Difference between revisions of "Talk:Classroom prayer"

Revision as of 19:22, June 13, 2008

Liberal bias?

Since when is describing the topic "liberal bias". Philip J. Rayment 22:36, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Phillip, it kinda stuns me that you would ask this question. This is Conservapedia, a wiki where you are a senior administrator, and it's been clear for over a year now that liberal bias is whatever ASchlafly says it is. I mean, what did you think? AliceBG 22:38, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Oh... Phillip. Feebasfactor 02:00, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Not sure what these comments refer to, but the substance of this topic needs to be clear and up-front, not relegated to an obscure link at the end that most people will not bother clicking.--Aschlafly 23:55, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

It refers to the fact that in your eagerness to spin, you seem to have eliminating any explanation of the actual topic of the article.

I understand it wasn't as ideological as the current version, but what part of the collaborative, previous version was liberally biased, specifically?--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 00:14, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

It obscured the truth. Many people could read the version you reference and come away completely clueless about how classroom prayer does not exist due to censorship of it.--Aschlafly 00:17, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, okay, but people can read your version and come away completely clueless about what classroom prayer is. Can you at least re-add the definition of the term and the description of its common manifestations, please?--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 00:24, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Andy, could there be some kind of compromise? Where the current version is kept - detailing the truth about censorship, etc. - but the explanatory paragraphy defining the topic (from the previous version) is at least added at some point in the article. Feebasfactor 02:00, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

It's self-evident what "classroom prayer" is. If anyone feels otherwise, then feel free to add a footnote in the entry defining it as group prayer in a classroom.--Aschlafly 10:20, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

There's two problems with this.

• First, it's not self-evident, especially to people not intimately familiar with the situation in the United States. It could be any one or more of the following (and this list may not be exhaustive):
  • A time for students to pray silently in a classroom.
  • A student praying out loud in a classroom.
  • A teacher praying out loud in a classroom.
  • A chaplain or religious education teacher praying out loud in a classroom.
  • A group praying together in a classroom, led by a student.
  • A group praying together in a classroom, led by a teacher.
  • A group praying together in a classroom, led by a chaplain or religious education teacher.

* Second, being self-evident is not a reason for not explaining it, just like dictionaries don't skip words that everyone should know and American encyclopedias still list the capital of America even though everyone knows what it is.

The description should be at the beginning, even if it's a brief one and there's a more detailed one later on. I've often criticised Wikipedia's ID article for not being an article about ID, but about what's wrong with ID (supposedly). We should not repeat the same mistake. Encyclopedia articles should start of explaining what something is first.

Philip J. Rayment 11:03, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Philip, your multiple variations have insignificant differences. All your variations are prohibited in government schools, and censored by liberals.

If you'd like to propose a concise definition for a footnote, as I have above, then I'd be in favor of that. But I'm against anything that obscures, displaces, or dilutes the more fundamental point.--Aschlafly 11:46, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I have to say that it seems a bit strange to me to relegate a description of the actual subject of the article to a footnote, while the entirety of the body of the article is devoted to ideological argument. But I guess if you're willing to unilaterally overrule others and really don't see the problem, there's not much we can do. You own this site, after all.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 12:51, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

The primary job of an encyclopedia is to explain what something is, not the current political situation surrounding it. while all that information is necessary, it should come second to a clear explanation of the subject. --Tim (CPAdmin1)^{talk Vote in my NEW polls} 23:00, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

No, they are not insignificant differences at all. Even some liberals here have expressed a willingness to allow the first one, for example, and is the first one really illegal (in the U.S.)? Also, I'm pretty sure that although a teacher leading prayer would not be allowed here in Oz (although possibly not actually illegal), a religious education teacher would be allowed to.

Also, putting it in a footnote is not what any other encyclopaedia would do, and does not answer the point of my analogy with Wikipedia's ID article.

