Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Computer mouse

2008-09-07T22:36:18Z

American78: New page: A computer mouse is a small (3-inches) device that controls a 2-dimesional pointer on a computer screen. ==Features== Computer mice always have two features, something on the bottom(a las...

A computer mouse is a small (3-inches) device that controls a 2-dimesional pointer on a computer screen.
==Features==
Computer mice always have two features, something on the bottom(a laser, or trackball)to sense motion and move the pointer around on the screen, and a button to click. Modern mice also have scroll wheels on top to help scroll and right-click buttons which provied a variaty of different functions.[[http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa081898.htm]]
==Origin==
Computer mice were invented in 1964 by Douglas Engalbart. [[http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa081898.htm]]
==Accuracy==
Accuracy depends on: 
{{blockquote|Size of the optical sensor -- larger is generally better, assuming the other mouse components can handle the larger size. Sizes range from 16 x 16 pixels to 30 x 30 pixels.
Refresh rate -- it is how often the sensor samples images as you move the mouse. Faster is generally better, assuming the other mouse components can process them. Rates range from 1500 to 6000 samples per second.
Image processing rate -- is a combination of the size of the optical sensor and the refresh rate. Again, faster is better and rates range from 0.486 to 5.8 megapixels per second.
Maximum speed -- is the maximum speed that you can move the mouse and obtain accurate tracking. Faster is better and rates range from 16 to 40 inches per second. }}

Blasphemy

2008-09-07T22:18:11Z

American78:

'''Blasphemy''' is the defaming or disrespectful use of the name of [[God]].

[[Judaism]] in the [[Old Testament]] states the following about blasphemy:

<blockquote>Those who speak blasphemy "shall surely be put to death". ([[Leviticus]] 24:16)</blockquote>

[[Christianity]] also mentions blasphemy in the [[New Testament]]

<blockquote>But whoever blasphemes against the [[Holy Spirit]] never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin. ([[Gospel of Mark|Mark]] 3:29)</blockquote> In context, this is considered to be attributing the works of God to [[Satan]]. The teachers of the law acknowledged that [[Jesus]] was curing people of evil spirits, but then accused [[Jesus]] of having the power to drive evil spirits out of people because He Himself was possessed by an evil spirit. (Mark 3:22)

== Blasphemy Laws ==
Due to the Judeo-Christian heritage of America, many states had laws against blasphemy, some of which are still on the books today.<ref>[The General Laws of Massachusetts, http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-36.htm Chapter 272, Section 36].</ref><ref>Mich. Comp. Laws [http://law.onecle.com/michigan/750-michigan-penal-code/mcl-750-102.html Section 750.102]</ref> <ref>Mich. Comp. Laws [http://law.onecle.com/michigan/750-michigan-penal-code/mcl-750-103.html Section 750.103]</ref>

In the [[United Kingdom]], blasphemy laws are in the process of being removed from the books.

In Many [[Islamic]] countries, blasphemy was and still is punishable by death.

==Bible==
Matthew 12:22-32
{{Cquote|"Then there was brought to Him a demon-possessed man who was blind and dumb, and He healed him, so that the dumb man spoke and saw. 23And all the multitudes were amazed, and began to say, "This man cannot be the Son of David, can he?" 24But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, "This man casts out demons only by Beelzebub the ruler of the demons." 25And knowing their thoughts He said to them, "Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself shall not stand. 26"And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then shall his kingdom stand? 27"And if I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? Consequently they shall be your judges. 28"But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. 29"Or how can anyone enter the strong man’s house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house. 30"He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters. 31"Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 32"And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the age to come,"}}
==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Sin]]

User talk:American78

2008-09-07T15:44:56Z

American78:

== Important Notice ==

:Cheer up, matey! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:44, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

Note the pathetic attempt at sarcasm. Feel free to do whatever you want here. ''Me Casa y Su Casa''. Or whatever. Hey wait! you're that crazy user who keeps getting blocked, aren't you--[[User:American78|American78]] 11:15, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
::I'm not, but you might be. Learn to take a joke - I was only responding to the dourness of your original message, and it's your page, so remove it if you so desire. And there's only one 'p' in opinionated, btw. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:28, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

User talk:American78

2008-09-07T15:43:58Z

American78:

== Important Notice ==

Before anyone posts anything here for whatever reason, please remember that I am an opinionated YEC and do not take kindly to vandalism. {{unsigned|American78}}
:Cheer up, matey! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:44, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

Note the pathetic attempt at sarcasm. Feel free to do whatever you want here. ''Me Casa y Su Casa''. Or whatever. Hey wait! you're that crazy user who keeps getting blocked, aren't you--[[User:American78|American78]] 11:15, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
::I'm not, but you might be. Learn to take a joke - I was only responding to the dourness of your original message, and it's your page, so remove it if you so desire. And there's only one 'p' in opinionated, btw. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:28, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

User talk:American78

2008-09-07T15:43:37Z

American78:

{{welcome|sig=[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:27, 2 September 2008 (EDT)}}

== Important Notice ==

Before anyone posts anything here for whatever reason, please remember that I am an opinionated YEC and do not take kindly to vandalism. {{unsigned|American78}}
:Cheer up, matey! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:44, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

Note the pathetic attempt at sarcasm. Feel free to do whatever you want here. ''Me Casa y Su Casa''. Or whatever. Hey wait! you're that crazy user who keeps getting blocked, aren't you--[[User:American78|American78]] 11:15, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
::I'm not, but you might be. Learn to take a joke - I was only responding to the dourness of your original message, and it's your page, so remove it if you so desire. And there's only one 'p' in opinionated, btw. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:28, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

Mayflower

2008-09-07T15:24:19Z

American78:

The '''Mayflower''' was one of the first [[ship]]s to sail and bring [[Christianity|Christians]] from [[England]] to what was then the [[New World]]. British [[Puritans]] yearned to establish a Christian society free from the religious oppression that they had faced in England.

==Context==
The Pilgrims were part of the group known as Leiden Seperatists, a religious group from Shouthampton who wanted complete autonomy from England. Leiden Seperatist were constantly harrassed by [[Anglican]] agents and could not legally worship in the way that they wanted to. They first tried to get to the [[New World]] via the small brig ''Speedwell'' on July 22, 1620, and then again on August 15. However, leakage problems force the crew to return to Southampton. [http://www.pilgrims.net/plymouth/history/mayflower.html]

==Voyage==

Under the [[Captain Christopher Jones]], in 1620 one hundred and two [[Pilgrims]] made a 3,000 mile voyage from England to America during autumn storms. When it left England there were three pregnant women and a crew of 25-30. Food was usually oatmeal, peas, pork, fish, beans, cheese and other foods that could be stored for long periods of time. The Mayflower could carry 180 large barrels of food storage along with Pilgrims furniture and tools.

Pilgrims spent 65 straight days living in the ships hold with no privacy and only a chamber pot for a toilet. They were not prepared for the rough waters of their long voyage. They suffered injuries from being thrown against the walls as the wind and wave tossed the ship. Besides the injuries many were seasick. At sea, Elizabeth Hopkins gave birth to a son she named Oceanus. After the Mayflower anchored in Provincetown harbor off the tip of [[Cape Cod]], Susanna White gave birth to a son she named Peregrine(one who has made a journey). The Mayflower then sailed across the bay and anchored at [[Plymouth Harbor]] where Mary Allerton gave birth to a stillborn son. One passenger died while at sea three days before land was sighted and one crew member also died.

The ship's passengers made the [[Mayflower Compact]], a set of laws they would follow upon landing in [[America]].

==Sources==

Caffry, Kate The Mayflower (1974)
Gill, Crispin, Mayflower Remembered (1970)

[[Category:United States History]]
[[Category:Ships]]

User talk:American78

2008-09-07T15:15:00Z

American78:

Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany

2008-09-07T14:22:59Z

American78: /* Personal edit counter */ new section

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center></noinclude>
=General Messages=
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany/Archive1|1]] [[Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany/Archive2|2]]

== Question about Ten Most Viewed Pages ==

Your ten most frequently viewed pages includes 9 entries featuring the word "homosexuality." This seems strange to me, especially as some of the entries are relatively new. Is there a possible alternative explanation for those sites showing up on the Top Ten, besides their popularity? I don't understand much about computers, but, for example, perhaps people have set up computers that repeatedly open up web pages on a particular site, just to skew the numbers?

Thank you. {{unsigned|Harpers}}
: I don't think the server logs would have that information. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:06, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::Recommendation: Maybe you guys can track possible abuse using www.sitemeter.com or google analytics? [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 18:54, 11 December 2007 (EST)

==Page move request==
Could someone please move [[Ann Widdicombe]] to Ann Widdecombe (correct spelling). [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 13:57, 5 December 2007 (EST)
:Done. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 14:59, 5 December 2007 (EST)

== Account Creation suggestion ==

Although I saw the comment that account creation is only allowed at certain times, it might be a good idea to let potential users know what these times are. It took me several attempts over two days to eventually "strike lucky". {{unsigned|Unclebill}}

:I agree. It took me a few times to realise that you could only make an account at certain times during the day. I was trying to find how to make an account last night and gave up. Luckily, I found out an hour or so ago.--[[User:Joel|Joel]] 20:39, 25 December 2007 (EST)
::Sorry you both had troubles registering. I'm sure the relevant people will take note of your issue and maybe something will be added to the registration page [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 20:45, 25 December 2007 (EST)
:::Agreed with all of the above, but I'm not sure where the info should be added.
:::*The registration page is (if I recall correctly - my memory is acting up right now...) not accessible when account creation is disabled, so it would be of little use there ("If you can read this, you can register" is amusing, but not terribly helpful :P).
:::*On the Login page, it might look a bit distracting (as the majority of users already has an account, so the info would be of little use for them).
:::Maybe our techies can hack up something to the effect of always having the "Register account" link available, but having it point at a "We're sorry, but account creation is currently disabled. Please try again at X o'clock in timezone Y" page? (I believe we have a Help page to that effect, but I also believe it's not exactly prominently linked for users who are new to the site). --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 20:53, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== Admin Question ==

How is it possible to become an Admin to help keep people from being stupid? {{unsigned|Sohsowski}}
:Admins aren't here to do that. Admins carry out essential maintenance of the site. One tip might be: "not to register an account and then throw mud at one's fellow editors" however :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 20:23, 25 December 2007 (EST)

==Logo request==
I'd like to create a link to Conservapedia on my websites. Can you provide a jpg of your logo? {{unsigned|Usmale}}
:[[Image:Conservapedia_logo.png|right|100px]] Current Conservapedia logo - Copyright 2007 Philip Beach --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 15:43, 29 December 2007 (EST)
::Um... no? It looks similar, but it's definitely different. [http://www.conservapedia.com/skins/common/images/conservlogo.png The actually used file] - different "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" font, and slightly different "Conservapedia" lettering. Can be easily seen when you look at the positions of the "v" and the last "a" in relation to the background. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 17:17, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::: Here you go.
::: [[Image:Conservlogo_logo_highres2.png|thumb|350px|left]]

[[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:03, 28 January 2008 (EST)

{{clear}}

== Found A Cuss Word ==

In the Userbox Index, there is a cuss word in a userbox in the uncategorized section.

It's called User lies and stats

In your third commandment, your call for family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language pages.

a kid could easily stumble into it.

I'm just trying to help Conservapedia.

'''Edit:'''

Opps, I didn't realized that I doubled posted, I thought that it didn't make it, sorry. Delete the other one please.

{{unsigned|EkulR29}}
: I see that Fox has deleted the template, and I've now deleted the link to it in the uncategorised index. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:26, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Confused by this message at my talk page ==

"Come back next year, when you're serious about helping write encyclopedia articles."

I didn't think there was restrictions on creating articles.{{unsigned|User:EkulR29}}

:I can't speak for why you were blocked, but the "next year" thing was a joke, I think. You were blocked on December 31st for one day, so "next year" would only be one day later. 15:33, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:: You say it was 31st December, but when I look at his page history, it says that the message was left at 09:02 on 1st January, 2008. Of course, that is according to my time zone settings. What time zone is EkulR29 in? Yes, the message has 17:02 on 31st December on it, but at the very least, that could be "confusing".
:: EkulR29, I suspect that Ed Poor's comment may have been because you have made about 60 edits so far, only four of which were to anything other than this page and your user page. In other words, you seem to be more concerned with telling us about yourself (which is okay in itself) than with actually helping write an encyclopedia.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:11, 3 January 2008 (EST)

== How do you? ==

Ask for a change on a protected page? And is there any way to ask for a page to be unprotected? I imagine any vandalism could be fairly quickly reverted on many pages anyway. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 22:39, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:To ask for a change on a protected page, ask on that page's talk page. To ask for a page to be unprotected, it's best to ask the Administrator who protected it. If that is not practicable, ask another Administrator. If you ask on the page's talk page, the first administrator to notice it could unlock it, but it's possible that nobody will notice for a while. If you ask on an Administrator's talk page, that Administrator should notice very quickly if they are on, or as soon as they next log on, but that might take a day or so (assuming they are not on holidays). If you choose to ask more than one administrator on their talk pages, let them know that you have asked others. Of course, in all such cases, your request might be declined. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:52, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Editing Help ==

I am having a hard time editing articles. Could you explain me how to go about that process? I'm used to using wikipedia, where they just have an edit button by the text, but here at Conservapedia I can't seem to find the edit button. Please help!
:Same as on this page; third tab from the left at top of article. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 21:21, 11 January 2008 (EST)

== Uploading an images or images ==

How do I obtain upload privileges? I want to upload a picture on a page.

Christopher Persaud

You hang around for a long time until you are trusted with them. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Election08|Vote for President]] 15:29, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Please be more specific. Thanks. {{unsigned|Cperlobo}}

:If you have a specific image you want to be uploaded then please submit it at [[Conservapedia:Image_upload_requests|image upload request]]. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:35, 27 January 2008 (EST)

: See [[Conservapedia:User rights|User rights]] (Requesting further rights), which is linked from [[Conservapedia:Editor's guide|Editor's guide]] which is in the welcome box on your talk page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:16, 27 January 2008 (EST)

== Firefox search bar ==

I'm not sure what is involved technically, but I use Mozilla Firefox as my internet browser and regularly use the search bar in the top right for Google and Wikipedia searches. Though this search bar recognizes Conservapedia as a possible search engine, Firefox won't allow me to add it as one. The message
Firefox could not download the search plugin from:
http://www.conservapedia.com/opensearch_desc.php
appears. I don't know if this is the correct place to report technical problems (or if you are already aware of this), but I thought I should report it. Is there a reason for this? [[User:Hampshire2600|Hampshire2600]] 20:10 29 January, 2008 (EST)

== Enlisting College Student Help ==

I'm a member of a campus conservatives organization, and I think Conservapedia could definitely benefit by enlisting the help of college students to improve the quality of articles, as well as expand Conservapedia's contents. I might recommend creating some sort of program to encourage campus conservative groups to have a part in Conservapedia's development? Thanks! [http://www.honor-bound.org Honorbound Conservatives] [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 19:21, 5 February 2008 (EST)

== "In The News ==

Under "in the news" on the "Main Page" there is this entry:
Liberal denial has begun for NIU killings: "Grad student killer didn't fit the profile," screams the Associated Press.
In fact, the killer did fit the profile of a public school-trained atheistic: dressed in all black, was an above-average student (at age 27!), and obsessed with self-injury.

The above entry implies that all people who have attended public school fit the profile of someone who would murder people. This is a woefully inaccurate and unwise statement. There are other ideas I would like to share concerning the inappropriateness this entry, but it I would not want these additional comments to become public.

