3,303
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 47:
Line 47: +
Talk:Roman Catholicism (view source)
Revision as of 21:22, October 24, 2008
, 21:22, October 24, 2008→Controversy?: more
:As another general rule, when our article has an extensive history from many editors to take its current form, including 9 sysops and the site owner, then it is best to work within the structure that has formed before resorting to complete section removal. Sometimes drastic measures are needed, but it is unlikely that would be true in this case. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:32, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
:As another general rule, when our article has an extensive history from many editors to take its current form, including 9 sysops and the site owner, then it is best to work within the structure that has formed before resorting to complete section removal. Sometimes drastic measures are needed, but it is unlikely that would be true in this case. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:32, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
:I disagree. This section is insulting to the Roman Catholic church, and implies that there is an institutional basis to abuse, rather than abuse being the deeds of a very small minority, and something that is common to all faiths and denominations, and to all organisations which work with youing people. There is no equivalent section in Protestantism, or Methodism, or Baptism; yet nonconformist ministers have been guilty of child abuse. That this article should have such a section is vilainous bigotry and an insult not just to the Church but to Conservapedia also. Drastic measures '''are''' needed in this case, LT. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:17, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
:I disagree. This section is insulting to the Roman Catholic church, and implies that there is an institutional basis to abuse, rather than abuse being the deeds of a very small minority, and something that is common to all faiths and denominations, and to all organisations which work with youing people. There is no equivalent section in Protestantism, or Methodism, or Baptism; yet nonconformist ministers have been guilty of child abuse. That this article should have such a section is vilainous bigotry and an insult not just to the Church but to Conservapedia also. Drastic measures '''are''' needed in this case, LT. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:17, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
::I will add: drastic measures are necessary because anti-Catholic bigotry is a sad fact of life, and has been expressed on this site as well, and these people will argue and obfuscate and delay to prevent necesary and real change. Indeed, the whole abuse scandal has been whipped up by bigots to slander the Church - otherwise, why have not Protestant churches received the same consideration? unless this site examines similar scandals in other denominations, the section should go. This is not a site for Catholic-beating. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:22, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
==Requirements==
==Requirements==