Talk:Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience

Related links

The fact that you don't like the comparison doesn't make it less relevant to compare this manifesto to previous conservative manifestos.

70.30.251.170 (talk) 04:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to add regarding the comment accompanying your reversion ("Removed misleading links. Whatever your thoughts on the Manhattan Declaration it is entirely unrelated to the 1960's Civil Rights movement. Link appropriate LGBT, or "choice" rights pages if necessary") that it is in fact your thoughts that you are adding to the article by removing these links. Please refer to the wikipedia NPOV policy before making further changes. The Manhattan Declaration and the article are most undeniably linked to the issues of civil rights and liberties, and to minority rights (both of LGBT individuals, and of conservative christians). 70.30.251.170 (talk) 04:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

rewrite sentence?

someone should rewrite this sentence: "The document calls for civil disobedience against laws which contradict Christian doctrines." It makes it sound as if the document makes a general call to disobey laws "which contradict Christian doctrines; this isn't precisely what the document calls for. I don't have time to think through a more precise restatement right now... Teaforthetillerman (talk) 05:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I had a go and reworked it as a qualifier to the freedom of religion part, and made specific its scope. Such a general call (which it did previously read like) isn't anywhere near what the document calls for . Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

See also?

The See also section has a link to Civil rights movement. Early in the description in the article text, however, there is a link to pro-life movement, which is the relevant subset of the civil rights movement. As categorization tries to use the most specific category in an analogous case, would it be preferable to remove the broader link? I acknowledge that this is a See also section, and not categorization, so it is only an analogy. However, having the three See alsos which would be left would dovetail nicely and elegantly with the three prongs of the document. Comments? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Freedom of conscience, religious liberty, defense of marriage and civil disobedience in defense of these do not fall under pro-life. I think the broader link is apropos. Mamalujo (talk) 05:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure you understood my concern. The document has essentially three points, pro-life, marriage, and conscience freedom. The see alsos have Christianity and abortion, Christianity and homosexuality, and Freedom of religion in the US. Those match up reasonably well to the thrusts of the document, with Civil Rights being in some sense redundant, arguably.

However, after consideration I note that the pro-life concern also includes the elderly, etc, so the civil rights blanket being championed goes beyond just abortion. In the end thus I see that my concern is not so well founded. It seems reasonable to keep the link in. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The solution might be to write Christianity and euthanasia. The euthanasia articles barely touch on religion, especially modern. Tomer^talk 21:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The euthanasia article (it more substantially forked recently) used to have a substantial amount of info on religious positions on the subject, but an editor their who feels he owns the article deleted all of that material, as well as material which noted the Anglo-American euthanasia movement's advocacy of involuntary euthanasia in the early and mid 20th century. Mamalujo (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I lack the expertise to do so, having gotten waylaid by self-interested concerns in the years since I stood for over a decade on the sidewalk holding posters of severed baby heads in protest outside the local PP, but...Sofixit? Tomer^talk 10:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Exceptions

Do we need something other than primary sources to include these exceptions? In other words, is it necessary for some other source to acknowledge or take note of the fact that these individuals refuse to sign, or is it enough that they are notable people and have written about why they are refusing to sign? Ἀλήθεια 23:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The primary sources are OK for the opinion of the sources' authors; if they are notable, it might be reasonable to include their take. To be fair, I haven't heard of any of them, but I will defer to others to deem them non-notable. I may clean up their mention a little in the meantime. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 05:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

HRC Responds to Misleading Claims by Organizations Seeking to Discriminate

This HRC Back Story should be referenced in the article.
http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2009/11/hrc-responds-to-misleading-claims-by-organizations-seeking-to-discriminate/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HrcBackStory+%28HRC+Back+Story%29
Native94080 (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Christian Order, 2010 Jan

Why remove the quotation that was quoted in this periodical, which highlighted the plight of the unborn, the disabled, and elderly? This is the key part of the Declaration, and should be here so one signing should know what they are doing. It is not "Cherrypicking". It is a terse summory of the essential enclosure of the Declaration, brought to our attention by The Christian Order. I request you undo the edit or place in the quote yourself. Why, then, quote the end (their summary) of the Declaration? This is doing the same thing, as you accuse me, so what is your yard-stick? Their summary is not as clear as the one picked out by Christian Order.