{{unsigned|Blazer}}

== Question about Religion ==

Hi, I'm an atheist who stumbled upon this website after a friend told me about it. I am a Liberal, and although I disagree with some points you present on this site, one thing I found has truly offended me. In the artible "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia", the page begins with a graph showing the number of Wikipedia users by religion. It shows a large amount atheists compared to other religions. First of all, I read this as being considered a "problem", and I would like to know why. Secondly, I assume from the "Daily Bible Verse" that an overwhelming amount of Conservapedia users are Christians. Is that better? I assure you I'm not here to stir up a controversy, I'm just puzzled and would like a straight answer. [[User:VonShroom|VonShroom]] 19:59, 23 February 2008 (EST)
:Perhaps the graph needs more explanation, but (not having put it there myself), I'd say that it's to illustrate the cause of much of the bias, with the number of atheists editing on Wikipedia being quite out of proportion of the number of atheists in society. Yes, a large proportion of Conservapedia users are Christians. This is more in proportion with their representation in society, particularly American society (where most of the editors would be from) and even if this were not so, Conservapedia is explicitly conservative, not neutral, as Wikipedia ''claims'' to be. Furthermore, I would claim that Christianity is the only true religion. People of other religions, including atheism, disagree, of course, but in most cases consider ''their'' religion to be the only correct one, so Christians are not alone in believing their religion to be correct. Atheists often claim that we shouldn't claim to be the correct religion because we can't know for sure, or they are ''all'' subjective, or some similar reasoning, but rarely substantiate this claim, and usually exempt their own beliefs from this statement on the self-serving grounds that atheism is not a religion (if you think that way, please read the [[Religion]] article). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:47, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== UKIP ==

The current article on UKIP is a direct copy from Wikipedia. Administrators/sysops might care to check this and take appropriate action [[User:Koba|Koba]] 11:13, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:I've reverted it and given the editor a 1-day block. Repeats will be dealt with more severely. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 11:15, 1 March 2008 (EST)
::You don't waste much time - I hadn't even finished writing my first message! [[User:Koba|Koba]] 11:17, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:::I'm watching recent changes as I listen to the sport on TV so I spotted the plagiarism before I saw your message. It's always a big giveaway when the text is riddled with red-links and calls to templates that we don't have here. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 11:21, 1 March 2008 (EST)

== Grammatical errors ==

Hi,
I just looked up Palestine in Conservapedia and found two errors in the first few lines. Do you have editing and correcting capability? I love the idea of this website to combat the terrible Wikipedia, but to be taken seriously you must have a way to correct grammatical errors and awkward sentences. Otherwise, people won't use the website for reference.
Thanks,
Barb
bhhawley4@gmail.com

:Yes, when you go to most pages there is an "edit" tab at the top. Please correct our grammar and sentence structure if you see something that needs work! It's rare, but we sometimes make mistakes ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:39, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== A Call For Conservapedia's Rise to Activism ==

While the left continues to deride just about any effort the right makes to build a solid knowledgebase on the web, I saw in Conservapedia from its earliest days an opportunity to really build a powerhouse of information. In today's age of information warfare (between corporations, nation-states, and political organizations), managing vasts amounts of information has now become key in gaining the upper hand in any dispute.

I confess, I'm merely a small fish among thousands here, so I have no idea what major priorities the admins of this site are currently working on. Does Conservapedia have plans to become a powerful political tool for serious students and leaders within the conservative movement, or is it just a hobby? Think about it: there exists no alternative general conservative knowledgebase out there. Conservapedia is the only major conservative wiki (that I know of) that can fill a great need within the conservative movement. But I'm not sure that we're using this opportunity toward having an immediate impact on the world of politics today.

I say this, because anytime there's a news article or editorial that comes up, I like to look up the political background and information behind people and organizations. And unless the personality is unavoidably famous, my searches on this site turn up nothing. Maybe this is because much of what Conservapedia focuses on are broad issues, categories, scientific and religious doctrine rather than the current big players in today's world?

Consider that this is an election year. In political terms, we are now in a state of war, and the battle is about go nuclear once the Democrats crawl their way out of the mess they're in. But you wouldn't know it when you look at the most recent edits on this site. With so many registered users, why isn't there a concerted effort to dig up and record every detail of each candidate's career and policies? There are literally hundreds of conservative blogs out there recording precious intel that could be of great use to someone looking for a central location to find all that info. But much of the info you see here on [[Obama]], for example, is mostly biographical.

I may be way off base in posting all of this, but I'm wondering, are there any plans like I'm describing already underway, or is this just beyond Conservapeida's priorities at this time? [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 22:33, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

: We welcome suggestions and criticisms but, frankly, I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. Your only example is our [[Obama]] entry, which you complain is "mostly biographical." But what else would one expect about a political candidate, particularly one who has no clear beliefs of his own?

: As to the supposedly great conservative blogs, I'm not sure what "precious intel" they are conveying that isn't in our entries. If you're referencing gossip, that's not going to make a difference and we're not going to waste time on it.

: We welcome your contributions, and perhaps in reviewing those we can learn what you have in mind. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:51, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], the kinds of "blogs" I consider to be higher quality are [http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com littlegreenfootballs.com], [http://www.hotair.com hotair.com], and so on. These, I consider to be semi-reliable sources of cutting edge news, and they come out daily with useful information that would be handy in debates about the current Democratic candidates. If we think of an Conservapedia as an ocean of archived knowledge, then such news blogs can be endless fountainstreams of new information. All of us, who have been following the election process closely will easily recall many of the reasons why, for example, Barack Obama would be a terrible president. From the Reverend Wright comments, to his most recent remark about "clinging to guns or religion," to even more recent uncoverings of his promises to abortion lobbyists: "Well, the first thing I'd do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act." But a couple of years from now, few of us will remember those important details to pass down to those who come after us.

::You can be sure Obama will continue to paint himself as someone who can "trascend party lines," but everything about the man's ''political'' (as opposed to merely ''biographical'') history paints a very different picture. In short, suppose Conservapedia were developed into an information war machine, where most efforts during the election season would be used to collect the newest and latest information that would be useful for sustaining the conservative movement? I hope I'm making sense. [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 14:55, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

: I might be a touch at odds with Aschlafly's aims here, but one problem I have with your (Alexander's) post is that it appears very American-centric. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:05, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]], I don't mean to offend your sensibilities by focusing my earlier remarks toward an exclusively American audience. I acknowledge we Yanks have like-minded friends in other countries, but the reason for my message being tailored to U.S. citizens is because ours happens to be the one nation currently embroiled in a very hotly contested election season, where the future of conservative values is at stake. Additionally, one might well accuse this entire web site of being American-centric... just look at the logo! [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 14:55, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

== Question ==

I saw up above that it's ok to copy things if you wrote them yourself. What if you didn't write them yourself, but the information is entirely accurate and you give sources? Like Wikipedia's stuff on math is really good and I'd like to work on that (as a place to start!), but if we can't use that stuff, then I'll start from scratch. [[User:OhioChris|OhioChris]] 12:40, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:You can use their sources as a starting point, but our copyright clauses are incompatable so you can not actually copy the text itself. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:42, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Kind of funny ==

This site is kind of funny, and it's rather nicely done to be convincing that it's serious, I especially like the American flag logo thingy, that's hilarious, but it's still somewhat lacking, are there any really amusing articles here? [[User:Frank88|Frank88]] 23:38, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:An American flag logo is hilarious? Nevertheless, I'm glad we have brightened up your day. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:40, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::Well ya, in its context, as an ironic symbol of conservatism, also the way it's displayed as Americans tend to do as if it's a symbol of greatness, it's a good parody. [[User:Frank88|Frank88]] 23:48, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Okay, whatever. Please familiarize yourself with the [[Conservapedia Commandments]] before editing. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:51, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Oh, I was hoping those would be funnier, I don't really like uncyclopedia, but this site has the potential to be funnier. [[User:Frank88|Frank88]] 23:55, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

== Website search option ==

Hello,
Please move the search box higher on the page, so when you open Conservapedia you can type into the Search box without having to scroll down to find it. I can't imagine why the search box is so low on the page that you have to scroll down.

Also, It's difficult to find a link to contact Conservapedia! Phew! You should make it easier to contact you with questions.

I love Conservapedia and I hope it becomes MUCH bigger than Wikipedia!

Thank you,
Barb
: I agree that it's a problem, and I've looked before into changing it. There appears to be only two ways to do so. One is simply to reduce the size of the menus above it (which means eliminating some entries) and the other (although I'm not certain about this one) is to put it above "master control". In other words, it's not possible to put it between "master control" and "help" or between "help" and "supreme court". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:55, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

== Front page ==

El que se sieta como rey en los cielos se rie, El Senor se burla de ellos! (Translated to English: He who sits in the heavens laughs, the Lord scoffs at them!). It should read "El que se '''''sienta'''''.... I would just like a project that I'm going to work on to not have an error on the front page. It on the part about castro. An accent should also be above the "E" in "El".Thanks--[[User:Die4Dixie|Die4Dixie]] 17:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

== Trouble editing some pages ==

I noticed several duplicate Supreme Court Case articles, so I tried to turn the shorter versions of them into redirects. However, my changes are not being shown. This is especially strange because if you hit "edit" it shows my changes, but the actually article does not.

Here are the articles I am having trouble with:

[[Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc'y]]

[[CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Georgia State Board of Equalization]]

[[Dred Scott v. Sanford]]

I apologize if these mistakes are somehow my fault. '''[[user:FernoKlump | FernoKlump]]''' 20:26, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

:Hmm, nevermind. Whatever the problem was it seems to be fixed now. '''[[user:FernoKlump | FernoKlump]]''' 20:36, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

== Protecting titles of deleted articles ==

There are a lot of titles in [[Special:Allpages]] that aren't family friendly. Now that you have a new version of MediaWiki installed, you should use the protected titles functionality, as shown in [[Special:Protectedtitles]], instead of redirecting to [[Conservapedia:Deletedpage]]. That way, they won't show up in the index. [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Protected_titles This link] at mediawiki.org gives more information. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 23:28, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Web problems ==

Is there some kind of problem with the CP server? When I click on a link in the site lately, I get a "cannot display the webpage" message, and I have to go back and try again, sometimes 3 or 4 times, before I get to the page I want. This even happens when I submit edits. I don't think it's a a problem with my computer because all non-CP webpages load with no problem. Has anyone else noticed this?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 18:30, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Happens to me about 80% of the time. So frustrating! And it's definitely happening to other people, I've seen it mentioned.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 20:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

As if August 2, it's been completely smooth sailing for three days or so. Whoever fixed it, thanks.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 17:30, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

== Photon ==

This page has been heavily vandalized with some sort of HTML script (I think, I'm not really an expert.)
I don't know to fix it, so could someone with a bit of computer know-how go in and sort it out?
:It's a problem with the "jargon" tag. I've edited the tag out of that article for now. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 09:59, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

== Personal edit counter ==

My personal edit counter shows zero, even though I have added at least 5 external links, various quotes, and created a new article. Why?--[[User:American78|American78]] 10:22, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

Ainu

2008-09-07T14:17:34Z

American78:

[[Image:Ainu.jpg|right]]
The '''Ainu''' are a [[Japanese]] indigenous and minority people, with a distinct culture and language.

This ethnic group lives mainly in [[Hokkaido]], the Kuril Islands and Sakhalin.

::''"The Ainu lived in this place a hundred thousand years before the Children of the Sun came" is told in one of their legends.''

As the Ainu people originally did not have an [[alphabet]], they have orally transmitted [[literature]] such as tales, legends, experiences, and morals from generation to generation. They believe that gods are found in every phenomenon and object.

They wore mainly "Atush", clothing made out of Elm bark interwoven with cotton. [http://www.ainu-museum.or.jp/english/english.html]

==Food==
Ainu ate Salmon, Bear, and Deer, usually boiled or dried. This meat was oftem mixed with Ubayuri, a lily, in stew.[http://www.ainu-museum.or.jp/english/english.html]

==Origin==
The Ainu are descended form Mongoloid travelers who in turn migrated from the Middle East after the [[Great flood]]. They arrive by canoe in Hokkaido just before the Jomon Period.[http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2244.html]
{{stub}}
== See also ==

*[[Aborigines ]]

== External links ==

*[http://d21c.com/zenegata/ainu18.html Ainu]
*[http://www.siec.k12.in.us/cannelton/fmfjapan/ainu.html Ainu Village]
*[http://www.ainu-museum.or.jp/english/english.html The Ainu Museum]

[[Image:Ainu people..jpg|center]]
<center>
Ainu People of Japan.

Photograph by Tamoto Kenzo, ca. 1900.
</center>

[[Category:Japan]]
[[Category:Ethnicities]]

Ainu

2008-09-07T14:16:51Z

American78:

[[Image:Ainu.jpg|right]]
The '''Ainu''' are a [[Japanese]] indigenous and minority people, with a distinct culture and language.

This ethnic group lives mainly in [[Hokkaido]], the Kuril Islands and Sakhalin.

::''"The Ainu lived in this place a hundred thousand years before the Children of the Sun came" is told in one of their legends.''

As the Ainu people originally did not have an [[alphabet]], they have orally transmitted [[literature]] such as tales, legends, experiences, and morals from generation to generation. They believe that gods are found in every phenomenon and object.

They wore mainly "Atush", clothing made out of Elm bark interwoven with cotton. [[http://www.ainu-museum.or.jp/english/english.html]]

==Food==
Ainu ate Salmon, Bear, and Deer, usually boiled or dried. This meat was oftem mixed with Ubayuri, a lily, in stew.[[http://www.ainu-museum.or.jp/english/english.html]]

==Origin==
The Ainu are descended form Mongoloid travelers who in turn migrated from the Middle East after the [[Great flood]]. They arrive by canoe in Hokkaido just before the Jomon Period.[[http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2244.html]]
{{stub}}
== See also ==

*[[Aborigines ]]

== External links ==

*[http://d21c.com/zenegata/ainu18.html Ainu]
*[http://www.siec.k12.in.us/cannelton/fmfjapan/ainu.html Ainu Village]
*[http://www.ainu-museum.or.jp/english/english.html The Ainu Museum]

[[Image:Ainu people..jpg|center]]
<center>
Ainu People of Japan.

Photograph by Tamoto Kenzo, ca. 1900.
</center>

[[Category:Japan]]
[[Category:Ethnicities]]

Ainu

2008-09-07T14:14:52Z

American78:

[[Image:Ainu.jpg|right]]
The '''Ainu''' are a [[Japanese]] indigenous and minority people, with a distinct culture and language.

This ethnic group lives mainly in [[Hokkaido]], the Kuril Islands and Sakhalin.

::''"The Ainu lived in this place a hundred thousand years before the Children of the Sun came" is told in one of their legends.''

As the Ainu people originally did not have an [[alphabet]], they have orally transmitted [[literature]] such as tales, legends, experiences, and morals from generation to generation. They believe that gods are found in every phenomenon and object.

They wore mainly "Atush", clothing made out of Elm bark interwoven with cotton. [[http://www.ainu-museum.or.jp/english/english.html]]

==Food==
Ainu ate Salmon, Bear, and Deer, usually boiled or dried. This meat was oftem mixed with Ubayuri, a lily, in stew.[[http://www.ainu-museum.or.jp/english/english.html]]

==Origin==
The Ainu are descended form Mongoloid travelers who in trun migrated from the Middle East after [[the great flood]].
{{stub}}
== See also ==

*[[Aborigines ]]

== External links ==

*[http://d21c.com/zenegata/ainu18.html Ainu]
*[http://www.siec.k12.in.us/cannelton/fmfjapan/ainu.html Ainu Village]
*[http://www.ainu-museum.or.jp/english/english.html The Ainu Museum]

[[Image:Ainu people..jpg|center]]
<center>
Ainu People of Japan.

Photograph by Tamoto Kenzo, ca. 1900.
</center>

[[Category:Japan]]
[[Category:Ethnicities]]

Kyoto

2008-09-07T14:08:17Z

American78:

[[Image:Kyoto 2.jpg|right|240px]]
'''Kyoto''' is a city in the island of [[Honshu]], in [[Japan]]; an ancient imperial capital. Kyoto has 1.6 million inhabitants, and important Japanese cultural assets (Architecture, gardens, palaces and Buddhist temples and Shinto shrines). Kyoto is part of the [[Osaka]]-[[Kobe]]-Kyoto metropolitan area.

::''Capital of Japan from 794 until the 1868 "Meiji Restoration", this city is cupped in a ring of mountains and cut through by rivers. It is home of several UNESCO World Heritage sites.'' [http://www.yamasa.org/japan/english/destinations/kyoto/index.html] The UNESCO [[World Heritage Site]] encompasses several locations in Japan (Kyoto, Otsu, Uji and [[Nikko]] Cities, and Shiretoko, in northeastern [[Hokkaido]]).

Kyoto is most well known in the western world for being the city in which the [[Kyoto Protocol]] was drafted.

