Talk:Post Christian
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is supported by WikiProject Religion. This project provides a central approach to Religion-related subjects on wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
Contents |
[edit] Bold Revision
In the spirit of boldness I have radically edited this page. I believe the article's length now is proportional to its factual content. I have remove a lot of blatant opinions, irrelevant data, and most importantly, have included a reference. The article now states what the term means, who uses it, and why in a way that is neutral in its point of view. Postxian 02:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bias
How is this entry considered biased? I feel like the bias tag should be removed unles the person who added it cares to explain his- or herself. (smallwhitelight) --143.88.201.180 20:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- It's more than not well sourced. It contains mostly personal opinion. I also think it should be speedily deleted.Postxian 17:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Serious bias remains in this article -- it should be tagged as biased. The most egregious example of bias is the lengthy quote from the Christian scriptures, which shows quite clearly that this topic is being viewed from a Christian (and, given the translation used, most probably an evangelical Christian) POV. Bias is also shown in the too-brief, too-narrow definition given of "post-Christian." A serious article labeled "post-Christian" should contain most or all of the following: (1) reference to secular and Christian responses to the alleged "end of Christendom"; (2) reference to scholars of American religion like Gary Dorrien who have explicitly done research into the subject; (3) arguments re: connections between post-modern society and post-Christian society; (4) Christian post-liberal tehologians who have specifically addressed what it means to live in a post-Christian age (reference should probably be made to Willimon and Hauerwas, "Resident Aliens"). I'm sure I have missed some points that should be covered, but you get the idea. Until we have this kind of well-rounded discussion, this remains a deeply flawed and biased article. (I'm afraid the addition of long Biblical quotes does not serve the purposes of the article, and only serves to create a perception that Wikipedia cannot deal with religious questions effectively.) In recognition of the serious possibility of a lack of neutrality, I feel I must tag this article as one where neutrality is disputed. 3oranges 23:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Seperation of Church and State
The article talks of evangelicals opposing the separation of church and state. While they often support things like prayer in school, that hardly qualifies as opposition to separation---merely a different interpretation of what it means than the author's own. Perhaps the author means Reconstructionists, who lie somewhere to the right of fundamentalists? Also, the term "post-Christian" is sometimes used as a self-description, the first Unitarian Universalist Association President, Dana Greeley, did here. (Chutney 2-4-07)
Okay, I haven't read past the first two paragraphs, but I already have three gripes with this article, besides the fact that I've never heard this term:
- The United States is (unfortunately) very religious (in the red states, which comprise a little more than half of the population), and a lot of our laws reflect Christian ideals (i.e. gay marriage is illegal)
- I'm pretty sure the constitution doesn't say anything about one nation, under God. That's the pledge, and the "under god" part was inserted in 1955 (or 1953, I forget).
- I don't think Great Britain is as religious as this article seems to claim. I'm pretty sure it's less so than the US.
I actually think this article should be deleted entirely. There's no content here and I'm pretty sure a lot of what's there is wrong.
-VJ 18:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- The previous griper is (obviously) a minority atheist from the American blue states, which do not tolerate any different type of thought. Changing history will not make them right. The freedom of religion in the USA is not an artifact of "Separation of Church and State". The the U.S. Constitution states that congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion (First Amendment), so that there is no mandated state religion; there is no statement of separation of church and state other than in a letter sent by Thomas Jefferson. (chutney)
- The "Separation" myth has been used by Atheists for years to try to get Atheism installed as the official U.S. religion. Atheism has been declared a legal religion in a number of Federal court cases (Most recently: Kaughman v. McCaughtry, Seventh Federal Court, Oct 2005).
- In fact, the tolerance and freedom of religion that is enjoyed by the USA is a result of the Christian influence of the early fathers. The Declaration Of Independence declares that all men are endowed with unalienable rights BY THEIR CREATOR. If not endowed by a Creator, then the Atheist has no "Unalienable rights".
- This article should stay and should be complemented with statements from both sides of the issue.
- C.S.Stephens, 30 April, 2006
-
- The poor, oppressed American Christian has to put up with the fact that there are atheists in his country who insist that they are just as American as he is. Those evil atheists demand that their tax dollars not be used to subsidize any religion; they demand that public institutions not be used to promote religion; they propose that the Establishment Clause means not just that one is free to choose to practice any variety of Christianity one chooses, but that one is free to choose to practice any other religion, or no religion at all, and still be considered a full citizen with equal rights - this is considered "intolerance".
-
- P.S., it's "inalienable" --Davecampbell 18:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- From the Deism article: "In America, Enlightenment philosophy (which itself was heavily inspired by deist ideals) played a major role in creating the principle of separation of church and state, expressed in the religious freedom clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Founding Fathers who were especially noted for being influenced by such philosophy include Cornelius Harnett, Gouverneur Morris, Hugh Williamson, James Wilson, and James Madison. Although these men were members of traditional Christian denominations (Hugh Williamson was a Presbyterian and the rest were Episcopalians), their political speeches show distinct deistic influence. Other notable Founding Fathers may have been more directly deist. These include Ethan Allen and Thomas Paine (who published The Age of Reason, a treatise that helped to popularize deism throughout America and Europe). Elihu Palmer (1764-1806) wrote the "Bible" of American deism in his Principles of Nature (1823) and attempted to organize deism by forming the "Deistical Society of New York." Currently (as of 2007) there is an ongoing controversy in the United States over whether or not America was founded as a "Christian nation" based on Judeo-Christian ideals. This has spawned a subsidiary controversy over whether the Founding Fathers were Christians or deists or something in between. Particularly heated is the debate over the beliefs of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington, for all of whom the evidence is mixed." --Loremaster 20:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Paul of Tarsus
This article is still practically useless due to the fact that it is mostly opinion. The phrase "Though Paul's monlogue is horrifying to believers," is nothing but opinion. It lacks - a definition of "believers"
- proof that all in this groups find it "horrifying"
- an explanation of this statement in light of the view that Christian theologians have written commentaries on this passage for centuries without being "horrified"
- Even though I believe Paul authored the book of Romans, some still contest that point Kolja Keller, 9-25-06
- I think the scholarly consensus on all sides is that Paul most probably wrote Romans and around a half dozen others traditionally attributed to him. Books like 1&2 Timothy and Titus are the disputed ones.
- In any case, I'm deleting it. That evangelicals' belief on this point derives specifically from Romans 1 is conjecture.
- Chutney, 2-4-07
-
- Have you all read the Authorship of the Pauline epistles article? --Loremaster 00:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality Dispute
Is the neutrality of the Post Christian article still in dispute? If not, the {{POV}} tag should be removed. --Loremaster 12:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've removed the tag. --Loremaster 21:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
