Talk:List of politically motivated corruption of religion caused by conservatism

Anders knew this stuff better than me, but still:
The immaculate conception may be non-scriptural, but I don't see how its declaration was politically motivated. A much better case can be made for Biblical inerrancy. Come back, Anders, we need you! Totnesmartin 21:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is not his name spelled "Andreas"? 21:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * hard to tell. Someone calls him Anders on his talk page and doesn't get corrected, but then he was an easy going chap anyway. Totnesmartin 21:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The LA Times article calls him Andreas, and I seem to recall that his own blog, "The Conservapedia Column," has that as his name as well. 23:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Title
Isn't there something a little weird about the title: "List of politically motivated corruption of religion caused by conservatism"?

I mean, "list of politically motivated" ... what? "List of ... corruptions ..." might be better but it still seems unwieldy.--BobNot Jim 09:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I figured also, it sounds better as "Politically motivated religious corruption caused by conservatism" or some such. Ace McWickedi9 09:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That would probably be a better title, but as I say below, I think the premise is a bit weird.--BobNot Jim 09:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * particularly the ""The absorption of pagan festivals and gods" bit which I also thought was strange. But it can be worked on. Ace McWickedi9 09:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Caused by conservatism?
Amazing! All the bad things in religion are apparently caused by conservatism! Including "The absorption of pagan festivals and gods" - so the Conservatives were in favour of this change and the liberals against it? "Various schisms", presumably that's because Conservatives don't agree with liberals.

Come on! Religions don't need Conservatives to do daft/cruel things. They're perfectly capable of doing this sort of stuff without any political ideology.--BobNot Jim 09:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this article has no hope so I've put up a delete template.--BobNot Jim 09:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree re deletion. This might as well say 'Those in power will use anything, including religion, to maintain the status quo.' As such it's a statement on power, not conservatism. The current version is far, far too much like an Andy insight. Silver Sloth 10:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, you're right. Andy version: All evil things are caused by Liberals.  Therefore if it is evil a liberal caused it. This article: All evil things are caused by Conservatives. Therefore if it is evil a Conservative caused it.--BobNot Jim 14:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * get rid of "caused by conservatism" - it makes the title horribly clunky, and implies that there's a "...caused by liberalism" article somewhere. In fact I'm sure it didn't have that bit at first. Totnesmartin 15:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That would give us: "List of politically motivated corruption of religion." Still a pretty crap title and it seems to have the implication that, without political interference, then religion would be pretty damn good.   Furthermore everything, at some level, could be called "political" - so we could argue for the removal of that as well.  Leaving us with  "List of corruption of religion" which, apart from also being a crappy title is pretty meaningless - implying, as it does, that all religions are somehow born pure and uncorrupted.--BobNot Jim 16:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have flushed every example that is not actually attributable to conservatism; that removal gutted the list. I am neutral on the question of vaporizing the article. 16:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not that I care that much, but how would The absorption of pagan festivals and gods (such as St. Brigid) in an effort to make Christianity more palatable to pagans. be attributable to conservatives?--BobNot Jim 16:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That was caused by conservatism in that the pagans ("conservatives" in the sense that they wanted to keep the religious situation in its pre-Christianized state) exerted some influence to change Christian practice. 17:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that just shows how weird and utterly subjective this is. Because the Christian church Conservatives would presumably be against such a change.  One can just pick and chose a point of view to decide if something is "conservative or not.--BobNot Jim 18:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I dispute that it is subjective, because we are talking here about conservatism in the political or social sphere rather than the religious sphere. 18:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that your point baffles me. You wrote above:  conservatives" in the sense that they wanted to keep the religious situation in its pre-Christianized state - which sounds like a religiously conservative point of view.  Yet you now state "we are talking here about conservatism in the political or social sphere rather than the religious sphere".
 * But anyway, as I said before, the whole article is beyond hope anyway, so debating this particular little bit of nonsense may not be too fruitful.--BobNot Jim 18:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There are those today who promote Christianity on the grounds of it being tradition. In pagan times that was often the only reason for supporting paganism, and was used by political conservatives. 18:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete
Proposed above. I strongly favour deletion. Lists of unrelated things like this are pretty execrable anyway, & this is so vaguely defined as to be meaningless. As a weak alternative, move to essay. 17:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok that's you me and Silver up for deletion.--BobNot Jim 18:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A list of random crap (Joan of Arc?), mostly with no explanation, let alone references. Rip it up and start again. This topic may have potential as an essay, but not from this strating point. Totnesmartin 18:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If anybody really thinks it's worth keeping we could always send it to fun. In the highly unlikely event that a good article is built out of it it could come back.--BobNot Jim 18:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an atrocious piece of work. Nuke it. TheoryOfPractice 19:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.  20:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)