Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Kansas58

This doesn’t answer, or even address, my question. How can you make a generalization about many annulments being corrupt or unfair, without offering any facts that would support your accusation? You are making a judgment about the operations of an institution that affects tens of thousands of couples per year in the US alone, a judgment which involves imputing moral culpability (”corrupt, unfair” entails moral fault) and you “refuse” to give facts or reasonable inferences from facts??

Are we supposed to accept sweeping insinuations of immoral, corrupt and unjust behavior without evidence? Is this just? Or are we just supposed to be credulous?


84 posted on 09/14/2014 6:27:22 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Credulity means believing something on little evidence, on no evidence, or against the evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]


To: Mrs. Don-o

It is not my intention to offend you on this subject. I can tell from your posts that you have a big heart and that you are trying to do the right thing.

However, Yes, I am very put off by the Tribunals actions in more than one case in my area.


86 posted on 09/14/2014 6:39:39 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson