Talk:Free Congress Foundation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Privacy

Is supporting privacy really unusual among conservative groups? Certainly many don't, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's particularly unusual: Gun-rights groups are among the bitterest opponents of any sort of national ID, and in general the libertarian-style "keep the guv'mint away from me!" sentiment is a significant wing of "conservatism". --Delirium 15:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Certainly in the abstract, I'd agree with you. However in practice very few conservative groups have joined the ACLU and consumer left in making privacy a big issue, particularly after Bush's inauguration and 9/11. And even fewer make any fuss about privacy from corporations, preferring a free-market approach. LeoO3 23:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ernst Islamaphobia accusation

Mike18xx, while I may not agree with Carl Ernst's accusation, the mention of which you wiped, I think simply wiping it is something that needs to be discussed a little. How do you feel about restoring that section, but characterizing Ernst within it in a more NPOV way than you did in your edit comments; something like, "Carl Ernst, a scholar of Islam who has on multiple occasions accused others of Islamaphobia..." Maybe even that is too POV against him, but perhaps we could find a way to note that an Ernst accusation of Islamaphobia is not, perhaps, as shocking as one from, say, Daniel Pipes or Bat Ye'or. While I agree that "Criticism" sections of articles should be limited, and that critics of a person/place/thing should be notable, I'm not persuaded that including this particular accusation necessarily damages the quality of this article. LeoO3 14:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dominionism claim

I think how to characterize and where to place the TheocracyWatch dominionism claim needs to be discussed and (I hope) resolved here.

First, about the merits of the specific claim made. While I think it would be perfectly fair to characterize FCF as a "religous right" institution, and even as one with a harder line than many or most, attempting to link it to dominionism is frought with fatal problems.

Dominionism, as noted in its own article, is a Protestant movement (in fact, largely fundamentalist, not merely evangelical). However, Weyrich is a Catholic; what's more, as a traditionalist Catholic, he left Roman Catholicism for Greek Catholicism because Vatican II brought liturgy and other elements of Roman Catholicism too close to Protestantism for his liking (a common traditionalist criticism of the post Vatican II era). While fundamentalist Protestants and traditionalist Catholics agree on social issues, they are radically different from each other in religious belief, take their differences very seriously, and are deeply suspicious at best of ecumenical efforts to bridge the gap between them. As such, while they could and do cooperate on matters of social issues in public policy, they could not possibly cooperate in any imposition of a dominionist theocratic state.

Furthermore, the manifesto TheocracyWatch cites is no longer anywhere to be found on the FCF website, and seems abandoned or defunct. Even if FCF is still attempting to carry it out, and even ignoring the crucial context in the paragraph above, it's hard to see how the manifesto based solely on its own text can be seen as a religious program, let alone a dominionist one. Nowhere does the manifesto invoke the name of Jesus or any other religious figure, quote a single verse from the Bible or any other Christian text, or make any religious references at all. Christianity itself is mentioned just once, in a sentence stating that not all participants in the project will be Christian. In reading the document, it is clear that the thrust of it is in creating a motivated but voluntary social and lifestyle movement dedicated towards influencing the culture in a generally conservative direction, not in political activists trying to seize control of the state to make people conform to a specific religious doctrine. In fact, it explicitly states that conservatives are overly focused on politics and government (a theme of Weyrich's), a doctrine completely incompatible with dominionism's efforts to create a theocratic state. That's not to endorse the manifesto or even denounce dominionism; one can disagree sharply with the manifesto's stated goals and methods without misclassifying it.

I realize that Wikipedia is about simply quoting or fairly summarizing claims on an issue, without endorsing or criticizing the claims themselves. Still, this needed to be said somewhere, and I'm considering whether and how to include these important facts in the article.

Second, about whether the claim is a criticism. We have seen how easily and completely refuted the claim is that Weyrich or FCF in general, or this manifesto, are dominionist. But granting for the sake of argument that the proposition is true, the claim is coming from a group, TheocracyWatch, which is strongly opposed to dominionism, and clearly makes that claim as a criticism of FCF. I realize that not classifying the claim as a criticism, and characterizing it instead as a mere factoid of useful research from a disinterested party seeking nothing more than to inform others about something it has no stance on, gives it greater credibility and is thus attractive to those who disagre with dominionism and/or FCF, but I urge such editors to step back from that impulse. LeoO3 15:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It's POV pushing, period. But honesty and integrity haven't been hallmarks of Wikipedia from what I have read in the press.

None of this really matters. What matters is if these criticisms are properly represented in this article. All this handwringing and whining is not relvant. It is original research. Eliminating published criticism because an editor disagrees with it violates basic Wiki policy.--Cberlet 05:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if there were a shred of truth in the criticism. From what I have read of their material. It's a bunch of ad hominem attacks, guilt by association, and strawman attacks. I guess that accuracy is irrelevant then.

That said, what you say much doesn't say much about Wikipedia's policies in terms of truthfullness.--FidesetRatio 21:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)