Talk:Christian Supremacy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
As I read over this article I can't shake the idea that it is primarily a grab-bag of news items and editorial opinions that the author (User:128.122.193.222) personally finds significant. There are several instances of what Wikipedia calls weasel terms: "often used by critics," "many Christian Supremacists do not object," "critics argue", "there are indications," "critics have suggested..."
What I would like to see are references to some books that discuss "Christian supremacy" under that name, and citations for the nebulous claims in the article. For now, I have added a POV tag. Gazpacho 03:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
_______________________ Response:
I agree that "weasel terms" were a problem - these have been replaced with concrete attributions in all of the examples given by Gazpacho.
For extensive "references to some books that discuss 'Christian supremacy' under that name," please click on this link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/ref=sr_rt_low/102-8973607-0600139?index=stripbooks:relevance-below&field-keywords=%22christian%20supremacy%22
or got to amazon and search for the term. The references are to many to list here. A google search will also confirm that this term is in wide usage. --User:128.122.193.222
- OK, but did any of those books inform you in writing the article? Gazpacho 03:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
_____________________
Response : The basis for the challenge to the NPOV is unclear – is it Gazpacho’s contention that there should be no article about the ideology of Christian supremacy because there is no such thing? Or that there is such a thing, but that it is not accurately characterized by the material in the entry?
I have not been the sole contributor to the article. The material concerning the history the ideology of Christian supremacy is not controversial, as there is a vast body of scholarly research available concerning this topic.
I suspect that the NPOV dispute turns around the question of whether or not the usage of the term “Christian supremacy” to characterize efforts by right-wing Christians in the United States to establish aspects of their theology as public policy (by opposing participation in government-sanctioned functions by non-Christian, opposing the teaching of evolution in public schools, lobbying for official condemnation of homosexuality, exclusive display of Christian aphorism and symbols on public buildings) constitutes “original research.” It is not. Numerous commentators writing in the well-regarded publications such as the Boston Globe, the Associated Press, Salon, Reason, and others have either used the term themselves or reported its use. There was a Cornell University Conference on Human Rights and Religion at which a presenting speaker used the term just as it is used in this article. Primary sources for this usage are many, and cites are available– I will begin including them.
The final question may be whether or not the use of the term “Christian Supremacy” by primarily liberal critics represents a bias because the term is regarded as inflammatory by those characterized as such. There is no evidence I am aware of that those characterized as “Christian Supremacists” find this term objectionable. To the contrary, there is evidence that some activists such as Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong of Newark, NJ, and Judge Roy Moore of Alabama have embraced it. --User:128.122.193.222
- Nice Left-wing Blog article. This article should be deleted as POV-pushing and bigotry. So much for
a neutral point of view.--146.145.70.200 18:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bigoted article
Just to borrow an idea from Orthodox Rabbi Daniel Lapin, found in his book "America's Real War," which suggests that substituting Jew for Christian in anti-Christian Right polemics, I have substituted Jews, Jewish and Judaism for Christian, Christians and Christianity. Perhaps the authors of this article are a bit tone deaf and ignorant of their own bigotry. Bigotry is bigotry, whether it refers to the alleged conspiracies of the Jews paraded by the extreme Right or the alleged conspiracies of the Christians on the part of the extreme Left.
If Wikipedia wants to keep this article up, it is a sign of shear bigotry on the part of its leadership.--146.145.70.200 18:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have removed the cut/replace/paste text that was here (substituting "Jew" for "Christian", etc.) based on its length, the lack of formatting (make it essentially unreadable), and its lack of value for improving the article. If 146.145.70.200 believes that the article has text "alleging conspiracies", he/she is free to argue about changing or removing specific words, sentences, and paragraphs. But even if those "alleged conspiracies" are completely removed, the reality is that there have been Christian supremists in the past, and certainly wikipedia should have, at minimum, a (historical) article about them. Removing the article entirely would not be a sign of acknowledging bigotry; it would an act of nonsensical self-censorship. John Broughton 19:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
