|
Post by maolsheachlann on Dec 2, 2017 12:51:12 GMT
I'm wondering why so few members actually post here. There are over seven hundred registered members and about two hundred people read the forum every day, but it's become increasingly a handful of people who post. And I admit that I'm increasingly inhibited myself, especially on the grounds of item 2 on my list below.
I think it's a real shame, because I do think this forum has great value, and I've learned a great deal from it over the years, as well as enjoying the feeling of fellowship it provides.
Now, I know that some of the regular contributors of the past are simply busier now, which is understandable. I'm really wondering why new people don't take their place. I don't know the reasons, but I'm going to suggest a few possibilites:
1) People being shot down, albeit unintentionally. As we all know, there is some tremendous erudition on this forum, and that's a great thing in one way, since we can all learn from it. But it can also be intimidating. I suspect many members are simply intimidated from contributing. A forum should about discussion and dialogue, but if the level of discourse is pitched too high, it has an inhibiting effect. If somebody posts a discussion point and gets a long lecture in response, essentially "putting them right" rather than discussing with them, they are hardly going to be encouraged. I think the more erudite and learned members should make more of an effort to draw out those who are less scholarly, rather than to put them back in their boxes. Nobody is TRYING to do the latter, but I SUSPECT this is what is happening. It doesn't affect me, as fools rush in where angels fear to tread, and I've never let ignorance inhibit me in discussing a topic. But it may inhibit others.
2) Political correctness. Many people on this forum come from a Traditionalist background, and I understand there are genuine problems with anti-semitism and male chauvinism in the Traditionalist camp. But isn't it possible to swing to the opposite extreme? The attention paid to fringe groups and figures here is quite startling. I think threads such as the one on anti-semitism and the one on misogyny, which are some of the most active, send the wrong message. Isn't there enough talk about discrimination and prejudice these days? Do we have to add to it? I remember how my aunt Kitty used to persecute my uncle Willy driving around the roads of Limerick, shouting "Watch that lady!"...who was standing in the middle of the pathway, well clear of the road. It's good to examine your own prejudices, or the prejudices of your circles, but can't it become excessive?
Anti-nationalism is another aspect to this. Most Irish Catholics are also Irish nationalists. On this forum I've seen claims such as that Patrick Pearse was similar to Timothy McVeigh, or that Francis Sheehy Skeffington was right in claiming that no manifestation of Irishness was any more authentic than any other-- I forget the exact quote and I can't seem to find it now. This would probably go down well at any seminar of Irish Jesuits, but do you think the ordinary Irish Mass-goer sympathizes with such views? Not that I think anyone should hide their own views, but I suspect this is another chilling factor, and surely it's possible to be more sensitive or open.
3) Over-intellectualism, or Professor Joad-ism ("Well, it all depends what you mean by..."). I agree it's sometimes important to define your terms and distinguish elements, but surely preparatory analysis can go overboard? I remember starting a thread on the concept of "the decline of the West" and, knowing the form, appealing contributors NOT to analyse the term "the West" to death. Cue hundreds of words of analysis of the term "the West". I'm pretty sure this loses people.
Now, maybe all this doesn't matter. After all, this forum has lasted for many years and seems to have gone through a lot of dormant phases. Perhaps people are happy just to come back and benefit from the participation of a few. There's nothing wrong with that. But, IF there is a desire to broaden its appeal, I'm suggesting that it's POSSIBLE these tendencies might be holding people back. I don't know that they are, I might be COMPLETELY wrong, but I suspect that they are. Other contributions welcome, especially from "lurkers".
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Dec 2, 2017 15:22:12 GMT
1) I must admit that I've never seen any examples of this happening recently. I admit that I have been combative in the past, but this is something I have worked on so is unlikely to happen again. In fact, I too have at the receiving end of such lectures many times, and a lot of times it does force me to re-evaluate my views, so this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Also, if you think that it's a problem here, look at Boards or Politics.ie, where it is far rougher than it would be here.
