Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 55:
Line 55: + + + + + + + +
mini-sermon by Deacon Ed
:I'm just interested to know what you would consider to be an alternative article I could assess as being trustworthy and encyclopedic? I've hit random page 10 times and I've got, [[Dirge]], [[Decency]], [[Statute of Anne]], [[Lemon test]], [[African Americans]], [[Jonah]], [[Easter]], [[Canadian deuterium uranium reactor]], [[Ocarina]], [[Brisbane]]. Most of them articles are very short, with only the African Americans article standing out but even that is puny by Wikipedia standards. This place, as you like to believe is not interested in developing these run of the mill, largely unpolitical articles. It is obsessed by using Liberals as a catchphrase at every turn. Your right, the majority of articles here are apolitical. But the issue is not how many slander and deface homosexuals and Liberals, but the mere presence of a derogatory and (what seems to me) parody article demeans the entire site and its mind baffling how even minded people could even consider using the site. [[User:Wearethefuture|Wearethefuture]] 10:22, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
:I'm just interested to know what you would consider to be an alternative article I could assess as being trustworthy and encyclopedic? I've hit random page 10 times and I've got, [[Dirge]], [[Decency]], [[Statute of Anne]], [[Lemon test]], [[African Americans]], [[Jonah]], [[Easter]], [[Canadian deuterium uranium reactor]], [[Ocarina]], [[Brisbane]]. Most of them articles are very short, with only the African Americans article standing out but even that is puny by Wikipedia standards. This place, as you like to believe is not interested in developing these run of the mill, largely unpolitical articles. It is obsessed by using Liberals as a catchphrase at every turn. Your right, the majority of articles here are apolitical. But the issue is not how many slander and deface homosexuals and Liberals, but the mere presence of a derogatory and (what seems to me) parody article demeans the entire site and its mind baffling how even minded people could even consider using the site. [[User:Wearethefuture|Wearethefuture]] 10:22, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
McCain08's thesis boils down to the crazy idea that by opposing evil, we are betraying goodness. That hearkens back to the heresy that when Jesus said, "Judge not," he meant that Christians should never evaluate any doctrine or deed to whether it is good or bad. Actually, what he meant is to avoid [[hypocrisy]], which is "judging" without applying the standard of judgment to one's own self. This is the error that led to the downfall of TV preacher [[Jimmy Swaggart]] and NY governor [[Eliot Spitzer]].
In fact, it is liberals rather than conservatives who are guilty of this error. They constantly use [[double standard]] judgments, notably giving communists and dictators a pass - literally letting them get away with murder - while magnifying some relatively minor American crimes.
McCain08's comments appear hypocritical or simply pro-liberal when he accuses us of "slandering and defacing" homosexuals. Actually our [[Homosexuality]] article is factual and well deserves its top ten status in the blogosphere. It is rather the liberal media who slander Christians and Jews for standing up to the [[gay rights movement]]. It is rather liberal politicians who have made preaching the righteousness of the Bible a crime in some countries, and liberal administrations who have banned such preaching at many American universities.
Goodness must be trustworthy. To merit the world's trust, good people must expose evil - not only in others, of course (see [[hypocrisy]]), but all around. Confession is good for the soul! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:34, 18 March 2008 (EDT)