Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: FourtySeven

That is a very good point. My suggestion would be a policy of no bashing of any religion or lack there of. Attacking some ones faith is the same as a personal attack IMHO.


38 posted on 05/06/2012 9:30:27 AM PDT by eastforker (Don't be ornery for Romney, instead Root for Newt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]


To: eastforker
That is a very good point. My suggestion would be a policy of no bashing of any religion or lack there of. Attacking some ones faith is the same as a personal attack IMHO.

Thank you. I agree with your suggestion on a personal level. It absolutely is true that when one attacks another's faith, one is, in some level, attacking that person personally. That simply can't be avoided.

I do not agree with it on a political level. Defense against personal (religious) offense is not and should not be a guarantee. As much as I would love (on a personal level) to see all the anti-Catholics here banned for all their vitriol, I would never support such an action. (hehe.....I can see some anti-Catholic quoting me saying, "I would love to see all the anti-Catholics banned here..." to support some wild eyed conspiracy theory that all Catholics want to see a return of the Inquisition, without of course quoting the latter portion of that very same sentence; I'd give it about even odds of happening should I dare attempt to return to the religious debates here in force.......< sigh > but I digress)

The reason is simple: If I support suppressing another's opinion, mine surely will be the next to be suppressed.

43 posted on 05/06/2012 9:41:54 AM PDT by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

To: eastforker

Who gets to define what “bashing” is?

Does that mean you can never bring up any points/facts about a religion that are unpleasant but real?

Who is the going to be the arbiter? Who gets to set the standards about what is “bashing” and what is fair to point out, or take issue with, or have a debate about?


250 posted on 05/06/2012 2:24:22 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

To: eastforker
My suggestion would be a policy of no bashing of any religion

How about religions made up by pedophiles, they OK too?

971 posted on 05/07/2012 11:55:52 AM PDT by itsahoot (I will not vote for Romney period. You can't trust the man with the big red (R))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

To: eastforker; FourtySeven
"My suggestion would be a policy of no bashing of any religion or lack there of."

I guess it all depends on how you define "bashing". If challenging a doctrine that is borne out of a man claiming that all other Christian faiths/doctrines/creeds are an abomination to God is defined as "bashing", then what would the original "challenge" by the mormons be defined as?

Confusing debate, rebuttal, etc. with bigotry and hatred, can be excused if one is merely ignorant of the history between Mormonism and Christianity. But it's inexcusable if it's done to stifle debate or out of an already existing prejudice towards those who would rise to the challenge that the Mormons have handed down.

1,133 posted on 05/07/2012 5:11:41 PM PDT by SZonian (Throwing our allegiances to political party's in the long run gave away our liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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