2) Again, this is more of a historical phenomenon, and also the misogyny thread also includes posts about Catholic sexual ethics in general, so the title can often be misleading (I admit that I have often contributed to this). As for political correctness, there is much that is problematic about it, and it should be opposed where it infringes on our turf, but the same could be said about the reaction against it. I'm pretty sure that people in the American South in the Civil Rights era resented being lectured by Yankees about their treatment of African-Americans, but that doesn't mean they were right. Ironically, your own forum may have actually diverted traffic away from here, and certainly many former posters here are now posting over there instead. As for nationalism, there have been many posters here who are very nationalist-minded (Alaisdir, Pugio, Roger, Antaine, Irish Confederate), who if anything outnumber those with a more revisionist view) and have frequently stated their views without repercussions. It's not like we have a party whip or anything. As you have brought up my comparison of Pearse to McVeigh, I will stand by that, as the only difference is that McVeigh lost, while Pearse eventually won, though not in his lifetime. If the latter had lost, he would be remembered like McVeigh is today. I also fully admit that most people do not share that (politically incorrect) view, but this is a discussion forum and everyone has the right to state their opinions provided they do so reasonably, so there is nothing stopping someone coming on here and saying that they disagree with me.
3) Yes, this could be a problem, but clarity is important, so that we are all on the same page.
I will now add additional reasons:
4) People's attention has shifted away from discussion boards and more towards social media, and the decline of this board is part of this.
5) As I mentioned above, the Irish Conservatives Forum has drawn posters who might otherwise post (and indeed posted) here. Ironically, the advent of that forum led to a steep decline in posting activity here as people (admittedly myself included initially) shifted their attention to the new board.
6) Unfortunately, Hibernicus is often offline for long periods, especially in recent times, and as he has to approve new members, it can take a long time between registration and approval. During that period, people often lose interest and forget about the forum, and by the time membership is approved, it is too late. I think this should be changed so that no approval is required. It will probably lower the quality of discussion here, but it's either that or the forum dies. Going forward, I also think that Hibernicus really ought to consider (again) appointing a deputy moderator as a matter of urgency, so that the forum can continue working normally in his absence.
7) I admit that I have not been as active as I would have liked, but I would contribute more if others did so. I will try to be more active in the future.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Dec 2, 2017 15:30:52 GMT
I should clarify I wasn't talking about aggression or bullishness in my first point. I know this forum is always civil. I mean an (inadvertent) "lecturing" style of posting sometimes. It has its good side but also its bad side.
I don't actually think the Irish Conservatives Forum has had a huge effect here, this forum was already sluggish. I should say here that I expect (most probably) this forum will still be going long after my own, much as I would like both to continue indefinitely. I've tried to plug this forum there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2017 19:43:53 GMT
I was just thinking about mentioning this 2 or 3 days ago in the Housekeeping thread, but didn't bother.
I think the point about some threads being too much for some people is right. In fact, I think this point was mentioned before. Not that intellectual threads are bad, but not everyone has the time or depth of knowledge for some threads, so probably wouldn't even consider it. I'm not saying that something should be changed; just that that's how it is.
I think Young Ireland's point about the time waiting for a new account to be approved is also right. When I remade my account, I think I had to wait 3 or 4 days. Considering the forum isn't active to begin with, I guess that could put some people off. There was a new member who posted in the Ex Cathedra board once, and she never came back though (I don't think), so maybe it wouldn't make all the difference. I'd say it doesn't help though.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Dec 2, 2017 19:56:41 GMT
I was just thinking about mentioning this 2 or 3 days ago in the Housekeeping thread, but didn't bother. I think the point about some threads being too much for some people is right. In fact, I think this point was mentioned before. Not that intellectual threads are bad, but not everyone has the time or depth of knowledge for some threads, so probably wouldn't even consider it. I'm not saying that something should be changed; just that that's how it is. I think Young Ireland's point about the time waiting for a new account to be approved is also right. When I remade my account, I think I had to wait 3 or 4 days. Considering the forum isn't active to begin with, I guess that could put some people off. There was a new member who posted in the Ex Cathedra board once, and she never came back though (I don't think), so maybe it wouldn't make all the difference. I'd say it doesn't help though. I agree that people might be scared of contributing to threads, but the profile of a forum's membership tends to be self-selecting in that they attract people similar to the existing posters. If people want to change the forum, they need to start contributing because they can't effect change from the outside.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Dec 2, 2017 21:03:10 GMT
Hey, I always try to make my contributions as lowbrow as possible. I'm doing what I can do!
