Replies

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.

The Freeper who posts an article in the Religion Forum may choose to limit the discussion.

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.

If it could any help, I'm fairly certain the Kirsten Powers was not and is not --- a "caucus", regardless of how her name was bracketed by the OP (original poster-this thread)

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.