Posted on 07/12/2010 3:01:35 PM PDT by the_conscience
Recently I was reading a particular denominations Caucus thread and noticed that a particular FReeper’s posts were being removed. As I read the comments to the removed posts I came to realize that this FReeper was raised and spent some time in their adulthood in that particular denomination. At the same time I noticed that a self proclaimed Hindu was posting on that thread without recrimination.
One of the great accomplishments of Western Civilization is the concept of the “rule of law”. The Magna Carta was perhaps the first document in early European Civilization to elucidate the concept:
No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we (the King) proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.
The rules on the Religion Forum are set, no doubt, to provide some order to the discussions between members of different denominations. So let’s review the guidelines for Caucus threads:
Caucus threads are closed to any poster who is not a member of the caucus. For instance, if it says “Catholic Caucus” and you are not Catholic, do not post to the thread. However, if the poster of the caucus invites you, I will not boot you from the thread. The “caucus” article and posts must not compare beliefs or speak in behalf of a belief outside the caucus.
As I researched this further I found this website, http://www.uiowa.edu/ifdebook/faq/Rule_of_Law.shtml, that gave a list of the elements of the rule of law:
1. Laws must exist and those laws should be obeyed by all, including government officials.
2. Laws must be published.
3. Laws must be prospective in nature so that the effect of the law may only take place after the law has been passed. For example, the court cannot convict a person of a crime committed before a criminal statute prohibiting the conduct was passed.
4. Laws should be written with reasonable clarity to avoid unfair enforcement.
5. Law must avoid contradictions.
6. Law must not command the impossible.
7. Law must stay constant through time to allow the formalization of rules; however, law also must allow for timely revision when the underlying social and political circumstances have changed.
8. Official action should be consistent with the declared rule.
The rule covering the Caucus threads on the Religion Forum would be considered the law of the land. As we see above the law must contain certain elements before it can be considered to fall under the rule of law. The question at hand is how is one defined as a “member of the caucus”. It seems to me that membership is determined by each denominations definition of membership. So long as the rule is enforced according to a particular denominations criteria for membership then that rule would be following the rule of law. If the rule is enforced arbitrarily and Freepers are denied their liberty to post to those threads despite falling under the denominations own definition of membership then that law has failed to meet the criteria of the rule of law. So back to our case study. Here’s the relevant thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2549830/posts
As one reads through the thread one first notices that a self proclaimed and well known Hindu was posting to the thread who had not been invited per the guidelines set by the Religion Moderator. In fact, while the former member was being discriminated against the Hindu was able to post freely. One FReeper, seemingly oblivious, asks the Hindu if the FReeper whose posts were removed was a member of that particular denomination.
What’s even more interesting is that this particular denomination’s dogma claims that a person who has gone through what they describe as their Sacraments of initiation will forever be a member of that sect. It’s my understanding that these include: Baptism, Confirmation, Confession, and Communion. This doctrine in this sect goes by the name: Semel Catholicus Semper Catholicus
One leader of this denomination describes it as thus:
As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, anyone who has ever been a legitimate member of the Catholic Church can never truly leave. Oh, he or she can become a non-practicing Catholic, a “bad” Catholic, or even an excommunicated Catholic, but never a non-Catholic or an ex-Catholic. http://salinadiocese.org/vicar-general/1297-once-a-catholic-always-a-catholic
The irony is rich in that a thread about a Professor who is being deprived of his rights and livelihood by a University who is violating the rule of law is used to deprive Freepers of their liberty to post their views to that thread. It seems to me that the Caucus label is meant to provide a forum for a particular denomination to discuss theological issues within that denomination not as a means to deny other Freepers their liberty. The article posted does not meet that criteria.
As we all know the Left in this country is set upon destroying the rule of law. They wish that only a few elites self chosen be able to make decisions against the will of the people and outside the laws of the land. It seems to me that if we are to reverse this course we must first police those who proclaim to be conservative on Western values.
If we look at the elements of the rule of law as put forth above, we can clearly see that these have been violated in the case at hand. If this particular denomination has determined that all who have gone through the Sacraments of initiation are forever a member of said denomination, they cannot then deny those people the liberty to post on their caucus. To do so is a clear contradiction and violates the rule of law.
This forum is an important tool to help reverse the destruction of the rule of law and to do so it must lead by example. The spirit of the Caucus label has been violated in this case. The rule was arbitrarily applied to some and not others, the members contradicted their own dogma to deny a Freeper their liberty, and the Caucus label was applied outside the spirit of the rule.
**There’s no room for curiosity or blunders on a caucus thread.**
Sincerity. That’s the key. I have encountered posts on caucus threads and because I could tell the person was sincere (my judgment, I know) I answered the question and asked if they wanted further explanation.
And then I would FReepmail them.
Lots of room for seekers on caucus threads.
It’s in the attitude!
Agreed.
Without going into details, I'll mention the names of a few other such games. You can probably discern examples of them yourself: "Tar Baby", "Let's Use Your Virtues Against You", "I'm Beating the Tar Out of You Because I Love You", "Am I Bugging You? I'm Not Touching You", etc.
