CAUCUS THREADS AND THE RULE OF LAW

7/12/10 | SELF

[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.

[Religion Moderator]

YOU are the one attempting to control

Attributing motive to another Freeper personally is mind reading and therefore "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[OpusatFR]

Fine.

Change that to Pentecostals and other sects are attempting to control...

[SZonian]

I’m a member of the Christian faith, not a specific religion.

So, as a Christian, who attends a Grace Chapel, on what basis could/would I “close” a thread, if I wanted to? Grace or Calvary Chapel members are not recognized as a “faith” per se in the context of your comment are they?

There are members of a few religions who don’t like discussing their doctrine or tenets in an OPEN environment and under the RM’s guidelines, it’s their prerogative to close their thread. I think the members of those religions need to decide if they want their threads closed to non-members of that religion.

As for “unaffiliated”(?) Christians, well...

[Religion Moderator]

“Christian Caucus” and “Non-Denom Caucus” are both acceptable.

[Quix]

INDEED.

And if you’d cited the Catechism, it would have been the WRONG Catechism.

And if you’d cited an encyclical, it would have been the WRONG encyclical . . .

of course . . . to that particular, probably rabid clique RC.

Of course all the while insisting that THEY were totally in agreement with ALLLLLL the other RC’s back to 300-400 AD . . .

only . . . as is usual with humans . . . any large group is NOT any where near 100% agreement . . . to often even on when the sun is coming up tomorrow.

[SZonian]

Thanks, it looks like you have all the bases covered.

I’ll have to try harder to stump you. ;^)

FRegards,
SZ

[Quix]

Did it ever occur to you that what you post is so completely offensive and blasphemous to us?

OH, DEAR! Anyone responding to the same provocative emotional intensity level of y'all's posts = offensive and blasphemous? Or is it the ideas that = offensive and blasphemous?

Y'all seem to wail and whine endlessly that it's our dastardly UNmagicstericalized NON!!!!TRADITIONAL!!!! ideas that are so horribly damning. Yet, the emotional wailing and whining seem more keyed to word choices and emotionally intense phrases, satire etc. that's deliberately designed to be somewhat on a par with the outrageousness of y'all's emotionally intense blasphemies and idolatries.

OH, I GET IT!!!! DOH! SILLY ME!

ONLY VATICAN AGENTS ARE ALLOWED TO BE EMOTIONALLY INTENSE, PROVOCATIVE AND STARTLINGLY FORCEFUL in their assertions. Proddys have to mumble around with big wads of cotton in their mouths and thick down mits on their fingers when they dare to presume the affrontery to aspire to communicate to the MOST LOFTY AND HOLY VATICAN AGENTS. What WAS I daring to think! Silly me! /s

No. I thought not.

I suspect the Nurse Rachett clique will not respond with their typical group slap-down for that mind reading so I'll give it a Proddy courtesy slap.

Frankly, YOU are the one attempting to control the debate by insisting WE conform to your beliefs.

THAT'S RICH. We REALLY are NOT that delusional! We recognize quite quickly and quite readily the addictive power of . . . alcohol, idolatry, RELIGION, !!!!TRADITION!!!!, ritual, narrow-rigid-doma, fantasies from hell, Mommy nurturance attachments & fixations, Vatican facilitated tyrannical group-think, . . . ad nauseum.

We realize that our feeble words AT THEIR BEST AND MOST BIBLICAL stand little chance to influence the tiniest hair on one of y'all's eyelashes . . . short of a huge MIRACLE OF GOD.

I don’t demand you follow what we believe.

YES AND NO. When we don't kowtow quickly enough; kissing the toe jam aggressively enough; grovel convincingly enough; submit slavishly enough to the Vatican's mangled 'Bible,' mangled history, mangled dictionary--the fur flies!

The indignations get REALLLLLLLY HUFFY. The personal attack knives get REALLY SHARPENED and flung with abandon. The haughtiness gets rachetted up several notches. The self-righteousness gets wrapped in another dozen layers of white hankies.

Yet, y'all are virtually always characterized as the most innocent and unfairly treated victims; the apples of Mary's eyes; pure as a blizzard of white hankies; floating on a sea of holy water; etc. etc. etc.

We attempt to control the debate?

NONSENSE!

JUST HOW do we do that? Oh, I get it . . . by the what . . . 12 RC threads to 1 Proddy thread?

Oh, I know . . . by our rigid, haughty appeals to 1600 years of !!!!TRADITION!!!!???

Maybe it's by our chronic tolerance toward the 365 days a year blizzard of UNBIBLICAL RC hogwash that we are attempting to control the RC's so effectively.

Or maybe it's by all the many thousands of pages of encyclicals, catechisms etc all the way back to Noah that we constantly pile on all the unsuspecting RC's. That's it. We control them by all the many piles of their documents we always insist they wear on their backs that are constantly tumbling out in most of their threads and assaults on Proddys.

Or maybe it's by our sucking up to all the MARY adorations, worshipful phrases, blasphemous paeans to her Jr Sanctity of God status; It must be all those Proddy taglines worshipping Mary that controls so many RC's to our purposes!

Proddys are not that delusional.

