That's a beautiful strawman, but a strawman nonetheless. "Irving's Law" as amended is intended to stifle any comparison of anti-Catholic hate speech to Jack Chick; it invites the reader to reject any counter-criticism of anti-Catholic hate speech out of hand.
YOU are the one who is saying the accuracy of certain accusations and criticisms should never be questioned, not me, for you suggest that if "Irving's Law" is violated, the post should be dismissed out of hand.
Question accusations all you want, but attempting to stifle any discussion is, well, a demonstration of the weakness of your position (at the very least).
It is also bogus and dishonorable. Have fun with that.
The problem here is that no Protestants are citing Jack Chick, not on any open threads anyway, and certainly not with the Moderator's blessing. Regardless, some Catholics have been quick to (repeatedly) accuse Protestants of doing so anyway, w/o any specific evidence or citation to back up the accusation. Hence Irving's Law.
Petronski, if someone actually cites Jack Chick on an open thread, you have my full permission and blessing to smack them down for doing so. I'm not a fan of "anti-Catholicism", hate speech, or religious bigotry either.
Question accusations all you want, but attempting to stifle any discussion
= = =
My impression has been for many posts now, that the only acceptable responses as far as the respondent I’m now replying to was concerned . . .
was 100% agreement.
Otherwise, the post would be considered a horridly assaultive hate speech against the RC edifice and against RC’s as individuals.
Please excuse me, but I don’t buy into that construction on reality, at all.