Talk:Ole Christian Kvarme

[Untitled]
--JAJ 09:09, July 15, 2005 (UTC) Just some comments on the text regarding Bishop Kvarme.

Untitled
First of all it may not be correct to call him a very conservative theologian. Conservative indeed when compared to the liberals in the Church of Norway, but in most issues both central and in dispute within Nowegian Christendom he is a far from an extremist. Hence I would challange the description of him being a very conservative theologian, a description that would place him alongside fundamentalists in the Church of Norway.

It is correct that the Church of Norway does not have an archbishop, but it is not so that the bishop of Oslo is currently acting as the preses (primus inter pares) in the Church of Norway Bishops' Conference. The present preses is the bishop of Nidaros, bishop Finn.

--modin217.118.59.58 23:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think people should have in their thoughts that this english version of the article is not primarly made with the purpose of being reed by Norwegians. Because of that its pointless to try to make the inpression of Kvarme beeing conservative (no americans would considered him conservative), among christians in Norway he is considered mainstream. The only problem its all the Norwegian church members (we have a state controlled church, kind of like the one i China) who not considered themself christians who have the impression of Kvarme beeing a conservative. The old Bishop Gunnar Stålsett wouldn't even been considered a Christian among evangelicals in the USA (and Norway to). The article also makes the impresion that Kvarme wasn't wanted by the people in the Norwegian Church. Thats a lie he won the election among, priest and bishops in the church, and its mostly gay-rights groups, and other extremes that have been fighting agains him, using the media as a weapon.


 * Gay rights groups are 'extreme'? Anyways, proof that Kvarme is a christian conservative: Joffeloff 22:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This is so absurd. This biography is clearly biased against Bishop Kvarme, and I'm not even surprised about it, considering how "Modern Liberals" really are descendents of 19th century Progressives, who in turn had a very totalitarian vision for the society and would not tolerate any dissent whatsoever. In the past we had Josef Stalin starving the Kulaks to death and these days we have the prosecution of the Rev. Ake Green for preaching his religion. (Green is a bigot, fine, but curtailing his liberty of conscience!?) For more evidence of "liberal" (read "totalitarian") bigotry, please see the comment above. --James Chang, of Cambridge, Massachusetts

Jesus, how did I get it right every time? The priest who got passed over was a Socialist-Left (whatever that even means) politician. Now we clearly see why the totalitarians are offended :) --James Chang

I agree and have removed the rant. Examples of unacceptable POV pushing:


 * "[Valgerd Svarstad Haugland]] of the Christian Democratic Party, controversially went against Diocese of Oslo choice of Helen Bjørnøy. There was also clear opinion amongst the general public that Kvarme was not the right man for the position. It was said that Kvarme, with his conservative stand would be a step backwards in the work that his predecessor Bishop Gunnar Stålsett had started. It was said that Oslo as a multicultural city, needs someone with a more "broadminded" view. Gunnar Stålsett was renowned for his work of being a unifying and inclusive bishop, he had for instance acknowledged and ordained several gay priests in his diocese. Kvarme is outspoken against this practice and he has halted the process of ordaining more gay priests. The whole debate centered around his conservative views on homosexuality and gay priests. The debate around Bishop Ole Christian Kvarme, has made the issue of a separation of state and church a current topic in the Norwegian media."

Was this written by Gunnar Stålsett or some of his supporters? The "curriculum vitae" doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Spacecrowd 18:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Time out
Two editors have posted on my Talk page about this article, which I more or less stumbled into out of very passing interest for this field. (I'm not even a member of the Church of Norway, don't live in Norway, so I have very little personal interest in this). I'd like to see if we can get past the edit warring and would like to propose the following principles before it gets more combative: Anyone disagree with these? --Leifern 18:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Kvarme's education, publications, appointments, etc., are all relevant for this article, without it being a CV. But they shouldn't be labeled as a CV.
 * If there was controversy around his appointment as bishop of Norway, the controversy should be properly sourced and cited. Especially if it touches on broader issues such as the separation between church and state, we have to do this scrupulously.
 * I would like to avoid getting into the inner political workings of the church and its political leadership unless it's really relevant.


 * I agree whole heartedly. Side stepping around issues that he has clearly made public does a disservice to Wikipedia as a whole. If Spacecrowd does not like the way it is written, then re-write it.  Just deleting the information and pretending it never happened is not the way to go. Woodsstock 18:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not your secretary. If you want to include POV and not encyclopedic content, you have to rewrite it in an NPOV way. Spacecrowd 22:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well said, Spacecrowd. So shall we just remove that POV passage until some fair-minded liberal is able to come up with a viewpoint-neutral account for what's going on in Norway? -- James —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.96.167.224 (talk) 03:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Yes indeed, that's what we should do. Gods speed to you, good Sir! And I have reasons to believe that Gunnar Stålsett or some very close to him is the one trolling around at this article. Spacecrowd 11:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)