Talk:Institute on Religion and Democracy

message: 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)
thread_title: Bias

message: 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)
replies: text: Much of it is minimally altered text from About IRD on its own website. Copyvio? Tearlach 12:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge needed 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Categorization as political advocacy group 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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.http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientprofile.php?recipientID=174 Lupin413(talk) 23:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a conservative political organization