Posted on 07/12/2010 3:01:35 PM PDT by the_conscience
Well said.
So, the caucus label isn’t really about who is a member of the denomination as much as who the poster of the thread wants to have on it?
I see.
Perhaps that should be specified more clearly in the guidelines.
In the meantime, I guess that next time I won’t bother with the courtesy of pinging the poster of the thread and will just post the dupe in another forum and deal with the fall out when it happens.
“still a member of it due to the belief saying they are”
Shouldn’t we hold each denomination by their own standards. That seems to be what the rule of law states and a few Scripture verses.
metmom, I can only pray for you ... that’s the best I can do ...
Then they should post in the Religion Forum.
When one posts in the open forum and Breaking News, they clearly have an intent of dissemination, preaching and missionary work but, they will not tolerate feedback, dissent or questions.
If they are earnest in their desire to have a closed caucus then it should be in the proper venue.
I don’t know why you think it matters whether “Nobody would have a problem”. This is not your home, or my home.
This is Free Republic, a site with an owner who enforces a set of rules through moderators appointed by the owner.
Those moderators have decided that in this home, there WILL be rooms where discussion is limited, and where special rules apply. If you don’t like that, it’s too bad, because this isn’t your home so you don’t make the rules.
If this were MY home, we wouldn’t have religion forum at all. I think that mixing religion and politics weakens us politically, because people who would otherwise be allies end up being enemies over religious differences.
I see that between Mormons and Christians, and sometimes between Catholics and Protestants, and also between fundamentalists and those who take a lax view of religion and the Bible. We have schisms between strong conservatives over evolution here as well.
But this isn’t my site, and I am happy to abide by the rules set by the site owner, as a condition for being allowed to play in his sandbox.
Welcome said the nightman. we are programmed to receive...
lol, good one
This is a good illustration why there is no need to wonder why some freepers aren't welcome on caucus threads.
Any denomination which has used the caucus label in the past even once (for example reformed caucus ) really has no grounds for complaint.
Ditto!
Re #66
Hear, hear!
You could try answering the questions, particularly the first one.
I’ll even reword it as it’s awkwardly asked.
What Catholic hate was displayed in my posts that were removed on that thread?
In the meantime, I guess that next time I won’t bother with the courtesy of pinging the poster of the thread and will just post the dupe in another forum and deal with the fall out when it happens.Metmom, anything in the future that you want to take that is on Catholic Caucus of mine and place on News/Activism, please go ahead and take it (no need to ping with a comment). The only reason this one was upsetting to me that it was taken quite quickly, is because I'm personally involved with what's taking place at UIllinois, and had the information in my e-mail for almost a week before it broke, but out of respect for the parties involved, my husband didn't "break" the story himself.
From the number of deleted items, I have a feeling you posted more to that thread than simply a single courtesy ping to say you were creating another thread.
But since the posts are deleted, I don’t know what they all said.
The guidelines and the Religion Moderator’s explanation was clear. The rules are non-caucus members stay out of the caucus. The Moderator doesn’t read every comment of every caucus thread and cross-reference posters to some database of church attendance to determine whether they are caucus members.
Enforcement therefore is on the exception basis — the RM is called if someone in a thread finds something they think is disruptive. Then RM comes in and if the allegedly disruptive poster isn’t in the caucus, the decision to delete is pretty easy, since it’s a violation of the caucus rules.
Since the rules allow “invited guests”, if the RM sees a person they know isn’t in the caucus posting in a caucus thread, but the other participants are answering that poster in a way that seems accepting, it is like the person was invited.
The RM explicitly gave ways they determine a non-caucus identification. THere is no indication that caucus members are lightly thrown out of caucus threads simply because of a disagreement of the thread poster.
We aren’t the ones complaining
I didn’t remove your comments Metmom. You’ll have to discuss this with Free Republic.
So, who posted this thread?
I agree with you that Caucus threads should be in the religion forum.
In my experience, I don’t remember ever seeing a caucus thread that was not in the religion forum, but I’m not always looking for it. I do tend to look because I am prickly about blogs being posted as news/activism.
just kidding, of course;)
the conscience is trying to define the rule of law and has legitimate unanswered questions. If you see that as “complaining” that some freepers wish to be free to post on closed threads, then perhaps another reading of the article is in order.
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.