==Important places==
Kiomizudera, a famouse 40-foot platform 
Ryuan-Ji, the Temple of the famous rock garden 
Kinkaku-Ji the temple of Gold 
Ginkaku-Ji, the temple of modesty 
Kamigamo JInja, the shrine of lightning [[http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2158.html]]
== See also ==
*[[Ise]]
*[[Yokohama]]
*[[Tokyo]]
*[[Kamakura]]

[[Image:Kyoto - The Golden Temple.jpg|300px|The Golden Temple]]

[[Category:Japanese Cities and Towns]]

Kyoto

2008-09-07T14:07:03Z

American78:

[[Image:Kyoto 2.jpg|right|240px]]
'''Kyoto''' is a city in the island of [[Honshu]], in [[Japan]]; an ancient imperial capital. Kyoto has 1.6 million inhabitants, and important Japanese cultural assets (Architecture, gardens, palaces and Buddhist temples and Shinto shrines). Kyoto is part of the [[Osaka]]-[[Kobe]]-Kyoto metropolitan area.

::''Capital of Japan from 794 until the 1868 "Meiji Restoration", this city is cupped in a ring of mountains and cut through by rivers. It is home of several UNESCO World Heritage sites.'' [http://www.yamasa.org/japan/english/destinations/kyoto/index.html] The UNESCO [[World Heritage Site]] encompasses several locations in Japan (Kyoto, Otsu, Uji and [[Nikko]] Cities, and Shiretoko, in northeastern [[Hokkaido]]).

Kyoto is most well known in the western world for being the city in which the [[Kyoto Protocol]] was drafted.

==Important places==
Kiomizudera, a famouse 40-foot platform 
Ryuan-Ji, the Temple of the famous rock garden 
Kinkaku-Ji the temple of Gold 
Ginkaku-Ji, the temple of modesty 
Kamigamo JInja,
== See also ==
*[[Ise]]
*[[Yokohama]]
*[[Tokyo]]
*[[Kamakura]]

[[Image:Kyoto - The Golden Temple.jpg|300px|The Golden Temple]]

[[Category:Japanese Cities and Towns]]

Book

2008-09-07T00:16:21Z

American78:

[[Image:Books.jpg|right|Books]]
A '''book''' (Spanish: libro, French: livre, German: Buch, Greek: βιβλίο, Russian: книга) is a collection of written words, usually on paper. The [[Bible]] is an example of a book (in fact, the word "Bible" is derived from the Latin word for "book."), as well as a collection of books. Books are often used for educational purposes in the form of [[text books]], although there is concern about the accuracy of the information contain in some of them. Any finite collection of books can be binded together to form a new book.

The book was called a [[codex]] in Latin, and it was a [[Roman]] improvement over the scroll. By the fourth century the codex had gained wide acceptance, and many scrolls that were not converted to codex form were lost to posterity.

==Types==
Books are classified by a [[hierarchy]]. The two most general categories of this hierarchy are [[fiction]] - meaning an invented or feigned narrative (an imaginative form of narrative)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/FICTION|accessdate=2007-11-12|format=HTML|language=English|work=Dictionary.com|title=fiction}}</ref> - and [[non-fiction]] - a composition that its authors believe to be truthful. Further types of fiction books include science fiction, historical fictions or myths. Non-fiction books would include accounts, biographies and the like.

Books can also be classified by media, such as audio or print. For example, some books are available in audio versions. An example of this is [[Talking Books]], available through the free Talking Books Program through the [[Library of Congress]].

===Classifications and Simple Explanations===
Please note that the list below is not complete.
{| width="100%" class="wikitable"
|-
!Fiction (untrue)
!Non-fiction (true)
|-
|
*''Mystery'' (a story based on a crime<ref name="dumb">{{cite web|url=http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesArticle/id-1843,subcat-INDUSTRY.html|format=HTML|language=English|title=Exploring the Different Types of Fiction
|accessdate=2007-11-12|work=dummies.com}}</ref>)
*''Fantasy'' (a story that is otherworldly in any sense<ref name="dumb" />)
*''Folklore'' (primarily myths <ref>{{cite web|work=Dictionary.com|url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/folklore|format=html|language=English|title=Folklore|accessdate=2007-11-12}}</ref>)
*''Science Fiction'' (books typically set in the future that deal with technology<ref name="dumb" />)
*''Realistic Fiction'' (a story that could theoretically occur in real life<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.southernct.edu/~brownm/Grea.html|format=HTML|title=Realistic Fiction|work=South Connecticut University|author=Mary E. Brown|language=English|accessdate=2007-11-12}}</ref>)
*''Historical Fiction'' (featuring characters going through a historical event (one of which is non-real)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/fac/peabody/histfict.html|format=HTML|work=Washignton State University|author=Sue Peabody|title=READING AND WRITING HISTORICAL FICTION}}</ref>)
|width="50%"|
*''Biographies'' (Accounts of a real person's life)
*''Auto-biographies'' (self written accounts of one's life)
*''Reference''
*''Instruction''
*''History''
|}

==Holy Books==
One of the most noteable genres is the holy book.
==References==
{{reflist}}

==See also==
[[Image:Anonymous-santa-claus-book.jpg|right|150px]]
*[[Library of Congress]]
*[[People of the book]]
*[[Talking Books]]
*[[Torah]]
*[[Vedas]]
*[[Book of Hours]]
*[[Author]]
{{Clear}}

==External links==
*[http://www.fil.com.mx/ingles/i_index.asp Book Feir] Guadalajara.
*[http://www.bookadventure.org/ Book adventure] For kids.
*[http://talkingbookslibrarian.blogspot.com/ Talking Books Librarian] Free Talking Books Program and other Library Related Resources

[[Category:Books]]

Talk:Book

2008-09-07T00:12:29Z

American78:

I think that folklore, myths, and religion are generally considered nonfiction, even though they are not necessarily true. Could we change the article to reflect that? Or am I wrong? (which wouldn't be surprising) [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 21:44, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, to tell the truth, myths and folklore are fantasy, religious texts are religious, and nothing changes that. As you will here me say often, where is the mention of the BOOK, The bible!--[[User:American78|American78]] 20:12, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

User talk:American78

2008-09-06T21:12:57Z

American78: /* Important Notice */ new section

Love

2008-09-06T15:06:47Z

American78:

[[Image:Watteau Peaceful Love.jpg|right|300px|Watteau Peaceful Love]]
'''Love''' is one of the basic emotions, decribed as an extreme affection for a person, an object, an idea, a country, a friend or a family member. Love is used to describe affection for many different things, but can sometimes be misinterpreted for [[Lust]].

Many faiths, such as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc., believe [[love]] to be a positive trait, and the followers of these religions are asked to practice love for others as a general principle for a good life.

== The Five Grecian Forms ==

The ancient [[Greeks]] identified four forms of positive love:

* [[Philos]] - the love of close friends or brothers. [[Aristotle]] identifies several types of philos <ref>Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book VIII</ref> which can include utility as well as shared characteristics and values. The word is often attached to groups of people who share a love of a common pursuit.

* [[Storge]] - the love of [[family]]. This would include [[patriotism]] - the love of country or homeland.

* [[Eros]] - carnal or sexual love. This would include [[romantic love]] but would also include [[lust]]. [[Eros]] is intended by God, as laid down in the Bible, to be enjoyed between a married man and woman.

* [[Agape]] - love which seeks the highest good of others, not just friends, family or brothers, but including enemies.<ref> Matthew 5:44</ref> This is considered by all major world religions to be the highest kind of love, although [[Buddhism]] would regard it as [[compassion]].

The fifth form of love is called [[Narcissism]], or self love. This word comes from the [[Greek myth]] of [[Narcissus]], who fell in love with his own reflection. Although [[Freud]] considered that everybody has some degree of narcissism, and that this is present in us from birth, <ref>Freud, Sigmund, On Narcissism: An Introduction, 1914</ref> if taken to extremes narcissism can be considered a [[personality disorder]].
<ref>http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/dsm-iv.html</ref>

==Biblical Love==
The bible mentions love, especially Agape, repeatedly. [[[http://www.allaboutgod.com/bible-verses-on-love.htm]]] John 3:16
<blockquote>
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
</blockquote>
Deuteronomy 7:9
<blockquote>
Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commands.
</blockquote>
Proverbs 8:17
<blockquote>
I love those who love me, and those who seek me find me.
</blockquote>
==References==
<references/>

==See also==

* [[Hatred]], considered the opposite of love
[[category:religion]][[category:culture]][[category:philosophy]][[category:sociology]]
[[Category:Sexuality]][[Category:Attributes of God]]

Talk:Love

2008-09-06T15:04:52Z

American78:

Am I missing something, or does this article make the rather ridiculous implication that love is a concept exclusive to Christianity, then go on to say that the ancient Greeks, who were around long before Christianity even existed, identified four different forms of love? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 10:18, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:Added a few things, to make the article a bit more tasteful. The implication of secular love is out, instead opting for the use of love in multiple religions. [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 11:26 11 Feb 2008 (CST)

Why not add quote from all religions, especially Abrahmic, to show the importance of love in religion in general. Love is the essence of religion, so why is this artical so incomplete?
[[User:American78|American78]] 11:04, 6 September 2008 (EDT)American78

Love

2008-09-06T15:02:54Z

American78:

[[Image:Watteau Peaceful Love.jpg|right|300px|Watteau Peaceful Love]]
'''Love''' is one of the basic emotions, decribed as an extreme affection for a person, an object, an idea, a country, a friend or a family member. Love is used to describe affection for many different things, but can sometimes be misinterpreted for [[Lust]].

Many faiths, such as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc., believe [[love]] to be a positive trait, and the followers of these religions are asked to practice love for others as a general principle for a good life.

== The Five Grecian Forms ==

The ancient [[Greeks]] identified four forms of positive love:

* [[Philos]] - the love of close friends or brothers. [[Aristotle]] identifies several types of philos <ref>Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book VIII</ref> which can include utility as well as shared characteristics and values. The word is often attached to groups of people who share a love of a common pursuit.

* [[Storge]] - the love of [[family]]. This would include [[patriotism]] - the love of country or homeland.

* [[Eros]] - carnal or sexual love. This would include [[romantic love]] but would also include [[lust]]. [[Eros]] is intended by God, as laid down in the Bible, to be enjoyed between a married man and woman.

* [[Agape]] - love which seeks the highest good of others, not just friends, family or brothers, but including enemies.<ref> Matthew 5:44</ref> This is considered by all major world religions to be the highest kind of love, although [[Buddhism]] would regard it as [[compassion]].

The fifth form of love is called [[Narcissism]], or self love. This word comes from the [[Greek myth]] of [[Narcissus]], who fell in love with his own reflection. Although [[Freud]] considered that everybody has some degree of narcissism, and that this is present in us from birth, <ref>Freud, Sigmund, On Narcissism: An Introduction, 1914</ref> if taken to extremes narcissism can be considered a [[personality disorder]].
<ref>http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/dsm-iv.html</ref>

==Biblical Love==
The bible mentions love, especially Agape, repeatedly. John 3:16
<blockquote>
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
</blockquote>
Deuteronomy 7:9
<blockquote>
Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commands.
</blockquote>
==References==
<references/>

==See also==

* [[Hatred]], considered the opposite of love
[[category:religion]][[category:culture]][[category:philosophy]][[category:sociology]]
[[Category:Sexuality]][[Category:Attributes of God]]

Talk:Science of global warming

2008-09-06T02:17:51Z

American78: /* Idoltry */ new section

[[/Archive 1]]
[[/Archive 2]]

== Editing This Page ==

*Please refrain from wholesale editing, rollbacks, re-directs. Adding pertinent information is encouraged, however please discuss here first before major changes are implemented. It does not do the site a service to keep making drastic changes, then having someone else roll them back ten minutes later! '''We will start with the basic FACT that the Earth does appear to be in a warming cycle, and that its ''natural occurrence'' is aggravated by man's burning of fossil fuels in increasing amounts.''' It is simply not a proven fact, among a preponderance of scientists that warming cycles are only caused by Humans. In any event, from what I have read by the most alarmist backers like Al Gore, all mediating efforts that we could undertake, cannot and will not reverse what they claim is going to happen. So, we should treat this as a theory, and one that is at least as much a political item as one of Natural Science. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Al Gore is not a climate scientist. You really shouldn't make any judgements based on what he says.
Two things are quite clear at the least regarding global warming: the Earth has been warming since c.1850 at the very least and the rate of change of temperature is unprecedented; 0.76 degrees in a century and a half has not happened before in at least 800,000 years (using temperature reconstructions from proxy data in the EPICA ice core).

Why is the article locked from editing, by the way?
Surely registered members at the very least should still have edit privileges. I have spotted several errors and omissions and wish to correct them.
--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 17:54, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm confused about the nature of this encyclopedia. Should a wiki-based encyclopedia be able to be edited by it's user community? Is the present system democratic? -- [[User:Lw2007|Lw2007]] 13:20, 14 December 2007 (GMT+1)
:As a general rule, yes it is edited by its community, but sometimes articles need to be locked. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:26, 14 December 2007 (EST)
::Could I ask why? -- [[User:Lw2007|Lw2007]] 01:26, 17 December 2007 (GMT+1)
::: In general (I'm not specifically talking about this article), two reasons would be repeated vandalism and edit wars. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:58, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Solar variation and global warming ==

A recently published study discounts this. The full text of the study can be found in http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070702/full/448008a.html . For those that lack a subscription to Nature, various journalists commenting on the article: [http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12234-suns-activity-rules-out-link-to-global-warming.html] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/11/scisun111.xml] [http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2123448,00.html] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm] . I hope that this material can be properly integrated into the main article. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:02, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

And a link to the article published at the Royal Society [http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:09, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

:It's also worth pointing out that Pluto is so far out that any increase in warming there from the sun would effectively fry the Earth! This is basic astronomy. Let us not forget that planets are in elliptical orbits - not perfect circles - which take them closer to and then further away from the sun. Pluto's orbit is highly eccentric. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 06:54, 3 January 2008 (EST)

== Controversy over the facts ==

Despite the simple view above (pun intended! ;-) there is substantial controversy over what the facts are. The United Nations climate panel initially agreed with the scientific consensus about longterm temperature variation, i.e., the existence of the [[Medieval Climate Optimum]] and the [[Little Ice Age]]. A few years later, they decided to drop the facts in favor of Mann's [[hockey stick graph]].

Another way of stating it is that they decided to make an issue about what the facts were. The UN created a controversy over what the facts are. That is what is meant by terms such as "controversial facts". It's not the facts ''themselves'' which are controversial, as I'm sure all liberals know, but whether the ''reported facts'' are ''actual facts''. Those who pretend not to understand this have no standing in this discussion.

In fact, those who aren't interested in improving the article should instead voice their views at [[Debate:Is there any evidence for the global warming theory?]] and stop bothering the rest of us here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:36, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== Until the section on Al Gore has better sources, it needs to be deleted ==

The whole section echoes [http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article this] article by James M. Taylor. At the bottom it states he's a member of the Heartland institute. It's been consistently proven the Heartland Institute is funded by Exxonmobil [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxonmobil#Funding_of_global_warming_skeptics 1][http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html 2][http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1361276,00.html 3]. I mean, I'm pretty loyal to the guy who signs ''my'' checks. --hoboace

: Agreed, for a similar reason. There was no "November 23, 2003" issue of Nature magazine, as cited in the Mount Kilimanjaro "example" of Gore "being wrong". There was an issue on the 20th and the next week on the 27th (see [http://www.nature.com/nature/archive/index.html?showyears=2003- here]). Neither of these, nor a search of the Nature.com website using Google, shows any trace of this article. Nor would one research paper by one investigator be sufficient to prove Gore's guess (and it was only a poorly made guess) wrong. Citing secondary sources to make scientific claims like this one should be highly discouraged. [[User:AngelOfMercy|AngelOfMercy]] 14:30, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

== References ==

A number of the later refererences don't use the regular reference format so they show up under the References section. It may be wise to convert these for consistency with the rest of the article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:44, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

*Let me know if you want it open, and when, okay? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:44, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

:We could try right now as we're both on and probably some of the only ones up. ;-) It shouldn't take long. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:49, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Also, why is the IPCC discredited in one instance, "Because the forecasting processes examined in Chapter 8 overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the IPCC forecasts of climate change are not scientific", but used as a credible source in another, "Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes"? If the IPCC is not a credible source in one instance, then why is it in another? {{unsigned|Creationist}}
: I've not studied the particular references you make, but the general principle that if you must either reject or accept everything that someone or some group says is fallacious. There can be good reasons for rejecting some data whilst accepting other data, including some being factual research and the other being opinion, some being based on good research while the other is not, etc. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:04, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Your point is well taken. I am not familiar with the research either. I was curious what the good reasons were "for rejecting some data whilst accepting other data", with regards to the information provided by the IPCC? I attempted to check the validity of the source used to discredit Gore's and the URL no longer exists. # ↑ http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article. None of the references used in the section discrediting Gore are valid, since the URL's no longer exist.

