Who all is out there?

[Mike3]

Oh all right. 1 and 2 are "technical endorsements", 3 an outright endorsement, 5 an undecided, and 4,6, and 7 are factually undisputed.

What you refer to as the "correct name" is discussed under the "nomenclature" section. I suppose you also go around talking about "the Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity" (oh wait--they have a new name now) instead of "the Unification Church" (let alone "the Moonies"),  and the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" instead of "the Mormons"...? And God only knows what we're supposed to call Prince these days...

On human unity, I think it is human nature to form competing identity groups (as the sociobiologists suggest). A politically-united world might be possible, at least temporarily, but would not be a utopia by any means--people would still compete for power and resources. In the long term, I suspect world unity will be rendered impossible due to ecological collapse (think Daniel Quinn). But I hope the Baha'is are right, and that the future looks something like the one which they expect. Whatever their flaws, they seem to be basically a good influence on the world.

On the gay issue, I think the Shoghster might be getting some unexpected support pretty soon. If I understand what I read in the newspapers, apparently the propensity of a boy to grow up to be gay has a hormonal basis which can be controlled to some extent. In other words, there might be a "cure" for some forms of gay-ness. (Of course, none of this has any bearing on whether homosexuality is "good" or not. )

For purposes of the article, I did link to a Baha'i compilation on homosexuality (which presumably expresses their opinion the way they want it expressed), and expect that readers have some basic awareness of public debates over homosexuality (or else can go look up the CZ article on it). 

For Royalist 0007:  Here's a website you might appreciate, with lots of hard-hitting exposes of those darned Mary-worshippers: http://www.landoverbaptist.org/subjectarchive/catholics.html

Thanks for the response. I don't agree on the idea that "ecological collapse" would stop "world unity" or we cannot have peace. I guess I subscribe to more free-will than you do, where you seem to insist that a _genetic_, unchangeable (unless you develop human genetic engineering. Maybe we should get the govs to lift the bans?), factor absolutely prevents people from ever being able to not compete. Personally, I think believing that it is _impossible_ to try and work together instead of competing, actually reinforces it, and thus ensures the problem continues and impedes anyone from wanting to try and change. Although I'm sure there is an intrinsic tendency to want to compete, I do not think it is insurmountable.

But wait a sec, this is turning into an opinion debate, not a useful debate for the Citizendium... I guess I felt a strong urge to voice my opinion.

Anyways, thanks for the response. I couldn't quite figure out what was what you were referring to with the "endorse/not endorse" stuff.

[Bei Dawei (Dawud)]

Oh, I think genetics are a lot more changeable than most people realize. (Think breeds of dogs.) But presumably, even with genetic engineering, evolution would favor certain types of people according to their environment. If we can't compete through war, then at least we can expect to compete through sexual selection, reproduction, and so forth.

Now imagine a global Baha'i utopia with no war, a social safety net, and a requirement of monogamy. What sort of traits would such an environment encourage? Probably, the type of person who would make an effective "free rider" (benefitting from the system as much as possible, while sacrificing as little as possible). Think of modern welfare states, or perhaps of Soviet Communism. We can easily imagine subpopulations with their own group identity subverting the system to their own ends. I suspect that world unity (should this be achieved) would inevitably carry within it the seeds of its own destruction, since there are limits to the amount of graft and corruption any society can sustain.

[Mike3]

Oh, I think genetics are a lot more changeable than most people realize. (Think breeds of dogs.) But presumably, even with genetic engineering, evolution would favor certain types of people according to their environment. If we can't compete through war, then at least we can expect to compete through sexual selection, reproduction, and so forth.

Now imagine a global Baha'i utopia with no war, a social safety net, and a requirement of monogamy. What sort of traits would such an environment encourage? Probably, the type of person who would make an effective "free rider" (benefitting from the system as much as possible, while sacrificing as little as possible). Think of modern welfare states, or perhaps of Soviet Communism. We can easily imagine subpopulations with their own group identity subverting the system to their own ends. I suspect that world unity (should this be achieved) would inevitably carry within it the seeds of its own destruction, since there are limits to the amount of graft and corruption any society can sustain.

I disagree, of course.

Anyway, let's not debate this here. This is for discussing Citizendium, not our opinions on things. We could take the debate to email, but I don't feel like debating, anyway. I'm tired of it...

[Bei Dawei (Dawud)]

Are you a Baha'i yourself, by any chance?

[Mike3]

Are you a Baha'i yourself, by any chance?

No, not yet anyway.

