Does any religion have an elaborate code of rules concerning communication?

[Boojatta]

There's nothing unusual about the idea of someone preaching a religion. Preaching involves communication, and the response of an audience also will tend to involve (or at least include) some communication.

Of course, it's possible for there to be rules that are maintained by an entire community, with no formal division of the community between ordinary members and specialists who act as enforcers.

If rules are not written, then there could be a schism after different members of the community try to enforce sets of rules that are not merely different, but actually incompatible. If the different and incompatible sets of rules remained unwritten, then such a schism could begin as a long series of intractable conflicts, each of which is a result of mysterious causes.

Let's hear that again: a long series of intractable conflicts, each of which is a result of mysterious causes.

The words might not be familiar, but doesn't the idea remind you of something?

[rug]

1. Mine does, and you're hereby excommunicated.

[Boojatta]

3. To be excommunicated now, wouldn't it be necessary for me to have previously been a member?

[hvn_nbr_2]

5. You WERE a member. We pre-posthumously baptized you without your consent. nt

[BlooInBloo]

2. Only some of the minor sects, liike protestants and catholics.

[Boojatta]

4. I'm more interested in seeing such a code than in naming such a religion.

[timeforpeace]

6. "specialists who act as enforcers" Yes, that definitely reminds me of something.

[ZombieHorde]

7. There was a religion which had a Latin only rule for their holy book and ceremonies,

but most of the adherents could not speak or read Latin.

[Boojatta]

8. Yes, but that doesn't sound like a very elaborate code of rules.

[ZombieHorde]

9. Latin has an elaborate code of rules which had to be understood to belong to the hierarchy.

One can think of it as simply; "Know Latin."

Or one can think of it as an elaborate set of rules for communication and those rules are collectively called "Latin".

[Boojatta]

11. Okay, your explanation demonstrates that your answer is good.

However, from my point of view it's a counter-example that shows that the question in the title of this thread fails to ask precisely the question that I wanted to ask. That shouldn't be surprising. If the question could be asked in just the space available for a thread title, then the body of the message would have been unnecessary.

The substantive issue in communication is content, and what I'm interested in is an elaborate code of rules concerning message content.

If Salman Rushdie had been threatened with death purely because The Satanic Verses was published in the English language before an Arabic language translation was available, and if those who threatened him with death had no objection whatsoever to the content of The Satanic Verses, then the Rushdie affair would have a quite different quality.

[ZombieHorde]

15. You expect me to read! What next? Perhaps you will expect me to think.

There is some text in your OP which I do not understand. Your OP seems to contradict itself.

"If rules are not written, then there could be a schism after different members of the community try to enforce sets of rules that are not merely different, but actually incompatible. If the different and incompatible sets of rules remained unwritten, then such a schism could begin as a long series of intractable conflicts,"

Immediately followed by...

"each of which is a result of mysterious causes."

How can the cause of the schism be mysterious if we know the cause is from some rule or rules not being written and therefor members trying to enforce rules which are both different and incompatible?

[Boojatta]

16. I'm describing it from the point of view of people involved in the intractable conflicts.

To them, the cause of the conflicts could be mysterious.

[ZombieHorde]

17. OK, that makes more sense to me.

Can the rules of communication be between the believer and the object or objects of belief, as opposed to the believer and another believer?

[Boojatta]

18. "Can the rules of communication be ...

between the believer and the object or objects of belief, as opposed to the believer and another believer?"

That's an interesting idea, but I doubt that participants in the conflicts would see any great mystery in the source of the conflicts if those conflicts arise from the kind of communication you are considering.

To explain: I presume that one believer would take vicarious offense with communication directed from another believer to the object(s) of belief. In taking vicarious offense, and discussing the matter with others, the vicariously offended person would likely be both willing and able to identify the source of the offense.

If you study some authentic online flame wars, then I think you will see that after a message triggers direct, personal offense (as opposed to vicarious offense), an offended person will vent on a wide variety of matters, and won't clearly identify one specific problem. For example, this is obvious if the venting includes allusions to allegedly offensive messages that were previously posted in other threads. It would be a very odd flame war that included excerpts from previous dialogs, along with annotations, summaries, and links.

[HamdenRice]

10. Yes it's called Boojattararianism. The only form of communication allowed is asking questions ...

that cannot be parsed to reveal any discernible meaning or be parsed to be an actual comprehensible request for any form of actual information.

A Boojattararian may follow up such incomprehensible questions, however, with equally incomprehensible exposition.

Another requirement of Boojattararianism is that each Boojattararian ask many, many such questions in many, many forums.

[Boojatta]

14. "Another requirement of Boojattararianism is that each Boojattararian..."

How many Boojattararians are there?

Also, how do you distinguish between the typical communication style of a Boojattararian and those aspects of communication style that are mandated by Boojattararianism?

[TheBigotBasher]

12. Are you asking about scientology?

[Boojatta]

13. I suspect that the correct answer to that question is "no."

To avoid being dogmatic, I will simply point out that I'm not aware of any elaborate set of rules for communication associated with Scientology. I certainly didn't begin this thread with Scientology in mind.

[Boojatta]

19. Kick because this thread might be of interest to...

people who are thinking about a question specifically about offensiveness in communication, and who are willing to think about the question in a somewhat more general context of rules associated with communication.

[Boojatta]

20. Kick