Posted on 01/13/2012 10:31:42 AM PST by RnMomof7
A German Catholic priest has admitted 280 counts of sexual abuse involving three boys over almost a decade, the BBC reported. About 2,800 pornographic images -- including several of his victims -- were found on the priest's computer.
Named only as Andreas L, the priest, 46, told a court in Braunschweig he did not think he was doing harm.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
“Antisemitism is not allowed on this forum at all.”
Why is rabid antiCatholicism then?
Once again, many posters here in good conscience would say that "Catholics worship Mary" is a fact and would offer evidence to support it.They are mind reading. Why is that allowed?
“To many others here, they are not dispositive.”
Word chopping, again there are opinions and there are facts. If the claim is that the RCC teaches that no one except a priest is allowed to read the Bible, that is a flat out falsehood. No room for error, or argument. It is a lie.
I can offer evidence that Lizard People are controlling the Federal Reserve.
Well, and some things are not allowed - anti-semitism for example. Period. And others, rabid anti-Catholicism are protected speech.
If you said "You believe that Catholics worship Mary" I might let it ride because you did not attach it as a motive to another claim, e.g. "You hate Catholics because you believe Catholics worship Mary."
Ahh but Anti Catholicism is simply a another set of facts that we don’t agree with. Not opinion. Not belief. But alternate facts.
I still have not figured out how that works. Can we now state OPC believes “Jesus was a Nazi”?
If I state so, it is my fact and no evidence of it being a falsehood have to be taken into consideration.
Fun.
I might let it ride because you did not attach it as a motive to another claim, e.g. "You hate Catholics because you believe Catholics worship Mary."...Religion Moderator wrote:
I will not arbitrate between the sides.Well, except when you do. No anti-semitism for example.
If I said "Calvinists hate icons" that would not be making it personal.
If I said "You hate icons" that would be making it personal.
Ahh but Anti Catholicism is simply a another set of facts that we don’t agree with...Right. Very interesting.
For something to be "mind reading" on the Religion Forum it must be speaking of another Freeper, personally.But slanderous lies about what a Catholic believes are OK, as long as the particular Catholic is not named. OTOH slanderous lies about Jewish belief, that is banned always. Right?
So I respectfully ask what is the difference between
the exchange I had with Dr. E and the example I gave?
Again. I explained the doctrine of Alter Christi and she wrote “Blasphemy.” and I wrote.
“You disagree with the doctrine because you believe it is blasphemy”
Those of us who are Catholic parents must not take it as being personal when someone writes we allow our children to be raped.
But what constitutes "hate mongering" is up to moderators. We know it when we see it.
As to the rest, when one belief spawns from another it is not unusual for both to condemn the other in the harshest terms possible, e.g. anathema, heresy, apostate, cult, Satanic. Such terms and beliefs often become part of the official documents of the religion. The contempt cuts both ways and is aired only in "open" RF debate.
You attributed motive which I explained was the reason for my warning in my original post 117.
So you DO arbitrate. Selectively. Some lies are allowed, some are not.
“We know it when we see it.”
Except when you don’t. Obvious and clear lies like the Catholic Church teaches that only priests can read the Bible are allowed. But you do not see that as a lie designed to create a flame war.
If what you said were true then much of the New Testament could not be discussed on the Religion Forum since some Jews might complain that certain claims by or about Jesus are “slanderous lies about Jewish beliefs.”
We moderate the forum - we do not arbitrate truth or fact.
So if somebody writes “Blasphemy” in regards to a certain teaching, I can not write they disagree with that teaching and I can not write they believe it is blasphemy.
Simply writing back what they wrote in a way to clarify their opinion, (I thought their writing it was blasphemy meant they disagreed with it, but evidently I was wrong) is now attributing motive. O.k.
“The Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is blasphemy.”
“You dispute the doctrine because you believe it is blasphemy.”
Not allowed.
“Catholics worship Mr. Ed.”
“You believe Catholics worship Mr. Ed.”
Allowed.
Dr. W eats babies and has sexual relationships with pond algae. Personal not allowed, incitement to flame war.
Unmarried members of the OPC eat babies and have sexual relations with pond algae. Allowed, simply another alternate set of facts.
The first set of rules are frustrating but the total freedom to post outright falsehoods without fear of reprisal or correction more than makes up for it.
Unmarried members of the OPC eat babies and have sexual relations with pond algae. Allowed, simply another alternate set of facts.OK, an interesting new approach. They have their "facts", I can have mine.
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.