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 2, 2017 21:14:04 GMT
I agree this is a problem, and I'm sorry I haven't been online as often as I used to be - pressure of work pure and simple.
I take the point about a "lecturing" or highbrow style of debate, of which I suppose I am the main exponent - but that's just the sort of person I am. Also I like to try to get people to think about the roots of our current problems, rather than just reacting to events as they develop. I'm sorry if that comes across as intimidating.
Any discussion is going to produce arguments that some people will disagree with. Speaking for myself about the two arguments that Maolseachlainn mentioned: (1) I would disagree with the equation of Timothy MacVeigh and Patrick Pearse. MacVeigh was an almost completely isolated lunatic who murdered over 150 people at random with one or two accomplices; Pearse acted on behalf of a significant political movement,tried to observe military rules of war, and received retrospective endorsement. Personally I don't think that's good enough because I disagree with Pearse's definition of what it is to be Irish and because acting in the expectation of retrospective justification sets a precedent for all sorts of dubious characters to write a blank cheque on history, but he is in a different moral category from MacVeigh and to equate them is a gross overstatement. (If you agree or disagree with this, you are perfectly free to do so - but please give your reasons so we can understand why someone might agree or disagree,and whether we those reasons might make us re-examine our own views.)
(2) The Griffith versus Sheehy-Skeffington argument - Sheehy-Skeffington saying the nation is defined by the people alive in it today, Griffith that is defind by its historic identity - is a slightly different kettle of fish, because it was I who put it forward and because it oversimplifies some very complex questions. It also spills over into the question of why I find Des Fennell so exasperating. Furthermore,one thing that makes me uneasy about my sympathy for the Sheehy-Skeffington side of the argument is that it has certain religious implications. Sheehy-Skeffington's view that the past is irrelevant and only the present counts is clearly linked to his liberalism,rationalism,secularism and individualism, and his overconfident belief that we can remake the world to our satisfaction by the use of abstract reasoning. Nobody who believes in revelation, the Incarnation, and the Communion of Saints can see the past as irrelevant to the extent he did. Furthermore there is a certain degree of bad faith in it, since one thing which was clear in Sheehy-Skeffington's day,and in ours, is that the present contains many people who define themselves by historical identities and these cannot simply be ignored; and since Sheehy-Skeffington himself was a supporter of Irish nationalism he clearly believed it had some sort of substantial identity.
My problems with the Griffith/Fennell argument is: (a) If it was taken literally it would mean Irishness could never change at all.
(b) In many cases - certainly with both Griffith and Fennell, the appeal to an unchanging identity is in fact a selective appeal, a way of saying that certain things which are clearly of Irish origin and claim to be Irish are not Irish at all, because the person defining the "unchanging" identity says so - the claim to unchangingness is a way of changing things while denying that is what you are doing, and denying that anyone has any choice in the matter.
(c) This in turn lends itself to escapism - to constructing an idealised Ireland in your mind and persuading yourself that the aspects of Irish life you don't like can be ignored or don't exist. Quite often in trad circles I meet people who see Ireland purely as the land of saints and scholars, or in terms of an idealised version of the republican tradition (this can be done with non-republican traditions as well, BTW - the proportion of unionists and constitutional nationalists who were downright crooks is greatly underestimated) or who idealise the recent past. I fell for this quite badly when I was a teenager and have been trying to come to terms with it ever since.
In short, I think Sheehy-Skeffington has the better of the argument in DESCRIPTIVE terms - of awareness of what we are actually like. Whether he was right in PRESCRIPTIVE terms - that this is what we SHOULD be like - is much more debatable.
I'll sum up briefly - I think it is dangerous for pro-lifers, Catholics etc to call ourselves the REAL Ireland because it makes it too easy to ignore those aspects of Ireland we wish didn't exist. But we should try to represent the BETTER Ireland - what Ireland should aspire to become, even if we don't fully succeed.
