SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,592
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 206:
Line 206: +
Talk:Obama's Religion (view source)
Revision as of 13:25, February 12, 2014
, 13:25, February 12, 2014→Should this page be deleted?: what a mess of a page
::::: This discussion is going pearshaped. We have MackD editing after he's supposed to have been banned. We have an edit of Dvergne disappearing without trace. (Nothing lost there except for yet another use of the word ''"christian"'') What's going on? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:12, 21 February 2013 (EST)
::::: This discussion is going pearshaped. We have MackD editing after he's supposed to have been banned. We have an edit of Dvergne disappearing without trace. (Nothing lost there except for yet another use of the word ''"christian"'') What's going on? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:12, 21 February 2013 (EST)
:::::@MackD: I've seen it already several times and just for you I've seen it in now once more, I don't see anything taken out of context. If you're going to say that this article "contains almost nothing but lies, half-truths" than you best bring some concrete examples rather than just throw accusations around. In regards to your claims that being a muslim is "something that should not be viewed as defamatory int he first place" than I guess you're OK with people following the creed of an avowed pedophile and a murderer. I guess you won't have any problems with a Satan worshiping president or with a president who follows "positive Christianity" (the pseudo Christianity promoted by the Nazi party). - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 02:18, 21 February 2013 (EST)
:::::@MackD: I've seen it already several times and just for you I've seen it in now once more, I don't see anything taken out of context. If you're going to say that this article "contains almost nothing but lies, half-truths" than you best bring some concrete examples rather than just throw accusations around. In regards to your claims that being a muslim is "something that should not be viewed as defamatory int he first place" than I guess you're OK with people following the creed of an avowed pedophile and a murderer. I guess you won't have any problems with a Satan worshiping president or with a president who follows "positive Christianity" (the pseudo Christianity promoted by the Nazi party). - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 02:18, 21 February 2013 (EST)
Andy has how protected the page. However, the recent edits both help and hurt the page. I think that downplaying the point about Israel and Chuck Hagel is sound editorial judgment. However, removing the quotations from the Obama campaign emails probably detracts from the value of the page. To me, the page would benefit from presenting both sides -- Obama has said that he is a Christian and that people who are questioning that are politically-motivated. Then follow up with any arguments against that. I find this whole debate a bit distasteful. Most Christian congregations are welcoming to everyone -- including someone whose father was an atheist. In 1960 people attacked John Kennedy with the claim that he would be "too faithful" a Catholic to the point of allowing the Pope to influence his decisions as President. In 2008 and 2012, people attacked Obama with the claim that he was not sufficiently "Christian." All three times, the voters rejected these arguments. I hope that this type of politics gets relegated to the dustbin of history. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 08:25, 12 February 2014 (EST)