MacOfJesus (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I made the edit you refer to, and I apologize for my edit summary: it was not meant toward you or any one particular editor, rather it was a general principle. I found this new paragraph near the end of the preamble of the document, and it clearly is meant to give an overview/summary of the whole thing.

In the previous quotes (here), the first was a "whereas", a "finding of fact" type of statement laying the groundwork for the meat of the declaration itself, the affirmation in the current quote. The second is a detailed development of the third point of the declaration, freedom of religion. A specific detail without any context as to why this particular one is singled out. So I think my edit an improvement.

However, if there is a particular quote that is consistently referred to in good sources, we can add it. Long quotes should be used sparingly, however; better would be sourced commentary about the points in the declaration.

Apologies again, I can see how one might think I was singling out the previous content. I was not. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 22:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. However, I was thinking of the would-be-signee. That quote, as sourced by the Editors or the Christian Order, who spend a lot of time reading and sourcing, I feel extreemly apt for the enquiring on-looker. And that quote above all puts the finger on the crux of the matter:

It lists those severely threatened, it mentions marriage and lists those things that threaten it, it mentions freedom of religion and refers to compelings. It contains all the elements that the Declaration stands for, in a quoting form rather than an outling form. (An outling form, at this stage, can be seen as taking liberties).

MacOfJesus (talk) 11:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand exactly your train of thought, so feel free to correct me if necessary. By saying "I was thinking of the would-be-signee. That quote [...] I feel [is] extreemly apt for the enquiring on-looker.", it sounds to me like you are concerned about writing the article so as to influence the reader to take interest or even sign the declaration. Now regardless of whether that is your intention or not, it is not Wikipedia's job to do that; indeed it specifically should not do so.

I do think that if one can source (to 3rd party sources commenting about the declaration, not the declaration itself) the acknowledgement of those threats and that the declatration was a response to them, I think that would be a positive contribution to the article. Most commentary I have seen gives short shrift to actually stating the threats, or is so polemical so as to be a poor source for the article. But I actually think this would help the article, if the sources were good.

A question (feel free to take to my talk page): who are "the Editors", and "the Christian Order"? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The Article page would benefit with a list of the marginalised and threatened that the Christian Churches are defending:

1. The lives of the unborn.

2. The disabled.

3. The elderly.

4. The institution of Marriage, and the things that are threatening it.

5. Freedom of Religion and the rights of conscience.

An outline of The Pledge.

An outline of rendering to "Caesar" and to God.

MacOfJesus (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

See if you can find a third party source naming these as motivation. You may wish to google John Allen with regards to the declaration -- he writes a lot about things like this and I recall a few pieces mentioning it. He is a good source and if he described the motivations in such detail, it would work nicely. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I did do that. But is not the truth of this self-evident?

I have written on article pages, and used to historical dissertation (corrected spelling) and also written the Jung associate page: Father Victor White. I don't know how many credentials you want?

MacOfJesus (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry I wasn't more clear. This is an encyclopedia. It is not a message board, so Allen will be very unlikely to answer you on the Talk page of the article about him (if I were him, I wouldn't touch that page with a 10 foot pole). Neither is it a repository for primary source material (that would be Wikisource, I think). You need to find sources outside the project that talk about the declaration. If nobody discusses the points you wish to make, then by definition they are not notable and should not be included. I really do not understand your question about credentials, the issue here not of credentials but of reliable sources and, after that, neutral point of view. In this case the first one is the stumbling block at this time. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 05:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have left an outline of my request on John J. Allen talk page.

Perhaps I have'nt made myself clear. What I envisage is a list of what the Declaration says of itself, not what I say.

I thought the Christian Order was such.

What I want is a better article page.

The best source is the Declaration itself, speaking of itself. Perhaps, at this stage, a month after, it is the only source.

MacOfJesus (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I am starting to wonder if I made a mistake putting in any quotes at all from the declaration itself.

