Posted on 10/04/2009 12:55:13 PM PDT by wagglebee
I have been exchanging FReepmails with the Religion Moderator about the possibility of having a pro-life caucus in the Religion Forum.
This would allow pro-life FReepers to post on threads that could be "closed" with certain limitations.
Here is what the Religion Moderator suggested could be posted on such threads:
“This Religion Forum thread is designated a Caucus for Pro-Life FReepers, those whose pro-life views stem from their belief in God.
If you are not pro-Life, do not post on this thread.
The Religion Moderator has said that he will presume anti-Life views do not stem from religious beliefs and therefore the caucus will not be broken by our speaking in behalf of the pro-abortion or pro-euthanasia community.
However, if you hold anti-Life views on theological grounds, contact the RM by Freepmail to have the thread tag changed to ‘ecumenical’ in which case you would be able to reply but without antagonism.”
I am not at all certain that this is a good idea, but I think it's definitely something to think about. I would be very interested in what others think.
Thanks and God Bless.
If I understand you correctly, Freepers who take the pro-Life position for other than theological reasons would surely be welcome on a Pro-Life Caucus. They would not be a disruption.
Thanks, this is my main concern as well, that’s why I posted this vanity.
I won’t oppose it if people want it. But it seems to me that this is a matter that is best discussed by all of us.
I’m particularly concerned to try to persuade libertarians and others that if they want to beat the liberals, they need to join a coalition that includes social conservatives and respect their views, in return of respecting the views of libertarians and fiscal conservatives.
Because that’s the only way we can win a political victory and implement the policies we’d like to see our country return to.
Also, pro-life is not only a religious concern but a Constitutional premise, basic to the foundations of our Republic. There might be pro-life discussions that are chiefly religious, but even those should be open to all, IMHO.
***Has FR changed so much that the pro-abortion types are embraced and this is necessary? I thought FR WAS the pro-life caucus.***
Just like the Church, it is up to the congregants to keep it that way.
I hate the connotations of “Intellectual Conservative”, please any other description, if you will .... I think it gives a different perspective, a different arrow in the quiver. Definitely not a disruptive force though, thanks!
For one thing, the moderation is fair and consistent. Reason no. 2, the RF is where the caucuses are usually found, and reason no. 3, certain FReepers who will remain unnamed who claim to be atheist will be booted when they yank the chains of pro-life Christians for sport.
The Church depends on the Paraclete for that, no?
***The Church depends on the Paraclete for that, no?***
Yes. But Christianity as intended is not a spectator sport. We must actively participate; salvation is not a Reformed limousine ride along with the Reformed pets to the Reformed heaven in luxury, where the Reformed God does not Judge the Reformed elect, but acts as a kind of doorman / concierge.
There is no reason for pro-life threads in general to either be in the RF, OR to be caucus threads.
I think if one looks into the number of caucus threads going on a daily basis, they will find few if any.
If someone wants to limit discussion to a narrow point of "pro-life-ery" (no, I have no idea what that may be) the availability of a closed thread for that purpose may work.
I think without a doubt the dominance of those who are Pro-Life conservatives on FreeRepublic is without a question. The same can be said for almost all other conservative issues. It is far more likely to find those who are trolls supporting gay marriage and liberalized sexual views than openly pro-abortion individuals on FR. Even saying that it is without question that FR is a conservative forum, fiscally and socially. There is always room for debate. This is especially good for many of the younger crowd or more apolitical who may be drawn first to FR on the anti-big government appeal but have never thought to question the destructive pop culture attitudes on sexual issues.
Excellent points, I hadn’t really considered that.
I’m of two minds; on the plus side is the prevention of death loving chain yankers; but the minus side is less visibility. I think the less visibility may trump the other one.
What would help the situaiont is if those who get pinged to such threads can participate more, and thus outnumber and out talk the chain yankers.
I will soon have more time to participate (just one among many) but if more people comment and get involved in discussion, not only are chain yankers way outnumbered, good aguments and points are made, and the thread gets BTTT more often.
I don’t think it is a good idea. I think it will hurt the pro-life movement, because it will establish in the mind of many the false notion that abortion, euthanasia and other such issues are religious matter, and therefore, a matter of religious preference.
One strong rhetorical device the pro-aborts have is to say things like: “I am not interfering with your choice. If you want to be Catholic (or Southern Baptist, etc.), by all means obey your Church and not have abortions. I am, however, not Catholic and am free to choose abortion, and you are interfering with my choice”.
To which we respond by saying that abortion is wrong objectively and not as a religious dogma.
But now they will be able to say: “If abortion is matter of universal law, why is it that FR refuses to discuss it on open threads and has a pro-life caucus inside the Religion Forum?”
Remember, caucus threads were created in order to provide calmer atmosphere to discuss internal matters and have devotions. Is the gain from having calmer pro-life threads, especially when our side seems to be winning the intellectual argument, worth losing the univerality of the pro-life appeal?
I think the pro-life view should be upheld throughout Free Republic, but since that’s no longer done, caucus threads are better than nothing.
I’m all in.
Of course the Deceiver is going to taunt. But we should not only stand firm on why these values were reflected in our Constitution in the first place, but why they remain the best long-term values in our laws and society to this day.
One of the challenges for Christians is to meet people where they are; and many young people are desperate for a way out of the ugliness of today's so-called "post-Christian" society. They have been bathed in Marxism throughout their school years. We owe it to them and everyone else to present our case, even to find the arguments that do not simply rely on scripture, but that bring in the many practical and proven negative outcomes of bad choices, such as the higher rates of STDs and early death among high-risk sexual players, et cetera.
As for the bad behavior of established FR personalities, have faith in the majority of FReepers who will come on the threads and shoot holes in their theories. The MA thread sponsors need not engage every one of the known libertarians or religion scoffers. Others will step up.
FR is a discussion forum for Conservatives. It is a lively, no holds barred (within the rules of the forum) discussion group that slices and dices leftist ideas and supporters.
In the process, Conservatives get to state their positions, have them refined and/or rejected in the give and take of this great forum.
I've watched many a self-defined “star” on FR forget that here, all opinions (within the rules of the forum) are equal, and only the owner, or his representatives, can remove those who can't play within the widely defined rules. (I have and will continue to be amazed that the owner of this site will many times allow the return of many who became “overheated” in their rhetoric, sometimes to the point of attacking the owner, submitting an OPUS, etc.)
I believe this site is unique in its ability to provide a place for Conservatives to bash each other so severely at times that it would appear that the end of the site was nigh, and yet, here it stands after all these years.
Bottomline: Keep the discussions in the open, let the chips fall where they may, and rely on the owner and his moderators to cull the herd when necessary, and to shoot the trolls when they invade the camp. FR will, over time, transform the weakest members of the Conservative herd into fully muscled beasts, able to take on the largest and ugliest trolls (both at FR, and out there in leftyland), while giving many reasons for all varieties in the Conservative herd (Fiscal, Social, etc.) to stick together against their common enemies.
I’m kinda iffy on the idea.
Interesting possibility!
It would be nice to get rid of the people who are just bored, imo, and looking for an argument, but yet we might lose some sincere FReepers, as well. It might be worth a try, though.
I learn a lot on FR, so I think the most important thing to do is pass along the information we learn from each other to as many as possible. FR is about action, so we must do more than “preach to the choir.”
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.