That is the "anti" position in the religious debate town square. If you are suggesting that no Freeper be allowed to destroy the beliefs of another then you are indeed arguing for an "ecumenic" style of discussion.
“By ‘iconoclastic’ I take it to mean ‘attempting to destroy the beliefs of others’.”
If by “attempting to destroy the beliefs of others,” you mean to use reason, evidence, facts, logic, to show that one's belief is superior to another, more likely to be true than the others, to intellectually eviscerate the other fellow's beliefs, oh, heck no. I'm all in favor of that.
But if by “attempting to destroy the beliefs of others,” by resort to mocking, ridicule, derision, emotionally attempting to degrade what is holy to others, direct, flamboyant disrespect for, to “tear down the icons” of what the other holds holy, then, yes, that is the iconoclasm that I mean.
Are you saying that the purpose of the Religion Forum is to mock, ridicule, deride, emotionally degrade what is holy to others, direct, flamboyant disrespect for what the other holds holy?
If you do, then you make my point for me.
If that is the case, then the Religion Forum is inherently anti-Catholic in its rules.
sitetest