Some religious practices and doctrines and histories are just plain unorthodox. People should be allowed to point those things out and not fear that merely raising the issue is going to get them banned.
As everyone knows I attend Calvary Chapel and their peculiar doctrines and practices are considered by some as "cultic". I have no problem defending their practices, and I would not cry foul if someone were to point out the human flaws in any of its leaders or to question the orthodoxy of any of its beliefs or practices. That would give me a chance to get an objective view of the church from people who are not a part of it and also give me the opportunity to defend the beliefs, practices and personal quirks of the church and its leaders.
Unfortunately a lot of people see criticisms of peculiar doctrines or questions regarding the personal histories of the church leaders as personal attacks on them.
I would hope that you would agree that personal attacks against freeper are unwarranted, but questioning the validity of specific doctrines and church history and politics is legitimate in order to further the purpose of a free and open discussion of all things religious.
Would you not agree?
I would agree, as long as the questions aren't phrased something like, "Hey, are you so stupid to really believe that?"