Expelling the cardinal is likely to increase tensions between Francis and conservative American Catholics, a group he as described as having “a very, strong, organized, reactionary attitude,” and whom he accused in 2023 of replacing faith with “ideologies.”
That’s how attributions work. They’re in quotes so we can distinguish what he actually said from the general summary of events that the article is providing.
True, but it’s also used to distance the article (“the authority”) from the truth of the word or set of words. The wire service then doesn’t have to commit to (in this case) saying people referenced in the story are replacing religion with ideologies.
Scare quotes.
The ultra conservative Catholics (and “evangelicals” which is what we used to call “tv preachers” but is now so mainstream they have their own Protestant designation,) HAVE replaced faith with ideology. But even if that’s debatable, the word ideology is perfectly acceptable - the quotes are not just superfluous, they’re there to limit the impact of the statement. The statement already said it’s a quote, it already said Who said it, it went further by using the word “accused” instead of “said” (now there’s a word choice - is that how attribution works? No. No it is not.), and then put scare quotes on “ideologies”.
Take out “accused”, put the whole quote in, and I have no problem with it. They butchered it in this way for a reason, and that reason has little to do with the accepted guide for attribution.
Joshua ben Joseph was a religious leader who preached nonviolent resistance against the state. He was eventually executed publicly by the state for this. Do you think He was wrong to bring religion into politics?
If you mean jesus, then yes, desperately. I like stained glass and organ music as much as the next, but how amazing would it be if christianity had never happened
I’m gonna go ahead and say “absolutely not”, though, considering that [I assume you’re talking about the Christian man-god] was largely executed for his religious teachings, and the “crowds” that followed him, disrupting their control of the populace.
He might have been executed by the Roman’s, but only after a trial by the Jewish religious leaders - and only because the Roman’s started frowning at all of the other Jewish mystics they were leaving knifed in the ditches. (And that was just… untidy.)
I’m not sure why you think that’s a gotcha. I imagine the actual mystic behind those stories would be quite surprised by all the things they say he said and done.
Someone: says a true thing
AP Wire Service: puts “true thing” in quotes
That’s how attributions work. They’re in quotes so we can distinguish what he actually said from the general summary of events that the article is providing.
True, but it’s also used to distance the article (“the authority”) from the truth of the word or set of words. The wire service then doesn’t have to commit to (in this case) saying people referenced in the story are replacing religion with ideologies.
Scare quotes.
The ultra conservative Catholics (and “evangelicals” which is what we used to call “tv preachers” but is now so mainstream they have their own Protestant designation,) HAVE replaced faith with ideology. But even if that’s debatable, the word ideology is perfectly acceptable - the quotes are not just superfluous, they’re there to limit the impact of the statement. The statement already said it’s a quote, it already said Who said it, it went further by using the word “accused” instead of “said” (now there’s a word choice - is that how attribution works? No. No it is not.), and then put scare quotes on “ideologies”.
Take out “accused”, put the whole quote in, and I have no problem with it. They butchered it in this way for a reason, and that reason has little to do with the accepted guide for attribution.
I mean, that’s how quotes work, yes. I agree with your sentiment, but that’s how all news organizations do it.
Right but there’s not a need to quote it if it’s a true single word.
One man’s faith is another man’s ideology.
Ultimately, the problem is religion. Religion should not be part of politics.
Joshua ben Joseph was a religious leader who preached nonviolent resistance against the state. He was eventually executed publicly by the state for this. Do you think He was wrong to bring religion into politics?
If you mean jesus, then yes, desperately. I like stained glass and organ music as much as the next, but how amazing would it be if christianity had never happened
Which one?
I’m gonna go ahead and say “absolutely not”, though, considering that [I assume you’re talking about the Christian man-god] was largely executed for his religious teachings, and the “crowds” that followed him, disrupting their control of the populace.
He might have been executed by the Roman’s, but only after a trial by the Jewish religious leaders - and only because the Roman’s started frowning at all of the other Jewish mystics they were leaving knifed in the ditches. (And that was just… untidy.)
I’m not sure why you think that’s a gotcha. I imagine the actual mystic behind those stories would be quite surprised by all the things they say he said and done.