659
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 6:
Line 6: + + + + + +
Talk:Federal Reserve System (view source)
Revision as of 22:50, April 6, 2007
, 22:50, April 6, 2007no edit summary
: If you want to edit the article to make it biased against [[Christianity]], go ahead. But that would totally violate the spirit of this encyclopedia. Just look at the [[Wikipedia Bias|Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] and you will see why this is true. The article on the [[Renaissance]] makes no mention of Christianity. Therefore, it is biased against Christianity. By the same token, not mentioning the religions of major public figures involved in a controversial quasi-governmental agency would make the article biased '''towards''' their religious views. Any article that does not favor Christianity is clearly biased against Christianity. Another example: The [[Great Flood]] should be presented as fact because 60% of Americans think that it is a fact. Likewise, an even greater majority of Americans are Christians, so Christianity is clearly a fact. Therefore, anyone who believes otherwise has an incorrect philosophical grounding upon which to base decisions about government or economics. To deny this is to exhibit blatant anti-Christian bias. [[User:SRogers|SRogers]] 18:35, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
: If you want to edit the article to make it biased against [[Christianity]], go ahead. But that would totally violate the spirit of this encyclopedia. Just look at the [[Wikipedia Bias|Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] and you will see why this is true. The article on the [[Renaissance]] makes no mention of Christianity. Therefore, it is biased against Christianity. By the same token, not mentioning the religions of major public figures involved in a controversial quasi-governmental agency would make the article biased '''towards''' their religious views. Any article that does not favor Christianity is clearly biased against Christianity. Another example: The [[Great Flood]] should be presented as fact because 60% of Americans think that it is a fact. Likewise, an even greater majority of Americans are Christians, so Christianity is clearly a fact. Therefore, anyone who believes otherwise has an incorrect philosophical grounding upon which to base decisions about government or economics. To deny this is to exhibit blatant anti-Christian bias. [[User:SRogers|SRogers]] 18:35, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Does simply believing something make it true? Does not explicitly supporting something make you against it? If I, for example, went into the articles about The St. Valentines murders, the Mai Lai (sp?) Massacre, and Watergate and stated that everyone involved was a Christian, would you think I was trying to make things biased against Christians?
You say since a majority of Americans are Christians, so Christianity is clearly a fact. Since a majority of Iranians are Muslim, does that make Islam a fact in Iran? Buddhism a fact in Japan? Atheism a fact in Cuba? If 60% of Americans did NOT believe in Noah's flood, would you agree that it didn't happen?
But we're off topic. My point is, this is an encyclopedia. Unless you have evidence that those involved with the Fed are part of some Jewish conspiracy, I don't think their religion has anything to do with the article. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 18:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)