified realistic dialogue that thinks and speaks, "detests bigotry and prejudice, malicious and indiscriminate hostility, and empty, boastful speech." http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_06081964_ecclesiam_en.html
Another states that "Disagreement should not degenerate into accusations of bigotry..." (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/migrants/pom2007-105/rc_pc_migrants_pom105_labor-dimarzio.html) and another exhorts "dialogue and openness, avoiding every type of prejudice or bigotry" as democratic ideals. (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2003/march/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20030329_indonesia-ad-limina_en.html)
Hopefully this will encourage civil yet substantial debate, if sometime salty if warranted. (Mt. 23).
You sure do go down a lot of rabbit trails and stay away from scripture. I’ve given you scripture then asked questions but you answer none of them and never support your positions with scripture. What’s up with that? Are you afraid of discussions about scripture using scripture?
No...thank YOU, for you quite well exposed the heart of this matter. Bigots are blind to their own bigotry and that of their friends. They only see it when they imagine it is aimed at themselves, but will never acknowledge when they are guilty of it. AKA - hypocrisy. Good night.
**The heart of the matter stands exposed.**
Excellent rebuttal
“AKA - hypocrisy.”
I didn’t intend to reply again, but language is one of my chief areas of interest.
What you describe is not hypocrisy. Maybe you could get an English 101 course at your local community college.
And perhaps a course in Christian Love 101 for you?
“And perhaps a course in Christian Love 101 for you?”
Ah, another personal attack. Thank you very much, sir. May I have another?
And true, I was not motivated by Christian love, but by irritation with falsehood. Still, rebuking sinners is one of the seven spiritual works of mercy, so I guess it comes out the same in the end.
Excellent and I have no doubt you would be shredded for *Catholic bashing*.
It's interesting to see what kinds of governments and living conditions the most highly Catholic countries in the world show.
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.