Talk:Americans United for Separation of Church and State/Archive 1

Archive 1

nice

this organization rocks.--D-Boy 00:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sections

I factorized the article into new sections for Mission, Organization and History. Hope you like it! Terjen 02:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

"Americans United is happy to work with Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Humanists and those who profess other religious beliefs or no belief, and welcome Democrats, Republicans, Independents and those of other political affiliations who share our belief in religious liberty."

"our" is completely POV. Wikipedia isn't operated by AU, or vice-versa. This sentence should be placed inside quotation marks and cited, or removed. BLHersey 01:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, the statement in the "Mission" section sound less like an encyclopedia and more like a slogan.

"Americans United celebrates the rich religious and philosophical diversity of the United States and seeks a nation where all 
people may peacefully pursue the truth as their consciences dictate."

This statement should be modified. Agharo 19:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The preceding remarks are just a small sample of the POV of the article, which reads like a membership brochure for Americans United (and I wonder if it isn't actually quoting one). It needs a complete, objective rewriting by someone who can do things like remove propaganda and add missing historical facts (e.g., is it true that Protestants and Other Americans opposed JFK for president because he was a Catholic? something the organization would no longer be proud of). To make my position clear: I am a member of Americans United but I don't approve this as a Wikipedia article. Zaslav (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

weird at best

interesting concept, the "liberal religious left". isnt is paradoxal that a religious man is making sure that religion is not a part of public life? clearly a weird fringe group that is contributing to the division of christians and americans in general Luddz (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing paradoxical about believers wanting this separation: the Founding Fathers, overwhelmingly Christians, desired separation both to protect the church from the corrupting powers of the state and to protect the state from the influence of the church. Looking throughout European history, they saw religion used simply as a political tool, corrupting the inherent beliefs of the church. --Lenin1991 (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV, again

The entire "history" section is lightly modified press material produced by AU. Wikipedia shouldn't be used for creating vanity pages for people or organizations. I'm flagging this as NPOV. If nobody's interested in cleaning it up, should it be proposed for deletion? BLHersey (talk) 05:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I've made substantial modifications to shorten and de-POV the article. I considered the "Mission statement" to be descriptive at it stood. I tried to make the "Organization" and "History" more to-the-point and less cleaned-up (by adding their opposition to Kennedy). I'm sure more can be done, but has it improved? Zaslav (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a whole lot better. Thanks. BLHersey (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

: : I find the phrasing currently used in the last statement to be subjective and not NPOV "Americans United has become increasingly out of the mainstream" in fact the whole sentence has a number of presupositions "provide positive commencement experiences" is also a pretty subjective and unencyclopedic designation of commencements made in a church rather than a secular place. A NPOV would not state attributes like "out of mainstream" or "positive experiences" but might quote people of those opinions when relevent and noteworthy.Tjc (talk) 06:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

large segment without citations

ALL THIS CONTENT SHOULD BE DELETED IF THERE REMAIN NO CITATIONS 66.190.249.59 (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC) In 1960 AU Executive Director Glenn L. Archer entered into a dialog with presidential candidate John F. Kennedy to assess his views on church-state relations.[citation needed]

In 1962 and 1963 the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the Abington School District v. Schempp decision which struck down local government-sponsored school prayer and Bible reading in public schools. Calls soon began emanating from Congress to amend the Constitution to protect the "right to pray in school." But Americans United defended the rulings, pointing out that no branch of government has the right to compel children to take part in religious worship and that truly voluntary student prayer remained legal.

In the late 1970s and the 1980s the advocates of the Christian right, including Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority, attacked church-state separation, tried to introduce fundamentalist theology into the public schools and demanded tax subsidies for religious education. Americans United helped secure a string of court victories that turned back these attempts.[citation needed]

In the 1990s Pat Robertson formed the Christian Coalition of America. This organization demanded an end to public education and called for the “Christianization” of politics. Americans United publicized and opposed this agenda.

In recent years AU has continued to oppose religion in public schools, school voucher initiatives in the states, and “faith-based” initiatives in the federal government and in the states. AU participated in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, which concerned the teaching of intelligent design in public school science classes.

Americans United has tried to ensure that houses of worship do not endorse or oppose candidates for public office, which would violate their religious tax exemption. AU has submitted reports of possible violations to the IRS. The organization encourages its members to monitor sermons and activities in local houses of worship for illegal politicking.

: : :The statement "This organization demanded an end to public education and called for the “Christianization” of politics." remains without a valid citation and appears to be a conclusion drawing opinion / judgmental language. I recommend such entries be eliminated. 167.131.0.194 (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

uncited material from history section

In 1962 and 1963 the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the Abington School District v. Schempp decision which struck down local government-sponsored school prayer and Bible reading in public schools. Calls soon began emanating from Congress to amend the Constitution to protect the "right to pray in school." But Americans United defended the rulings, pointing out that no branch of government has the right to compel children to take part in religious worship and that truly voluntary student prayer remained legal.

