[delacoert]

In the example, the LDS/Catholic Caucus would discuss Trinitarian belief - one side pro and one side con. Non-members would not allowed to disrupt the caucus simply because they share a belief whether for or against.

You have repeated this ideology a couple times... in a thread that attempted to implement this ideology... and it was a demonstrable failure.

It seems obvious from the get-go that a "NO <fill-in-the-blank> ALLOWED" policy is doomed to failure.

I am left wondering, who are you and what did you do with the Religion Moderator's body.

[Mad Dawg]

I wunner if the Ruhlishion Mod, uh, Rodemator's body ish inna composh.

You wanna go look? I'll jush wait here until the forum shtops shpinnin'.

[svcw]

,-)

[Religion Moderator]

You have repeated this ideology a couple times... in a thread that attempted to implement this ideology... and it was a demonstrable failure.

The article was found inappropriate for a Protestant/Orthodox Caucus because Chapter 10 is a thinly-veiled reference to Papal Primacy.

If an appropriate article had been used, the caucus would not have been broken.

[Elsie]

I am left wondering, who are you and what did you do with the Religion Moderator's body.

It doesn't appear to be the Q that we all know and love.

THIS one is VERY talkative!