"General acceptance of polygamy"? References/evidence? Tevildo 07:28, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Wow, why don't we just create an article with something along the lines of "The following people are narrow-minded bigots"? This sort of article goes to bad places very quickly. If a person is of a conservative bent, it can be noted in articles about them; I question the need for an article like this here.--Duncan da Husky 12:07, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
The article is of interest because a group that makes up the majority of the US is such a tiny minority of the furry fandom. While the furry fandom certainly isn't a political movement, the selection of its members certainly is and it's a topic worth more discussion.
The furry church in the nexus under the FurryMUCK park was still moderately active last I saw, and there are Christian furry messageboards nearby if you want a place to go and read more about these people. Last I visisted, they moderated the board regularly and removed anti-religious trolling, so one could talk to the board owners to ask about the character of typical opposition.
I don't understand Duncan's assertion that these are automatically narrow-minded bigots; or is he trying to give an example of claims that might automatically be made on religious conservatives being identified?
- I apologize profusely if I gave the appearance that I think that all religious concervatives are narowminded bigots - I most certainly do not feel that way. My concern, ill-worded as it was, is that this article might become a magnet for the many in furry fandom that do equate one with the other and become a place to list those they might feel to be "the enemy". In retrospect (and after reading the article more closely), I realize that the notion that an article might be used for ill is not a sufficient reason to quash it.
- That being said, I think my larger concern is that the article as presented is a bit too broad and doesn't tie in with furry enough for WikiFur. Certainly there is much to write about the intersection of furry and religion, and the reconciliation and/or conflict of the two. A quick search shows that Christianity and religion in general are relatively untapped areas on WikiFur. Maybe coming at it from this direction is too specific without having dealt with some of the overarching issues first?--Duncan da Husky 15:14, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
"'General acceptance of polygamy'? References/evidence?"
"Open relationships" would be more apt.
I don't think there's anything on this page that couldn't go in a general discussion of Christianity and the fandom, and the Christian fur page is, IMO, the best place for that. Tevildo 13:23, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- I'd be inclined to generalize this article out to simply "Conservative" (which would make a pretty useful wikiword) and treat religion and progressiveness/conservatism as distinct albeit related issues. --Sebkha(talk) 13:58, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Technically, religious conservatives exist in most/all religions. The question is how this is relevant to furries. Note that they exist both in and out of the furry community, with different views on it. - Unci 11:03, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- I concur the merging. Spaz Kitty 19:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree with the merging. What of Muslim conservatives and Hindu conservatives and all other conservatives? Why does an article about religious conservatism have to fall under Christianity? That makes it sound awful biased to me.--Kendricks Redtail 04:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Article update #1 (April 17 2009)
Updating the entry's appropriateness status. Keep or delete?. Vote on Delete - Spirou 03:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, even if it's just as a workbench before merging it into an article with a wider view. If an appropriate article already exists, Merge now. --Rat 06:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)