Posted on 01/08/2010 11:01:28 AM PST by Judith Anne
In the age of the internet, a lot of very good information is readily available for those who have sincere questions about the Catholic Church. The Catholic Encyclopedia, the Online Catechism, many good apologetic sites--all have excellent answers to nearly any question that anyone could devise.
There is really no need for FR Catholics to engage in endless religious argument, and I would like to urge us all to simply refrain. We could resign from the debating society and let those who sincerely want to learn seek it out for themselves from a local priest or look it up on the net. Others, who do not sincerely want to learn, could be ignored, and privately remembered in prayer.
Opinions from fellow Catholics?
Thanks, Mark. I am going to start an ecumenical thread, and post the rules in the header, to make room for a discussion about why so many threads descend into Catholic/anti-Catholic arguments.
I am quite certain I am not the only one abstaining from posting on open threads. I think they drive people away.
Usually, the accusations of falsehoods revolve around different interpretations of things. I have no argument that differing interpretations should not be inferred as lying.
But sometims, the accusations of falsehoods revolve around actual falsehood, as when a poster claims something like this:
“The book Why All Catholics Are Hateful says on p. 547 that John Smith of the government of Pracolsaxobony was an evil Catholic right up until his death in 1689.”
And then, when one goes to p. 547, the book actually says:
“John Smith abandoned his Catholic faith at young age. There is some question as to precisely when this occurred, but it certainly happend by the age of 20, in 1634.”
That's not a matter of, “Posters on opposing sides of an issue often have their own set of facts they believe with all their hearts.”
That's a matter of writing the opposite of what the poster's reference actually says. Remember, this is the asserting poster's reference, not the answering poster's. It doesn't happen often, but I've had it happen with more than one poster [and not all of them non-Catholic] on more than one occasion. His OWN REFERENCE impeaches his plain assertion.
When seeing a post like this, one must, in charity, ascribe ignorance [not in the perjorative sense of the word but as in, lack of knowledge] to the poster, that he just got it wrong. But when one then points out the falsity of the proposition, and the poster continues to assert it, it is reasonable to say then that the poster is lying.
To say otherwise is to abandon contact with reality, which is one definition of psychosis.
sitetest
Excellent post!
If it was up to me [name redacted] would be permitted on the religion forum.
There was a time when I agreed with banning it, but I have recently come to understand that it is far better to know up-front what sources the opponents are using.
I think it is important for the lurkers understand that much of the opposition actually relies upon [name redacted] as their primary source. Most of the “I went to Catholic schools all my life and never heard the Gospel until...” (they will also sometimes attribute this story to a spouse to avoid from having to answer specific questions) are taken almost verbatim from the literature of [name redacted] and I will be happy to explain why I know this is true via FReepmail.
If a factual error has been made and persistently and therefore maliciously repeated then call it that - but do not focus on the Freeper himself, personally.
In a few rare cases I do intervene and ban certain assertions altogether on the Religion Forum as factual errors which constitute trouble-making, e.g. the Muslim's false gospel of Barnabas, the false Jesuit Oath.
I think that barring of discussion of [name redacted]—when someone has openly embraced the writings of [name redacted]—is unjustified, verging on abjectly silly.
Roger that.
Let me ask you a question, though.
When I see somebody spewing <he who must not be named> material, I know exactly where it's coming from.
If you pull up the "pulled thread" you will see the person acknowledging as much. (VATICAN TURNS BLIND EYE TO ISLAMIC TERRORISM)
If the same vile crap that was spewed on that thread was spewed with a target of certain races or certain religions, not only would it not be allowed and the post or thread deleted, the person posting the garbage would be in serious jeopardy of getting at least a time out if not a permanent time out.
I'm not talking about religious disagreements, I'm talking about the vile garbage that was in the original thread article and in several of the posts on that thread.
The question for you, sir/ma'am, is this: Is it OK to post anti-Catholic garbage that may as well come from <he who must not be named>, as long as the name of <he who must not be named> is not mentioned by name?
