Posted on 11/03/2013 10:31:56 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
I’m confused how religious themed threads are moderated.
You have a thread like this, on a topic that really ONLY evangelical freepers could appropriately comment on (whether Krisin’ Powers conversion to Evangelical Christianity is sincere and what to make of it), but it’s open to ALL freepers to comment on, whether we’re Evangelical or not (I’m not).
On the other hand, you have religious themed topics that would seemingly pertain to everyone, and yet they’re closed threads and we’re not allowed to post on them even though the issue affects us. For example, there’s a thread called “Poll: any “illegal immigration” sermons at Worship today?” and it’s tagged as [REFORMED/EVANGELICAL CAUCUS] only, so I’m not allowed to post there. Why not? Wouldn’t ALL Christians be able to comment on whether they heard a pro-illegal alien sermon on Sunday, not just Evangelical and Reformed freepers? What’s more, wouldn’t that issue concern ALL Christian conservatives? It certainly concerns me and the fact that many Christian pastors are promoting illegal immigration.
Sorry if this is off topic, but I really can’t make heads or tails of the “caucus” reasoning on FR.
For instance, he may label the thread "[... Caucus]" if the article does not mention the beliefs of non-members of a caucus. Or if he doesn't want a heated debate, he may label it "[Ecumenical]".
If the thread is labeled "Prayer" or "Devotional" no debate of any kind will be allowed.
If he doesn't label the thread, it is "Open" by default and posters may argue for or against deities, beliefs, religious authorities, etc.
Click here for more guidelines to the Religion Forum.
I find them a fair balance between the need for free speech maintaining intellectual honesty on the one hand and civility in an orderly but anonymous forum on the other hand.
For example, if you're an evangelical Protestant and you have some thread where you want to discuss a topic specific to your religious tradition with others who hold the same belief (let's say a debate on the scriptural source for prohibiting alcohol), you wouldn't want a Catholic to disrupt the thread by coming and attacking the doctrine of sola scriptura. The reverse would also be true: say there's a Catholic thread to discuss the merits of John XXIII's papacy, you wouldn't want some evangelical protestant to disrupt the thread by arguing the papacy is illegitimate and so on.
The confusion on my part stems from the fact that the "caucus" system in reality doesn't seem to restrict based on those logical guidelines. Here we have a thread about someone's conversion to Evangelical Christianity that's really only appropriate for Evangelicals to comment on, but it's open for anyone to say whatever they want. The reverse example I cited was a thread asking freepers whether they heard a pro-illegal alien sermon on Sunday, and it's restricted to Evangelical/Reformed freepers only. Why? Are we to presume that mainline protestants, Orthodox, and Catholic Christians don't have any pro-illegal alien pastors giving sermons? Are we to presume that only evangelicals are concerned about their pastors promoting illegal immigration? To restrict a thread like that makes no logical sense.
can i lol without irritating anyone too much?
I get the impression that caucus designation usually includes that word "caucus".
That designation came about to make place of non-contention.
Religious threads around here could get very contentious. What seems like rough treatment sometimes is, but compared to ten years or so ago, they are tamer now. Sadly enough, many bit-the-dust got-the-zot for being continually over-personal about things, attributing dark motives to others (possibly accurate or close at times?) or being always personally insulting.
The main guideline is --- discuss the issue, not the person or persons whom one is here conversing with, or is otherwise part of FR community.
Now...saying positive things about others...there is no law against, yet I believe (this following is just my own two cents doing the talking) that it is not required that any bow and scrape before any other person here, either. FWIW
One can disagree. Some of us specialize in being disagreeable.
Thank you for your support.
Also, the caucus designation must reflect some belief to which Freepers can be associated as members, e.g. Catholic, Baptist, Non-Denominational, Dispensationalism.
Kirsten Powers is a human not a belief to which Freepers would claim membership and therefore would be rejected as a caucus designation.
I have just read the religion moderator's comments together with the guidelines for the religious forum.Absolutely. Or if not (the absolute being reserved for the One and Only) then those guidelines...are still excellent.I find them a fair balance between the need for free speech maintaining intellectual honesty on the one hand and civility in an orderly but anonymous forum on the other hand.
You yourself have a history on this forum (FR in general) of being both well spoken, and rather unceasingly polite to all.
On any open thread, as far as I'm concerned, you are, absolutely (small case letter "a", since this be mere human opinion) more than welcome to contribute comment in any manner which you deem best. Conforming to the spirit of the just-now-spoken-of guidelines, would come as naturally to yourself as a duck takes to water, I would venture to guess. In that, you would possible end up embarrassing a few by default, being as your offerings could likely as not appear more as Able's, rather than just yet another re-arising of Cain's.
However, as fair warning (just in case you may not have noticed how religion forum threads can at instances proceed) to use another comparison --- one can encounter those whom would seem to chose to not be themselves exactly swimming in the same waters (apply the spirit to themselves first and foremost) but instead paddle around in their own rickety canoes, using their own hand-crafted paddles not only for propulsion and travel, but for noisy splashing (sometimes trying to drown?) little duckies not of their own feather, if not venturing more direct smacks at otherwise relatively harmless little ducks, with those same "paddles".
a hockey game breaks out.with admittedly, it being a bit difficult to skate (avoid the thinner portions, if possible) if one truly enough at that moment has their feet more properly shod [ahem] in preparation.
now just where did i put those jerusalem cruisers i once wore...?
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.