Perhaps it's because I have a few old knights in my ancestry, but I'm old-fashioned enough to have a sense of chivalry. That's why I'm particularly incensed when a decent, courteous, good-hearted, and well-behaved woman like yourself is targeted by these sickos.
I am just making a comment that *I* was the one who re-posted the article about the U of I professor who was fired for teaching Catholic viewpoints in a class about Catholic viewpoints, which IMO did have wide importance and since not everyone checks RF threads, I posted it in News; since metmom pinged me about it.
I rarely visit (as a participant) RF threads solely because I harbor a strong dislike of rancor between adherents and believers of different religions and sects, preferring to fight with aggressive atheists, hedonists, secularists, homosexualists and marxists of all kinds. In fact, IMO all on that list just LOVE it when people who believe in God argue with each other.
IMO we’ll all have plenty of time to debate about whose religion is the best in the re-education camps, gulags, and mental hospitals, (as long as we’re not too drugged up/lobotomized to talk or remember anything) if we don’t take our debating and arguing skills and use them against those who wish to take all our Constitutional freedoms away and turn our country into a pure hellhole, instead of arguing with each other.
I consider all religious believers (leaving Islam aside as usual) as my brothers and sisters (actually all living beings in the widest sense) and indeed, anyone who believes and tries to practice the moral absolutes given by God. They are practically the same the world over in all monotheist religions. The world is in dire straits - the leftist/atheist/hedonists etc are emboldened and working together to destroy every vestige of what is good and righteous not only with America but the world.
Naturally every religious believer considers his own religion or branch of religion the best. That is natural. IMO we should respect people of other religions or denominations *even* if we think they are very wrong, mistaken, etc. “A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still”. There are plenty of atheists out there who are aggressively trying to destroy human civilization, as well as entirely faux religious “believers” [wolves in sheeps’ clothing] who in truth just want to destroy real religion and/or use the name of God or a religious organization for their own nefarious and ulterior purposes, such as the Rainbow Sash people, Fred Phelpses, scammers, etc They exist in every religion.
Anyway, just tossing in my .02 since I am partly implicated here. And, by the way, I had no idea that by re-posting that article I would be in any way causing trouble or distress to anyone. Any such that I caused, I apologize for.
2. Laws must be published.Bingo.
That was my beef with the other thread.
A simple explanation at the beginning of each "caucus" thread would go a long way towards resolving this concern -- as MOST of us will not post where we are not welcome.
The "regulars" on these threads may all know the rules, but anyone who spends the bulk of their time on the vast majority of non-"caucus" threads posted here on FR (like me, and a couple hundred thousand lurkers) will probably NOT know about these restrictions, unless you tell them.
Chivalry never *ever* gets old. Thank you!
The problem is there are so many designations and separate rules for each.
Generally, if it’s not labeled or labeled *open* I guess it can be presumed to be safe to post on by almost anyone.
I still am not sure what *ecumenical* means.
I’ve sure learned a lesson about *caucus*.
The members of the caucus threads sure know what it means, but when you think about it, it’s not intuitive thing. Even if you look at the definition as found in the dictionary, which is really a political one, it is still not a given that it is closed.
A published law would've been nice.
You know, I’ve related my experience growing up in the RCC and how those experiences prompted me to leave the church.
For that I’ve been mocked, ridiculed, maligned, and essentially called a liar (”contrived anecdotes” was the term) by many Catholics on this forum.
And yet, what happened on the other thread is exactly the sort of thing I experienced as a practicing Catholic that influenced me to leave the Catholic church.
And after having been told that that is not typical behavior, all in my mind, etc, here I experience it yet again, by the very Catholics who tell me that I’m wrong about it and that is not usual behavior for Catholics and other such statements.
All that thread did was demonstrate to me that nothing much has changed in the decades since I last attended the Catholic church.
There are Catholics who are sweet, genuine, compassionate people who are totally committed to Christ and living for Him. Sadly they are outnumbered.
An exact duplicate posted within four hours will probably be pulled. So either wait at least that long or find a similar article if you want to post it right away.
I will file that for future reference. Thank you.
so...what is to be done? I’m at a loss. We have a right to defend our position, even, and especially, if it is being done in a protected place where we have no rightful access. why can’t an ex-Catholic be invited in to share his/her thoughts? It seems it would make for a stronger view of someone’s faith. A re-inforcement of what a person believes in their hearts. I don’t understand why people would want to shut themselves away with only people who agree with their positions. That’s what your church is for, I thought. maybe I’m just being dense, but I don’t understand. But one thing I DO know, I’m not going to go into a den of hungry lions again. Even by accident!
Thank you.
LOL. Thank you.
See post 52 for explanations why the thread was handled that way.
All of the Moderators on this forum have a largely thankless (but very NECESSARY) job.
But you seem to have chosen the TOUGHEST duty on FR!
Not sure how you keep track of the special rules for the Religious Forum (posted on your profile page) -- but God bless you, for what you do!
Thank you for your support.
I’ve received several private freepmails expressing the same experience.
This sect is really the only one that uses the label although occasionally you’ll see another group use it.
Considering their history it’s not surprising they revert to secret societies.
LOL.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.