Talk:Christian Exodus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Treaty of Paris 2 Keep movement progress updated 3 Hate group? 4 ==Positions taken from their website == 5 Fundamentalist? 6 Recent Edits

[edit] Treaty of Paris

There are more than ten instances of a Treaty of Paris? Which is that?

The treaty mentioned is the one that ended the American Revolution. I'm not sure what the Treaty of Paris has to do with anything though. South Carolina joined the Union about eight years after the treaty, and then rejoined about 105 years after the treaty. Clearly any special wording about South Carolina has been superceded. -Acjelen 01:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

This is one of those ideas that keeps going around. Technically, the ToP recognized thirteen independent states: whether they chose to federate, and if so how many federations there would be were open questions of no consequence to the treaty. I attempted to clarify. Robert A West 15:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Keep movement progress updated

Has anyone actually moved as a result of this? --JWB 07:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hate group?

The Southern Poverty Law Center, a controversial anti hate group, listed this group as a hate group, something which Christian Exodus firmly denounces, maintaining that it is colorblind.

• I checked the SPLC site and could not find where they call the Christian Exodus a "hate group". Then I checked the Christian Exodus site and couldn't find where they denouce that term. The SPLC has an article about the Christian Exodus in which they call the group "neo-confederate"[1] and the Christian Exodus has an article about the SPLC, denouncing it in general terms (and mostly attacking the ACLU).[2] All in all, I couldn't find anything to support the exact assertion made here. Regardless, I would definitely say that the SPLC is a "controversial anti-hate group". Unless anyone has some sources to support the "hate group" designation for Christian Exodus I'll edit the article to agree with the sources that I can find. Cheers, -Willmcw July 7, 2005 01:53 (UTC)

Carry on with the good work then. Guy Montag 7 July 2005 02:52 (UTC)

• I just think its a poor reference because there are less controversial sites out there that can better give a better NPOV comment on CE. Let me ask you, would it be appropriate to include a link to Michael Savage's book Liberalism is a Mental Disorder: Savage Solutions on Liberalism? I think CE could use a better external source for an NPOV assesment. Inigmatus 19:40, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • SPLC's about as biased as a loaf of bread. Still, we could use some pro-CE links (from sites not associated with CE). Almafeta 20:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    • A link doesn't do much good. Better to write here what the connection is. "Savage calls CE a quixotic secesionist..." or whatever he says. Then add the link. Cheers, -Willmcw 02:54, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • You're right, Willmcw, the SPLC article you linked to doesn't actually call the CE a hate group. It only mentions that its founder, Cory Burnell, was once a regional director of a white supremicist group. That's an implication, not an accusation. Inigmatus, I'm not sure your Michael Savage analogy is quite fair. The SPLC tracks all hate groups, regardless of their politics, race or religion. LA RoeDoe 07:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ==Positions taken from their website ==

I have tried to maintain NPOV throughout, while avoiding weasel-words. Robert A West 23:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fundamentalist?

Does this group self-identify as "fundamentalist?" If not, is it a label applied by a Wikipedia editor? If they do not self-identify, I will remove the label and link, following the Associated Press guidelines, to ensure NPOV. Pollinator 18:31, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Gee, their home pages says things like: ChristianExodus.org offers the opportunity to try a strategy not yet employed by Bible-believing Christians. While they avoid the use of the word "fundamentalist" on that page, "bible-believing" is pretty much open code (that is, understood by everyone including themselves) for the same thing.

And if you drill down deeper than the home page, the discussion certainly sounds exactly like Christian Fundamentalism. But if you're trying to conceal that coming out...

Atlant 18:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Cory Burnell posted, without further comments, an article on their website containing the following:

As any real Christian can see, these 8 points comprise basic Biblical truth. To think that more than 90% of born again Christians would deny any one of these fundamental truths suggests that the vast majority of professing Christians today have no clue as to what being a Christian really means. [3].

The points themselves are strikingly anti-Modernist, although one item may be opposition to salvation through works. (CE's ownStatement of Faith includes "salvation by faith alone through Christ alone", as well as total depravity and the inerrancy of scripture. )

Denying that CE are fundamentalists comes unhappily close to the post-modernist position that the term has no meaning other than what the reader chooses to put into it. Septentrionalis 19:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Moreover, the WP article on Christian fundamentalism defines the central points as, "the inerrancy of the Bible, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the authenticity of his miracles." The group's own Statement of Faith emphasizes precisely these points. Either the WP definition is wrong, or the Christian Exodus fit into the "fundamentalist" theological fold. Robert A West 19:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not debating whether or not they ARE fundamentalists. I don't know. The issue is what they call themselves. The fact is that the label, when applied by outsiders is usually a pejorative. The Associated Press has wrestled with this issue and had issued guidelines that do not call a group fundamentalist unless they self-identify. This is what NPOV is all about, ya know.