== Lead sentence suggestion ==

The article leads with "The global warming warming issue ..." I don't think the second 'warming' adds anything. Of course, I would suggest that saying that Global Warming "is mainly used to justify support for the Kyoto Protocol" does not summarize this complex issue best. I might say "The global warming issue is a political battle over the possible anthropomorphic influence on recent anomalies in the Earth's average temperature". {{unsigned|Gantczak}}

:I agree, suggesting that the justification of support for the Kyoto Protocol is the focal point of the global warming issue is absurd. {{unsigned|Calebdelworth84}}

== Ed Poor ==

[http://www.aetherometry.com/global_warming/Section_I.html] --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:04, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

:It's all a bunch of hot air, Terry. The fact is that since 1850 average surface air temperature, as measured by ground based thermometers at weather stations, has gone up by one degree Fahrenheit (around 0.6 to 0.8 Centigrade).

The [[Anthropogenic Global Warming]] (AGW) theory is that MOST of this is the result of human activity, i.e., spewing out [[greenhouse gas]]es like carbon dioxide.

The scientifically accepted theory is that [[natural forces]] account for nearly all of this, and that the effects of human activity are comparatively small.

The [[Politics of global warming]] article is about the conflict between liberals and conservatives over (1) what the facts are and (2) what the science says theory-wise. Liberals pretend that there is a "[[scientific consensus]]" in favor of their view. Conservatives, largely drowned out in the media, remind us that science does not operate by consensus and that there are plenty of scientists who disagree with AGW.

In fact, the most prominent and highly credentialed scientists nearly ALL disagree with AGW. It is only a few liberal activists (who either are lobbying for [[Kyoto Protocol]] or are partisan supporters of [[Democratic Party]] candidates, etc.) in the scientific community who are the odd men out.

There has been immense scientific misconduct and fraud on this issue, which is not surprising since over 1 billion dollars a year in US [[federal funding]] is at stake: if there's a problem, the funds will continue; if it's all a "bunch of hot air", Congress will not want to spend a lot of money to study a non-issue.

There is both a fact and a theory here. Liberals try to confuse us by blurring the distinction. It will take a lot of editorial work to straighten it out. It's not cut and dried, like [[DDT]] and [[Malaria]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:17, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

*Ed, perhaps you need to remove your comments above to the link I supplied? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:58, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

==Bug Discovered In NASA Temperature Data==
In 2007, Steve McIntyre discovered a bug in NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) temperature datase, thus forcing NASA to re-rank the hottest temperature record in US. As a result, 1998 is no longer the hottest year in US history, 1934 is.[http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/09/hot-news-nasa-fixes-flawed-temperature-data-1998-was-not-the-warmest-year-in-the-millenium/][http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8383][http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html][http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/] [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 09:05, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Those numbers are particular to the US, where the global temperature anomaly is not as pronounced. Even if these bloggers are right, it does not contraindicate the much larger pool of data which shows a significant increase in global mean temperature over the past fifty years. But that's what the liberal conspirators want us to think, isn't it? [[User:Gantczak|Gantczak]] 13:39, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

:Try to avoid sarcasm; this is a scientific subject. If you want to address the [[Politics of global warming]], go there. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:59, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

*See http://climateaudit.org. NASA has been claiming for years 1998 was the hottest year on record for the planet. Climate Audit forced them to admit their mistake in calculations. 1934 was the hottest known year, followed by 1998 and 1927. ''In fact 5 of the hottest recorded years came before World War II.'' --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:07, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
**This is not the first time an outsider has found errors in government statistics about [[global warming]]. We should write an article about [[Steve McIntyre]] and his scientific watchdog work.
**It's also a sad commentary on the state of climate science that simple mistakes like this take so long to correct. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:49, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

The difference in temperature between 1934 and 1998 using the corrected data was 0.02 degrees Celsius.
Global mean temperatures remained almost exactly the same, showing the same 0.76 degrees C (+/- 0.2 degrees C) warming since c.1850 as they did before.
--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 17:54, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

==Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory|[http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm]==

Gosh, I wish I could be there as some of you alarmists read this.....

<blockquote>
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated. 

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising. 

'''Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."''' 

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results. 

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- '''the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.''' 

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." '''The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.''' 

'''By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, ''including every leading scientific journal in the world.'''''
</blockquote>
--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 07:01, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:Lord Monckton released the names of some of the papers that the study claims reject the consensus outright. Out of seven or so studies that Monckton mentioned, only two actually reject the consensus, and that's if you give the anti-AGW crowd the benefit of the doubt. Peiser tried the same trick before, and in the end, he only found one or two (out of the thirty-odd that he claimed) that rejected AGW outright. The Oreskes study was flawed, but this one's even worse.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 12:57, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

==Are the images really necessary?==
Down next to http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_Warming#Politics_of_global_warming , there are two images which are downright immature and certainly don't belong in such a place.
Perhaps they could be moved into a section labelled 'Satire of global warming theory' instead?
--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 19:25, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

== I agree with Ed... ==

...100% about this article. It's not so hard, actually. I have an very good book by conservative author Wario C. O. Jones, and it will be my basis for the whole new article. I can't wait to start. --[[User:Phyllisrules|Phyllisrules]] 10:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT) Oh yeah!

== Needed Entry ==
In order to assure that Conservapedia remains a non-biased and objective source of information, I think there needs to be something mentioned somewhere about Dr. John H. Marburger. Dr. Marburger is the president's main science advisor, who supports global warming. It also needs to be noted that President Bush supports certain initiatives to combat global warming. {{unsigned|Bag221}}

*No one is disputing naturally occurring warming, Bag221. Of course there is evidence of that! But the majority doesn't believe what that nut-job, wing-nut Gore is blabbing about either. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:38, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
Actually, the correct term, as Blogs 4 Brownback has taught us, is 'moonbat'. 'Wingnuts' are what we liberals sometimes (if we are resorting to [[liberal mockery]]) call opponents on the right. :)--[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]

*LOL...I must thank you for just making my morning! Sorry you had to get uncivil and urinate on my gesture of hospitality, my wishing you might contribute and become a productive editor, like you never managed before. My bad. Say goodnight, Gracie. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:02, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

I am not sying that I agree or disagree with Dr. Marburger. I think that there needs to be something put in the article about his views on the subject. This is important due to the fact that Dr. Marburger has a great amount of influence on the president, and therefore a great amount of influence on US policy. Bag221

*Yes, Bag221, I can see your point! Sorry, but I was distracted by someone being rude to my hospitality....and that just angers me so! I will be happy to unlock the article for you to incorporate your suggestions, if you would like. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:18, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

In science, it hardly matters what percentage of researchers ''think'' or ''believe'' or ''guess'' something is true. It only matters how the evidence compares to the theory. If the evidence contradicts the theory, the theory is discarded. It's as simple as that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:14, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

== Global warming predicted by scripture ==

I'm kinda new at this *net*pedia stuff, so I don't know where to post or if to post some things.
But I did figure out how to comment about 'Global warming'....as the page points out, other planets are experiencing warming as well. The common denominator is THE SUN. The Bible predicted that this would occur, and during this particular time. Read Isaiah 30:26 as well as 2Peter 3:10-12, Malachi 4:1. Michael, --[[User:Witnessnbr1|Witnessnbr1]] 13:57, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:Uranus is in fact cooling, bucking the trend. If it were down to the Sun then we would expect it to be a Solar System wide event. 
:We would also expect planets closer to the Sun to warm more, in accordance with the inverse square law as it applies to intensity of E-M radiation. However, this is not thought to be the case. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 14:07, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

*Atmospherics plays the biggest part, in all of that. I don't think anyone of sound logic can deny their is general warming for Earth. My only sticking point, as it is for thousands in the scientific community, is people running around blaming engines or this or that. Man can be very egocentric in wanting to always take the blame or credit for everything....that is pretty simplistic. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:On the other hand, there are very few other things which we ''can'' blame for the warming. Solar activity, on average, has gone down in the past 30 or so years which, even accounting for time lag, should result in decreasing temperatures, something which hasn't been seen. Cosmic rays similarly have been on the decrease, and the hypothesis had some major flaws in the first place.
:Coupled with these two things, we are somewhere in the middle of the current climate cycle, and shouldn't be able to discern any significant trend in global temperatures. We are able to, however, and we can also see (by comparing instrumental records with historical proxy data) that the current rate of change of temperature is unprecedented.
:The warming was not produced by humanity alone; solar activity probably contributed up to 0.18-0.2 degrees C warming prior to 1940. However, since then, it is extremely unlikely that natural forcings have had any significant warming effect (indeed, most research I've seen suggests a net cooling from natural forcings over the twentieth century).
:I'm of the opinion that nuclear power in combination with renewables and feasible substitutes for the products of crude oil should be able to see us through with little, if any, effect on our quality of life, not to mention also remove our current dependence on oil (which is primarily found in the politically unstable Middle-East, with smaller amounts also in Russia and even less in the USA) which will not, after all, last forever. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 14:42, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

::If you know anything about [[solar variation]] and terrestial air temperature, you can add it to the article. Even better if you know how [[cosmic rays]] affect [[cloud cover]].

::As we all know, on a cloudy day, air near the surface (below the clouds) tends to be cooler than usual. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:15, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:::That last part is true, and clouds do indeed have a cooling effect during the day (due to their reflection of IR radiation, much like the Arctic ice sheet and the aerosols and sulphates responsible for the 1940-1970 Northern Hemispheric cooling period). They also serve to increase temperatures during the night by reflecting IR from the Earth back at the ground.
:::The net effect from cloud cover is one of cooling.
:::It is believed that cosmic rays have little, if any, effect on cloud formation (and by extension cloud cover). In simple terms, the hypothesis essentially stated that the ionising effect of cosmic rays would cause a larger number of particles to which water vapour would 'stick' (these particles were called cloud condensation nuclei; however, whilst they could theoretically help clouds to form, the accepted explanation is effectively saturation of the atmosphere at the point at which clouds form), thus increasing cloud formation.
:::However, no effect such as this has been reliably seen to exist. The hypothesis didn't match up with reality very well.
:::I don't know how long TK intends to unlock the article for at whatever point; until he does it I'll write an outline of the additions so that I can then quickly make the edit. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 15:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

::Don't say ''it is believed'' when discussing science. Only politicians and theologians deal in beliefs. Say rather that this or that scientist has published a [[hypothesis]] or a [[theory]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:13, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:::A small selection:
:::http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003.pdf (Peter Laut)
:::http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.4294v1.pdf (T. Sloan, A.W. Wolfendale)
:::http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/r47.pdf (N.A. Krivova and S.K. Solanki)
:::http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf (Mike Lockwood and Claus Frohlich)
:::There are numerous others. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 17:11, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

: Oh great- another idiot misquoting the bible. Those quotes provide no evidence of the current time, nor do they talk about Global Warming as we are supposedly experiencing it.
:* Isaiah 30:23 provides a chronological reference saying "in that day shall thy cattle feed in large pasture", but we hold our cattle in very small feeding pens these days.
:* Your quotation of 2Peter 3:10-12 reads "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise...heavens being on fire", but the alleged "global warming" is hardly a rapid process or so dramatic. And where's the great noise?
:* The same goes for Malachi 4:1's "that shall burn as an oven". Or would you like to claim that we're in the "pre-heat" stage? [[User:AngelOfMercy|AngelOfMercy]] 15:14, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

== Section Needed on the Saturation Problem ==

In my own investigation of the global warming issue, the single most disturbing oversight in the analysis of global warming alarmists is the saturation problem. To oversimplify a bit, the problem is this: (1) the greenhouse effect is caused by the absorbtion of photons emitted by the Earth's blackbody radiation, delaying the release of that energy into space; (2) there is, therefore, a maximum greenhouse effect, defined by the fact that it is physically impossible to absorb more than 100% of the photons; (3) nevertheless, climate change models generally assume that the contribution to warming by greenhouse gases is logarithmic--that is, for any given doubling of CO2 (for example), there will be a constant increase in temperature. In short, the contribution to warming from greenhouse gases should probably be characterized by a logistical curve; a logarithmic curve will systematically over-estimate the contribution to the greenhouse effect of future increases in greenhouse gases.

Unfortunately, for reasons I cannot fathom, I've found almost no real scholarship on the matter. The difference between the logistical curve and the logarithmic curve will be very small when the absorbtion fraction is close to zero, and will be much greater when it's close to 1. As near as I've been able to work out, the fraction of photons in CO2's absorbtion spectrum that are absorbed is about .85, but I don't know whether that part of the curve is more like 0 or 1 (though I suspect it's a lot more like 1).

Incidentally, the chief oversimplification I'm making is treating greenhouse effect as linear with the number of photons absorbed. In fact, the function is frequency dependent, and not necessarily in a very understandible way. Because the energy of a photon is related to its frequency, and because absorbed photons are re-emitted as photons of other frequencies, you'd almost have to emperically measure the emission spectrum from excited atmospheric CO2 over time, frequency by frequency throughout its absorbtion spectrum, to build up a model that accurately reflects how much energy is actually retained over time by CO2 when it absorbs a photon. Again, I've found no scholarship addressing the frequency dependence of CO2's contribution to the greenhouse effect. This appears to be a gaping hole in the state of climatology. [[User:QBeam]] Oct. 19, 2007 5:11 (EDT)

:I'm confused what you are trying to say, let me see if I understand it.

:First of all, it's weird to talk about absorbing photons in this case, because that implies some sort of step mechanism. In fact, absorbed radiation causes resonance vibrations in the bonds of molecules (the oxygen-carbon double bond, in the case of carbon dioxide). This doesn't really change what you are saing, but I thought it should be said before we go further.

:So, adding that correction to your argument, I agree with your point (1) above, with the caveat that it does not "delay" the heat radiated to the atmosphere, but partially blocks it. Statement (2) is kind of correct, there is a theoretical maximum to the ''percentage'' (not necessarily the amount) of radiation absorbed, however there are a lot of other interesting effects that come into play. For example, changing the surface temperature of the earth changes its blackbody radiation emission spectrum. There are also interesting effects like the phase of water (Venus only has a runaway greenhouse effect because it doesn't have enough water!). You've completely lost me on point (3) however. Whatever dependence temperature has on CO2, it's not based on a logarithm just because; it comes from an energy balance. Most likely whatever you are reading has simplified it in order to make it easy to talk about the affect of increasing CO2. I'm not sure where the logistic function comes in at all.

:I'm also completely lost on your last couple paragraphs. Are you trying to say that we do not understand how CO2 absorbs radiation? Because we understand it really well (I've done it in intro-level college chem lab). All this talk of photons makes me think that you are confusing global warming with a luminescent effect. Also, are you trying to say that climate change models don't take into account the fact that CO2 only absorbs in certain waveleghts? That's the only way global warming works! If we assumed that CO2 absorbs *all* radiation, then it would absorb ''incoming'' radiation as well, which leads to global ''cooling'', not global warming. In fact, greenhouse gases pass the high frequency radiation from the sun and absorb the low frequency radiation from the earth -- if you haven't found any scholarship addressing this issue, I have a text book to recommend!

