Robert,
Thank you for bringing this issue to the mailing list. I appreciate your efforts to keep important articles from getting mangled.
By the way, it was I (Uncle Ed) who 'protected' the page.
I think everyone would agree that the word "apostate" has a negative connotation. Perhaps it's best used in a sentence like: *Francis Xavier McDougal called Friar Travers an "apostate".
Also, most of us would agree that the article should attribute the POV that Vatican II is a "heresy" to adherents of that view, rather than stating it as a fact or implying that it's 'common knowledge.'
I have high hopes for a quick Wikonciliation of this issue.
Sincerely,
Ed Poor
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Robert,
I think everyone would agree that the word "apostate" has a negative connotation. Perhaps it's best used in a sentence like: *Francis Xavier McDougal called Friar Travers an "apostate".
Also, most of us would agree that the article should attribute the POV that Vatican II is a "heresy" to adherents of that view, rather than stating it as a fact or implying that it's 'common knowledge.'
I have high hopes for a quick Wikonciliation of this issue.
Despite being a capital offence in Saudi Arabia, I don't find "apostate" to be so inherently negative. It's only a renunciation of a religious or political belief.
"Heresy" is slightly more negative since it undermines the sense of security that people have in connection with their religious beliefs. But we're long past the days of the Holy Inquisition.
The term "common knowledge" is mostly rhetorical flourish that readers should accept as rarely informative.
I find the use of the term "anti-semitic" far more offensive than either of the two above. The tendency to unreservedly use it on occasions where Jewish sensibilities have been only slightly bruised is often akin to a form of hate-mongering.
Ec