Philip J. Rayment 23:15, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Reversion explained

In addition to inserting a typo, the edit that was reverted also included non-encyclopedic bias like saying this is "controversial".--Aschlafly 14:15, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

So, you could've fixed the typo. On to your second point, you could've removed that instead of removing the entire block. Furthermore, if there is controversy over it, as is shown by the article's mentions of court cases over the subject, it is controversial by definition. DannyRedful 14:17, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

If you have no further objections, I will reinsert the block with the changes you've... Without the things you're not a big fan of. DannyRedful 14:19, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

I agree -it seems remarkable to deny that the issue has been controversial when that's the entire thesis of the article, no? Even for those who fully support classroom prayer, they are confronted with the concept of controversy four words into the article. It is clearly a controversial issue, so say so. StatsFan 14:20, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Saying something is "controversial" is a liberal way to attempt to legitimize opposition. Such claim has no place in a well-written encyclopedia devoted to presenting the truth.

The reverted definition of "classroom prayer" was also inaccurate. Classroom prayer is exactly what its terms mean: prayer in the classroom.--Aschlafly 14:25, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Saying it's controversial is a way to legitimize your side? You might want to reword that.

Alright. I assume hallways, gymnasiums, cafeterieas, and other areas of the school are therefore exempt from this definition? I'm only trying to help your side here, dude. No need to get defensive. DannyRedful 14:26, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Why can't an encyclopedia that looks to present the truth acknowledge the controversy in some issues between different sides without endorsing any of them? If there was no controversy we'd either have prayer in public schools or not, with no complaints about the status quo from anyone. --DinsdaleP 14:33, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word "controversial" - it is a term used simply to describe an issue where there is controversy, and in itself carries no judgement either way. Controversy either exists, or it doesn't. Affirmative Action is controversial, gun control is controversial, abortion is controversial, displaying the Ten Commandments in a Courthouse is controversial, polygamy is controversial, teen sex education is controversial, versions of the Bible are controversial, the Latin Mass is controversial - almost anything can be said to be controversial if there are loud voices in opposition. StatsFan 14:37, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Saying something is "controversial" is meaningless and only designed to confuse or legitimize opposition. Some people think that it is "controversial" whether Jesus actually existed. Would any credible scholar begin an entry about Jesus by saying His existence is controversial? Of course not.--Aschlafly 14:43, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Would any credible scholar begin an entry about Jesus without first describing who and what Jesus is? DannyRedful 14:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, since a search on the word "Controversy" within Conservapedia returns eight articles, I guess there's some work to be done cleaning up all that liberal bias. --DinsdaleP 14:51, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Sorry but saying the word is"designed to confuse or legitimize opposition" is completely factually incorrect. Take an argument in which no liberals have an opinion - Young Earth Creationism vs. Old Earth Creationism - neither side is liberal, but is there controversy? Is there controversy over the location of the Ark? StatsFan 15:03, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

There's even controversy about who really wrote the book of Revelation, John of Patmos or another John. Maybe in your world the word "controversial" is a meaningless tool used by liberals to confuse, but everywhere else it has a pretty basic definition. -- Aaronp

You've shown us liberal uses of the word to try to legitimize a liberal view, now let's see if you use the word to discredit a liberal view. How about a prominent liberal saying that the theory of evolution is "controversial"? Does liberal Wikipedia describe it as "controversial"?--Aschlafly 15:20, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

To be blunt, Andy, you're not getting it: Controversial is not a word used to legtitimize either side. Now then, if you're so sorely unsatisfied with my attempt to put the horse before the cart, perhaps you have an introductory paragraph in mind that describes the issue? If you do, I'd like to see it. DannyRedful 15:22, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) In all seriousness, ASchlafly, is there a context in which it would be appropriate to tell a student that topic "X" is controversial? There are many examples where the term applies without it having to be about confusing or legitimizing the opposition. Two quick examples - "Should the Mets fire Willie Randolph?", and "Did the use of poor-quality steel make a difference in the sinking of the Titanic?". Also, what would be the proper word to describe many of the debate topics here on CP, like "which day is the Sabbath Day?", where reasonable people disagree? --DinsdaleP 15:15, 13 June 2008 (EDT)