Bill Donohue: Over the line?

dotCommonweal ^ | David Gibson

[sitetest]

Dear big'ol_freeper,

You're on the right track, but I think that it goes deeper than that.

sitetest

[Religion Moderator]

Why don’t you negotiate among yourselves what the guidelines for the Religion Forum ought to be and then get back to me? I cannot make any promises, because I do not make decisions in a vacuum - but it would surely help.

[trisham]

And that wasn't the central problem of that thread or that experiment. That was a sideshow.

The real problem was that a group of posters denied even the DESIRABILITY of the attempt at “respectful dialogue.” And their intransigence was permitted to trash the experiment.

*******************

Agreed. When discussion becomes taunting, insulting and bullying, it should be clear to us all what is really going on here.

[big'ol_freeper]

Exactly.

[big'ol_freeper]

You said: Why don’t you negotiate among yourselves what the guidelines for the Religion Forum ought to be.

Good suggestion. A VERY difficult task. But an opportunity to improve the forum.

[sitetest]

Dear Religion Moderator,

“Why don’t you negotiate among yourselves what the guidelines for the Religion Forum ought to be and then get back to me?”

Why would we bother?

“I cannot make any promises, because I do not make decisions in a vacuum - “

But that's what you're asking from us - to negotiate, essentially in a vacuum.

I'm reminded of the quip that one shouldn't expect to negotiate successfully with another party if one is negotiating amongst one's own party.

The problem here isn't that we need to negotiate among ourselves, but that you haven't really demonstrated much interest in the underlying problem. When the moderation here becomes interested, then it's possible that it might be resolved.

Until that time, we're just shoveling against the tide.

And folks like pgkdan, who is thinking of no longer contributing financially to this site, are more common than one may realize.

sitetest

[trisham]

From my viewpoint, it seems most of the discontent among the Catholics could be resolved by banning a few posters. The same could be said of other confessions and other posters. But I am not inclined to ban a poster because others disapprove of him/her - the poster must earn his own banishment.

******************

I don't believe this is the solution most/any of us are suggesting. Many of the posters who most offend are longtime members of FR, and I would hate to see them banned. Some actions are already off-limits on the Religion forum, such as bad language, but these usually receive a warning and deletion of posts. As far as I know.

[Judith Anne]

Well said. If the RM can’t tell a troll post from a regular post, no negotiation on our side will help.

[Running On Empty]

I agree with every word of this post. And that’s why it has become easier and easier to either not log on to the forum, or-—to skip past a lot of the posts that are repetitious in their nature, unnecessarily long, offered in size and color from ordinary posts, offer sermons instead of commentaries on the subject matter, and posts that never deviate from the same mantras. The posts I am referencing are almost exclusively from FReepers who show an open dislike or contempt for Catholicism.

Also, I agree that now there is a much more limited number of posters, that the ones who do post are the almost daily “regulars” which indicates to me that a kind of stagnation has taken place.

For me, the Religion Forum has proven not to be the best stewardship of my time.

[Titanites]

The problem in open religious debate is that what seems to be a "lie" to one is a "truth" to another, what is an insult to one is not an insult to another and so on.

The same could be said about "potty language" but that seems to be effectively moderated.

[Religion Moderator]

The problem here isn't that we need to negotiate among ourselves, but that you haven't really demonstrated much interest in the underlying problem.

Ok, then. Define the "underlying problem" as clearly and specifically as possible.

[Judith Anne]

Well said.

[Religion Moderator]

Ok, then. Can you come up with a list of “lies” which should be prohibited in “open” religious debate?

[Luke21]

The Catholic League is one of the few bare knuckles Christian groups that fights back. Mr. Donohue is controversial because when the libs and guttersnipes attack, he's right back at them. He is effective. That makes enemies, because the liberal media is then left with only innuendo as a weapon. They can't take him on directly. He moves mountains.

For the life of me, I don't know why supposedly Christian people cannot accept their natural allies in the Catholic and Mormon churches.

[Titanites]

Ok, then. Can you come up with a list of “lies” which should be prohibited in “open” religious debate?

Do you have a list of "potty language" or do you moderate it as you see it?

[Judith Anne]

The problem is non-Catholic posters coming on RF threads with
troll posts, repeating the same anti-Catholic diatribes on every Catholic thread.

I would be happy to ping you to some.

[sitetest]

Dear Religion Moderator,

“Ok, then. Define the ‘underlying problem’ as clearly and specifically as possible.”

I'll try. But work with me. I'd rather have a dialogue on this than a long and boring monologue. I'd rather that you try to make an effort to understand what I'm trying to say, even if I don't say it that well, rather than for you to try to pick it apart. REAL dialogue isn't waiting for one's interlocutor to stop talking so one can say your piece, especially to refute the other.

I think that at the core, the problem is one of iconoclasm.

That, I think, probably oversimplifies it, but I don't think by much.

Catholicism (and Orthodoxy, as well), are not iconoclastic.

Christian groups generally other than Catholics and Orthodox are inherently, and deeply iconoclastic.

And the rules of the forum significantly favor iconoclasm.

sitetest

[pgkdan]

I think a big part of the problem is that when the RM says "don't get personal" he/she doesn't understaand that when someone says the Catholic Church practices idolatry that is a very personal insult. The poster just called ME an idolator...not some vague theological construct, not some foreign corporate entity that owns the Vatican...but ME. That's personal. To allow anti-Catholic posters freedom to post all sorts of lies and slander against Catholics is simply wrong.

I'm not particularly interested in having anyone banned...I'd just like to see a little more even handed treatment and some attempt to understand where Catholics are coming from when we complain about these abuses.

[Petronski]

Here’s one: “Catholicism deifies Mary.”

It’s demonstrably not true. A poster should be able to say “it looks like Catholics are worshiping Mary” until the cows come home. It can be disproved readily enough. But “Catholicism deifies Mary” is a lie.

Defining “lies” in this field is difficult, I do not question that. But on one extreme end of the bell curve of truthiness, there are SOME allegations that are demonstrably, objectively false.

[trisham]

The problem is non-Catholic posters coming on RF threads with troll posts, repeating the same anti-Catholic diatribes on every Catholic thread.

********************

Agreed. Trolling and spamming are apparently easily recognized on other forums, so why not here?