I think we need to have a ruling whether or not using a historic creed or confession that includes terms that are offensive violate the Caucus tag. This means that heavy editing must be performed on almost any of the Reformers works.
I think a bit of indulgence must be applied, as long as the posters to a thread do not start echoing the offense. The historic roots of the Reformation are due to the break from the perceived apostasy of the RCC, and their rhetoric runs throughout all the foundational works.
Otherwise there will be important portions of these works which must be edited out. Imagine the Declaration of Independence or the Federalist Papers, or even Common Sense edited to take out the perceived insults to the British Crown. Are they there? Of course. Are they necessary to see the context? Again, of course.
IF the Reformed cannot print their doctrinal works in full, you will in sense be editing out many of the distinctives and reasons of this faith from our caucuses.
Otto
I think a bit of indulgence must be applied, as long as the posters to a thread do not start echoing the offense. The historic roots of the Reformation are due to the break from the perceived apostasy of the RCC, and their rhetoric runs throughout all the foundational works.....always provided, of course, that it's understood that after the Reformation there is a similar rhetorical problem in some Catholic texts.
If the initial poster of the thread or those posting responses said, "Yeah, BOY, them Papists sure ARE idolatrous!" then I think the Caucus protections go. If the general thrust of the thread were in agreement with the cited material, there would be at least a suspicion of a violation. For example, if someone were to say, "I agree that we Presbies can observe Christmas and that doing so does not align us with those filthy, idolatrous, fish-eating, Papists ..." that would yank it.
But, imagine if I were to post an article on the way the Christian Hope stimulates us to works of praise, prayer, and mercy, and suppose further that in the course of the article the author quoted -- only to disagree with it (and that's important) -- some Arminian writer accusing the double-predestination gang of sloth, indolence, and inertia, and suppose my argument were along the lines of, "Just as those whose trust in the 'blessed Assurance' seems to release energy spent in voluble praise and notable acts of mercy, so also we who deny 'blessed assurance' in the strict sense but still claim a 'sure and certain hope' in our salvation find ourselves spurred to, rather than hindered from, grateful praise and plentiful good deeds," then it seems to yank the Caucus status because Arminians and Calvinistas were referred or alluded to would be silly.
Or we could all resolve to understand and mutually to bemoan our differences and look for our agreements and not to try abuse one another into a new point of view, and then we wouldn't need a Caucus status ... like that'll ever happen.