:I'd like to stress that I'm not trying to be argumentive, I'm trying to understand what you are saying. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:55, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

::To answer your last point first, I'd say your comments show good faith, and a helpful and entirely appropriate attempt to get to the core of the (potential) dispute.
::On one level, we may just be talking past each other. I say "delay" because excited molecules will eventually relax, and new photons (in a different spectrum) are emitted. Your comments suggest that you mistakenly believe that all of the energy of a black body photon is permanently returned to the Earth as thermal energy just because it's absorbed by an atmospheric molecule. But the molecules that are excited this way have much more of a tendency to shed the energy through re-radiation than mere black-body radiation. These molecules shed energy through a couple of different mechanisms, including new photon emission directly radiated into space, as if the energy was never absorbed in the first place. Other mechanisms are less direct, and therefore take longer; still others really do end up dumping the energy back into the Earth as thermal energy. Thus, to fully describe the effect of the absorbtion of photons at a given quantum of energy, you need a graph over time that shows the expectation value of the fraction of that energy that ends up being radiated into space anyway. It may be that a physical chemist's training is better suited to the task of calculating that curve from first principles, but, from my perspective as a physicist, I'd say that the curve needs to be measured empirically. Worse, it needs to be calculated for each quantum of energy throughout the absorbtion spectrum, because the tendency of a molecule to want to relax through photon emission is a function of its quantum mechanical properties (and because the re-emitted photons are in a different spectrum, and, therefore, not likely to be absorbed by primary greenhouse molecules). The shapes of these curves are the major unknown I'm pointing to. [[User:QBeam]]
:::I think you are right, we are just talking past each other. It seems that physicists and chemical engineers go about explaining things in different ways (for example the photon/wave difference)!
:::As for the time vs. emission graph, I'm not sure it's necessary. The number of particles is large enough and close enough to uniform distribution that the effect can be modeled on the aggregate level. I don't think you need or want me to get into the specific calculations, but the radiation balance on the earth can be modeled the same way you would model any other system. It follows the same principle as figuring out the steady state temperature of a roof in full sunlight in the wintertime. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

::Now, regarding my third point, the logistical curve, let me try to reformulate. There are a certain, relatively fixed number of ergs/year emitted by the Earth in CO2's absorbtion spectrum. (Your point about the spectum being T dependent is correct, but of small effect, since T==300K and delta-T<~3.) The maximum greenhouse effect would have every one of those ergs absorbed (and then a certain fraction of them would be re-emitted anyway in other spectra, and the rest "trapped"). Call that fraction, as a function of the amount of CO2, x(C). For any incremental increase in CO2, delta-C, the number of ergs retained is proportional to (1-x(C)). Logistical curves behave this way--logarithms do not. In short, the horizontal asymptote of a logarithm is infinity, but the horizontal asymptote (and upper bound) on the greenhouse effect is finite. [[User:QBeam]]

:::Ah ok I get what you mean by the logistical curve now. I'm not sure that I can say definitively that this ''isn't'' what scientists are doing, though. You normally hear the "doubling CO2 will cause X" mantra by scientists when it's meant for the public. They never say that ''every'' doubling will increase the temperature by a certain amount, only that a doubling from current levels. I might be mistaken about this (I don't exactly spend a ton of time in the scientific literature), but I'm fairly confident that the scientists are doing their calculations from first principals (or second principles, since, as you said, the quantum mechanics aren't fully known), not from exrapolation. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

::::One thing we do know is that the models aren't built from first principles. They are mathematical models, that attempt to predict future climate change by fitting data to mathematical functions and extrapolating.

::::I can't say I know definitively that they're using logarithms, because I've never seen them publish their models. I can say the evidence suggests otherwise. Firstly, I'd think it odd if every model-builder is using a logistical curve, but they uniformly say they're using a logarithm. Surely someone would actually use the right word? Secondly, logarithms are one of the four basic curves that are normally used to build mathematical models; logistical curves aren't on that list. Finally, while both curves would tend to fit the data pretty well for lower levels of greenhouse effect, they would diverge at higher levels. In fact, the models have over-predicted recent warming, and had to be tweaked downwards--that is, they've behaved exactly as you would predict if they'd mistakenly chosen a log function. [[User:QBeam]] 2:25pm Nov. 2, 2007 (EDT)

:::::First of all, how can you say "the models aren't built on first principles" if you've "never seen [any published] models?" (I presume you are talking about predictive models; descriptive models are ''not'' based on fitting the data). Like I said before, I don't know that they ''aren't'' using a logistical function, I just know (with my measily 3+ years experience in a major which has a very small focus on modeling techniques) that no scientist worth their salt would use an entirely wrong function, just because. If you can point me to any evidence of this, I'd love to read it.

:::::At any rate, how do you know they are using the wrong function at all? If scientists who study these sorts of things for a living all use a logarithm, how do you know they are wrong? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:17, 4 November 2007 (EST)

:*The problem is, you are assuming good faith. Unfortunately on the Internet that is at the top of the charts for never happening. QBeam was stringing together buzz words and silly science in the hope they would lend creditability to his/her post, a fact you just proved, HelpJazz. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:01, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
::If you believe you can identify an error in my (or anyone's) reasoning, then you should point that out. Vacuous cheer-leading like this only serves to discredit whatever ideology it is you think you're representing. Simply labeling something a "buzzword," even if it were accurate, is not a substantive response. [[User:QBeam]]
:::I dunno, if it's buzzwords it sure fooled me (twice)! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

== Article is Thin ==

Given the huge scope and significance of this article, I think the posted article is rather thin in covering only a few issues. I am gratified that you note solar warming throughout the solar system.

== PRE-POSTING DRAFT Mechanism ? ==

This article and its controversial nature prompts an idea. COULD YOU CONSIDER THIS AS AN IMPROVEMENT OF CONSERVAPEDIA -- AND A VAST IMPROVEMENT OVER WIKIPEDIA?

Maybe you could have a DRAFT version of the article, not visible to the public, which would allow editors to work on an article, and then ask for APPROVAL before changes are posted to the final article.

I say this because -- like in this case -- there could be DOZENS of subtopics that are IMPORTANT which I think could be added. It would be hard to merely suggest such changes, with so many of them, instead of SHOWING the recommended changes.

In fact, as a vast improvement over the CHAOS at Wikipedia, perhaps you could do this....

Suppose you programmed a page for EACH user interested in the particular article. Let them modify a COPY of the article saved under their user ID, but not visible to the outside public. REMEMEMBER there could be dozens of changes involved, all in different places. SO it is hard to DESCRIBE what one wants to add.

Then responsible editors could review different PROPOSED versions of the final article, take what they agree with from various versions, and come up with a high-quality final result.

Wouldn't that be better than the CHAOS at Wikipedia?

Jon Moseley

== URANUS COOLING -- NOT CERTAIN ==

I read the referenced article on Uranus cooling, and I think that -- while it is interesting and should be mentioned -- the data does NOT confirm that Uranus is in fact cooling. The C. article should say that it MAY be cooling. However, the measurements at issue where taken from different parts of the planet. The higher (earlier) temperature measurement was taken from the DUSK side of the planet. That is the side that had been in sunlight all day long. The lower (later) temperature reading was taken from the DAWN side of the planet. That is, the side of the planet that had been in darkness all night long. Therefore, it is unknown if these measurements actually represent a cooling planet Uranus or simply the effects of day versus night. I think fairness and integrity calls for mentioning the observation. But I DO NOT THINK THE OBSERVATION SHOULD BE STATED AS CONCLUSIVE, when it is uncertain and subject to further observation. Jon Moseley

*You need to sign articles with four ~ instead of as you are. There is a place in "My Preferences" for this as well. Time/Date stamping is as important as your name. Thanks. --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:10, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

== "Politician Al Gore" ==
I don't think it is proper to call Al Gore a "politician". He was at one point, but at that time he was also was also called "the Vice President of the United States of America". Intentionally calling him VPOTUS lends credibility, while using "politician" lends lack there-of. Either way, today he campaigns (whether or not you agree with him) for a super-national cause. So using a current title suggests that the neutral "activist" would be proper.

== Request ==

Can somebody add [[:Category:Liberal Myths]]? Please and thank you, God bless. {{unsigned|RyanMiller}}
:It is not just liberals. Pat Robertson is on the boat, too! {{unsigned|Creationist}}

::Not to mention the reinsurance industry. Both Munich Re and Swiss Re - both huge businesses that insure insurance companies - have published numerous reports on the status of global warming, or rather global climate change as it should be referred to. If they're worried about this, I think that we should be too. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 10:44, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Millions of Years ==

I am a firm believer in the Bible time line, yet this article refers to the earth being millions of years old.

However, the article states, "According to temperature reconstruction made within an Old Earth paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see climate cycles)."

This view is not consistent with the Bible time line. I thought the point of conservapedia was to present a Christian view of the world. Can the sentence quoted above please be removed because of it's discrepancies with the Bible? According to the Bible, the earth is no where near a million years old. The sentence quoted above would also give credence to notion that there have been ice ages, when in fact the Bible never mentioned one.

{{unsigned|Creationist}}

: Are you in the habit of not capitalizing [[Bible]]? Hope you don't mind my asking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:06, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Are you in the habit of providing irrelevant comments? If it is your mission to correct everyone's grammar on this site, you have a long quest ahead of you. {{unsigned|Creationist}}

::I hope that you understand that there is difference between not capitalizing ''Bible'' and a common grammar error. This site is also frequently vandalized by atheists, it's normal that Mr.Schlafly is wary. Don't take it personally. Another point: please sign your posts with four 'tilde' ('~') characters, like this: [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 12:27, 13 December 2007 (EST)

I now realize my mistake in grammar and it has been corrected. In the normal course of my day, I usually do not type Bible and that is the root of my mistake. [[User:Creationist|Creationist]] 13:49, 13 December 2007 (EST)Creationist

: I noticed that line there recently and wanted to change it, but couldn't quickly come up with an alternative. I don't think simply deleting the line is appropriate, because it is validly pointing out that the evidence (according to the secular view) is not consistent with the claims. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:00, 12 December 2007 (EST)

I agree and thanks with the explanation. The other point of view will help provide a neutral standpoint. I believe that most Christians, including myself, would not agree with that statement.

==Source of the gasses
The article needs to mention that carbion dioxide does not come from industry. There was a movie that showed it was from oceans.
I tried to add this but, the edit button is broken for this artical.

== Section about global warming's unfalsifiability ==

I'd like to add a section about how global warming advocates see everything as proof that global warming is happening - e.g. glaciers melting, glaciers growing, more frequent and stronger hurricanes, less frequent and weaker hurricanes, unusually warm winters, bitterly cold winters, etc. This is easily documented from news articles over the past few years. If everything proves global warming and nothing disproves it, then it is unfalsifiable and thus is an invalid scientific theory. Your thoughts? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:29, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:I like the idea of a section pointing out the fact that everything these days seems to be related to global warming, but I think it's going too far to say that because various different people use different (seemingly) contradictory examples, that they all believe all of these examples, especially if many of them are from non-experts. Also, if GW ''were'' really happening, then you wouldn't be able to "disprove it", but that doesn't make it non-falsifiable. I think there's a subtle but important distinction there.

:I think you are on the right track, and a section about this would be interesting and enlightening, but you need to be extremely careful about your wording and what sources you use. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:20, 30 January 2008 (EST)

== Order of Article Items ==

I would humbly suggest that an Admin switch #1 with #2 - that is, put # 2 "The Modern Warm Period" first, then the #Controversy second. I think it would better convey the details about "global warming" before the controversy is discussed.

Can we add something about how the media has flip-flopped between catastrophic global warming and cooling over the past 100 years? Or should that go on the [[Global Warming Controversy]] page? [[User:Donaldson|Donaldson]] 17:10, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

==Science and opinion==

Position statements are not science. Saying that "X believes something" is unrelated to the truth of falsehood of that thing. Many individuals and organizations have made statements about [[global warming]], and it has become one of the most discussed political controversies of modern times.

[[Global warming theory]] has been used to justify [[wealth redistribution]], a pet project of [[Socialists]]. But this article is not about economic benefits. It's about the science of the world's climate. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:13, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

== Problem With Top Image ==

The top image is inaccurate. No official predictions were made about global warming until 1992. Any predictions in 1980 would have been the work of a lone climatologist, and not the work of the scientific consensus. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 00:05, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:Prove it. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 00:07, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

The proof is in the fact that the IPCC (which is the only organization that had ever produced long range climate forecasts) was not created until 1988, as per their website http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 00:32, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Who determines when a "prediction" is "official"? Or better yet, when. Just because a prediction happened to be wrong doesn't make it not official. Its evident that environmentalists are backpedaling. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 01:57, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'd assume it would be the organizations in charge of such efforts who determine when a prediction is official. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 02:01, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Exactly. There was no organization for predicting the climate until the IPCC (there are now several). Thus, any predictions made prior to that would have been the work of an independent forecaster, and would not have reflected the views of the overall scientific community. Also, even if there had been someone creating such forecasts at that time, that graph is inaccurate in the sense that the "predicted" line is linear, whereas the predicted increase in temperature is, and always has been, exponential. Thirdly, the graph itself is out of date. It only goes up to 1996. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 12:32, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::You're welcome to find a "true" graph... if you can. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 00:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

The graph from this site is accurate. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Comparing-IPCC-projections-to-observations.html [[User:TheNobleSith4|TheNobleSith4]] 00:49, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:None of those graphs represent global warming accurately. You're welcome to find a better one, just remember that it must be accurate and reflect reality, not what environmentalists pretend it to be. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 01:05, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

==IPCC==
You removed the IPCC part stating they arent a scientific group but CP's own page states they are
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 08:01, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Communism? ==

What does the fall of communist nations have to do with global warming?

http://www.conservapedia.com/Science_of_global_warming#False_Claims_of_.22Consensus.22

I'm going to remove it. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]''' 17:47, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

==Sources==
I think this a great source work for us to mine quotes and thoughts: [http://media.kusi.clickability.com/documents/Comments+on+Global+Warming1.pdf Comments on Global Warming by the founder of the Weather Channel]. It starts with:

::It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming... it is a SCAM.

::Some misguided scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long-term scientific data back in the late 1990's to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental extremism type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

::Environmental extremist, notable politicians among them then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.

::Now their ridiculously manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

::I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party.

And just gets better from there. Also [http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php Global Warming Hoax] refutes many warming myths. [http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=10488 The Heartland]'s common sense environmental page has a list of references on this topic. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Barr vs Obama/McCain ==

Should it in the politics section mention the fact that: [[Barack Obama]] and [[John McCain]] both subscribe to the theory that Global Warming exists, is caused by human activity, and that human activity must be curtailed to prevent Global Warming; and that [[Bob Barr]] is the only candidate to disagree with humans-are-all-bad theory of Global Warming, and to disagree with proposals to legislate limitations on economic activity for the appeasement of anti-Global Warming activists?

:Not unless we clarify what "exists" means; and how much is caused by human activity.

:Temperature is up, around the globe, since 1850. But how much of this is a return to average from abnormally low temperatures? (See [[Little Ice Age]].) And how much does human activity affect global air temperatures, compared to [[solar variation]] and [[cosmic rays]]?

:If you can nail down the candidates' exact positions, by all means add them. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:04, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::Here's a link to a YouTube video of John McCain says the "[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es overwhelming majority of scientific opinion in America today, and in the world, is that climate change is real. The fact is that it is real. The fact is that the solution to it is the development of technologies.... and a cap-and trade proposal]".... at the end McCain says "the debate is over"; obviously, unless you think Global Warming is man made, there would be no "solution" to use "cap and trade". [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 13:18, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

:: For solar variation and cosmic rays, there was a study on that published [http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf here]. News articles on the article [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/11/scisun111.xml] [http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jul/11/climatechange.climatechange1] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm] --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 19:17, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::"a new analysis of data on the sun's output in the last 25 years of the 20th century has firmly put the notion to rest?" - Try not to supply one-sided sources if you want anyone to pay attention to you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:33, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: In all fairness, any source that is going to try to prove a point will be one sided. The links for cosmic rays and the solar influence are also one sided. The important thing to do would be to show ''all'' the links and ''all'' the data and let people draw conclusions from that rather than just having a site that supports one side of the controversy and represses the other. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:10, 19 June 2008 (EDT

== Obama's carbon cap a "far-reaching, giant tax"? ==

Jpatt, please try not to completely break sentences by re-inserting your edits. Also, I need a reliable source that says that Obama's suggested carbon cap is a tax. A source that calls said tax far-reaching and giant would be even better. I have looked, and the closest thing I could find when I made my edits was that the carbon cap would accomplish the same a tax would, but that most definitely doesn't mean that it ''is'' a tax. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 17:58, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

: I didn't reinsert the entire edits, just the far reaching tax. Since you took it out already, I am not going to source. As for the 'far-reaching and giant tax', what do you call ''( "an economy-wide cap on U.S. carbon emissions)''? So for the sarcasm, but I don't call it a stimulus package. Economy wide is far reaching and giant. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:06, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
::You equate a price set by market forces with a tax. I don't know what you would call ''that'', but I would call it "wrong". At ''best'', it's inaccurate and potentially misleading to simply state that he wants to introduce a tax. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 18:20, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:::First, market forces aren't setting a price, but the Obama government, for an item not charged today. Second, who will pay for the measure? Let's see, loss of many jobs, cost of living increases, $10.00 a gallon gas. If I am not mistaken, the American people will pay the increased costs because "we can't have our thermostats at 72 degrees", unless we pay up. Increase in costs is called a tax. Wrong? doubt it. Misleading? Obama's plan is more misleading than my explanation. A Cap is not a Tax, that is debatable,-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:18, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

== Idoltry ==

I global warming idoltry?[[User:American78|American78]] 22:17, 5 September 2008 (EDT)American78

Talk:Deceit

2008-09-03T22:14:22Z

American78: /* Bible */ new section

'''Archives:''' [[/Archive 1|1]]


==Examples==

Do we really need this many examples of deciet? While I believe this website should present conservative values on every page, This particular page seems to be a huge political statement about how rotten the liberals are. honestly I don't think thats the best way to present conservative values. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 10:24, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

==10 Commandments==
I don't think the reference about removing the 10 Commandments from schools really shows that you're going for. The decision was to remove any physical depiction of the 10 Commandments, which has nothing to do with whether morals are taught in schools. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 12:20, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

: "Nothing to do with morals are taught in schools"? You can't be serious. That's like saying "2+2=4" has nothing with whether "2+3=5". If the Ten Commandments can't be on the wall, then they can't be taught for [[normative]] purposes in textbooks either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::Yes I am serious. To use your example you don't need a poster that says 2+2=4 to learn that or to know it. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 18:41, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Character education is a big part of the curriculum these days, and I've yet to see a school library without a bible in it. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:47, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Reference to the Ten Commandments is relevant to that page, not this one. Same for public schools. Deleted part about deceit not being taught in public schools. It's ridiculous to note on every page whether something is or is not taught in liberal American public schools (the list would be too long). --[[User:Ursus|Ursus]] 13:07, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
:Seconding Ursus' comment. Furthermore, the exclusion of the Commandments from the educational curriculum has no place in the definition of any word. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:54, 25 February 2008 (EST)

== contradiction in the definition ==

I am not sure why I am getting involved with this, but here goes:

* " Deceit is the fraudulent representation of a material fact, made intentionally or recklessly or without reasonable basis and with the intent to induce reliance on the falsehood".
* "Traditionally deceit was taught as being wrong and in violation of the Ten Commandments" -"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor".

