Difference between revisions of "Talk:Federal Reserve System"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(AFD)
Line 16: Line 16:
  
 
This article needs AFD or major rewrite.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 10:47, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
 
This article needs AFD or major rewrite.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 10:47, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
:Rewrite.  It's a real organization, and belongs in an encyclopedia.  --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 07:18, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Revision as of 11:18, May 6, 2007

Hmmm...wonder why people are so quick to mention that the past fed chairmen were Jewish? Anti-semitism by any other name....Czolgolz 15:00, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I thought this was Conservapedia, not Politically Correctpedia. The religious views of prominent people are important to mention because only Christians are capable of faithfully leading this country, its scientific endeavors, and its economy in ways that please the Lord. If you don't think so, feel free to make changes here and at Albert Einstein, Max Born, John von Neumann, Existentialism, etc. All of these articles (and many more) point out the religious affiliations of people. Besides, why only highlight the mention of Jews? I also mentioned Ayn Rand's atheism, but that didn't seem to bother you. SRogers 17:13, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Exactly. It's common to list someone's religion in their biography page, not on a government agency page. You wouldn't say 'The Theory of Relativity was developed by the Jew, Albert Einstein,' or 'the movie 'Die Hard' starred Bruce Willis, a reform Jew.' So only Christians are capable of leading this country, its science and economy? Hmmm...maybe we need a series of laws, preventing Jews from holding public office, attending university, or owning businesses...sound familiar? Czolgolz 17:44, 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 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. 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. Czolgolz 18:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

AFD

This article needs AFD or major rewrite.--PalMDtalk 10:47, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Rewrite. It's a real organization, and belongs in an encyclopedia. --Gulik2 07:18, 6 May 2007 (EDT)