Posted on 07/12/2010 3:01:35 PM PDT by 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.
I disagree. The Daily Readings are from the Bible — don’t need to be argued with. The rest of the Daily and Sunday Readings threads are reflections, commentaries, semons and prayers. I say the Caucus stays for that and for other threads that others may deem appropriate.
Do we have private homes?
Do we have individual churches?
Yes, to both of those I know. So why can’t we have individual Caucus threads?
I disagree with your contention that it is “cowardly” to post as a caucus thread.
There are perfectly rational explanations as to why someone would want to have a thread where people of like faith could discuss items of their faith amonsgt themselves. It is much easier to learn minutae of a faith if you aren’t inundated with arguments about the basic tenets thereof.
On a broader scale, Free Republic itself is operated on a loose CAUCUS mindset. We have a list of what Free Republic stands for on the home page. And while some dissent is occasionally tolerated, the moderators and owners of this site reserve the right, and regularly exersize the right, to delete posts, threads, and suspend or ban people when those people make too much of an argument against the core values of conservatism as expressed by this site.
You probably remember some of the great purges, where posters were told “enough is enough” about some opinion they had, and when they insisted on exercising their freedom of discussion further, were summarily eliminated.
I doubt anybody would label the forum owners actions in those cases “cowardly”, even those who disagreed with the actions.
There are times when it is just very nice to be able to log onto a site, post your opinions, and know that while you will get violent disagreements about things, those disagreements will NOT involve objections to the basic tenets of your philosophy of conservatism.
But you'd be wrong. Read the thread.
I think that is the best way to handle such an issue. I wouldn't expect much complaint about duplication if the same article was posted if one was in news/activism, and the other as a Caucus religion thread.
And it would make perfect sense -- it could well be that a story has general appeal and discussion would be open to all, but that a particular faith might want to discuss aspects of the story from the point of view OF their faith, and that discussion would best happen if only adherents to their faith were involved.
IN that case, you would expect there to be a divergence of discussion in the two threads; the common complaint i have about duplicate threads are that the same things get talked about in two places and we don't all get the wisdom of the other posters in a thread we missed.
That wouldn't be the cases with two threads that had different PURPOSES of existance.
And I believe that Catholics are doing it more and more because of the intemperant anti-Catholicism and almost outright persecution that is beginning to exist.Yes, correct, Salvation! We had a parishioner that demanded of the priest that she be able to stand up and yell out a question whenever the priest said something during Mass she didn't like. She was a handful for the priests and the parishioners were upset by her actions too, and the little kids thought she was nuts. It's not just on Free Republic; it's everywhere.
closed caucus threads are for those who are weak in their faith....
Bound to happen someday.
Please don’t let it sway your negative opinion.
I value my detractors every bit as much as I do my supporters.
Bound to happen someday.
Please don’t let it sway your negative opinion.
I value my detractors every bit as much as I do my supporters.
IN the thread, the deleted posts are deleted. I can therefore NOT read them to determine whether there was good reason to delete them.
So telling me to read the thread in order to find out I am wrong is of no value. Unless you have the original thread cached somewhere, I can not make an independent judgment.
And while I appreciate that you apparently believe the religion moderator acted inappropriately, absent my own direct knowledge, I have only my general observance that when the religion moderator has taken action in “my presence”, their actions have always made sense to me. So I have no experience to believe differently in this case.
As I said, I am not trying to “refute” your opinion. I am only saying that my opinion is shaped by my experience, since I have no way of directly evaluating the posts which were deleted.
Posted twice for emphasis.
Besides, I saved a screen shot of the first 50 posts. I just had this feeling.....Was this a set up from the get-go metmom?
Besides, I saved a screen shot of the first 50 posts. I just had this feeling.....Was this a set up from the get-go metmom?
REally?
I have been told to leave every Mormon Caucus thread and I was only asking a question, which somehow outed me.
But it was only a question and in no way would anyone be offended.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2549830/posts
read post 45 which was a response to deleted post 19.
Post 19 read....”With all due respect, this should have been posted on the News/Activism Forum. This is a topic that deals with our freedoms in this country and is not just a religious issue. I’d be willing to post it on the News/Activism Forum for those who want to comment on it without grappling with the RF guidelines.”
Silly me, I figured that if I posted a dupe thread in News/Activism without first contacting the original poster of the thread, that it would be discourteous. The only place to contact the original poster of the thread was on the thread itself.
Quite a Catch 22. I’d lose either way.
Welcome to the hotel Cathlicfornia?
Did you read the thread?
Thank you for wasting valuable bandwidth. Now go make a contribution to the FR funding drive to pay for it.
Some people copy and paste comments in their responses. Portions of the deleted posts still exist in those responses.
The irony to the whole situation is, they would only have had support for the issue. I saw the thread and intended to post supporting the man, but didn’t
IMHO, Protestants are suffering the same growth of intemperant anti-Protestantism and almost outright persecution. We do not see “Protestant caucus” threads in response.
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.