The logic implied therefore is that'''all deceit'' is prohibited by the 10 commandments.

However, bearing "false witness against a neighbour" is not the same as "fraudulent misrepresentation of a material fact", and does not encompass all the things that the latter could possible include. For example, claiming that you have a PhD when you do not have one is clearly deceit, but I cannot find anything in the 10 commandments that tells me I should not do it. I am not stealing; I am not bearing false witness against a neighbour. Am I coveting? I don't think so. As far as the ten commandments is concerned, I can get away with it.

Under these circumstances, the statement concerning the 10C needs to be amended to say:
"Deceit has traditionally been viwed as being morally wrong and in many respects it is in violation of the Ten Commandments, especially those deceits which involve harm or malpractice to another person" --[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 16:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:Sometimes deceit can also be stealing - if you are trying to get advantages by deceiving. For example that kind of telling you have a PhD can have this kind of wrong motive. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 17:36, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Most crimes entail deceit, but the point here is when deceit is the primary wrongdoing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:::You seem to be missing the point. I am not saying deceit is right, far from it. I am saying that the statement that "deceit is ... in violation of the Ten Commandments" is not correct, as some deceits are NOT in violation of any of the 10 commandments.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 18:23, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Sean, I thought I made the change you requested. Sure, some deceits are justified, just as self-defense can justify killing in rare circumstances. But the statement is correct, that deceit has traditionally been taught as being wrong under the Ten Commandments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Apologies, had missed that in the article, I was still responding to the stuff on the talk pages. Thank You. I shall now go back to what I know best.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 18:37, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

== Politicization ==
So, regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Deceit&diff=181455&oldid=181449 this] edit war, the two sentences seem to suggest two things:
# They suggest that all Conservatives are not deceitful, and that all Liberals are deceitful. That is a perfect definition of [[stereotype]], and I'm sure we can agree that stereotypes suck.
# Reference #2 suggests that ''only'' conservatives teach their children the ten commandments, therefore implying that A). Liberals cannot be Christians, and B). All Liberals are atheists.
Am I the only one who notices this? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:36, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
::No, you are not the only one. The universal statements are a little misleading, though I personally agree with what is said for the most part.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 19:40, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
::So you agree that all liberals are atheist deceivers, and all conservatives are "true" Christians and always honest? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:43, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:::No that is not what I meant at all. Refering to groups, any groups, in terms of "all" is never a good thing to do, and should be somehow worked out. [[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 19:47, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

So it's not deceit when the army lies about Tilman, it's not deceit in the case of Iran-Contra or Watergate or the "slam-dunk" or "sexing up" intelligence reports or plagiarizing someone's report when speaking to the UN. Maybe this article needs to flat out say what the people who run this website obviously want it to say and define deceit as "what happens when anyone whom it is politically convenient to call a liar lies" and at least be a little less deceitful about it. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: REPLY TO ABOVE: The statement does not say that all liberals are deceitful. I don't think all liberals are. And I don't think all conservatives are honest. But conservatives do teach that deceit is wrong, and liberals do not teach that deceit is wrong. That's a fact. Compare a public school classroom, where you won't hear that deceit is wrong, with a conservative classroom, where you will hear that. This is not a politicization. This is observable fact.

: Sevenstring can suggest other examples of deceit comparable to the ones listed. But the examples he identified are not comparable, because in those cases deceit was not embraced for ideological gain as it was in the listed examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:13, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: P.S. I just rolled back the Tillman example, because that was not deceit for any gain. It is common practice for the military, dating back to the death of Benny Goodman (?) by friendly fire during WWII, to glorify the victims of war and minimize embarrassment. JFK's heroism in his PT boat was actually the result of incompetence; Kerry's heroism was questionable also. There is nothing new about this and the military is not guilty of deceit in the same way as the listed examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:16, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:: So the whole big push to punish plagiarising in public schools (two of my friends got failing grades for that), expelling people for cheating on tests, etc. (another friend got nabbed for that), and punishing kids for lieing to teachers are just coincidences, right?
:: Once again, Andy, you are stereotyping the entire public school system. Perhaps instead of saying that "liberals don't teach that deceit is wrong", it can be phrased as "the public school system does not teach that deceit is wrong". Both statements are completely false, but at least it's a step towards the truth.
:: And as for Tillman; it doesn't matter the tradition or context which it is in; it's still deceit. And I don't see Watergate on there, or the Lewinsky scandal. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:17, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::P.S. and really, not only Conservatives teach the ten commandments. Call me a heretic, but I'm pretty sure the 10C are standard throughout all kinds of Christianity. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:20, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh, come off it - how, exactly, does fudging the truth to justify a war not fall under the rubric of "deceit" for "ideological gain?" Or breaking into the opposing party's headquarters and then using the state apparatus to cover it up in order to win an election? By your own definition, weak as it is, those are textbook examples. And who says that there needs to be ideological gain for deceit to occur? [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:21, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: Folks, you're in denial. I know what's taught in public schools. Hoji, if you're in public school, I challenge you to find anything in any of your textbooks, lecture notes, writing assignments, etc., that says deceit is wrong. It's not there, and that is because liberals run public schools. It is there in conservative classrooms. Sure, plagiarism and cheating are punished if someone is caught, but that can be explained by self-interest better than teaching it is "wrong".

: Sevenstring, your complaint is that the list is not longer. Present something as airtight and long-lasting as the current examples and we'll include it. Delaying a few weeks before telling the truth about Tillman's death does not come close, not by a long shot. That TEMPORARY deceit could just as easily be justified as honoring Tillman rather than benefiting anyone, and the military has been doing that for decades without complaint in many celebrated cases. Shall we put JFK's PT boat incident in the list also???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:27, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::As for JFK's PT boat incident, if it is relevant, then sure, put it on. And as for the schools, you seem to be equating "liberal" with "public schools", which is certainly wrong. I grew up in a liberal household, and was taught that deceit is wrong. I am sure that the ''vast'' majority of ''all'' American families teach their kids that deceit is wrong; it is not a good way to win arguments, friends, or respect. In the public schools, deceit isn't taught to be wrong because there isn't an obsession with teaching moral behavior, because schools rely on parents to choose the moral education they give their children. If anything, I would say that Conservatives are just as deceitful as liberals; everything on AiG, for instance, is intentionally spun to persuade, even if that means leaving out relevant facts. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:32, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
Please excuse my vitriol, but Andy, I have been following this for a long time, and you have never cited ANYTHING to back up your bizarre assertions about liberals and deceit. I am liberal (mm..refreshing), I don't believe in deceit, neither do my children. In fact, neither do any of my friends, who are mostly liberal. You should be ashamed of yourself. Oh, that's right, im about to be banned for speaking my mind, and the truth. [[User:OneLove|OneLove]] 20:49, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

ASchlafly, did you even read my post? My complaint is not that " the list is not longer," but that by YOUR definition of, essentially, lying in the name of the advancement of political ideology, the discourse leading up to the invasion...errrrrrrrr liberation of Iraq was deceitful. As was Watergate. "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia," indeed. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 21:10, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: Liberals don't teach that deceit is wrong. "OneLove", do you teach that deceit is wrong? Did you ever hear public school, which is run by liberals, teach that it is wrong? Please answer without making absurd remarks like I "should be ashamed of" myself. You're not helping your cause.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:21, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
::I'm going to attempt to draw a conclusion based on your logic, Andy;
::*Catholicism is a branch of Christianity
::*Catholics believe the Pope is divinely appointed by God.
::*Therefore, all Christians believe that the Pope is divinely appointed by God.
::Here, Catholicism represents the public school system, the Pope represents deceit, and Christianity represents liberals. You know that the above scenario is wrong, because it is based on faulty logic. Also, public schools certainly do not teach that deceit is ''right'', which you are seeming to imply. As an organ of the federal government, in accordance with the first amendment, schools do not teach about morality. So, using faulty logic, I draw that liberals are more patriotic! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:24, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, Andy, I would be happy to answer more specifically. I used to be a public school teacher, in South San Francisco (NOT affiliated with San Fran in ANY way). I, of course, taught that deceit was wrong DAILY. Every single time a student would try to lie, or "pull one over" on me, I would explain to them why that was the wrong thing to do. I'm not sure why you would think any public school teacher would do otherwise. At least, none of my colleagues encouraged deceit. Given humans are fallible, I'm sure some teachers are as well. I quit teaching because of the general underfunding in schools in California. Also, to assert "the public schools are run by liberals" is patently ridiculous. Some school boards are quite liberal, some quite conservative, and they tend to swing back and forth--usually in reaction to a previous board being to extreme in their liberalism or conservatism. So, I'll add again, you should be ashamed. You prove that either you are deceitful or ignorant or both, but I won't generalize to all conservatives, because that would be incorrect stereotyping. [[User:OneLove|OneLove]] 21:51, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:OneLove, when did you teach: 1950? Anyone familiar with public schools today would find your claims to be so out-of-date as to be absurd. The word "wrong" in a moral sense has not been used in public school for at least a decade. Kids can be busted for drugs in the bathroom of the school and still the term morally wrong won't be used. I had my kids in public school, and I follow them closely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:59, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::In all honesty, Andy, I am undoubtedly the most qualified in this debate to comment on the current status of public schools, seeing as how I actually attend one, and deal with these non-issues you talk about regularly. And I do not see why you decided to drag the public school system into this, as the gross stereotype still exists on the page; the idea that "liberals", as a group, do not teach about the wrongness of deceit, is simply absurd. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Hey, I'm a qualified attender also![[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 22:05, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
First, OneLove, was NOT a sock of userP,,,s. Second, I have it on good authority that he taught public school in the early to mid nineties, not the 1950s. You are falling back on some shaky debating tactics. Oh, time to ban me for being a sock of OneLove, who was not a sock of p...s.[[User:Downinmyheart|Downinmyheart]] 22:07, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

*Do any of you above have cites showing the "improvement" of public education over the past 20 years? And if you produce them, do they take into account the lessening of academic standards and wholesale changes to the curriculum over the years to make it appear to be getting better? I have to tell you all the major and politically diseperate academic organizations don't see improvement. Is this really the argument you want to make, that public schools are "fine"? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:46, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:No, the public school issue was a distraction; the actual issue was the line "Conservatives teach that deceit is wrong. Liberals do not teach that deceit is wrong", which is completely absurd. Following this, Andy attempted to equate "Liberals" with "public school system". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:48, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Public schools are a perfect example of liberals who teach. I'm open to other examples, such as liberal philosophers.

:: A substantial percentage of liberals are atheists who doubt anything is morally right or wrong. For them to teach that "deceit is wrong" would be, well, deceitful in itself!

:: Rereading OneLove's claim above that he "taught that deceit was wrong DAILY" makes me wonder if he is being deceitful here. Not even the clergy teaches that deceit is wrong DAILY. I've observed on this website that some liberals actually enjoy being deceitful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

*''Since this is a self-admitted and proclaimed Conservative and Christian-friendly encyclopedia'', there is nothing distracting in Andy's comments. I would submit that moral relativism and equivalency, along with historically revisionist thinking, which are an inarguable part of todays public school curriculum, do foster the "if it feels good do it" 60's mentality. I have several currently teaching relations, in rural and urban areas. Most of them have confirmed for me tonight, that teaching "right and wrong" as it once was, has been ditched in favor of non-judgemental lessons, and a reliance on "gray areas". --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:Still, the blanket statement is misleading; there certainly are conservatives who deceive (and teach that deceit is right), and there are certainly liberals who teach that deceit is wrong. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:09, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:Michigan's Department of Education requires public schools to teach students a certain set of Core Democratic Values. One of those values is Truth. [[User:TigersRoar|TigersRoar]] 21:20, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Interesting, unless you're joking. Can you provide the link for that so I can confirm and see exactly how it is required? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:23, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:::[http://www.michigan.gov/documents/10-02_Core_democtaric_Values_48832_7.pdf Took about five seconds on google]... but personally I think it's a [[liberal]] scam. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 21:18, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

== Archiving ==

Someone who won't get yelled at like I do, would you be so kind as to archive this page and leave the section "10 Commandments" as the beginning piece? Thanks oodles! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:06, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:Done. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:11, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

*You are so much more than kind, even if you won't share your box with everyone. :-( How do you get those neat accents on your sig? In my most Liberal whine, I feel so much less than without a cool sig! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 02:02, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

==Democratic Party==

[[David Limbaugh]] accused Democratic leaders of "deceit" on Iraq. He says they don't really intend to "win" in Iraq, butm want us to withdraw so that we will "lose" (which, by the way, is what happened when we withdrew from Vietna: an even worse tyranny was created in the entire country than ever existed in South Vietnam: compare 20,000 "tiger cage" deaths South Vietnam to 500,000 post-ware executions in North Vietnam. I think we also have to count the 250,000 to 500,000 [[boat people]] who died escaping the Communists.)

