[dsc]

“If, to use your odious example, you are of the opinion that a particular set of beliefs are motivated by Satanic malice, then say so regarding the beliefs, not the individual.”

And right there you have violated the rules as you explain them. But you will not be called on the carpet, as others so often are.

Until all are treated equally, your oh-so-reasonable lecture is just a waste of time.

One very important component of human discourse is discerning the intent, motivation, and even the character of those with whom one communicates.

[RegulatorCountry]

No, I described the example provided by you as odious, dec. Do you see the distinction?

[Elsie]

One very important component of human discourse is discerning the intent, motivation, and even the character of those with whom one communicates.

I read your stuff quite thoroughly...

[metmom]

Until all are treated equally, your oh-so-reasonable lecture is just a waste of time.

And where does calling non-Catholics "lackwits" fit in with treating people reasonably?

Or what about your cohorts who refer to non-Catholics as "mouth breathers"?

Do as I say and not as I do is never going to end well.

[Religion Moderator]

RegulatorCountry's explanation of the Religion Forum guideline and it's purpose is correct.

One very important component of human discourse is discerning the intent, motivation, and even the character of those with whom one communicates.

Posters who focus on the messenger like this - rather than the message - should IGNORE "open" RF threads altogether. They are flame wars fixing to happen.

"Open" religious debate requires a higher, scholarly, arms length approach.