Welcome and Posting Rules
Welcome, dear reader, to What’s Wrong with the World, another web-log with grand pretensions. Something is decidedly wrong with the world, and our brash assertion is that we know a part of what that is. This site is a successor to Enchiridion Militis, and we extend our thanks to Josh Trevino for bringing us together, though his hiatus from online activity means that, sadly, he will not be joining us here.
The phrase enchiridion militis refers to book by Erasmus which, translated, still captures our purpose: A Handbook for the Christian Soldier. Please take a moment to read our Statement of Purpose and peruse our Contributors list.
The reader is welcome – nay, encouraged – to join the discussion by posting comments; however, he is reminded of his position as a guest here, and urged to keep his comments within the bounds of a decent respect for the opinions of his hosts. We will not tolerate: truculent atheists, irascible Liberals, intransigent Islamists, ill- tempered radicals, petulant nihilists, brassbound freethinking polemicists, cantankerous evolutionists, and the like; nor will we shed a tear for any of the above who, when banned, feel they have been grievously wronged. All of the above, however, are welcome – minus the adjectives.
Neither will we abide personal insults, threats, imprecations, breaches of privacy, or profanity of any kind. The reader is well- advised, if in doubt, to err on the side of caution.
The doctrines of orthodox Christianity shall not be scoffed at; while the doctrines of orthodox Liberalism will be abused and derided with impunity. One proposition, which has nearly achieved the status of Liberal doctrine, is that Islam shall be shielded from public criticism. This, too, we emphatically cast aside.
As Bob Dylan said, “we can hear the night watchman click his flashlight, ask himself if it’s him or them that’s insane” – except that here, there is no such ambivalence; it’s them that’s insane.
If the reader suspects that this amounts to a “we’re right, you’re wrong” policy, he may well be right. But let him rest assured that respect and propriety will not return void. With our adversaries we can still hope to achieve a courteous clarity of disagreement, and even a mutual admiration: but this can only be done in forthright civility.
Forthright and Civil, then, will be our watchwords: we will be forthright and adversarial commenters will be civil.