: : How exactly is going to a debate room especially made for discussing this very issue, sweeping it under the rug???? No one said don't discuss it, just discuss it where it might be more suitable. : : --
: : McSpotlight: Thanks, Karen.
: I'm sorry if I insulted anyone, I thought I was playing the defender of freedom of speech etc. there.
: I might add that I'm not a theological rangler here, I see religion in it's proper political context, it is part of public life and must be treated as such.
: What I considered to be the sweeping, was that remarks where made about Jihads etc. when I was merely playing the role of defence and anti-defamation. Although I'm more than aware now that it wasnt either an attack on me personally or the debate but a case of trying to find a prompt moment.
: --
: McSpotlight: The trouble being that both sides are playing the role of defence and anti-defamation; a remark that is (perhaps unintentionally) offensive gets taken as reason to go on the offensive as a form of defence (being the best form, etc, etc).
: Both of you obviously believe yourselves to be right and the other to be wrong; you're dealing with an issue of history where both sides have committed good and bad deeds and there is no actual way of telling who, if any, are right.
: I guess it fits into the wider debate; we are dealing with a belief here; you either believe or you don't; if you don't, then that belief is not yours and people espousing that belief are opposing you when their belief opposes you.
: The reason I don't think it's a proper "debate" as such; can either of you provide objective and debated proof that the other is wrong, given that we are dealing with intangibles? I'd be extremely surprised if either could.
McSpotlight, I think you are presupposing an equivalency here. Lark didn't start the mudslinging. Someone made anti-Catholic remarks of teh kind that are all too commonly accepted in America, and he responded to them. He's not rtying to prove that any religion is exclusively correct, while other people are trying to argue that Catholicism is an inferior religion.
--
McSpotlight: When it comes down to it, it really doesn't matter in the end who started it, it takes two to war. I remember feelings of misgiving when I first moderated DT's post that caused all the flap, which is why I said that it could be construed as needlessly offensive.
And when it comes down to it, both parties are advised by their holy book to respond to slights by "turning the other cheek"; something that would probably defuse this debate; I'm grateful to Lark for his reasoned and calm tone in the last few messages, but I cannot show any bias here or the debate is tainted; at least I'm an atheist, which makes things slightly easier.
Let reasoned debate do the talking; I'm sure Lark (or Dark Truth) has arguments to back up his case, and I don't mind him posting them as long as they remain polite and to the point.
Where do you draw the line? I've already rejected one post in which I was accused of bias (although that's not why I rejected it; I felt it to be pointlessly confrontational).