If it's not OK, as the staff/management of this site, do you want us to hit the "abuse" button or fight it out (just not explicitly mentioning the name of <he who must not be named>)?
If it is OK for them to post that kind of stuff, as the staff / management of this site, do you want us to fight it out (just not explicitly mentioning the name of <he who must not be named>) or just suck it up?
I know the lines in the Religion Forum; I would like to know the lines out of the Religion Forum.
Thank you for your guidance and for putting up with us knuckleheads.
The difficulty with your approach, ordinarily salutory though it is, is summed up in the old saw, “A lie is halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on.”
There are a few posters who commit this sort of lie on a fairly regular basis (not every day, but certainly more than once a month).
The problem is, it only takes a few minutes to propagate the falsehood, but it can take a very long time to respond to it.
In the non-virtual world, such a person would be excluded from the community. In the academic world, this sort of falsehood is actually a form of academic dishonesty, and many universities will suspend after one instance, and will usually expel after a small number beyond the first. In fact, many universities treat this form of dishonesty when they go over the rules concerning plagiarism.
It is part of what all the “climategate” stuff is about - taking data that says “X” and saying that it says “opposite of X.” I see that the folks at Penn State may actually be liable to civil suits as a result of their doing this. With multi-million dollar damages.
In an ideal Religion Forum, posters who committed this breach against the Eighth Commandment more than a set number of times (I'd vote for three, as in “three strikes, you're out”) would be banned. They offer nothing worthwhile in advancing discussion here at Free Republic.
Indeed, I know of at least one poster who was... er,... "strongly encouraged" not to post any longer in the Religion Forum, at least, for saying things about themselves which weren't completely true, but neither were they entirely false. That seems to me to be a little bit of a moderating double-standard.
But failing that, if we're not to approach the ideal of what moderation should look like here, it should be possible to hang the badge of “liar” [or “poster who regularly falsifies data” if that makes folks happier] around someone's neck after a certain number of offenses against truth so that folks can know whether or not someone's word should be trusted.
Impeachment of the reliability of the veracity interlocutors is a standard and respectable method of finding the truth in the public square. Pointing out a habitual record of falsifying data is a basic method of debate.
sitetest
It may well be a common practice in town square debate for one to call another a liar. Nevertheless, I cannot and will not tolerate it here on the RF - if for no other reason than flame wars compound work for all the moderators, not just me.
On the other point, the forum has a history of not tolerating Freepers making false claims about themselves, whether false military service records or false theological credentials or identities.
“The situation concerning ‘fact’ in theological debate is no different than the crevo debate. In the eyes of the evolutionists, citing their sources, some creationists are habitual liars. And vice versa.”
Again, I'm not talking about stuff that is open to interpretation, or stuff that depends on which sources you wish to believe, and which sources you consider completely out to lunch.
I'm NOT speaking about, let's say, one of the anti-Catholic bigots quoting an anti-Catholic site to describe Catholic belief. The source may be worthless, but if the website actually says, “All Catholics are Mary-worshippers,” then accurately quoting that website shouldn't lead to the label of “habitual falsehood-teller.”
Even after the poster is corrected through the reference to actual sites that accurately report the content of Catholic belief, if the poster continues to quote from the idiot website, he should not be labeled a “habitual falsehood-teller,” unless and until moderation here sees fit to put the website into the same pile as that where the websites of - and all references to - “the one who may not be named” has been put. (Although, honestly, there are any number of websites like this that should have already been proscribed. As well, what becomes of posts that directly or closely quote a banned website, but without attribution? Apparently, some posters lift their posts of nearly whole cloth from the website of the "one who may not be named," but merely fail to attribute their posts to this or related websites.)
I'm speaking about when a poster uses a reference, introduces the reference HIMSELF to the conversation, and says it says, “X is true,” and it turns out, when others look, that the source INTRODUCED BY THE POSTER HIMSELF clearly says “X is false.”
There are posters who do this habitually.
This creates injustice, hard feelings, and exacerbates flame wars.
