Stating that you think something is wrong and why, isn’t the same as being Anti-X, Y or Z. It is expressing your thoughts, opinions and freedom of speech. He isn’t inciting hatred towards catholics.
When people use the loaded term Anti-Catholic, or Anti-Choice, or Homophobic what do they mean? As I stated above the reason people use exaggerated terms is because they are loading the term with meaning. This meaning is unstated but understood by others.
Start by referring to him as a Christian Apologist, instead of an inflammatory name intended to discredit. Perhaps then you would be on a level field.
I think I can get some hints of an answer in your response to my effort.
OK, I will state that I think anti-Catholicism is wrong and why: it is a form of bigotry. It plays on people’s fears and ignorance and promotes paranoid conspiracy theories toward Catholics/Catholicism. It circumvents reasoned discussion because it is driven by irrational fear and hatred that spins one preposterous tale after another and any evidence you present to the contrary is just part of the demonic Vatican control of the media, universities, yada, yada, etc. It has erupted in violence toward Catholics in the US at the turn of 19th to the 20th century.
When Catholics
are not considered to be Christian and
the sacraments (the CC is not alone in having them) are called acts of “sorcery”, that’s not fair-minded reasoned discussion. It is a bigotry dressed in pseudo-rational garb play acting like it’s an honest discussion.
So when Jack Chick makes outlandish, inflammatory statements like the following, that’s not inciting hatred?
The Catholic Church keeps “the name of every Protestant church member in the world” in a “big computer” in the Vatican for use in future persecutions. [Tract: “My Name? . . . In the Vatican?”]
The Jesuits instigated the American Civil War, supporting the Confederate cause and seeking to undermine the Union. When they failed, they arranged the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.
The Big Betrayal, 53–59,
The Godfathers, 9] Later, they formed the Ku Klux Klan.
The Godfathers, 31]
The Vatican set up the Communist Party when their attempt to control Europe by launching WW II failed.
The Godfathers, 24]
The Vatican, “Rome is still [having had it since the days of the Roman Emperors] the seat of power. She controls the U.N., governments, and the world’s finances.” [Tract: “Papa”]
“Because of her tremendous wealth, the Vatican can sway the economies of the world. She can bring nations to their knees with planned depressions.”
The Godfathers, 16]
So when Tony Alamo does
the same, that’s not inciting hatred?
“Because of her age-old desire to control the world government and church, the serpent-like Vatican has infested the world and the U.S. government with so many of her zealous, highly-trained and dedicated Jesuit devotees, that she now controls the United Nations (which she created), the White House, Congress, every state, federal, civic, and social government agency, including the U.S. Department of Labor, the IRS, the FBI, the Supreme Court, judicial systems, the armed forces, state, federal, and other police, also the international banking and federal reserve systems (called the Illuminati and Agentur), labor unions, the Mafia, and most of the heavyweight news media.
This cult (the Vatican) is very close to replacing our U.S. Constitution with her one-world, satanic canon laws of death to the “heretic” (anyone that is not Roman Catholic). General Lafayette, President George Washington’s most respected aide and general, prophetically stated, “If the liberties of the American people are ever destroyed, they will fall by the hand of the Roman Catholic cult’s clergy.”
For
Ian Paisley, . . .
In 1988, when Pope John Paul II delivered a speech to the European Parliament, Paisley shouted “I denounce you as the Antichrist!” and held up a red poster reading “Pope John Paul II ANTICHRIST” in black letters.
I would not put James White in the same category as those above. But when he claims in debates that the ECFs taught sola scriptura by citing a few passages where they not surprisingly speak of the probative value of scripture and ignores the
mountain of passages that speak of the unity of Scripture tradition and church; and gets shredded on it; and then goes onto the next engagement and makes the same claim; when that happens something else is at work besides a disinterested pursuit of the truth.
Well? Personal. He’s addressed this, look it up. Otherwise can this possibly be considered slander? Morally?
(TULIP) Have you read any of his books? He has an entire book on this subject. 