If I were trying to conceal anything, I wouldn't have put the issue on the talk page.

Someone ought to ask them. It would be interesting. Pollinator 22:21, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

We are not the AP, and our policies are different. We shouldn't say they self-identify themselves with a term unless they do so. However their lack of self-identification does not restrict us from using a term if there are verifiable sources for it. NPOV requires that we include all notable views, not just sympathetic ones. -Willmcw 23:13, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I was about to write something very similar. AP may extend certain courtesies to Christian Fundamentalists, but they have no problem applying labels to lots of other groups who might not appreciate those labels. The term "terrorist" comes to mind...

If Christian Exodus is fundamentalist, we shouldn't have any qualms about calling them that, whether or not they self-identify with that term.

Atlant 00:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Pollinator's assertion that "fundamentalist" is a pejorative term reflects the usage of those who are opposed to what fundamentalists believe. It is rather like refraining from accurately characterizing someone's positions as "liberal" because some talk-show hosts use the term abusively. The alternatives are either less descriptive or tend to marginalize some other group that has claim to the same label, hence not NPOV.

• "Christian Conservative" (the closest thing to a self-description on the website) is imprecise, since it can refer to either theological or political positions. Many political conservatives are Christians, yet not fundamentalists. Some fundamentalists are not political conservatives, at least in some respects. Either group is marginalized by using the term as a synonym for "fundamentalist."
• "Evangelical" is a term that appears in the current or historic name of various churches that are not fundamentalist in character but that come from the Evangelical and Reformed tradition. Using this term marginalizes those groups.
• A detailed theological description would be more precise, but rather off-putting to anyone not steeped in Christian Theology.
• Simply to use the term, "Christian" without qualification is to implicitly accept the POV that only the stated theological position is validly Christian. (A position that the group officially disclaims, but some members have expressed on network TV. See also the article posted on the website by Corey Burnell cited by Septrentrionalis.)

The term "fundamentalist" is IMO the most nearly NPOV term available.

Robert A West 04:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Edits

Two unsourced recent edits bother me. Before reverting, I would ask the editors (or any interested party) for a citation.Robert A.West (Talk) 22:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

1. an edit by Quasipalm changed, "Influencing the governmental process in conformity to its vision of Christian principles," to "Influencing the governmental process and creating a state wide theocracy in the United States."
   1. Christian Exodus used to deny this. Has this changed?
   2. Is this an assertion by a serious commentator? A citation is needed.
   3. Is this an editorial conclusion? Then I think it violates WP:V and WP:NOR.Robert A.West (Talk) 22:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
2. and edit by 216.239.8.94 states, "The group appears to go as far as seeking to outlaw all sexual conduct outside of a traditional heterosexual marriage."
   1. This is weasel-worded.
   2. Is this an assertion by a serious commentator? A citation is needed.
   3. Is this an inescapable logical conclusion from the group's own materials? If so, we should remove the weasel-wording and clarify.
   4. Is this an editorial conclusion? While it may be reasonable, I don't think it necessary for clarity (cf. the debate over "fundamentalist"). Robert A.West (Talk) 22:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

On the Hannity & Colmes video, Burnell states he does not want a theocracy. That part should be taken down. Biblically-influenced government and theocracy are 2 different things. Tim Long 04:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

If we describe Iran (A country where Zoroastrians, Jews and Christians have reserved seats in Parliament.) as a theocracy, then Christian Exodus surely meets the criteria. "The term theocracy is commonly used to describe a form of government in which a religion or metaphysical faith plays the dominant role. It refers to a form of government in which the organs of the religious sphere replace or dominate the organs of the political sphere as clerical or spiritual representative(s) of god(s)."

And just because they don't like the word theocracy, doesn't mean they don't seek to create one. Take a look at their official statement, which includes statements like "If a religious minority does not like the decisions made by the majority, they may either relocate to another community or attempt to change the minds of the electorate and become the majority." -Quasipalm 23:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)