Talk:Catholic

From dKosopedia

The Antiochene tradition is the oldest. It's been there since Peter himself founded it. And Jan Hus is regarded as the first real reformer. The article, as it stands, when not absolutely wrong, is overly broad and brings zero insight to Democratic politics.--Allamakee Democrat 01:10, 22 June 2006 (PDT)

A pilpul

This is turning into a pilpul (=Jewish theological pissing contest). And no one yet has indicated how this article helps the Democratic Party.

Jan Hus (a Czech) and John Wycliffe (a Brit) are the usual Ur-protestants. Giordano Bruno is also mentioned. Luther merely died in his own bed at a ripe old age, after setting off the Thirty Years War; Luther's own writings make it possible to argue he was no different from the current Iranian ayatollahs, and not much different from Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson.

Luther has been convincingly retrospectively diagnosed as bipolar. This puts him in the mental-case company of Joseph Smith, Jr., Mohammad, Helena Blavatsy, L. Ron Howard, Mary Baker Eddy, Ellen White, et al.

I think religion should be a banned subject on dKosopedia except as how it motivates voters. --Allamakee Democrat 20:57, 22 June 2006 (PDT)

Heh. That reminds me of one of my favorite of-the-cuff puns, about "G-d's Chosen Pilpul," (nyuk, nyuk, nyuk, I got a thousand of 'em — good night, and remember to tip your waitress) during one such intense discussion of theological minutiae.

That said, I think you're wrong about religion articles on dKP; the motivations of voters are only part of the reason why someone might want to write, or read, articles concerning religion; for starters, "voters" are not the sole instrument of politics. Religious institutions themselves have been entangled in politics (and vice versa) for as long as either have existed; and seeking to understand Latin America without having access to information on Liberation Theology, or seeking to understand the Civil Rights movement without understanding the religious components thereof is, well, severely suboptimal, to say the least (likewise, seeking to understand many of the hot-button social issues of today without a clear-headed view of religion, for better or worse, is at least slightly doomed).

The solution, I think, is to fall back on the hoary troika of Wikipedia principles: Act in Good Faith; Assume Good Faith; and NPOV. We may not be wedded to NPOV as a site-wide First Principle, but I think it's pretty damned obvious that we desperately need it for Religion, and for other subjects that might cause internecine (or would that be interNicene, in this case?) discord amongst liberals/progressives/Democrats/whatever.

And, not to put too fine a point on it, but judging from the admittedly small sample of your thoughts in the subject that I've come across here, you may not exactly be the best source for NPOV writing on subjects involving religion. --Ray Radlein 22:12, 22 June 2006 (PDT)

Oh, and BTW: If his name really had been "L. Ron Howard," I can only suppose that Battlefied Earth would have been a much better movie. :-) --Ray Radlein 22:15, 22 June 2006 (PDT)

Retrieved from "http://localhost../../../c/a/t/Talk%7ECatholic_b711.html"

This page was last modified 05:15, 23 June 2006 by Ray Radlein. Based on work by dKosopedia user(s) Allamakee Democrat. Content is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.