Dear xzins,
"I respect your comments."
Thanks.
And that's the point, xzins. You're usually respectful of other folks' comments, viewpoints, beliefs, etc.
Having a heavy-duty theological dispute with you is usually a pretty pleasant affair. Remembering Chesterton, it shouldn't be impossible to disagree without being disagreeable.
Although Pyro7480 has asked for respectful commenting, nonetheless, the articles themselves preclude making the thread protected. Clearly, Catholicism is contrasted with Protestantism, directly, by name.
If there are non-Catholics who believe that their beliefs are poorly represented by the Catholic author, it is unfair not to permit them to say so in this thread. It's difficult to justify the exclusion of non-Catholics with non-Catholic viewpoints from this thread.
That being the case, I don't know why it should be so darned difficult to treat each other and each other's beliefs with a modicum of respect. And I don't know why treating each other's beliefs with a modicum of respect isn't built-in and explicit in the forum's rules.
This is clearly a thread that should be: open; but where folks should deal respectfully with the material.
The rules certainly require the first, but certainly don't require the second.
sitetest
One comment in particular stood out for me, in light of my wondering if this should be a "caucus thread."
If there are non-Catholics who believe that their beliefs are poorly represented by the Catholic author, it is unfair not to permit them to say so in this thread.
The difficulty is that disagreement is regularly seen as being disagreeable whether intended or not.
Taken in consideration of pyro's comment that the "reformed" should hold back on their opinions, it just strikes me as the definition of "caucus thread."
That is not to disagree with you at all about common courtesy being an avenue that would allow all threads to be open. But, as long as some are asked to be discreet in their opinions, then we have a potential problem.