I know. I’m asking a question. Is it a Catholic Caucus thread because you say so?
Types of Religion Forum threads and guidelines pertaining to each:
Religion Forum threads labeled “Prayer:”
Prayer threads are closed to debate of any kind. Religion Forum threads labeled “Devotional:”
Devotional threads are closed to debate of any kind. Religion Forum threads labeled “Caucus”
Caucus threads are closed to any poster who is not currently and actively a member of the caucus group. Religion Forum threads labeled “Ecumenical”
For instance, if it says “Catholic Caucus” and you are not currently, actively Catholic, then 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.
There is little to no tolerance for non-members of a caucus coming onto the caucus thread to challenge whether or not it should be a caucus. Gross disruption usually follows.
If you question whether the article is appropriate for a caucus designation, send me a Freepmail. I'll get to it as soon as I can.
Ecumenical threads are closed to antagonism. Unlabeled Religion Forum threads:
To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others. Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenical” thread may discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.
More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical information and a legitimate subject for an ecumenical discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.
Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions.
Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenical” thread, I’ll be looking for the source.
Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenical” tag.
All other Religion Forum threads are “Open” by default.
Open threads are in a town square format.
Antagonism though not encouraged, should be expected Posters may argue for or against beliefs, deities, religious authorities, etc. They may tear down other’s beliefs. They may ridicule. “Open” RF debate is often contentious.
It requires thick skin. A poster must be able to make his points while standing his ground, suffering adverse remarks about his beliefs - or letting them roll off his back.
Members of religions which are as much culture as belief sometimes take religious debate personally. If you keep getting your feelings hurt because other posters ridicule or disapprove or hate what you hold dear, then you are too thin-skinned to be involved in “open” RF debate. You should IGNORE “open” RF threads altogether and instead post to RF threads labeled “prayer” “devotional” “caucus” or “ecumenical.”
Do not disturb a caucus.
For the record, to qualify for an RF caucus designation the article itself - and all reply posts - must not speak for or comment on belief groups which are not members of the caucus. If such statements are made, the thread must be opened so the non-members can speak for themselves.
Whether the RF article also concerns politics, history, philosophy, science, etc. is irrelevant to its designation as a caucus.