One reason for this is that those posters against whom the lies are aimed come to rightly understand that the moderation really doesn't exhibit any evidence of caring whether folks lie or not. Not even the most basic, fundamental requirement of non-contradiction is honored here at FR.
Some method should be considered for mitigating the harm of this kind of poster, which harms the forum itself.
It should at least be acceptable for other posters to create a cut-and-paste record of a poster's past “affirmations of false represenations of source data,” and to follow such posters around from thread to thread, reminding folks of these failures to, ah,... “represent basic source data in an accurate way,” so that all may see that a liar is a liar.
“On the other point, the forum has a history of not tolerating Freepers making false claims about themselves, whether false military service records or false theological credentials or identities.”
Certainly, this is similar to exaggeration in one’s formal résumé. With regard to academic credentials, it's considered another species of academic dishonesty.
It's funny that we permit one form of academic fraud, but not another.
Why is that?
sitetest
An incomplete quote can be completely accurate and at the same time completely false when read in context.
Some words even in Holy writings require a footnote explanation to be understood. Many open RF threads devolve on that very point, the meaning of words - taken one way it is truth, another it is false.
Putting phrases in quotes can even change the meaning.
I realize this creates a burden on the open RF threads - just like the crevo threads - forever needing to define terms, reveal context, etc. But the town square is not a "spin free" zone.
“But the town square is not a ‘spin free’ zone.”
Sadly, because pertinent information is forbidden from the Religion Forum, the Religion Forum is often closer to a “truth free” zone.
"An incomplete quote can be completely accurate and at the same time completely false when read in context."
My example wasn't specifically about quotes, partial or whole, but about data. If a book says that someone lost his faith in his birth religion by the age of 20, it is a certifiable falsehood to say that he held the religion until his death decades later.
But regarding false quotations, there is actually at least one [non-Catholic] poster here who has manufactured quotes of whole cloth. In other words, the poster has put in quotation marks specific words, and then attributed them to persons or organizations who never actually said them, in whole or part. We're not talking about incomplete quotes made to deceive. We're talking about non-existent stuff.
But from what I've seen, that is squarely within forum rules.
Oh well.
sitetest
Sorry, paragraphs are my friends. And now I have to go to work.
>>I think if we confront these folks, we may end up getting some progress. Not with the -ista’s, but with anybody who is somewhat reasonable...that is, most people.<<
Good luck with that. We will be baited and then warned for “making it personal”.
I see the biggest problem here is having to know “how to play the game” instead of being able to discuss. It’s not our Caucus threads or the LDS Caucus threads that cause the problems, it’s the “Ministering” that goes on by those that choose to bash us but know “how to play the game” by posting threads themselves.
It will be just another joyous Holy Week when every “Bad Catholic” article will be posted, as in the past. I’m glad I scoot out of here for Lent. And remember, per one of the Religion Mods, “ministering” to us is part of their salvation. No matter how much “slash and burn evangelism” it turns out to be.
And that is the end of my un-PC rant. Sorry if that sounds cranky but I just came from a beautiful Catholic funeral and I’m sick of being treated like a stupid child/devil incarnate by some people here. In the long run, they will have to answer to God for bashing a fellow Christian’s beliefs.
That is simply a matter of self-discipline on our part, isn't it?
I see the biggest problem here is having to know “how to play the game” instead of being able to discuss.
And that's what we have got to learn. It's tough, because the Church is so important to us, but it can be done.
It will be just another joyous Holy Week when every “Bad Catholic” article will be posted, as in the past.
Of course, but look at it this way: the devil doesn't waste his time on those who are already on his side. If you're being unjustly attacked, it must be that you are doing something right. Same with Holy Mother Church: why would the devil waste his flaming darts on her if he didn't believe her to be a worthwhile target?
I’m glad I scoot out of here for Lent.
And I hope you make a good Lent.
>>That is simply a matter of self-discipline on our part, isn’t it? <<
Somewhat. However if the concern is the lurker, then the information allowed to stand while we are beat on, is not corrected.
I like the way that Mad Dawg does it, with humor as well as info. However when slime is thrown in buckets, no matter how much you laugh about it, the slime remains.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.