Difference between revisions of "Talk:Religion of Barack Obama"

Revision as of 05:12, February 28, 2009

Why are we repeating liberal falsehoods of Newsweek here??? Just a quick glance shows misuse of the word "secular" and the implausible claim that Obama's biological father was an atheist, for starters.--Andy Schlafly 11:55, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Taking a step back, may I suggest that with a proper debunking of their falsehoods, we can show that they don't have much of an argument at all? It's important to not give these falsehoods any sense of validity, but I think such analysis can be done successfully and this would be a strength to the article. -Foxtrot 12:07, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Andrew- The items that I took out were opinions, which clearly goes against your editorial policy. I am undoing your change. This article should be trustworthy and not filled with snark. --Kurt Schroeder 3:59, 25 February 2009 (CST)

This article contains many statements that are purely unsubstantiated opinion. As such the article should be considered factually inaccurate until the issues are resolved. --Kurt Schroeder 11:40, 27 February 2009 (CST)

Try it this way, Kurt: write a complete test article and post it on this talk page first. The main question should be "what is Obama's religion", then provide answers to it. Divide the article in three; the first part provides answers and citations based on his Christianity (if any); the second part likewise for Islam; the third part for his secularism/atheism. Karajou 12:59, 27 February 2009 (EST)

I'm interested in facts, so if you can convince me I'll add them to the article. Please be patient with us. --Ed Poor ^Talk 13:37, 27 February 2009 (EST)

"[correction: "Christian story"? No real Christian refers to the faith that way.]" Statements like this are opinion, and once we start saying "real" Christian we are not only breaking the Conservapedia Commandments, but we're dividing Christians. If there was a link to a person who was reported as saying that, then we could reference it, but even then what good would it serve. There is a difference between truth and snark. --Kschroe 13:45, 27 February 2009 (EST)

So what you are saying is that you won't re-do the article to standards as I suggested above, but will sit and identify what you think is opinion and try to remove only that without facts to back up the removal? Karajou 13:49, 27 February 2009 (EST)

How's This?

The religion of Barack Obama is a hotly debated subject by some people. Despite claiming himself as a Christian, many doubt his claim and look for "secret signs" about his "true religion". Here we shall lay out the cases for the 3 major arguments about Barack's religion: the case for him being either Christian, Muslim, or Agnostic/Atheist.

-Christian-

• Self identifies as a Christian
• Was a member of a Baptist church for over 20 years
• Baptized in the early 1990's
• Married in a Christian church in 1992
• Celebrates the Christian holidays of Easter and Christmas

-Muslim-

• Speaks affectionately of the Muslim faith
• Uses proper Arabic pronunciation of some words
• Was taught the Muslim faith and principals as a child
• His name is Swahili, and has origins in the Arabic language

-Atheist/Agnostic-

• Has not regularly attended any religious service since severing his ties with his former church.
• Is involved in politics, which is in direct opposition to the Bible and Koran.

Is that what you were looking for Karajou? Of course, this is just a stub, much like this article, and can be expanded on. If you want to replace the current article with it, that's fine. Personally, I feel that the article, as it stands, should have an "Essay:" prefix in front of it. ==ShawnJ 00:12, 28 February 2009 (EST)