Replies

JIm saw this thread, he chose to do nothing. The anti-Catholicism continues unabated. So be it. We all make choices.

All right. I know that Jim doesn't approve of Catholic bashing.

Returning back to this thread to reply to you, I see you're right that it's still inhabited by some of the maniacal, pietistic, posters, which is the reason I ignore these threads unless and until I'm pinged by someone like you. Be well, dearest sitetest. Ignore them. They're Simon-pure in their own minds.

All right. I know that Jim doesn't approve of Catholic bashing. Returning back to this thread to reply to you, I see you're right that it's still inhabited by some of the maniacal, pietistic, posters, which is the reason I ignore these threads unless and until I'm pinged by someone like you. Be well, dearest sitetest. Ignore them. They're Simon-pure in their own minds.

Rather, you have a article that celebrates a celebrity becoming a RC that once professed to be an evangelical, and you expect not challenges and reproof to that elitist faith? If it was about a RC becoming an evangelical should we not expect the typical disparaging remarks about Prots from RCs? And unlike you apparently, I well know and can attest to what i speak of.

Of course RCs too typically whine about "Catholic bashing" which means anything that challenges and reprove that elitist faith which they have advertised and promoted for years here, and even ping the owner, as it seems they demand FR be as an organ of the Vatican.

Yet it was manifestly not any reproof of Catholicism that was banned, but besides the long standing censure of flaming, it was the constant posting of articles attacking that faith which brought the hammer down on such. But having achieved this, as well as (previously) the banning of certain (only) anti-Catholic sites, some RCs want all posts that impugns their elitist faith censored, similar to the ACLU thinking the 1st Amendment means the gov cannot express Christian faith at all.

But while RCs assumed that this meant they could continue to post obviously provocative articles on unique claims or celebration of their faith and be protected from challenges and reproof, that thankfully has not been the case, and which would make the well thought out and judiciously applied RF rules superfluous if it was.

As for the nature of anti-Catholicism that RCs want banned, please provide the posts and let us see if the like is not posted by RCs against Prots, and by posters who thus would fit your description of "maniacal," "pietistic."