Thanks, Baker. To paraphrase a comment made by, IIRC, either Coldie or Lynn B. some months ago, just because it’s the Pit doesn’t mean that you have to let loose with a stream of language that would make Chief Scottgo :o. I do have answers to badchad, most recent series of allegations; that doesn’t mean I’m obliged to answer every one of them. I seem to be getting no cooperation from him in terms of attempting to understand how I can reasonably hold my position. If someone else sees any of them as grievously inconsistent, I’ll attempt to clarify.
As for Kalhoun’s comment, I can forestall him a bunch of research. I have no doubt that I have said any number of opinions in language that sounds authoritative. Contextually, however, they were religious assertions, said in direct or indirect response to an OP seeking views on issues of faith. (Similarly, I know I’ve asserted my POV on questions of constitutional law in opposition to Dewey, probably regularly without an IMO or similar term inserted.)
What such discussions have in common is that they are on issues of interest on which no consensus exists; a statement is thus by implication normally one of opinion, hopefully grounded in facts and logic but nonetheless opinion. Only a very limited selection of facts exists; generally in such debates it is customary to set them apart as such, and to express one’s firmly held views and beliefs without an “I think that…” or “Good Catholics believe that…” which is in fact understood. I doubt strongly that Messrs. Justices Kennedy, Douglas, and Brennan have [ever used the phrase “substantive due process” in the course of a formal opinion; that does not mean that Dewey is wrong in ascribing that POV to them, withut being required to insert an appropriate collection of weasel-words to make clear that it is his (or his authorities’) perception of their methodology. Likewise, I feel comfortable, in the context of a discussion on religion, in stating my firmly held beliefs in the expectation that they will not be seen as my claiming factuality for them – to the contrary, if I should find it necessary to discuss Biblical inerrancy, I will make factual statements regarding the creedal positions of others and assert them distinctly as such. (E.g., Shodan or I can state “The Catholic Church obliges acceptance of the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception on its faithful” as accurately as can tomndebb – it’s a statement of fact on the dogmatic pronouncement of a church we do not belong to of a doctrine we do not hold.)