I hope this post is not too intimidating, and I'd be grateful for your thoughts. I'll try to post a quotation that sums up what I am saying.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Dec 2, 2017 22:12:15 GMT
I agree this is a problem, and I'm sorry I haven't been online as often as I used to be - pressure of work pure and simple. I take the point about a "lecturing" or highbrow style of debate, of which I suppose I am the main exponent - but that's just the sort of person I am. Also I like to try to get people to think about the roots of our current problems, rather than just reacting to events as they develop. I'm sorry if that comes across as intimidating. Any discussion is going to produce arguments that some people will disagree with. Speaking for myself about the two arguments that Maolseachlainn mentioned: (1) I would disagree with the equation of Timothy MacVeigh and Patrick Pearse. MacVeigh was an almost completely isolated lunatic who murdered over 150 people at random with one or two accomplices; Pearse acted on behalf of a significant political movement,tried to observe military rules of war, and received retrospective endorsement. Personally I don't think that's good enough because I disagree with Pearse's definition of what it is to be Irish and because acting in the expectation of retrospective justification sets a precedent for all sorts of dubious characters to write a blank cheque on history, but he is in a different moral category from MacVeigh and to equate them is a gross overstatement. (If you agree or disagree with this, you are perfectly free to do so - but please give your reasons so we can understand why someone might agree or disagree,and whether we those reasons might make us re-examine our own views.) (2) The Griffith versus Sheehy-Skeffington argument - Sheehy-Skeffington saying the nation is defined by the people alive in it today, Griffith that is defind by its historic identity - is a slightly different kettle of fish, because it was I who put it forward and because it oversimplifies some very complex questions. It also spills over into the question of why I find Des Fennell so exasperating. Furthermore,one thing that makes me uneasy about my sympathy for the Sheehy-Skeffington side of the argument is that it has certain religious implications. Sheehy-Skeffington's view that the past is irrelevant and only the present counts is clearly linked to his liberalism,rationalism,secularism and individualism, and his overconfident belief that we can remake the world to our satisfaction by the use of abstract reasoning. Nobody who believes in revelation, the Incarnation, and the Communion of Saints can see the past as irrelevant to the extent he did. Furthermore there is a certain degree of bad faith in it, since one thing which was clear in Sheehy-Skeffington's day,and in ours, is that the present contains many people who define themselves by historical identities and these cannot simply be ignored; and since Sheehy-Skeffington himself was a supporter of Irish nationalism he clearly believed it had some sort of substantial identity. My problems with the Griffith/Fennell argument is: (a) If it was taken literally it would mean Irishness could never change at all. (b) In many cases - certainly with both Griffith and Fennell, the appeal to an unchanging identity is in fact a selective appeal, a way of saying that certain things which are clearly of Irish origin and claim to be Irish are not Irish at all, because the person defining the "unchanging" identity says so - the claim to unchangingness is a way of changing things while denying that is what you are doing, and denying that anyone has any choice in the matter. (c) This in turn lends itself to escapism - to constructing an idealised Ireland in your mind and persuading yourself that the aspects of Irish life you don't like can be ignored or don't exist. Quite often in trad circles I meet people who see Ireland purely as the land of saints and scholars, or in terms of an idealised version of the republican tradition (this can be done with non-republican traditions as well, BTW - the proportion of unionists and constitutional nationalists who were downright crooks is greatly underestimated) or who idealise the recent past. I fell for this quite badly when I was a teenager and have been trying to come to terms with it ever since. In short, I think Sheehy-Skeffington has the better of the argument in DESCRIPTIVE terms - of awareness of what we are actually like. Whether he was right in PRESCRIPTIVE terms - that this is what we SHOULD be like - is much more debatable. I'll sum up briefly - I think it is dangerous for pro-lifers, Catholics etc to call ourselves the REAL Ireland because it makes it too easy to ignore those aspects of Ireland we wish didn't exist. But we should try to represent the BETTER Ireland - what Ireland should aspire to become, even if we don't fully succeed. I hope this post is not too intimidating, and I'd be grateful for your thoughts. I'll try to post a quotation that sums up what I am saying. I will respond to point 1 on the 1916 and Just War Theory thread, Hibernicus.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Dec 2, 2017 22:16:24 GMT
