Beginning immediately, I will be moderating all comments before they appear online on Religion Clause. I regret moving to this system, but lately there has been a significant increase in commercial spam and in off-topic and inappropriate comments. I welcome reasoned comments on all postings. However this is not a forum for personal attacks on other commenters or invective directed at various groups. While I encourage a broad spectrum of diverse viewpoints, repetitious comments by the same individual on numerous postings will also be excluded.
Sunday, January 04, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
9 comments:
Good on ya Howard. I apologize for some of the remarks I've made. Hopefully we'll be able to get away from this policy relatively soon.
Best wishes,
-American Atheist
Regrettable but understandable many times. I have nothing but good to say about this blog. It's well-maintained and always informative the talent is obvious. Abuse is just wrong and should always be fought. 100% on board with moderation. I do.
It's too bad you have to start monitoring comments. I would prefer that blog hosts have a "offensive comment bucket" where they could throw all censored comments, so that the rest of us can see what is so offensive.
Especially since the religious majority in every country daily offends non-believers but shows a very thin skin whenever a non-believer questions silly doctrines like the trinities, virgin births and immaculate conceptions.
Jimbino, I don't find your questions offensive though I don't agree that those doctrines are "silly." You ought not take offense just because believers believe the Bible. Their faith is not the offense --the Gospel itself offends to say we are all sinners and need a Redeemer. Sometimes offense is truthful.
But of course, this is just my belief, my opinion. The Truth of it will be known some day--or not.
This policy coincided with criticism of the lawyer profession, and with the criticism of the bias and the lack of consistency of Prof. Friedman. Period.
Why don't you just delete the objectionable posts? Moderation seems cumbersome to the flow of conversation.
This blog is the property of its author. Therefore he has the right to moderate in whatever fashion he feels appropriate.
Of course it's his property. I'm not suggesting he doesn't have the right. I just think moderation bogs down the conversation.
Prof. Friedman is misleading. He takes the high ground position, "I am clipping articles, and staying neutral," to bolster his credibility. He expresses no view, publishes no analysis.
Problem. If you clip articles from newspapers in the US, 95% of the time, you are clipping articles from Commie propaganda rags, devoid of any balance, credibility or fairness. This is despite the Journalist Code of Ethics.
This is funny but a journalist Code of Ethics actually exists.
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
There is something lower than the lawyer in morals, the journalist. To its credit, the lawyer says, I am an advocate. I am not going to do the work of the other side. The other side has its own advocate. The judge may demand any adverse legal research. So, there is not much hypocrisy.
The journalists lie and say they are not advocates. They only present one side of the story, and take a holier than thou attitude.
By presenting articles from biased journalism advocating for left wing ideology, one is advocating left wing ideology, but not disclosing that. Prof. Friedman should disclose the blog has a far left wing agenda by posting articles from the mainstream media.
Once one is misleading, then personal attacks are valid on the misleading advocate. The blogger has opened the ad hominem article by the lack of disclosure and the lack of balance.
Prof. Friedman is also not interested in hearing Establishment Clause problem in the core doctrines of the law. These are so big, as to require starting from scratch. Nothing in the common law is acceptable per se. It is all void since it stems, all of it, from unlawful church based, supernatural doctrines. This is not saying, improve the law. This is saying the law is void for violating the Establishment Clause.
Post a Comment