*Nothing better illustrates the Democrats' duplicity and emptiness concerning Iraq than the manifestly contradictory statements of two of their leaders in the last few days preceding the election. Rep. John Murtha, who probably represents the bulk of his party, reiterated his nauseating, America-denigrating contention that the United States cannot win militarily in Iraq. We must resolve this matter diplomatically, he said, meaning we must negotiate with terrorists, and we must redeploy, meaning withdraw – very, very soon.Then, after Sen. Elizabeth Dole said that Democrats are content with losing the war in Iraq, Sen. Chuck Schumer replied indignantly, "Democrats want to win the war by changing the war strategy."
*Now, should we believe Murtha or Schumer? Does Schumer really expect us to believe he has experienced a miraculous, neoconservative conversion, or is he just lip-syncing? That's a no-brainer: Of course he isn't sincere in saying Democrats want to win in Iraq by changing the strategy in Iraq. That would put him at odds with 90 percent of the Michael-Mooreized Democratic base and with the pronouncements of his party's leadership over the last year.
*Dress it up however you like, Democrats are advocating an almost immediate withdrawal from Iraq before the Iraqi security forces are capable of sustaining their nation's security and newly formed government. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52813]

Is this an "example of deceit", or just a partisan criticism of the [[Democratic Party]] by a conservative? The answer will determine where I place this quote. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:45, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

==American Public Schools==

"The American public school system does not teach that deceit is wrong, at least not using the Ten Commandments." It is my belief that this statement is misleading, it provides the suggestion that the Ten Commandments are required to teach that deceit is wrong. Just as it is possible to teach that murder is wrong without referring to the 10 Commandments it is just as possible to teach that deceit is wrong without referring to them, and there is no source to support a claim that the American Public School system does not teach that deceit is wrong, albeit without the 10 Commandments (my original reason for the citation template). Really, this article does not need the statement, and it has already been extensively covered in the 10 Commandments article. [[User:EQ|EQ]] 23:59, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

*The American public schools teach moral relativism. How does one get a clear idea of "right" and "wrong" when one is taught all such things are relative? I unlocked the article. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 00:13, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Character education is a BIG part of the curriculum these days. Try googling it. Here's just one link. I'd be happy to discus this further with anyone who feels there's a moral vacuum among teachers these days. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:50, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
http://www.goodcharacter.com/

*Character education, taught from a secular-progressive POV, is nothing. Since they cannot bring themselves to actually say "anything" is "wrong", it is meaningless. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 01:49, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:We constantly say things are wrong: stealing, hurting, lying, etc. Some of our students are of religions other than Christianity...would it be right to instruct a Buddhist student using Christian scripture? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 09:34, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:*Yes, of course it would, in the United States! We are a Judeo-Christian country. We have achieved what we have here by virtue of being a "melting pot", not a balkanized hodge-podge of competing cultures. While the secular-progressives might wish it to be multi-cultural, with each and every ethnic and religious group clinging to their "Mother Culture", that is exactly the cause of the slaughter's in Africa and East Europe. Teaching a Buddhist Christian scripture in no way "demeans" their own. But it does teach them valuable lessons, and offers them understanding and insight into their new country and its attendant culture. You say you are constantly telling them things are wrong; Do you tell them why? And if so, what are those "non-religious" reasons? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 10:28, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:No American [[public schools]] teach that anything is "wrong". Maestro, post here the quote and citation of any textbook used in public school that says something is morally "wrong". As one would expect, eliminating God from public schools has also eliminated morality in terms of right and wrong. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:: it took me 30 seconds: ''Lying is wrong''[http://www.goodcharacter.com/pp/trustworthiness.html] [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 10:47, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Some website? How is that related to ''[[public schools]]'' or their textbooks? I hope your editing here maintains a higher caliber than your research on this topic! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 10:51, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Right, TK. Dkips, what does that website have to do with public schools? Public school curricula are available online, I think. But you didn't cite to one. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:09, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:I wouldn't be surprised if you can't find a textbook that says lying is wrong. That sort of thing is taught in kindergarten, which doesn't use textbooks (it's also taught by parents at an even younger age, and it's they who have the real responsibility for moral instruction of their children, much moreso than government schools). Please do find me a textbook on moral relativism that is used in public schools. And, if we want to take the Bible literally, the ten commandments don't exactly teach deceit is wrong. They teach that bearing false witness against your neighbor is wrong, but bearing false witness is only a specific kind of deceit (there are countless lies oen can tell that do not involve bearing false witness against anyone). And if we want to be super-technical, it can be said that if someone lives far enough away from you that they wouldn't be considered a "neighbor" then it's perfectly fine to bear false witness against them. This morality is seeming slightly relative. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 11:57, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Public schools don't teach that deceit is wrong because that's something that's taught ''long'' before a child enrolls into the public school system. It's not that schools teach some sort of secular code of conduct or moral relativism - it's that they don't teach it '''at all''' because it's best taught by parents. Besides, there are many of us that view man as a creature endowed with a predisposition to perform goodness! [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:09, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, public schools are often known to defer to parents with the utmost of respect. Just look at sex education; that's left strictly to the parents... Do you guys really think that by parroting each other that people won't see you're talking in circles? Apply some logic - don't make up phony reasons for why it's not taught and try to convince yourselves what you made up on the spot is true. Either it's taught or it's not. In fact, here's an easy one. Find me the curriculum that states what you said. Anything along the lines of "We don't teach that deceit is wrong because that is left to the parents and takes place before youngsters enter school." Want to find just one? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:26, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

::You want to apply some logic? Fine. You're committing a grievous logical fallacy in your argument; remember, '''the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.''' Do you honestly believe something as mundane as "deceit is wrong" should be a bullet point on a syllabus for a public school class? If you want to see how seriously public schools take student discipline, character, and behavior, just look at my old Code of Conduct from the JCPS: http://www.jefferson.k12.ky.us/Pubs/codeofconduct.pdf . '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 15:46, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm sorry, but the code of conduct is sadly what I would expect it to be - a 25 page document outlining what is not acceptable in order to close all loopholes since anything that is not outlined, could be considered acceptable. And so you have warnings not to commit arson or kidnap other students. It seems to back Andy's views more than anything else -- the common understanding of morality that used to exist is gone.

:::Getting back to the other point, you still appear to be talking in circles. You are applying the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" as a catch all after getting called on your last assertion which came across as made up on the spot. I somehow doubt that schools are removing information that used to be taught to give parents greater autonomy over their children's lives. Of course you can tell me that in the schools you have contact with that morality, right and wrong, and deceit are taught as an important part of the education process, but I would have to wonder if that itself wouldn't be an example of deceit. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:03, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

==Clinton==

Should we mention Bill Clinton's [[deceit]]ful testimony in the [[Paula Jones]] case? It got him [[impeach]]ed (but not removed from offices). There's the misleading bit about "I didn't have sex" (playing on whether [[oral sex]] counts as [[sexual intercourse]]).

Is it [[adultery]] and/or grounds for divorce on account of un[[faithfulness]] if an ordinary man does what Clinton did with his intern? Is it [[sexual harassment]], given the power imbalance between employer and employee?

== Pat Tillman example needs work ==

"On 31 July 2007, the US Army censured three-star General Kensinger for "deception" in the friendly-fire death of Army Ranger [[Pat Tillman]] [http://www.onelocalnews.com/akronfarmreport/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=139590]"

I know this issue is loved by Bush-haters, but covering up friendly fire is common in many Administrations. Glenn Miller was killed by friendly fire and [[FDR]] covered it up. I don't see why this issue concerning Pat Tillman is given so much attention at the expense of other examples. We're not a vehicle for misplaced Bush-hating here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:How about a general article on [[friendly fire]] first? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:39, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Well, I see you removed the information I'd added. I would point out three things:-
 
 a) I'm not a "Bush-hater".
 b) The issue is hardly being covered only by "Bush haters"! It's front page news on Fox News as we write! [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291591,00.html]
 c) Why don't you add the into about Glenn Goodman [Miller] too? Deceit is deceit, whatever group it comes from.
 
It seems to me you're being very selective with the truth, and I think that's unfair to our troops. Friendly fire accidents are not partisan politics - they happen, it's tragic, but it's a consequence of war and the truth should not be hidden from the public by [[deceit]]. Just because it's not [[liberal]] [[deceit]] doesn't mean this incident is not [[deceit]]. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 19:54, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:Your point is well taken. We could use some more information on Tilman and Goodman [Miller]. One of the virtues of a democracy with a [[free press]] is that errors and misconduct can be brought to light by ordinary citizens. When this is not done for [[partisan advantage]], it's usually a good thing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:59, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Exactly, Ed. I would do it, except I fear a ban from a certain someone if I put Tillman back in. Perhaps someone else would tackle it? It seems to me that an announcement that a three-star general is to be censured over the matter makes this a notable enough example of deceit in high places, and deserving of appearing in the article, and it will also make the article less biased. Deceit is practiced by all who are prepared to lie, regardless of the color of their stripes. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 20:03, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:First, my mistake, it was Glenn "Miller", not Goodman. So I've inserted "Miller" above in brackets to prevent the error from propagating.

:Second, no one is being blocked for this disagreement.

:Third, more facts are needed. What was the alleged "deceit"? Why is this being singled out? Was was the motive for the deceit? Our examples have thorough proof of deceit on issues of extreme public importance. Why do you think covering up an incident of [[friendly fire]], which happens in every military conflict, ranks so highly in importance? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:07, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Andy. One point is that the Deceit article is extremely partisan and one-sided, and this type of bias is part of Conservapedia's credibility problem. Adding a publicly acknowledged incident from the 'other' side that is today part of the public record adds fairness and balance - a good thing, surely? As to the details of the incident, the report has yet to be published - I make no comment. However, in the context of the 'Deceit' article, since the three-star General is accused in public with the actual use of the word "deception", it seems more than appropriate for the article. As to the 'importance', I make no partisan claims one way or the other to the validity of the incident, but as a current example of deceit, I can think of no better example. And finally, while the Glenn Miller incident was friendly fire (and yes, that happens, and no political party is to blame for it), there was no cover-up or deceit involved, was there? [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 20:38, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:If you're trying to make the point that liberals aren't the only deceitful people in the world, I'll agree with you. The question is: should we use breaking news for an example? That's all.

:Since you didn't jump in and help me write [[Pat Tillman]], I went ahead and did it by myself. See also [[fratricide]] and [[friendly fire]]. (You can do [[free-fire zone]] if you have time.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:17, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== Another Example ==

Perhaps the works of [[Ernst Haeckel]] and his "contributions" to evolution should be considered? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:48, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, that was a fraud that lasted for 100 years, long after the experts knew it was a fraud. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:00, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

== Catalog or informative article? ==

Is this article intended to be a catalog of acts of deceit or an article describing what deceit is? If it's the latter, then the direction of the article needs to be re-though; it's not necessary to have '''ten''' different examples of deceit to convey what deceit is. This is expressly different from [[liberal deceit]], which is actually of catalog of the subject matter. Maybe this article should be re-written to contain the "Top 3" examples that express what deceit is? '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 12:11, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

==Public Schools==

I don't see how you can make the claim that public schools don't teach that deceit is wrong when a large number of students are expelled for ACADEMIC DISHONESTY [[User:Dragonmaster|Dragonmaster]] 15:53, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:Are you including in your "academic dishonesty" the act of copying, word for word, a passage of text from another source without clearly demarking this passage with quotation marks? Aka [[Barker|plagiarism]]? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:37, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
::I busted kids left and right for that when I taught junior high. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 18:38, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

BTW, since when have the commandments been 'banned'? They're not publically desplayed (believe it or not, some students follow other religions), but banned? There's a bible in every library. You make it sound like crack or guns or something. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 10:23, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

:The issue of whether deceit is ever justified is a deep and complex one. Is "tattling" always wrong? Is to "bear false witness" wrong because it is tattling, or because it involves deceit?

:How about telling someone that a thing is okay when you know it is not, so they do it and get into trouble? We need to expand upon the ethics of truth and deceit. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:37, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== Reversion ==

This is a high-quality page. Additions to the list must be at the same quality level as existing examples. A [[liberal]] newspaper article claiming that a Republican lied about some fact doesn't cut it. Look at the examples, and please propose only additions at comparable level of significance, proof, and amount of deceit. Future reversions of low-quality examples will not be explained. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:I'm still amazed that Ted Haggard, who publicly preached against homosexuality (saying "We don't have to debate about what we should think about homosexual activity. It's written in the Bible"[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003365311_jesuscamp08.html], and the National Association of Evangelicals under his leadership found "homosexual activity, like adulterous relationships, is clearly condemned in the Scriptures"[http://www.nae.net/index.cfm?FUSEACTION=editor.page&pageID=303&IDCategory=8]) led a three-year homosexual relationship with a gay prostitute, complete with the use of methamphetamine. Hmm... the leader of a national body of Christians having gay sex behind his wife's back, while preaching against those same activities seems a bit [[deceit]]ful. Oh well, I'm sure the whole thing is a big liberal conspiracy. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 02:50, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::By the way, Pastor Haggard spoke at my friends church two weeks prior to his being "outed", and I was fortunate enough to attend. It was a special evening sermon about sexual morality, and I can tell you from personal experience that he wasn't quite fond of homosexuals. (If you don't believe me, I'd be glad to email you contact info for the church). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 03:03, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Well, you'll notice that we don't have Bill Clinton and "that woman" as an example either. A benchmark is usually an intentional decision to mislead for personal gain that causes hardship to others by withholding information that could have been used to make honest, informed decisions. Whether or not Haggard had homosexual tendencies is not something that had a profound impact on the American public. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:18, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::It's not "misleading" to preach against homosexuality to millions of people while engaging in a homosexual ''and'' adulterous relationship? As a major Christian leader, Haggard had a huge influence on the voting habits of Conservative Christians. And I'm still having trouble determining how number 11 had a profound impact on the public. And regarding Clinton, he wasn't actively speaking out against homosexuals and adulterers. Haggard was, and his platform was against homosexuality ''and'' adultery, both of which he committed. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 03:28, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::I think you overestimate Haggard's influece. The Haggard example seems like a better example of hypocrisy, not deceit. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 03:32, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I don't think saying that the leader of the National Association of Evangelicals, who also was the pastor of a 14,000-member megachurch, and one of TIME's 25 most influential evangelicals has influence one the vote of CC's is an "overestimate". And he did deceive; he deceived his wife, his family, and his congregation. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 03:39, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Which sounds more like Haggard:
::::::::::*"''criticism of others, by a standard one does not apply to oneself''" from [[hypocrisy]]
::::::::::or
::::::::::*"''the deliberate distortion or denial of the truth with an intent to trick or fool another''" from [[deceit]]? I say what he did was a better example of hypocrisy. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 03:42, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::So people who have committed adultery shouldn't think it's wrong, or speak out against it? Sin is sin, and if we happen to fall into sin it doesn't exonerate us or mean we can no longer speak out against it. If someone is a pedophile, that person still has the right to speak out against it, and that is not deceitful. If Haggard didn't believe the practice of homosexuality was wrong, but spoke out against it, and he received financial gain for his position, then I would certainly agree with you that would be deceitful. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:44, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

*Hoji, is AmesG ghost writing your stuff now? :p --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:59, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:Perhaps, TK, I merely have my own viewpoints which happen to overlap with other people's in some areas. Learn together, do you think he would have been the head of the NEA if he had been preaching "homosexuality is OK"? As a mega-pastor, he received quite the salary - he was practically a celebrity. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 13:25, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:*Hoji, he could have quite possibly been President of the NEA (National Education Association) preaching "homosexuality is OK", being it is the Liberal/Left Wing organization that it is, but of course he would never have been President of the Evangelical association! But it is Apples and Oranges to compare the duties and responsibilities of the President of either NEA with those of the POTUS. A logical fallacy, that makes a good "show" argument, but one that doesn't hold up. That said, I am uneasy holding people up for their personal failings in regard to such things, Even President Clinton. However one had an elected trust with the people of the United States,300,000,000 of them, the other didn't. I was bothered much more by Clinton's equivocation (actual and moral) over the meaning of the word "is" and his allowing good Citizens' reputations to be smeared along with the attendant financial ruin. I was also affronted to be told by President Clinton and his agents that I was part of a "vast, right-wing conspiracy" in thinking what he did was wrong. At least Jimmy Swaggart, in picking up prostitutes not even six miles from my home, didn't blame me or deny what he had been doing and ruin other people's lives in the process. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:08, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:*I don't think you'd see him preaching homosexuality is ok because he doesn't believe it. From what I could tell, his preaching matched his beliefs. Some of the most vehement anti-smoking people I know with messages of 'don't ever start' and 'I wish I could quit' are those who are hooked on cigarettes. And let's be honest here, the man was hardly Fred Phelps. Homosexuality isn't a once a week topic and it wasn't a major part of Haggard's weekly messages. I just read a 6 page interview that Christianity Today did with him in November 2005. Although it touched on a multitude of different issues and his views, the only mention of homosexuality was that Haggard supported the Court's decision in Lawrence v Texas to stay out of the private life of homosexuals. Hardly seems deceitful does it? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:21, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

: Hoji, I agree that number 11 should be deleted for lack of significance. I didn't insert that item. Honestly, I don't think number 10 is significant enough either, but I tried not to be heavy-handed about this.

: As to Haggard, it was a scandal but it was not "deceit" like the other examples. Maybe he was a hypocrite, but that is not "deceit" either. Perhaps the people who supported Haggard were deceived, but they are not significant in comparison to how the public was deceived in the other examples. By the way, I had never even heard of Haggard before the [[liberal]] media made this such a big deal just prior to the election. Adding Haggard to the list would require adding scores of [[liberals]] like Clinton, who pretended to have a good Christian marriage with Hillary, to the list too. That's not what this entry is about.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:03, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

Every single example of deceict (except maybe that Dutch art forger) is of a liberal. Every time someone posts an example of conservative decption, it's deleated, with an explanation that it's a 'scandal' or a 'lie', but not 'deception.' Isn't is slightly deceptive to only include the deceit of one side of the political spectrum? Just my two cents. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:47, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

: Some [[liberals]] delight in [[deceit]], and they have succeeded in driving morality out of [[public schools]]. So it's not surprising that many major examples are about [[liberals]]. But I don't claim that "every single example" is about [[liberals]]. You seem to be drawing that conclusion.

