User talk:68.252.225.233

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Bobby Jindal

If you read the John Maginnis column that you cited closely, you'll see that it says that he is "...giving testimony in Pentecostal or Baptist churches..." - that doesn't mean he's claiming to be Baptist or Pentacostal, but that he's giving his Christian testimony in those churches (since those denominations are largely predominant in northern La.). --Folic Acid 18:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the article

notes that testimony is given, however. my edit does not dispute his ostensible catholic faith; it simply notes that he offers testimony to baptist and pentecostal congregations. as a result, it is accurate, and it shall remain a part of the entry.

There is the small matter of relevance. He does a lot of things on the campaign trail, I'm sure. However, they don't need to be added to his biography, as they're irrelevant. How does adding that phrase add to his bio? --Folic Acid 19:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] biography

switching faith multiple times. this can be read as a sign of flexibility, or it can be read as a sign of his cynicism. either way, it underscores a pattern. moreover, he refers to himself as a Christian, which is uncommon for a Catholic. This is why it is relevant, as he switches between the two terms. Hence the relevance of his offering of "testimony," a distinctly Protestant practice, despite his ostensible Catholicism.

That's certainly not a neutral point of view, and I'm fairly confident there's nobody claiming that Jindal is switching faiths. I've known the guy for quite some time now, along with his predecessor David Vitter, and I've never known them to be anything other than devoted Catholics. Besides, "giving testimony" is Maginnis's term, not Jindal's. --Folic Acid 19:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] biographical relevance

because the biography already foregrounds his religion, which is bizarre for a politician, as religion and politics are distinct fields of life, i believe it is relevant. and since a biography always notes broader patterns throughout a life, his willingness to switch religions, as is evidenced by his conversion and by his reference to self as a "Christian," even though he is ostensibly Catholic, provides a broader picture of Jindal both as a practitioner of religion and as someone who assumes multiple guises. biography includes acts and pronouncements, and it should also consider how the self fashions itself. moreover, faith is performed everyday; it is not a discreet act. if we are to be accurate in our discussion of faith as it relates to biography, then we have to note how present actions may conflict with the conversion he ostensibly made during his late teens. this is why it is relevant to biography, and this is why it shall and will stand. unless, of course, we can create a separate entry on his use of faith in his private life and in his political life. my entry is concise, and it is relevant to his Catholic faith.

[edit] your personal relationship

to politicians is irrelevant. and multiple organizations, including the Rapides Parish Republican Women, note how jindal visited a Baptist church in their parish to offer testimony. and your attribution of fairness is biased, especially given your status as a republican operative. maginnis is a conservative political commentator, and his description of Jindal's Protestant acts is accurate.

[edit] Folic Acid

is editing entries based on his personal relationshlp with politicians, thereby inserting a political bias into his notion of what neutrality should be. i am inserting the link to jindal's offering of Protestant testimony again, and I will continue to do so, even if Folic Acid's full-time position is to monitor Wikipedia entries. Either include the offering of testimony, or eliminate faith from the biography altogether. this is the only unbiased solution to the impasse I have reached with Folic Acid, who is a Republican operative.

You're a funny man. I like that. Regardless, your edits are still irrelevant and will be removed. --Folic Acid 19:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the use

of ad hominem arguments in the justification of removal warrants consideration of the relevance of testimony before Protestant congregations.