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 FReepers 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 lets 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. Heres 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.
Whats even more interesting is that this particular denominations 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. Its 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.
Yes, it’s complaining.
I had seen some posts, last year, in the open forum.
I did not know the rules, at the time, but I did have a question and I was asking it on behalf of a friend who is a member of that faith.
I was told pointedly “Get Out! You are not “xxx” and are not welcome!”
Needless to say I was taken aback and the question was not and could not have been taken as an offense but the mere fact that I am an outsider is offensive.
I will say I was shocked as a Christian that someone would respond like that and confused as all of Christianity is open to well... All.
Oh well, some people like living on an island.
I wasn’t the one who pinged the RM on that thread.
Besides, your now deleted comment in post 50 was about not wanting me on the thread, not the content of my posts.
I asked then and today what you objected to about them and have not yet got a response.
Did you not like the *Good for him for being a man of conviction and standing up for what he believes in. *?
Or the *May God richly and abundantly bless him to counter the harm Satan would inflict on him.*?
LOL
oh well, many of us aren’t welcome on any threads, we count it all gain
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.
One issue is the inconsistency with which the caucus rules appear to be enforced. That does violate Rule of Law.
If Caucus threads are by invite only, then it should be clearly stated as such and forget what denomination they belong to.
Gee, I wonder why?
A few other people stumbled upon that thread and got a reception much like the one you relate.
There’s no room for curiosity or blunders on a caucus thread.
or humor
My comments in support of him were not welcome then?
Too bad.
Isn’t this the same poster who wanted Catholic caucus opened to everyone since he claimed the word Catholic pertained to all Christians. There followed an interminably long thread on who can be called Catholic. It had to do with attempting to label us as Romans, if I remember correctly.
I’m pretty much German and can prove it, btw, besides being Catholic. No Romans on my side.
I’m pretty sure the poster is the same person.
I appreciate your perspective.
I think you make some good points.
Personally, it is bothersome to disturbing when the boundaries of the Caucus designation are
gamed destructively, glibly etc.
HOWEVER,
I FIND that generally, the RM does a masterful job with all the special categories that Holy Spirit has led him to foster and establish on FR.
There are perverse motivations and actions on the part of some within any large group of
humans
on the planet.
And sometimes, that seems to be a worse phenomenon within large diverse RELIGIOUS groups.
And one (or more) reference groups hereon is PARTICULARLY perverse and bad at such gamey-ness.
HOWEVER, regardless, the RM is usually quickly and certainly with astute sharpness, on top of all such gamey-ness.
It doesn’t bother me when the RM chooses wisdom or even simply a ‘not worth the bother’ response to some such gamey-ness.
I do NOT WISH to bother the RM by wailing needlessly about technicalities and petty details.
The Caucus designation is GENERALLY EXTREMELY WELL RAN.
WE ALL
NEED, AT LEAST OCCASIONALLY, the caucus designation for a safe, warm, familiar setting to have an unperturbed home reference group discussion in. PRAISE GOD, it’s now available on FR. It didn’t used to be.
I wish to support the RM in all their efforts—sometimes—in this case—by shaking my head and refusing to join the
‘yeah, but’s’
insisting on a more RELIGIOUS, obsessive policing of the boundaries of the caucus designation. There’d be no end of such prissy finger pointing.
The RELIGION FORUM has an inherent, chronic infection of prissy finger pointing AT BEST, all the time anyway.
WHO NEEDS ANOTHER CATEGORY OF THAT!
imho, the RM does an excellent job of protecting the basic sanctity of the peaceableness, safety, warm fuzziness of the caucus category for those who set up such a thread.
MORE POWER TO HIM. LONG LIVE THE RM!
I find his judgments in such regrds usually anointed and Spirit-led.
If he occasionally APPEARS human and arbitrary—reflection usually bears out that he wasn’t—he was just labeled so by some special case of at least momentary prissiness.
A huge part of me agrees.
However, I love intense exchanges and the energetic intellectual fray.
Some hollow hot-house plants wither at the thought of such exchanges.
Discussing the finer points of theology and church happenings without strife is a perfect reason for the designation of *caucus*.
Like I said, next time I just repost the thread in News and deal with the fall out later. No more trying to be courteous.
The rabid cliques usually find anything other than
an identical copy of their atmospheric expulsions
to be a waste of bandwidth
Then perhaps it would be fruitful to have a
CAUCUS PLUS
designation.
I still think the caucus designation as structured and maintained is a precious, viable and fitting thing.
Just dropping by to say I’m on your side, and you can have a Guinness and a kitten any time you like!
Hey, we both know
there’s no point in trying to be courteous with the rabid clique folks.
However, please do be careful also about what you post in BREAKING NEWS etc.
Posting an open thread in the Religion Forum may still be the most fitting way to go with a former caucused topic/article.
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.