[wagglebee]

Ping

[wagglebee]

Pro-Life Ping

[greyfoxx39]

What say you, Inmans?

[LibFreeOrDie]

designated a Caucus for Pro-Life FReepers, those whose pro-life views stem from their belief in God

Why limit a pro-life caucus to the religion forum?

[wagglebee]

General Ping.

I would love to hear your comments.

[narses]

Has FR changed so much that the pro-abortion types are embraced and this is necessary? I thought FR WAS the pro-life caucus.

[Cicero]

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.

[Maelstorm]

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.

[annalex]

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?

[BykrBayb]

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.

[Albion Wilde]

I think Christ has clearly instructed us that we will have tribulations in life, but to answer hatred with love. I believe it is our duty to remain "salt and light" in this Forum, and to hone our skills at finding effective ways to explain why our position is the better one, ignoring the emotional taunting.

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.

[sitetest]

I’m kinda iffy on the idea.

[Salvation]

Sounds good to me.

[markomalley]

I think the idea of a "pro-life caucus" is a uniquely bad idea. A couple of thoughts on this:

1. The "caucus thread" idea is a unique feature of the Religion Forum. As memory serves (the description is no longer on the Rel. Mod. profile page), the purpose of a "caucus" thread is to act as a discussion that occurs within the four walls of a church, as opposed to the public square.
   1. For the most part, the purpose of a "caucus" thread is to discuss internal issues among members of a certain confession without dealing with the distraction of trolls from outside the caucus. For example, discussion about a new bishop appointment among members of the Methodist Church without having to deal with diatribes from rogue Catholics saying that it doesn't matter, because they are all a bunch of heretics.
   2. The reason why caucus threads were deemed necessary is because some folks, from various sides of a religious divide, believed it to be necessary to disrupt threads with inane non sequiturs. Some folks believe it to be a God-mandated requirement to revile other folks' religious beliefs and to advise that all who follow those beliefs are destined to go to Hell, should be committed to an insane asylum, or some other derision. (The fact that this is a violation of the basic FR TOS is besides the point)
2. The FR TOS contain some very simple guidelines that should govern our conduct and should be used (IMHO with all due respect) to govern moderator behavior:

   Please enjoy our forum, but also please remember to use common courtesy when posting and refrain from posting personal attacks, profanity, vulgarity, threats, racial or religious bigotry, or any other materials offensive or otherwise inappropriate for a conservative family audience. Free Republic is a non-commercial site. Please do not post advertising, solicitations, spam or any other commercial messages. Do not spam us with links to your own site. No one likes spam.

   Free Republic is a site dedicated to the concerns of traditional grassroots conservative activists. We're here to discuss and advance our conservative causes in a more or less liberal-free environment. We're not here to debate liberals. We do not want our pages filled with their arrogant, obnoxious, repugnant bile. Liberals, usurpers, and other assorted malcontents are considered unwelcome trolls on FR and their accounts and or posts will be summarily dismissed at the convenience of the site administrators.

   Free Republic does not advocate or condone racism, violence, rebellion, secession, or an overthrow of the government. Free Republic advocates a return to constitutionally limited government, reserving all government powers not expressly delegated by the constitution to the United States to the States respectively, or the people, emphasizing sovereign state governments, local government, self-government and self-rule, while restricting government powers to only those enumerated in the constitution and maximizing individual rights and liberty as originally envisioned and established by our Founding Fathers and secured and defended by the blood of patriots and statesmen for over two hundred years.

   • For religious "caucus" purposes, a lot of what happened in pre-"caucus" days or on many of the "open" threads today should be classified as "relgious bigotry" (bigotry being defined as acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigot; i.e., a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance). BTW, there are many on all sides who fit that description.

Bottom line is that a lot of problems on this site come from people not following the simple guidelines of the TOS (and from moderators unevenly enforcing them -- he says sheepishly, bowing and scraping as he leaves the chamber).

So what is the purpose of such a "pro-life" caucus? You say, This Religion Forum thread is designated a Caucus for Pro-Life FReepers, those whose pro-life views stem from their belief in God. So how are you going to define "pro-life?" Is it going to include:

• Opposition to induced abortions?
• Opposition to the death penalty?
• Opposition to embryonic stem cell research?
• Opposition to abortificacient birth control?
• Opposition to infanticide?
• Opposition to euthanasia?
• Opposition to assisted suicide?
• Requirement for Natural Family Planning...or, to the extreme, "Quiverfull" (belief that any kind of family planning, natural or otherwise, is sinful)?

I have seen people of good will who would consider themselves pro-life but would not sign up for all of the above? Does that mean that a person who does not buy into the evils of hormonal contraception as an abortifacient is all of a sudden pro-abortion (for "pro-life" caucus purposes: If you are not pro-Life, do not post on this thread.)
Bottom line is: how do you define it?

Next point: what is the purpose of the "caucus" designation? To discuss internal issues within the pro-life community or to shut down discussion? A religious confession "caucus" thread automatically loses that designation when: The “caucus” article and posts must not compare beliefs or speak in behalf of a belief outside the caucus. Inherently when you discuss an issue of pro-life interest, you compare beliefs with those who do not share that belief. If an article you post posits the position "Abortion is murder," inherently the counter-position, "Abortion is not murder" can be taken. Therefore, a thread talking about abortion, embryonic stem cell research, Terri Schiavo, or whatever else invites discussion from the other point of view...like it or not.

This is inherently different than a "religious confession caucus" thread: discussing internal issues within the Church or some denomination does not inherently invite non-sequitur comments from people outside the specific denomination.

If you want to discuss theological points regarding pro-life issues, you already have a "Catholic Caucus." But pro-life issues stem from the Natural Law and not from some Catholic document: they do not require subscription to a particular religious confession...they require subscription to facts and logic.

The point is that if you have a problem with people disagreeing with you, you should posit the facts and the logic synthesizing those facts, period. If your opponent in an argument descends to the level of personal attack, they have violated the FR TOS (reproduced above). If they attack your religious beliefs -- as opposed to simply disagreeing with them -- they have violated the FR TOS (religious bigotry). They should be dealt with accordingly. Whining to the mods about people who don't agree, unless, in their disagreement, they violate the TOS by descending to personal attack, bigoted comments, or vulgarity, makes you seem weak and helps advance their cause, not yours.

But simply shutting down argument by applying a "caucus" label sounds like what the Øbamanoids are trying to do...and that sounds like something that is antithetical to a free republic, to me, at least.

FWIW/YMMV.

[wagglebee]

Pinged from Terri Dailies

8mm

[humblegunner]

So you want MORE threads where nobody can contradict you?

Put a couple of magic words in the title and stifle all dissent?

That's quite cowardly of you.

Now quick, ping your whole posse in your reply!

[ArrogantBustard]

I fail to see the point.

Seriously ... The caucuses were invented to address the real problem of folks trashing threads and preventing useful intradenominational discussion.

Do we have a problem with pro-abortion folks disrupting pro-life discussion?