I agree this is a problem, and I'm sorry I haven't been online as often as I used to be - pressure of work pure and simple. I take the point about a "lecturing" or highbrow style of debate, of which I suppose I am the main exponent - but that's just the sort of person I am. Also I like to try to get people to think about the roots of our current problems, rather than just reacting to events as they develop. I'm sorry if that comes across as intimidating. Any discussion is going to produce arguments that some people will disagree with. Speaking for myself about the two arguments that Maolseachlainn mentioned: (1) I would disagree with the equation of Timothy MacVeigh and Patrick Pearse. MacVeigh was an almost completely isolated lunatic who murdered over 150 people at random with one or two accomplices; Pearse acted on behalf of a significant political movement,tried to observe military rules of war, and received retrospective endorsement. Personally I don't think that's good enough because I disagree with Pearse's definition of what it is to be Irish and because acting in the expectation of retrospective justification sets a precedent for all sorts of dubious characters to write a blank cheque on history, but he is in a different moral category from MacVeigh and to equate them is a gross overstatement. (If you agree or disagree with this, you are perfectly free to do so - but please give your reasons so we can understand why someone might agree or disagree,and whether we those reasons might make us re-examine our own views.) (2) The Griffith versus Sheehy-Skeffington argument - Sheehy-Skeffington saying the nation is defined by the people alive in it today, Griffith that is defind by its historic identity - is a slightly different kettle of fish, because it was I who put it forward and because it oversimplifies some very complex questions. It also spills over into the question of why I find Des Fennell so exasperating. Furthermore,one thing that makes me uneasy about my sympathy for the Sheehy-Skeffington side of the argument is that it has certain religious implications. Sheehy-Skeffington's view that the past is irrelevant and only the present counts is clearly linked to his liberalism,rationalism,secularism and individualism, and his overconfident belief that we can remake the world to our satisfaction by the use of abstract reasoning. Nobody who believes in revelation, the Incarnation, and the Communion of Saints can see the past as irrelevant to the extent he did. Furthermore there is a certain degree of bad faith in it, since one thing which was clear in Sheehy-Skeffington's day,and in ours, is that the present contains many people who define themselves by historical identities and these cannot simply be ignored; and since Sheehy-Skeffington himself was a supporter of Irish nationalism he clearly believed it had some sort of substantial identity. My problems with the Griffith/Fennell argument is: (a) If it was taken literally it would mean Irishness could never change at all. (b) In many cases - certainly with both Griffith and Fennell, the appeal to an unchanging identity is in fact a selective appeal, a way of saying that certain things which are clearly of Irish origin and claim to be Irish are not Irish at all, because the person defining the "unchanging" identity says so - the claim to unchangingness is a way of changing things while denying that is what you are doing, and denying that anyone has any choice in the matter. (c) This in turn lends itself to escapism - to constructing an idealised Ireland in your mind and persuading yourself that the aspects of Irish life you don't like can be ignored or don't exist. Quite often in trad circles I meet people who see Ireland purely as the land of saints and scholars, or in terms of an idealised version of the republican tradition (this can be done with non-republican traditions as well, BTW - the proportion of unionists and constitutional nationalists who were downright crooks is greatly underestimated) or who idealise the recent past. I fell for this quite badly when I was a teenager and have been trying to come to terms with it ever since. In short, I think Sheehy-Skeffington has the better of the argument in DESCRIPTIVE terms - of awareness of what we are actually like. Whether he was right in PRESCRIPTIVE terms - that this is what we SHOULD be like - is much more debatable. I'll sum up briefly - I think it is dangerous for pro-lifers, Catholics etc to call ourselves the REAL Ireland because it makes it too easy to ignore those aspects of Ireland we wish didn't exist. But we should try to represent the BETTER Ireland - what Ireland should aspire to become, even if we don't fully succeed. I hope this post is not too intimidating, and I'd be grateful for your thoughts. I'll try to post a quotation that sums up what I am saying. I wasn't singling anybody out in noticing the "lecturing" style, I meant it as a general criticism. Thanks for clarifying the Skeffington thing, I understand you better now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2017 22:41:54 GMT
I wasn't referring to you either, Hibernicus. It's several members who write like that. Also, I would just like to reiterate, I am NOT asking for things to change. I'm just making a point about why some people may not get involved.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Dec 2, 2017 22:53:38 GMT
I won't be entering into any discussion on the 1916 matter-- in our era of globalization, I'm afraid I can't see nationality as something that can be treated as a mere debating matter. Not when it is under hourly attack. In my view, you either join with that attack-- that is, join the ranks of RTE, the Irish Times, the Guardian, CNN, the universities, the multinationals, the entertainment industry, etc.-- or you resist it to the utmost.
