Sorry, Elsie, but I won’t be drawn into this religious dispute.
My only reason for joining this thread is my concern about the abuse of the caucus system. Every post I’ve made has been in an attempt to point out the error in the way this thread was handled.
We should be here to defend and promote conservatism, not anyone’s particular religious belief system. We should attack Progressivism, not each other.
If people can hijack a caucus thread to impose their religious beliefs, that threatens the integrity of Free Republic as a meeting place where *all* conservative members can join to share ideas in a secure atmosphere.
Over the past two years, I have become concerned that the “chilling effect” so abundant on this thread is appearing in the other forums. I have watched a growing tendency for people to “gang up on” and shout down anyone they disagree with — anyone they consider not “pure enough.”
Yes, Free Republic is Jim Robinson’s property, and he can allow or prohibit anything he chooses to.
But I suggest that Free Republic has developed over the years into something that is greater than any segment of us, or any one of us — even Jim Robinson. Free Republic has become ... almost a force of nature.
If Free Republic is allowed to be corrupted by the manipulations of a few, regardless of who they are, then Free Republic will be nothing more than one man’s blog.
This thread is infected. I hope the infection will not spread.
Elsie, your excerpt from “1984” is very applicable, ... but not for the reason you thought.
. . .
Now...I must return to more constructive activities.
I’ll check back when the thread hits 2000 posts... or 2500.
:O)
Just wondering why.
I guess I'll have to mindread myself to see what MY reason was...
(Clique said, hijacking this thread about Joseph Smith to impose her religious beliefs that some religious beliefs are "obviously" -- well "obviously" to Clique, that is -- more "corrupt" and more "infectious" than others...& therefore this all contributes to her/his religious notion that "Jim...[sh]ould just ban all sectarian posts, whether they are proselytizing or anti-proselytizing or refuting or defending or pro-whatever or anti-whatever" -- post #321.)
Now why exactly does Clique believe some beliefs are more "corrupt" and "infectious" than others? Well, who knows? She (He?) transcends such "gutterwork" of having to explain her (his) accusations and critiques. (..."I won't be drawn into this religious dispute")
So, she (he) disputes by issuing religious edicts about supposed "corrupt" and contaminated "infectious" comments from up high.