We have no fantasies that most of the frequent RC posters hereon--and virtually all the rabid clique varieties

will ever do anything but !!!!DEMAND!!!! CONFORMITY to their own !!!!TRADITIONS!!!!, distortions, mangled histories, mangled 'Bibles,' mangled dictionaries and the like.

We certainly do NOT EXPECT the least bit of conformity on y'all's parts to our constructions on theological, Biblical or any other reality. It's shocking enough we can read the same English--more or less.

[Quix]

There’s been plenty discussion of such over the years.

. . . usually started by one of y’all’s more rabid types . . . as an assault on me personally.

Most Proddys are not like RC’s . . . we don’t get excited

over and over and
over and over and
over and over and
over and over and
over and over and

fondling the same mental constructions on the same theological issues that we’ve lived by most of our lives—particularly tediously explaining the same basic Biblical truths to folks who seem to utterly lack any ears to hear or eyes to see. We’d rather spend such time on such truths with folks for whom it might make a difference.

Then there’s the fact that some of us simply feel more CALLED to help rescue the perishing drowning in a sea of mangled ‘Bibles,’ histories and dictionaries dumped from the lofty towers of the Vatican.

Some feel more called to help rescue those bound in the darkness of Mormon deceptions and error.

Not many hereon seem to be called to the Hindus. Of course, there’s not many Hindus on here.

And, there’s not a great market for witnessing to Jihadi’s on here, either.

Now RC’s and related lurkers? Goodness what vast fields white for the harvest!

[Quix]

Calvary Chapel is essentially a denomination—wouldn’t that be a kosher caucus designation?

[Religion Moderator]

Yes.

[firebrand]

So where do people who were baptised and confirmed as Catholics go to protest those who say they are Catholics always and forever? If what the Cathoic posters say is true, then we can do it on the Catholic Caucus threads. If it isn’t true, they should stop saying it.

[firebrand]

You forgot to say “And I mean that in the nicest way.”

This is a serious issue, because telling Catholics they will always be Catholics can hold them back spiritually out of some kind of fear. Openness and freedom are essential for people to find their true beliefs. That is why I don’t like people calling this a Christian country, although that is a separate issue.

I have had Catholics condescendingly tell me they would pray for me. It is a veiled insult. To use a holy phrase like that to denigrate others’ beliefs is doubly wrong: it insults the hearer and it demeans the phrase itself.

[Religion Moderator]

They are welcome to protest loudly on "open" Religion Forum threads or politely on "ecumenical" Religion Forum threads.

But they are not welcome on "Catholic Caucus" RF threads.

[firebrand]

But shouldn’t they then desist from saying we are still Catholics? (Aside from the RF rules; just your own opinion.)

[Religion Moderator]

No.

Posters may believe they are God. They may believe you are God. They may believe God is a rubber duck. They may believe that you are one of them.

This is a Religion Forum. With very few exceptions* people are welcome to express their beliefs as long as they comply with the RF guidelines.

* Unwelcome beliefs are Christian Identity, Islamic Fundamentalism and other racist or anti-Semitic beliefs.

[OpusatFR]

I’d say that post is rather hillariously hysterical.

[OpusatFR]

.

*world’s smallest violin

[metmom]

What’s Christian Identity? Never heard of it before.

[mlizzy]

Finally, to provide safe harbor for the thin-skinned who cannot bear the ridicule and contention of a town square but still wanted to dialogue with people who have different beliefs, the “ecumenical” label was allowed. Antagonism is prohibited on ecumenical labeled threads. In the hypothetical town, they are like living rooms, parlors or dinner tables.

Isn't the word "thin-skinned" a bit antagonistic in and of itself? For instance, would it be thin-skinned to disallow a bull in a china shop?

[Forest Keeper]

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.

In following your conversation with the RM on this thread it would seem to me that the spirit of the "law" is that caucuses are determined by currently professing and practicing members of a faith with currently substantially similar theological views. We can certainly ask if this is reasonable and/or chilling against the free posting spirit of FR itself, although it should be noted that even at its founding FR did not welcome all speech of any kind.

In any event, I'm sure that somewhere in the FR vaults there is a thread or threads that discussed the proposition of the caucus designation and the reasons for so doing. I would strongly guess that a driving reason was to provide an outlet for the theologically likeminded to converse without having to feel negatively affected by criticism. I personally have no problem with that as it is certainly true that open threads are not for everyone. I also don't feel my posting freedom is being stunted since upon seeing a caucus thread I am free to immediately post a counter article or "anti-vanity" as an open thread.

So, imho, while I prefer open threads and find them much more interesting I am sympathetic to the wishes of people who do not want to duke it out in the trenches but want to participate in discussions on topics of theological interest. If I am right about the spirit of this law then I find it reasonable and administered fairly since I am free to get my opinions about a particular caucus thread in public on another thread (and I can ping anyone I want to that thread).

I hear what you're saying about faiths being held to their own definitions, but it would seem to me that even if enforced the "offenders" could still get around the problem by renaming the caucus. My guess is that the RM would probably accept as legitimate a caucus of "currently practicing Roman Catholics who follow the CCC and submit to the authority of the Pope" or some such. That would eliminate the definition problem, but would force a lot of extra typing. If my guess is correct, then we can ask if that is worth it.