Talk:Secular Coalition for America

Neutrality
This is not a very neutral description. It is very negative towards the Christian Right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MasterOfOrion37 (talk • contribs).


 * I agree; they are negative enough by themselves.-128.42.153.163 04:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, what is it about the description that you find "not very neutral"? I see NO mention of the Christian Right.  Could it be that the vocal faithful among us are unjustifiably paranoid about anybody that doesn't share their patently insane view of the world? Joe3Eagles 19:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like some religtard has messed this article up pretty badly with incoherent drooling in the criticism section. These people are fucking stupid, can't we devise Rapture stations to euthenise them? Something like a fly zapper which would eliminate the pests and the sickness they spread. 83.70.247.123 15:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The second paragraph under criticism is irrelevant even if true. I'm deleting it. Also, I see two of the external links, "Poll finds 91% Americans believe in God" and "Fewer teens having sex" have nothing whatever to do with the Secular Coalition for America. I'm deleting them too. You don't need to resort to anti-religious polemics to see that abuse was occurring here. Banyan 06:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see some citations for this sentence: "The Secular Coalition of America has been criticized for what some perceive as intolerance and unwarranted hostility towards religions, namely Christianity." It sounds like weasel words to me and it's harmful as written but someone keeps adding it back in. 69.5.147.86 (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's been flagged as needing a citation since 1 July. It's possible that this is a point of view which has been widely stated by notable sources, and just needs citations to back it up. If the person who keeps adding it in genuinely believes it to be true, they ought to be able to find a reference somewhere. If no citation is provided by, say, 1 August, we can reasonably conclude that it's just one person's opinion, and remove it permanently. --Rbreen (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Agnostics
I wanted to explain in more detail the reason I reverted the edit that added agnostics to the list of people represented by the SCfA. One reason is that the SCfA uses the phrase "Atheists. Humanists. Freethinkers. Americans." on its web page. Another reason is the ambiguity in the definition of agnostic. 147.155.182.112 (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Secular Coalition.JPG
Image:Secular Coalition.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

NPoV and Organizational problems
Quite a few neutrality issues I'm seeing here...

The Line "The Coalition advocates that American politics espouse the complete separation of church and state established by the U.S. Constitution" takes a stance that many other groups contend to be untrue. Some groups consider seperation of church and state to be extra-constitutional. Could it not be written as, "The colalition advocates seperation of church and state"?

The mission statement at the beginning sounds more like a slogan than a factual statement. The use of the words protect, strengthen and best in such context makes this article very pro-nontheistic and while the organization is, Wikipedia is not supposed to be on any particular side of an issue.

The Administration Briefing section also shows a bias. The words "fixing" and "ending" are being used here in a way you would normally hear a politician say something like "fixing our broken tax code" or "ending life-trheatening diseases", and as such make both sound like societal blights. While that may be the organizational stance, the word choice makes it seems as though that is Wikipedia's stance.

Under Legislative focus, many government practices, such as abstinence-only education, stem-cell reasearch bans makes it seem as though there are no supporters for such programs aside from religious entities. The word "protect" with regard to military chaplains is used to demonize proselytism as something people need to be protected from. While it can be said that chaplains are not supposed to do so in a military setting, the key word "Similarly", is used to make sounds as though the government is actively supporting such actions, which it does not. The word "innapropriate", while accurate in its association with the organization's beliefs, attatches itself to the subsequent practices in the sentence. This could sway a reader toward particular stances on those issues.

This entire page's rhetoric is reminiscent of something which one would find on a political flyer or on a campaign website, and not an informative, neutral article. There are many weasel words which, while not explicit, contextually stand behind the organization, almost endorsing it. While it is important to state the views they hold, the article as it is currently written fails to consider that not everyone is in agreement with said principles.

--

Bias accustations aside, the organization of this article is a bit scattered with information overlaps and and chronological holes. The section "elected offical contest" could be put under "history". Similarly, the "administration briefing" and "congressional scorecard" sections could both be worked into "legistlaive focus". I would reccomend changes to this page both substantively and structurally.
 * With regard to the use of the terms "fixing" and "ending", I'll argue that they're appropriate here inasmuch as they're given in terms of the group's specific concerns as presented to the administration, not in terms of a general characterization of military proselytization and the faith-based initiatives program. Also, please remember to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). The Rev (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Herb Silverman
I find it amazing that wikipedia has no page for the above, while many, many lesser folk do. He has been a key player in so many issues, and indeed is mentioned in many different areas of wikipedia.

If I had the skills and time, I'd start it myself; and if I get time to learn how to start a page, I will. But meanwhile, maybe someone else ought to. Heenan73 (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)