Talk:Institute on Religion and Democracy

Bias
Someone with knowledge of the issues involved and without the bias apparent in the current entry should revise the content in toto.

I note, for example, where the entry supposedly claims that a co-author of a book critical of IRD also admits that his work is groundless and based on flimsy evidence:

"The process, which she called "steeplejacking", is allegedly done against the wishes of the majority of the original congregants. However, these allegations have never been proven, with coauthor John Dorhauer acknowledging that there is no hard proof in the book and that his theory and allegations are entirely based on flimsy circumstantial evidence."

The footnote links to an IRD source. It should be noted that contrary to the assertion therein, that the co-author did NOT confess that his work was groundless. It should also be understood that "circumstantial evidence" is probative and used in courts of law.

It appears that IRD is a political action group funded by right-wing funders such as the Bradley, Scaife & Olin family foundations. "Scaife", for example, is the right-wing instigator of the so-called Arkansas Project which funded the character assassination program against former President Clinton and which was exposed by one of the former participants in David Brock's Blinded by the Right. LAWinans (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Untitled
The contents of this page have been modified in a way that casts IRD in a suspicious, negative light. It is not at all NPOV and ought to be thoroughly edited in order to contain "just the facts" and not speculation and alleged purposes. 24.16.116.74 23:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)JDB

Nearly all of this article is written from the IRD perspective, seemingly by an IRD supporter. This is hardly NPOV. -- The Anome 11:38, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Much of it is minimally altered text from About IRD on its own website. Copyvio? Tearlach 12:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

As of Dec 22 2005 the page is written from a POV suspicious of and derogatory towards IRD. [The preceding comment was contributed by 65.121.28.16 on 22:18, 22 December 2005]

The article seems to have swung from PRO organization to decidedly ANTI, all the goals of the Org are quoted as "alleged." Hardly NPOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinmasters1 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge needed
There is a (mistitled) article at Institute for Religion and Democracy about the same entity. Both that article and this one are of rather low quality in terms of writing and sourcing. I have no comment Re: POV. -- 18.252.6.117 02:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Categorization as political advocacy group
"Following the Money", an article by Jim Naughton in the Washington Window (the diocesan magazine of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington), claims that they "waged an aggressive media campaign in support of the Reagan administration's policies in Nicaragaua, El Salvador and elsewhere..."--Bhuck 08:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Jim Naughton not considered neutral
Naughton is an officer of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, whose policies and actions are criticized by IRD and its related organizations. He's not an independent reporter. It would be necessary to refer to him in that capacity when citing him. -- Mangoe 16:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The likelihood of finding anyone who is "neutral" who has written on this topic is low. The question I would raise is: What religious organizations does IRD support?  I looked at their own websiten and it is pretty clear that the mission is mianly around influncing policy. From the website:


 * "As a result we work, by our very nature as an organization, at the intersection of faith and politics. And there is not a more controversial place to be in America today.


 * There are those who say great barriers should be erected around that intersection and no one should be allowed to enter. Faith and politics should have no intersection and must be kept separate.  Others—both those on the political left and on the political right—wish to have exclusive rights to the turf, defining what kind of faith will influence politics, defining how faith will influence politics, and excluding all others from the conversation.  Still others believe that faith has a legitimate role in defining who we are as a nation and how we govern ourselves and that all faith voices are welcome onto (to change the metaphor) a level playing field.


 * The IRD is in that third category. We believe that faith and politics not only do go together, but, in fact, must go together in order to have a healthy political order and realistic, useful public policy.  Helping to restore of the role of religion in giving moral definition and direction to public life and policy is central to our mission."


 * Read the Issues - it reads as a right wing manifesto. But the complaint here is that they desire to be seen as mainstream and centerist, while the churches they criticize should be viewed as left of Lenin. --Think outside (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a conservative political organization
The characterization of IRD as a conservative political organization is not neutral point of view. This is not how IRD sees itself and instead this is the theory of people who criticize IRD. IRD views itself as a religious organization. The article needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view. It is currently biased. Dmberkley 08:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * They are a conservative organization. To say they aren't would itself be biased since you would be covering up their ideological roots.    If you look at whom they receive money from, they are all politically  conservative organizations.   They have received financial support from conservative organizations such as the Castle Rock foundation, John M. Olin Foundation, Scaife Foundations, The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, ect. Lupin413(talk) 23:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lupin413 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)