In the late 1970s and the 1980s the advocates of the Christian right, including Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority, attacked church-state separation, tried to introduce fundamentalist theology into the public schools and demanded tax subsidies for religious education. Americans United helped secure a string of court victories that turned back these attempts.

In the 1990s Pat Robertson formed the Christian Coalition of America. This organization demanded an end to public education and called for the “Christianization” of politics. Americans United publicized and opposed this agenda.

In recent years AU has continued to oppose religion in public schools, school voucher initiatives in the states, and “faith-based” initiatives in the federal government and in the states. AU participated in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, which concerned the teaching of intelligent design in public school science classes.

Americans United has tried to ensure that houses of worship do not endorse or oppose candidates for public office, which would violate their religious tax exemption. AU has submitted reports of possible violations to the IRS. The organization encourages its members to monitor sermons and activities in local houses of worship for illegal politicking.

I definitely don't like that last sentence. Like all or most of this, it would need independent sources discussing it. Some of the rest doesn't mention AU. Dougweller (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Continued POV presentation

I've done some POV revisions, but the article is still heavily laden with promotional language. Sections lack citations and must have been C&P'd from AU documents. Alas, my tag is a drive-by, because I've got other irons in the fire. But I hope other editors will work to improve this article. (BTW, I fully support the goals of AU.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

"...must have been C&P'd from AU documents." On what basis do you make this assertion? Your belief...oops that's POV. Tapered (talk) 07:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

One thing I've noted on this and other similar pages is some long-time Wikipedia editors appear to wish to maintain the marketing brochure style of these organizational information pages. I find nothing wrong with denoting controversies etc., surrounding organizations as long as the information is truthful, supported by citations, and gives, as much as possible, both sides of the controversies. Unfortunately, I've had editors delete entire paragraphs because they essentially didn't like the content. If that continues the page will NEVER be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.249.59 (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

My comments on your talk page are: "You need to read the actual policy pages. WP:UNDUE is the bit that covers this. You also need to read WP:NOR. As I said, sources need to cover the entire statement you are making. Look at the section on synthesis, eg "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research.[9] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article." And the examples." You've used material about the Kentucky program targeting... where there are no sources that discuss the Kentucky program, AUSCS and the ARK. In addition, you've left out the fact that AU is backing two Baptist ministers in their complaint about the tax free status, which seems extremely relevant. You've used a pdf hosted at Answers in Genesis's website, which may or may not represent an actual filed legal document. This hasn't hit the news which is why I mention WP:UNDUE - material needs to be newsworthy to be covered - we do need some criteria as to what we include and what we don't. And all that 'allegedly' stuff is just that and doesn't belong. Dougweller (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Dougweller illustrates my point. The ENTIRE history segment has no citations, however, Doug prefers to stalk my edits on Wikipedia as he does with others instead of improving the content. Secondly he is using personal opinion to edit by using an excuse of "reliable sources" when I cited the actual state of kentucky program's website that states it targets particular types of tourism exhibits. This is why these type pages will never achieve neutrality because editors will eliminate posts they don't agree with because they don't meet their personal opinion of the organization.66.190.249.59 (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the Kentucky program says that. But our basic policy says that you can't use that to make an argument, you need a source that discusses the Kentucky program and AU and ARK. What I see is someone ignoring our policy in favor of their point of view, while making personal attacks. And WP:NPOV is probably not what you mean by neutrality. It's obviously untrue that the ENTIRE history section has no citations. I've removed the bit that isn't cited and will copy it here. Bits can be restored as we find independent sources that meet WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

As this IP has ignored my explanation of the problems, I've taken the issue to WP:FTN (FTN because the edits are mainly about Ark Encounter, which I think is fringe, not AU.). Findng problems with an editor's edits and then looking at edits to other articles is not WP:Hounding. My advice is meant to help the IP, my deletions to ensure the article follows our policy and guidelines. Note we don't use court documents normally, see WP:RS. And the Courier-Journal article doesn't mention AU. Dougweller (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Quote

The quote from the City Councilman in Fort Thomas is really an out of place irrelevant insertion. The topic of this article is the organization, Americans United, not Answers in Genesis, not the Ark project, etc. That quote should go on a page about the Ark controversy. This page is not that page.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 06:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Voices United

I can find [1] (Algemeiner Journal), [2] and [3], If it's replaced, we'd want to mention Russell Brand, Sarah Silverman, Mary Gauthier, Catie Curtis, Kelley Hunt, etc. Their participation may be enough to add it back to the article. Dougweller (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)