Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Mrs. Don-o

I am a gentleman and many know who I am.

I refuse to give evidence or details as many would make assumptions as to the cases involved.

However? The “internal forum” should be a valid option for those who KNOW that the formal annulment Tribunal would be problematic.


79 posted on 09/14/2014 6:10:35 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]


To: Kansas58

This doesn’t answer, or even address, my question. How can you make a generalization about many annulments being corrupt or unfair, without offering any facts that would support your accusation? You are making a judgment about the operations of an institution that affects tens of thousands of couples per year in the US alone, a judgment which involves imputing moral culpability (”corrupt, unfair” entails moral fault) and you “refuse” to give facts or reasonable inferences from facts??

Are we supposed to accept sweeping insinuations of immoral, corrupt and unjust behavior without evidence? Is this just? Or are we just supposed to be credulous?


84 posted on 09/14/2014 6:27:22 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Credulity means believing something on little evidence, on no evidence, or against the evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | 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