I could engage in a friendly discussion about 1916 or Irish nationalism if the underlying assumption was that the survival of one's country and its traditions is an unquestionable good. Anything else takes me into the realm of a hostile debate, and I'd rather not do that here.
I will restrict my contributions here to discussion of the Catholic faith.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Dec 2, 2017 23:05:48 GMT
I won't be entering into any discussion on the 1916 matter-- in our era of globalization, I'm afraid I can't see nationality as something that can be treated as a mere debating matter. Not when it is under hourly attack. In my view, you either join with that attack-- that is, join the ranks of RTE, the Irish Times, the Guardian, CNN, the universities, the multinationals, the entertainment industry, etc.-- or you resist it to the utmost. I could engage in a friendly discussion about 1916 or Irish nationalism if the underlying assumption was that the survival of one's country and its traditions is an unquestionable good. Anything else takes me into the realm of a hostile debate, and I'd rather not do that here. I will restrict my contributions here to discussion of the Catholic faith. So in other words, you're saying that nationalism and social conservatism are inseparable. Sorry, but I can't agree with that, though I respect your wishes on this.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Dec 3, 2017 11:31:57 GMT
No, my view goes deeper. My view is that love of nation (or tribe, or people, or whatever cultural tradition you belong to) should be something fundamentally human, like love of family, reverence for age, or regard for the underdog.
However, we can agree to disagree on this and instead find common ground on the things we both love and want to protect.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 4, 2017 19:36:53 GMT
To return to my explanation of why there are certain threads on this forum: THE SCANDALS - I became aware of the blogging world, and eventually began to comment on blogs myself, through coming across American Catholic bloggers' discussions of the clerical abuse scandals there. This was of very great help to me in coming to terms with the flood of horrors that have been revealed in recent years, and keeping my faith. That's what I have been trying to do on that thread. Furthermore,this is not about making excuses - there's a moral necessity to understand why so many specially consecrated to Christ sank to that, and why they were not stopped by those who were supposed to stop them. Even if the scandals had not caused the loss of faith that they have, we still would have a duty to understand and to do what we could. Devotionalism can too easily degenerate into losing ourselves in an idealised little fantasy world; not only is this a dereliction of duty,it's easily exploited by psychopaths who manipulate people by telling them what they want to hear: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcial_Macielen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clemente_Dom%C3%ADnguez_y_G%C3%B3mez
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 4, 2017 19:54:22 GMT
The ANTISEMITISM thread comes from my observing that this is a real problem among trads. The late Doris Manly devoted what turned out to be the last issue of the BALLINTRILLICK REVIEW to answering another Irish-based Catholic magazine that started out well but drank the Fr Denis Fahey Kool-Aid and went yelping after the Elders of Zion. Fr Fahey's influence has been a long-standing problem not just in Ireland but worldwide. Anglophone SSPX websites used to carry a lot of Fr Fahey's calls to send Jews back to the ghetto - this was mostly scrubbed after the furore when Bishop Williamson's Holocaust denial antics were used to attack Pope Benedict's gesture towards the SSPX. I've had to kick the occasional antisemite off this board. (I should add that I have also known people of Jewish descent who had relatives murdered by the Nazis.) One of the things that has influenced me most is the way in which I witnessed the moral degeneration of E.Michael Jones. From a bright outspoken eccentric with a good deal of courage and commitment to the faith, he has transformed into a paranoid Jew-baiter of the worst type. (His defense of the Dialogues of Pensacola - an early C15 persecution of Jews by the antipope Benedict XIII and his adherent St Vincent Ferrer is absolutely bloodcurdling; he suggests that forced conversions after a debate in which the Jewish speakers were not allowed to advocate their own religion lest they commit blasphemy reflected Catholic theological superiority and nothing else, and he defends forbidding Jews who had been forcibly baptised to return to Judaism on the grounds that this was necessary to uphold the sanctity of baptism.) I don't want anyone else to sink into that fever swamp if I can do anything to stop it.
|
|