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.
Well said.
So, the caucus label isn’t really about who is a member of the denomination as much as who the poster of the thread wants to have on it?
I see.
Perhaps that should be specified more clearly in the guidelines.
In the meantime, I guess that next time I won’t bother with the courtesy of pinging the poster of the thread and will just post the dupe in another forum and deal with the fall out when it happens.
“still a member of it due to the belief saying they are”
Shouldn’t we hold each denomination by their own standards. That seems to be what the rule of law states and a few Scripture verses.
metmom, I can only pray for you ... that’s the best I can do ...
Then they should post in the Religion Forum.
When one posts in the open forum and Breaking News, they clearly have an intent of dissemination, preaching and missionary work but, they will not tolerate feedback, dissent or questions.
If they are earnest in their desire to have a closed caucus then it should be in the proper venue.
I don’t know why you think it matters whether “Nobody would have a problem”. This is not your home, or my home.
This is Free Republic, a site with an owner who enforces a set of rules through moderators appointed by the owner.
Those moderators have decided that in this home, there WILL be rooms where discussion is limited, and where special rules apply. If you don’t like that, it’s too bad, because this isn’t your home so you don’t make the rules.
If this were MY home, we wouldn’t have religion forum at all. I think that mixing religion and politics weakens us politically, because people who would otherwise be allies end up being enemies over religious differences.
I see that between Mormons and Christians, and sometimes between Catholics and Protestants, and also between fundamentalists and those who take a lax view of religion and the Bible. We have schisms between strong conservatives over evolution here as well.
But this isn’t my site, and I am happy to abide by the rules set by the site owner, as a condition for being allowed to play in his sandbox.
Welcome said the nightman. we are programmed to receive...
lol, good one
This is a good illustration why there is no need to wonder why some freepers aren't welcome on caucus threads.
Any denomination which has used the caucus label in the past even once (for example reformed caucus ) really has no grounds for complaint.
Ditto!
Re #66
Hear, hear!
You could try answering the questions, particularly the first one.
I’ll even reword it as it’s awkwardly asked.
What Catholic hate was displayed in my posts that were removed on that thread?
In the meantime, I guess that next time I won’t bother with the courtesy of pinging the poster of the thread and will just post the dupe in another forum and deal with the fall out when it happens.Metmom, anything in the future that you want to take that is on Catholic Caucus of mine and place on News/Activism, please go ahead and take it (no need to ping with a comment). The only reason this one was upsetting to me that it was taken quite quickly, is because I'm personally involved with what's taking place at UIllinois, and had the information in my e-mail for almost a week before it broke, but out of respect for the parties involved, my husband didn't "break" the story himself.
From the number of deleted items, I have a feeling you posted more to that thread than simply a single courtesy ping to say you were creating another thread.
But since the posts are deleted, I don’t know what they all said.
The guidelines and the Religion Moderator’s explanation was clear. The rules are non-caucus members stay out of the caucus. The Moderator doesn’t read every comment of every caucus thread and cross-reference posters to some database of church attendance to determine whether they are caucus members.
Enforcement therefore is on the exception basis — the RM is called if someone in a thread finds something they think is disruptive. Then RM comes in and if the allegedly disruptive poster isn’t in the caucus, the decision to delete is pretty easy, since it’s a violation of the caucus rules.
Since the rules allow “invited guests”, if the RM sees a person they know isn’t in the caucus posting in a caucus thread, but the other participants are answering that poster in a way that seems accepting, it is like the person was invited.
The RM explicitly gave ways they determine a non-caucus identification. THere is no indication that caucus members are lightly thrown out of caucus threads simply because of a disagreement of the thread poster.
We aren’t the ones complaining
I didn’t remove your comments Metmom. You’ll have to discuss this with Free Republic.
So, who posted this thread?
I agree with you that Caucus threads should be in the religion forum.
In my experience, I don’t remember ever seeing a caucus thread that was not in the religion forum, but I’m not always looking for it. I do tend to look because I am prickly about blogs being posted as news/activism.
just kidding, of course;)
the conscience is trying to define the rule of law and has legitimate unanswered questions. If you see that as “complaining” that some freepers wish to be free to post on closed threads, then perhaps another reading of the article is in order.
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.