[David Goodman]

I have added to various religion-related topics in WP, whose principles are diametrically opposite to mine. I find it easier than to work on my own, because on things I really care about, I am more likely to get overdefensive. But when it isn't relevant to me, I can more objectively fill in missing arguments and facts.  (Obviously, I have done this with topics I know something about. I would not edit on Baha'i-- not even the punctuation.) -- DGG

[Thomas Simmons]

I think Ben Dawei has put the problem clearly. If we have anti-this or anti-that and highly compartmentalised perspectives wrting articles on hotly contested issues, we'll be locked into overtly POV'd articles on what is already--in this realm anyway--POVs. One answer may be divergent articles that are linked to each other. For example, the Filioque or Apostolic Succession. These are divergent, wildly divergent, points of view and I am of the opinon that trying to marry them in one article will simply lead to POV wars. To that end, we could simple classifiy articles according to POVs. In the case of the Nicene/Nicaene Creed and its variants, to illustrate my point,we simply carry articles representing the points of view, e.g. the Orthodox Catholic Church view in one article, the Roman Catholic Church view in another etc. My two cents

[Peter J. King]

I'm curious as to how many people out there are going to be working on religion articles. I'm interested in about twenty or thirty different religions, but would be most drawn to NRM's and Western esoteric subjects.

[...]

(Is there a religion editor, anyway? Or several editors?)

I'm interested in religions generally, but my central - and professional - interest is as a philosopher of religion.  I didn't apply for editor status here, though I'm a Philosophy editor; I've published relevant things in my area and in the anthropological area, so I might be eligible I suppose.  For the moment, though, I'll be pottering about as an author, adding articles that relate to my interests and that arise out of articles that I'm writing/editing.

Peter

[Mike MacNeil]

Hello,

I was just accepted aboard yesterday. Today, I've written my first article in the Religion workgroup, Discordianism.

I think it's safe to say I'm aboard and doing my best, though I may need practice at writing encyclopedic articles up to calibre. Cheers, all.

~~Michael

[Thomas Simmons]

While everyone is trying to get a handle on what is fair and what is fringe and other concerns, may I suggest that we simply acknowledge the differences and separate them. For example, if you want the Eastern Orthodox Church view on the Ecumenical Councils then do that as a separate article. If you want the Anglican view or the Baptist view--separate articles.

The reason is simple, at some point the mere association of the different view points (the more dogmatic the core beliefs the more important this is) in one article the greater the possibility of strife and the sort of thing we all see over at WP and want to avoid here.

So, if the Bahai or the Buddhists have a take on life after death or original sin or whatever, address that topic under that group's POV and not invite the vitriol that will inevitably ensue.

This electronic medium has greater possibilities than print so let's avail ourselves of these advantages.

[Robert Winmill]

For example, if you want the Eastern Orthodox Church view on the Ecumenical Councils then do that as a separate article. If you want the Anglican view or the Baptist view--separate articles.

The reason is simple, at some point the mere association of the different view points (the more dogmatic the core beliefs the more important this is) in one article the greater the possibility of strife and the sort of thing we all see over at WP and want to avoid here.

So, if the Bahai or the Buddhists have a take on life after death or original sin or whatever, address that topic under that group's POV and not invite the vitriol that will inevitably ensue.

This electronic medium has greater possibilities than print so let's avail ourselves of these advantages.

I think that the above is a great idea.  It will be interesting to create a mother article that can act as an entry point into the various POV articles on the specific topics.  Also the linking between the articles will allow for some interesting comparisons on POV.

[David Hoffman]

Hi, I'm a newcomer out t/here. To join in the conversation...

I agree that Wikipedia is sometimes plagued by drawn-out and sometimes unresolved processing of POV disputes.

However, what happens if every POV needs a separate article? Then you end up with massive balkanization and fragmentation. The Baptists will want control over their articles, the Jews over theirs, etc. Plus, you'll have 30 articles on soteriology, 30 on the resurrection, etc. And it doesn't stop there, because there is usually tremendous diversity within each religion, e.g., you may need 5-20 different Jewish accounts of messianism or the revealed Torah. This would not make for a university-level, collaborative and expertise-based encyclopedia, but rather a centripetal spinning off of confessional statements.

On any given religious topic, perhaps a good way to proceed would be to articulate the range of viewpoints. If there is a single, dominant viewpoint, then that one can serve as the generalizing opening of the article. If multiple viewpoints contend for dominance, I suppose the article would need to be upfront about that phenomenon at the outset.

So, I "believe..." there's no avoiding the need for some neutral understandings of religious views, for some reasonable analytical comparisons, and -- therefore -- for a civil discourse aimed at finding a sufficiently concise and neutral description for CZ purposes. Granted, it's hard work to engage in this kind of NPOV discourse, but the CZ goal is to improve upon Wikipedia's discussion process, not to avoid it. 

Anyway, glad to be here and look forward to collaborating with you on our various articles!