A study in Nature showed that on technical topics the Wikipedia is about as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica. I.e., both contain errors at comparable rates. The “tinkering” was mostly on either “hot button” issues or biographies of politicians or other public figures whose staffs decided to try some resume buffing or rewriting of history. I don’t think a factual discussion of the Treaty of Tripoli would be something anyone would have a reason to sabotage, but both URLs agreed about it and only one was for the Wikipedia.

They’ve been tightening procedures where problems have occurred, but aren’t doing that “just in case”. One of the goals is to try to find the minimum level of QA you need while still providing a high-quality service, and it is easier to fix a problem when something goes wrong than to figure out if something you are doing is not necessary.

http://www.religiousinstitute.org/news

http://www.heritage.org/Resear...../hl871.cfm

Exerpt”
“Some conservative critics of the FMA fault the proposed amendment for not going far enough. They would prefer an amendment that would have the additional feature of banning even legislatively adopted state schemes of civil union and domestic partnership. I myself oppose such schemes, but I do not think it is necessary or politically feasible to attempt to deal with this issue at the federal constitutional level. So long as marriage is protected by an understanding–implicit in the terms of the FMA–that states may not create “faux marriages” by predicating rights, benefits, privileges, and immunities on the existence, recognition, or presumption of sexual conduct or relationships between unmarried persons, I am content to leave the question of civil unions and domestic partnerships to the people of the states acting through the processes of deliberative democracy.

Other conservative critics of the FMA believe that it goes too far by removing from the individual states the authority to define marriage as they see fit. Many of these critics agree that a federal constitutional amendment is needed, but believe that it should do no more than prevent the judicial imposition of same-sex marriage nationwide, whether by judicial action manufacturing a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage or by a ruling that Massachusetts same-sex marriages must be given “full faith and credit” by other states when same-sex couples from Massachusetts move into those states.”

The claim that their religious freedom might be infringed is completely bogus, of course. No clergy person has ever been forced to celebrate a wedding in this country. Their religious freedom is entirely protected, both in law and constitution. The only “right” that is not protected is their “right” to violate the equal rights of other people who do not subscribe to their same religious beliefs.

The reason for the bogus claims and fear mongering is, of course, power and wealth. They use fear of gay people to obtain power and wealth, just as their predecessors used fear of black people to obtain power and wealth.

They should stop to think, “how can we minister to these people?” If they did, they would write an entirely different document.

Loving figment of your imagination
or dangerous delusion?

… you decide.

Now discuss it amongst yourselves
– without guns and knives.

~ E. Lewis Evans (“Beneath the See” page 43)

They worship a genocidal deity who they say destroyed the world and promises to, again, a deity who seems to have a fondness for condemning and punishing. I believe that if someone worships a deity, they become like that deity. Is it really any wonder why these Christians are so condemning of others and so fond of punishment? These are the folks who are actually looking forward to the end of the world! And they say they are pro-life! They truly scare me.

Still, from recent reports of users tinkering, I don’t know if Wikipedia is exactly an unimpeachable source to be quoting either! (although personally, I’ve found it to be fairly accurate.)

The Treaty of Tripoli was signed by John Adams and drafted by
Joel Barlow, the U.S. consul-general to Tripoli. Article 11 of the treaty states: “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

Citations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli
http://www.stephenjaygould.org.....ipoli.html

The time has come to cut the head from the snake. We all have friends and relatives who attend churches and organizations who are opposed to LGBT Equality. I think the best way we can combat these groups is to take away the money.

My 90 year old Grandmother has been a practicing Catholic all her life. We have a very good relationship and she is very supportive of my partner and me. She attends Mass every Sunday. I would not dream of asking her stop.

She has decided that she will still attend Mass every Sunday but will no longer financially support the Catholic Church. When the collection plate is passed she now puts in an envelope that contains a message that due to the “church’s” inhumane views regarding LGBT Equality and Civil Rights, that the money she would have contributed to the church has been sent instead to a LGBT Equality organization.

You see, she would not dream of supporting groups like the Klu Klux Klan, the Aryan Brotherhood, or the Westboro Baptist Church run by Fred Phelps. In that regard, I spoke to her that supporting the Catholic Diocese is, in my opinion, similar to providing monetary support to those organizations. I explained that I personally found that the Catholic church, by their intolerance of LGBT Equality and huge donations to groups like the NOM, is essentially similar to providing monetary support to a group that supports the KKK, et al.

Now, I understand that many would say that we don’t have the right to tell friends and family how to live their lives or for that matter what to believe theologically. That said, personally, I believe that THEY neither own the right to tell us whom to love.

I do feel we have the right to ask them not to contribute to Churches and Organizations who would deny us our Civil Rights or Equality. By explaining our position, opening a dialogue, sharing our concerns, do we bring the opportunity to change a mind one person at a time. By explaining in withholding financial support, we find that we can ‘cut the head off the snake.

There they go again, putting limits on God’s creativity.

Peter J. Gomes, Professor of Christian Morals, Harvard University;Minister, American Baptist Church:
“Religious fundamentalism is dangerous because it cannot accept ambiguity and diversity and is therefore inherently intolerant. Such intolerance, in the name of virtue, is ruthless and uses political power to destroy what it cannot convert. It is dangerous, especially in America, because it is anti-democratic and is suspicious of “the other,” in whatever form that “other” might appear. To maintain itself, fundamentalism must always define “the other” as deviant. But the chief reason that fundamentalism is dangerous is that, at the hands of the Rev. Pat Robertson. the Rev. Jerry Falwell and hundreds of lesser-known but equally worrisome clerics, preachers and pundits, it uses Scripture and the Christian practice to encourage ordinarily good people to act upon their fears rather than their virtues.”

When you consider the reality, that there are no goblins, ghosts, spirits, elves, leprechauns, wood-nymphs, or Gods, then it becomes obvious that all churches and religion have is lies — it’s all one big lie — the biggest lie ever told.

Religious leaders know that the 1st Amendment exempts them from performing marriages of ANYONE for ANY reason. The Catholic Church refuses to perform marriages of Catholics all the time, for whatever reason they choose.

That doesn’t stop them from spreading the lie that gay marriage will FORCE them to perform gay marriages in Catholic Cathedrals by Catholic priests.

Anyone with a basic understanding of the US Constitution knows that churches cannot be forced to perform gay marriages, but Catholics want to fear-monger to prevent an form of gay marriage. They know the truth: that once gay marriage is fully legalized, they will be forced by societal pressure to accept gays, and they want to prevent that from happening at all costs.

Religious groups are allowed to reject anything against their beliefs so why this drama…

I’m sure she was a handful, but I would have liked to be around to know her.

Seems apropos to the catholic church somehow. LOL