Let me be clear. Large-scale quoting of a primary source as the source for its own article is not recommended. One could argue, and I would be sympathetic to it, that there should not even be the one quote in there either. But I made a editorial decision to borrow a small snippet of the dclaration itself which best gives the overview/summary of the whole document. The reason why even this could be challenged is that it is my personal editorial judgement as to what the summary of the declaration is, and not a writer with reliable editorial oversight saying it, and thus another editor could come by and say no, that is not the best quote but rather this is. My motivation for having the one quote at all is that it is one less than was there previously, and yet (IMO) the reader here comes away with a better idea about the crux of the declaration even with one fewer quotes.

So where are we? Given that we keep quotes of itself to a minimum, we need to look for other reputable news sources which say "the declaration points out these issues ... as its motivation". This is an article about the declaration. It is not supposed to be a rehashing of it.

You seem to have an interest in the Christian Order periodical. Could I ask you to offer a link to something in it which is commentary on the declaration, or in lieu of that, a direct, properly attributed quote from it doing such? While I do not consider it the highest quality source, with proper attribution it could be used.

I encourage you to delete the request on the Allen talkpage. Wikipedia is not a forum or a message board, and that page is solely for use in improving the article about him. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank You.

This is why I suggested just listing the things that the Declaration was talking about without need for saying anything. Shurly that would be acceptable, to everyone, no matter what one thinks of the Declaration itself.

If we are worried about the substances of the Declaration, then why have the article page in the first place?

I will delete my comment.

I do not know anything about Christian Order, other than it is a very direct and straight publication, and long standing.

MacOfJesus (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I question the neutrality of the article. For example, it assumes that marriage is threatened; this is a view of the conservatives, but not general consensus. The Dec. certainly does not speak for itself in an encyclopedic sense; that would be simple acceptance of a controversial subject, namely, whether the authors speak for the Church generally; whether their fears reflect true dangers, and whether their alliance reflects a political, not ecclesial, congeries. Overall, there should be a section for the Christian dissent: especially, mention that the Greek Orthodox bishops have declined to endorse this document. A mention of the issues of dissent should include false ecumenism, use of the Church for political ends, and something about ecclesiology. Cyranorox (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"Civil rights and liberties" category

I deleted this because, as I have explained elsewhere, we are not, as editors, bound to take everyone's self-description on faith. No proof exists that anyone is being persecuted for their opposition to abortion or same-sex marriage; the document may very well stand as an ecumenical statement against those two things, but that does not make this a religious liberty issue, any more than "My religion won't let me serve black people, why are you suing my restaurant?" would be a religious liberty issue. Roscelese (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of groups that purport to advocate for civil liberties and people have all kinds of opinions about that, but you can't just delete the category because you don't agree with the groups concept of racial or religious civil liberties. Otherwise, radical Muslim editors might remove issues dealing with Jewish civil liberties, or someone might do the same with regard to the civil liberties of Catholics. Your same logic could be used by someone who opposes LGBT views of civil liberties. Plainly, the declaration states that it supports the defense of religious liberties and myriad reliable souces have reported that. We can't go about second guessing this with editor's opinions. Mamalujo (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any "Jewish civil liberties" movements that seek to protect Jewish servers at McDonalds from being fired because they won't serve treyf, or any "Catholic civil liberties" movements that argue that a Catholic justice of the peace shouldn't have to marry a person who's been divorced.

As I have already said, it's perfectly legitimate to say "the declaration states that it supports the defense of religious liberties," but that is not the same thing as labeling it a civil rights document. One is relaying what the declaration says about itself, and one is giving Wikipedia's purportedly neutral stamp of approval to that opinion. Roscelese (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This category is actually easy to justify. A major component of the declaration is about abortion. This is a topic obviously concerning civil rights and liberties, although different people may quibble about whose rights and liberties, and whether they are being supported or denied. So the category is clearly reasonable. I am not claiming it has to be categorized such, but am of the opinion it is preferable to do so.

A general word of advice about the article topic. While it does make some high level historical claims as background, at the end it is not a historical document in that regard, but rather a statement of position, or positions. So contrary to the first sentence of this section, we can fully expect the declaration to speak for itself. The hypotheticalness or current counterfactualness of the premises of the positions stated do not preclude discussing the positions themselves. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)