The daily sport of posting Catholic bashing threads on FR stops today.
Actually, while my own knee-jerk reaction was "does this mean there can be no more articles refuting RC claims, the rule actually is "The daily sport of posting Catholic bashing threads on FR stops today."
And which bashing is defined as "Trashing religion" versus debate. And see response to my question as to whether this applies to Prot bashing as well
Rather than getting more technical and expanding the wise basic rules which RMs have overall judiciously enforced - the best in the business in my opinion (and despite some attempts to censor all opposition or debate), i think the owner is excluding the daily articles (that were in response to incessant RC ones) which are more proactive attacks rather than those which invite intelligent debate.
But given the elitist claims of RCs that inevitably are typically made rather than reasonable arguments, as well as certain Prot responses, then that is difficult.
I’m trying to follow what you are saying but it isn’t quite so cut and dry. Bashing can only exist where there is a principle of fairness based on honesty and an underlying principle of purpose. Daily reports of Islamic atrocities are commonplace here. Is that “bashing” Islam or is there an underlying principle that requires those atrocities be revealed? Someone may find a biblical passage they believe is related to prophecy and a pope - is that “bashing” or scholarship if their analysis is accurate? Is revealing the beliefs of Mormons that contradicts Old or New Testament scripture “bashing” of scholarship?
I wish the rules were cut and dry but it seems to me that if someone makes an opinionated assertion based on selective facts, someone else has the right to dispute that. If this were a Muslim web site claiming to have American principles, would articles about ISIS beheadings and how those are good for America be permitted? This is a wormy issue and worthy of far more thought than given thus far.