Religion & Law

I believe that moderators on this site should be empowered to remove posts from the site if the author of a post that contains uncivil remarks is unwilling to edit it to make it civil or to remove it. I do not think that personal criticism of the general pattern of a member?s posting practices is civil (though communicating it in a private way would be perfectly appropriate). I do not think posts should accuse another of lacking candor.

Although I might not always agree with the decisions that would be made by Rick and Mark, I am confident that they would endeavor to be fair. My proposal is confined to direct personal attacks. There have been numerous posts on this site that heap sarcasm on positions that are known to be held by other members of the site. I think this is disrespectful, but I do not think they count as personal attacks. There are also posts suggesting that people who do not agree with the poster are not really Catholics. Harmful as they are, I think these remarks belong on the site because they represent views worthy of debate. I would have a different view if specific individuals on the site were named (which so far as I am aware has not happened).

As a general matter, I think authors should (and usually do) write with the understanding that others might not share their views. Posts written with that understanding communicate respect and foster dialogue. Again my proposal is confined to personal attacks. My strong conviction is that the differences on this site are too raw to have anything other than a zero tolerance policy regarding personal attacks.