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.
No, I’m not that petty, but based on the warm welcome I received, it was just a hunch that it might be a worthwhile endeavor.
It was.
lol, good one
I’m sorry you find the rule of law a waste of bandwidth.
No, closed caucus threads are for those who want to discuss particulars about something with their faith as a basis for the discussion, without being sidetracked by discussions about whether that basis is valid or not.
Caucus could in that sense be interpreted as setting the assumptions for the discussion. Without assumptions, discussions can easily get off-topic and become useless.
I am happy to debate my religion in public. However, I would not have wanted an avid non-believer in my bible study group, because instead of discussing what a bible passage meant to us and how to apply it to our lives, we’d ahve spent all our time arguing over whether it was rational to try to apply the bible to our lives, or whether we could believe that the bible passage was true.
Those are good discussions, but not if you have decided already and now want to actually use the bible to help your life.
In that sense, a caucus thread could also be interpreted like a meeting of the Enterprise officers, after the captain has decided on a course of action and now wants to discuss how they will implement it. At that point, comments about the stupidity of the course of action are no longer welcome, and are not tolerated. And for good reason — at some point you make your decisions and move on.
Caucus threads are so people who want can have discussions with like-minded people who have moved on and want to discuss the IMPLICATIONS of their faith, without having to defend their faith.
Anybody is of course welcome to post any article or story they want in a non-caucus thread, so that the rest of the world can discuss it.
I can’t see anyone NOT supporting the man.
This is far more a Constitutional rights issue than a religious one.
exactly
I am not weak in my faith Vendome. Nor am I strong. But I work toward that goal. I do not care for the Catholic hate that is espoused on spiritual threads because the words hurt Jesus, and the spear carries right through Him to His mother. Hasn’t Christ (and His mother) been hurt enough?
I think you do a great job.
Non-sequitur. This is not your home, nor your church.
Analogy would culminate in hosting caucus threads on YOUR computer. Nobody would have a problem with that.
If you’re really worried about valuable bandwidth, go check out the Bloggers and Personal and look at the blog pimps who post thread after thread of material from their own failing blogs, and never get a response and don’t ever reply back.
One guy posts an average of 8-11 threads a day, with the max being 26. (I counted them. It was on March 9 of this year.)
There are protestant caucuses. I can’t name them all because I see the caucus ping and then don’t post to the thread. I just try to be respectful. But, berlieve me, there are many!
That behavior is finessing the guidelines, it is flame baiting. No dice.
Also, I have little to no tolerance for non-members of a caucus coming onto the caucus thread to challenge whether or not it should be a caucus. Gross disruption usually follows.
If you question whether the article is appropriate for a caucus designation, send me a Freepmail. I'll get to it as soon as I can.
Posters who are not members of a caucus but wander onto the thread without causing a disturbance are often "under the radar" of the mods. If we notice one and the regular members are welcoming him, we generally leave it alone.
Thank you.
What Catholic hate was displayed in my posts on that thread that were removed?
And how did that thread qualify as spiritual when it was a secular university and the man's Constitutional rights were violated?
And how does Mary play into that?
The rule of law applies to the judicial system moron
Excellent points. Maybe something like that needs to go on your profile page too.
Please consider it.
By and large, the ‘church’ concept is adequate to permit internal discussions minus disruptors. As such I generally have few issues, unless that caucus thread is being used to attack others - then as the RMs rules clearly state - the caucus protection is lost..
In this particular instance, some degree of thought should have been applied - the issue was one that, based upon FR profile of posters - would have had broad support across the board from all branches of Christianity. Instead of an issue that unity could have been formed around - it has now turned into one of division. This isn’t a judgement call on the poster’s motivations to do so to begin with - only an observation of which this current thread makes clear is the end result.
I’d say to all that some discernment should be made by the posters before applying the ‘caucus’ label to the thread.
Assuming the quote is accurate, the quoted comment was appropriately deleted. It was a metadiscussion which detracted from the caucus discussion itself. The suggestion made in the quoted comment was a good one, but that doesn't mean it was appropriate for a caucus thread.
Every indication that exists (and again, the posts themselves are gone, so all we have to go on is the responses to the posts), suggests that at least one and maybe more caucus members were being disturbed by the participation in a caucus thread by a non-caucus member.
And the rules are clear, non-caucus members are not allowed in caucus threads unless invited; and those rules are pretty strictly enforced when a non-caucus member disrupts the discussion.
The place to contact the original poster of a thread, if you are trying to be courteous while duplicating a post, would be in freepmail.
If I had been in that position, I would have duplicated the thread in a non-Caucus thread, put a link to the caucus thread in the comments of my posting, and then posted a link into the caucus thread saying merely that I had started a non-caucus discussion of the same topic for those who wished to join.
If I felt that the original poster might want an explanation, I would then have freepmailed the explanation, so as not to clutter the forum.
I ain’t got nothing to say about the Catholics but good.
I am sure, if I had a quick question, the Catholics wouldn’t mind helping me out.
A certain other Religion is totally closed.
If one is posting a closed caucus they should probably post in the Religion forums.
However, posts in the Breaking news area are not really closed in my mind.
I mean, if it is in the Breaking News, then one has an agenda for placing their caucus there over and over and over.
It is not veiled, it is preaching or missionary work and as such polite questions should be answered.
How else would one spread the word or invite, perhaps conversion or even fellowship?
That’s the way I see it and I don’t know anyone who has a problem with Catholics.
Then again I am in California. LOL
Sometimes when I’ve had comments of mine deleted, I have asked the moderators to delete responses that quoted my comments.
I can’t think of a time when they have not obliged.
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.