: Provide a [[conservative]] example of similar magnitude and it will remain there. But please don't simply post a scandal that is not really deceit, or an insignificant example.

: Surely you don't expect [[deceit]] to occur as often by people who teach that it is wrong as those who don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:14, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
::<s>Andy, your suggestion that all liberals practice and encourage deceit is utterly ridiculous. There are deceitful Christians, and there are deceitful conservatives. Many liberals are Christian, and many conservatives are as well. But to conflate "liberal" with "some public schools" is a pretty far stretch.
</s>::Regardless, I think the word "Watergate" sums up a very well-known example of conservative deceit. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 18:19, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

::: Hoji, do you really expect [[deceit]] to be correlated precisely 50/50 among two very different groups, [[liberals]] and [[conservatives]]?

::: Let's put this a different way. Do you think people who advocate legalizing drugs have a greater percentage of drug use than people who oppose legalizing drugs? Surely you don't think that correlation is a perfect 50/50 also. And if you agree that is unlikely to be evenly split, then why the claim that deceit must be evenly split also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::: The difference between your analogy and this situation is that both liberals and conservatives, by and large, teach that deceit is wrong. There aren't that many people out there (Christians, jews, muslims, atheists, agnostics, rastafarians, etc.) that actively advocate deceit. If I'm reading the analogy correctly (the drug-legalization advocates represent liberals, and the drug represents deceit), then this isn't congruent with the actual situation. And I've given two perfectly good examples of conservative deceit; I'm still waiting for a reply on the Watergate cover-up. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 19:43, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

I'm still waiting for Hoji to take back his ''all liberals practice'' comment, which comes directly after Mr. Schlafly's ''Some [[liberals]] delight''. There's a big difference between [[some]] and [[all]], well known to all intellectuals and philosophers since the time of [[Aristotle]].

After you take that back, we can progress to your next error. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:52, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:I formally retract my "all liberals practice" comment. It still seems that great lengths are being taken to keep conservatives off the list. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 19:54, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Hoji, how about this: people who support gun control are less likely to own guns than people who support the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Agree with that? If so, then why so much protest over a similar statement about deceit? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:33, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

==Delete==
Since I apparently shouldn't use the <nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki> stub on the main page for whatever reason, I'm going to voice my opinion here that this article is counter-productive and should be deleted and re-created without bias. As it is now, it is a shining example of pure and simple hatred. Disgusting. -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]]

*The above post is a shining example of useless posts. What, specifically in the article do you object to, "Doctor"? Is there some specific fact or citation you dispute? That would be helpful, and better than just a statement of opinion backed by nothing. Sort of like if I said your post was the work of a bitter, Liberal troll who is full of [[deceit]] and [[Liberal Bias]] without pointing to specifics. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:15, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

:Any article that has considerable ongoing activity should not just be stamped with <nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki> without any other comment. We try to make extensive use of the talk pages to discuss thoughts and recommendations for improvement. It is also customary to put new commentary on the bottom, not on the top. Thank you [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:10, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

==Environmental hoaxes and hogwash==

Should we list or link to [[global warming]], [[ozone depletion]], etc.? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:19, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Do you really think such a large body of people made up a scientific theory to deliberately trick people? Thats the real question you should be asking. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:22, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:I believe to be deceitful you would have to show that those who push GW, OD, etc are lying about it. Perhaps *some* pushers are being deceitful, but it's not a strong enough case to call all of them deceitful. [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 19:23, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::Right, that's the question. Is it a "hoax" if the people promoting it actually believe it? I would not apply the work ''hoax'' to anything other than a falsehood promoted by people who know it to be false, e.g., the theory that [[crop circles]] are mysterious, possibly supernatural or 'alien' phenomena. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:25, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
:Well some people can really buy into those crop circles! I mean, some farmers have seen a lot of green that way... Anyway, I don't believe GW or Ozone depletion to be a hoax. I can see how people might conclude that its a flawed science, but certainly not a hoax? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:37, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

I appreciate your input; it's good advice. I'll start a category for flawed science instead, maybe. Or how about [[:Category:Junk science]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:39, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:wow wow wow, thats not what I'm advising at all. How would you then go on to define a junk science? Would you base it on a flawed methodology in collecting evidence, or simply that the conclusions do not meet the answers you want them to meet? I think that is at the heart of this sort of debate. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:45, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::CP is way ahead of you: [[Junk science]] ;) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 19:47, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Graham, I think "junk science" is generally the promotion of a finding as "scientific" or "unscientific" based purely upon whether - as you said - its conclusions support the answers (or views) you want to promote.

Like, if you want to ban smoking in public places because (a) you personally hate the smell of the smoke or the dizzy feeling you get when you inhale a whiff or (b) you want to make other people take better care of their health - but you say that [[secondhand smoke]] is dangerous to others even if this is not supported by the evidence - then you are engaging in junk science. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:58, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not sure hoax fits. A hoax has to be perpetrated by someone, but who's doing the perpetrating if not the scientists? There's also a rather high burden of proof to fit it into junk sceince, as you point out. I'm not sure we can yet match that burden. ''Politicians'', on the other hand, would fall into your pattern of "X is dangerous even if not supported by the evidence." I don't believe for one minute that scientists are engaging in any sort of this behavior, but politicians, not being educated in the material, certainly can; they don't have the technical background to know if their conclusions are supported by the evidence. In addition, it's a hot-button issue right now; I wouldn't be surprised if some of the politicians pushing global warming hysteria really don't believe it but just want the votes. [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 20:15, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Maestro, your edits injected liberal bias, like the phone "separation of church and state" which is a liberal fiction. Your other edits also deserved reversion. Adhere to our [[rules]], please. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:43, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Okay, what didn't you like? The fact that I mention deceit was forbidden by Islamic law? Or the way I corrected a now untrue statement about Wikipedia (they now mention in their article that the drawings are 'allegedly fraudulent'). As the article stands, it says something untrue about Wikipedia. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:46, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

I read your explanation, and I still don't get it. How is mentioning Islam a liberal bias? And liberal or not, the Wikipedia embryo article simply does not say what this article claims anymore. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:48, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

: Please don't discuss a content page here. The talk pages for each content page are for that purpose. Take your comments over to [[Talk:Deceit]] and I'll respond there. But don't omit how you inserted the [[liberal]] fiction "separation of church and state," as I noted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:52, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Here you go. I won't argue about church and state, and I know that mentioning Wikipedia in a less negative sense than before raises hackles here, but Islam? I'm still stumped as to how that breaks the rules. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:56, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

:Didn't Mohammed break his peace treaty with the Jewish tribes and attack them? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:08, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Your comment about [[Islam]] seemed unsupported and motivated by [[political correctness]]. Your statement about [[Wikipedia]] seemed false since the entry had the date of the [[liberal]] falsehood on [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:32, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:Well, it's your site, your rules. I was simply trying to show how universal the rule for honesty is (and I backed it up with a quote from the Koran), but, like I said, it's your ballgame. Allah Akbar. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 20:46, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
::Maestro, if you can give an exact quote from the Koran about that outlawing of deceit, then that would definitely make it supported. If so, why not add it to the article? [[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 15:23, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:::Once bitten, twice shy, friend. Apparently my edits were a 'pile of manure' (see below)[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
::Maestro, you dumped the entire 2nd Sutra, which, after doing a search, doesn't even use the word deceit. What verse do you feel makes this point? And how does this correspond with Mohammed's later actions? You also included it along with a number of other alterations such as the "Constitutional Separation of Church and State". Guess what, if there's a rose in the middle of a pile of manure, it still gets thrown out. No one is going to do your cleaning for you. Present a polished product on its own merits and if it doesn't stick, then voice your complaints. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:25, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:Are we still arguing about this? I said above that you won. Drop it already.[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

==Heading edit==

Hi. I changed a sentence in the opening header that mentions conservatives actively fighting deceit, while liberals purposely spread/encourage it. It now reads:

"Both Conservatives and Liberals at large consider deceit wrong and actively fight it, but there are claims that Liberals are more guilty of deceit than Conservatives."

I feel this is more accurate, as the original statemend suggested that each and every Liberal and Conservative were thus branded. My quote sorta smacks of overt political correctness, though, and if anybody has a better idea, please suggest/change it. [[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 14:15, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:Wonderful! They'll never allow it. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
::You're right. They didn't. Good call! Now, to whomever made the edit, I posit this: one of the Conservapedia Commandments says that everything must be true and verifiable. Now to make such a sweeping statement that the "huge majority" of Liberals actively practise deceit suggests that you have numbers or a study supporting your claims. So, please cite your work. And an "examples of bias in Wikipedia" doesn't count, because WP doesn't represent liberals at large.

::Also, just nitpicking here, but the way you changed the sentence makes it so it doesn't make any sense. But since I got scolded for trying to change the article, I'll leave it up to a sysop or something.[[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 19:31, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:::TK (an admin) edited it. Such talk will ban you. But I agree, if this 'encyclopedia' is going to be anything more then a joke to the majority of the non-American-conservative world (which is about 99.1 percent of the planet), they're going to have to find a balance in their edits.--[[User:Mircofixit|Mircofixit]] 22:12, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== How we differ from Wikipedia ==

{{cquote|We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion.}}

The above section is quoted from the current version of [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]. Under that light, I find it extremely odd to see the claims ''"Conservatives and a very small minority of liberals consider deceit wrong and actively fight it, and there is substantial evidence that liberals are more guilty of deceit than conservatives."'' being backed up by a conservative ''commentary'' and a conservative ''column''. Also factoring in here is the hilarious issue of backing up a completely liberal-bashing claim with only conservative opinion pieces. For what it's worth, the reference might as well read "Because we say so".

This is exactly what the above difference with Wikipedia is about: You postulate an opinion as a fact (and even claim there is "substantial evidence") and then just cite conservative journalists/bloggers/commentators/columnists (or whatever they want to call themselves) who voice their opinion. And look at how unbiased they are: "So the left, led by the slimy Media Matters organization, began a counterattack using the liberals’ favorite weapon – the lie."

Fact is: The claims ("Conservatives and small minority of liberals fight it" and "evidence that liberals are more guilty") are practically impossible to prove because they're incredibly broad and would require measurements that are impossible to perform without asking God to take a look into his divine logs.

I could claim that it's exactly the other way around while citing MoveOn and Mr. Colbert, and the claim would be exactly as valid as the one we got in terms of relying on authority and good sources.

Right now, the claim should be severely rephrased to make it clear that this is an ''opinion of some conservatives''. Everything else would be pure irony: Deceit on the article about deceit. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:00, 6 October 2007 (EDT)
:Okay, I've waited several days for voices of disagreement. Considering that nobody objected, I implemented a change of the form "X claims Y" to point out that the sources are biased opinion pieces instead of authority. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 11:33, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::It's funny how my talk page proposal stays up here for almost a week without anybody objecting, but the edit doesn't even remain intact for ten minutes.
::The claim is impossible to prove, and it's broad to the degree of being opinion (or worse: fiction). Backing it up with conservative opinions only shows that there are actually conservatives aside from the author of the claim who believe this.
::Looking at the other end of the spectrum, I'm sure that there are liberal columnists and commentators who argue that there is evidence of conservatives being more deceitful. Should I cite them as authority as it is being done with conservative columnists? No, I don't think so. Opinion pieces don't become authority just because you agree with them. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:03, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::: First of all, it is a sourced claim, and what would you expect, offcourse those are conservative facts that this is based on, good luck on getting liberals to admit their deceits, and while it says "conservatives" instead of "some conservatives" it offcourse just means that most of conservatives see it this way, not necesarily all, just like you would say that Liberals are pro abortion alltho there might be some liberals who dont't feel that way. I think your addition should be reverted, in current form it sounds silly. [[User:ConanO|ConanO]] 12:39, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::::There is a claim and there are sources, but that doesn't make a sourced claim. The sources (a conservative commentary and a conservative column) show that there are conservatives who make certain claims.
::::#That conservatives consider deceit wrong.
::::#*That one is not overly bold in itself, assuming that this is just about "most" conservatives.
::::#That merely an "overwhelmingly small minority of liberals consider deceit wrong".
::::#*How do you prove such a claim? Are there polls? Did they ask a thousand liberals if they considered deceit to be wrong? Or maybe somebody made a statistic?
::::#That "there is substantial evidence that liberals are more guilty of deceit than conservatives"
::::#*The killer. A claim that there is evidence, but where is the evidence? Where do the sources present evidence?
::::The problem with the sources is that they simply make bold claims and attacks themselves while showcasing select examples, quite likely with their own spin to them. Okay, sure, that's what comments and columns are free to do, I figure, but that doesn't change that these are ''opinions'', not authority. For bold claims like these, we need the latter, not the former.
::::Here, let me illustrate my point with "The Conservative Voice" source from our paragraph in question. Would you seriously put this into CP's [[Liberal]] article:
{{cquote|Today's liberals are intellectual terrorists who try to destroy free speech. Instead of fairness, facts, and logic, they use lies and personal attacks to attack those who want to exercise their Freedom of Speech.[http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/27429.html]}}
::::See? A claim and a source. However, it simply repeats opinion as fact and thus doesn't belong into an encyclopedia article. The source is not authority, and there are no facts given to back his claims and accusations. It's a "Because he said so" situation.
::::You said it yourself: It's highly unlikely that thousands of liberals suddenly step forward and admit that they used deceit. Likewise, it's unlikely that thousands of conservatives would do that. What does this mean? Liberals deny their deceit while conservatives don't use deceit? Both sides deny it? Liberals don't do it, but conservatives deny it? Neither side uses it? That's what I meant when I said that the claim is practically impossible to prove in the form that had been there. You can give examples for either side using deceit, and you can point at people who agree with the claim, but you can't make calls like "that side does it more" based on this. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:19, 11 October 2007
(EDT)
==Read My Lips==

How about Bush, Sr's, famous 'Read my lips, no new taxes' pledge while campaigning, only to raise taxes as president? Surely that was decption? [[User:Monitor|Monitor]] 13:00, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Do you have evidence that he was intending tax hikes when he was campaigning as opposed to shifting policies to deal with new fiscal realities? [[User:Dewey|Dewey]] 13:02, 8 November 2007 (EST)

As a former vice president, director of the CIA, and ambassador, I'm pretty sure that he was aware that fiscal realities can change. He was also aware that Americans wanted a candidate who would promise not to lower taxes, something Dukakis was not willing to promise. Bush looked America in the eye and said he wouldn't raise taxes. This helped him get elected. I'm sure it didn't make him happy when he was forced to raise them, but he was not a dumb man. He promised 'no new taxes,' while he was well aware they might be required. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:55, 8 November 2007 (EST)

So then your answer is "no." [[User:Dewey|Dewey]] 18:03, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Right, Dewey. After Bush made that promise, the [[Democrats]] who controlled [[Congress]] becamed determined to force Bush to break the promise. That's not deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:05, 8 November 2007 (EST)
:Do you have evidence that congress was determined to force Bush to break the promise, or was this an example of 'shifting policies to deal with new fiscal realities' if I may quote? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 07:35, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== Haeckel fraud exposed by Behe &Jonathan Wells in 2000 ==

It appears it is likely that the Haeckel fraud was exposed to the general public by the New York Times in 2000 vis a vis Michael Behe. It also appears as if Stephen Jay Gould was not happy Gould did this. However, I do know also that [[Jonathan Wells]] also exposed the fraud to the public with his publication of the book Icons of Evolution in 2000. Please see: http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf It appears though the scientists knew it earlier:
:Adam Sedgwick, 1894
:William Garstang, 1922
:Gavin de Beer, 1958
:William Ballard, 1976
:Stephen J. Gould, 1977
:Richard Elinson, 1987
:Jane Oppenheimer, 1987
:Michael Richardson, 1995
:Stephen J. Gould, 2000 [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/wells_and_haeckels_embryos.php]

So it appears as if the deceit article is errant and the NYT or Wells exposed the fraud to the general public in 2000 unless the author of the Dec 2000/Jan 2001 article is referring to 1999 which is doubtful. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 9 November 2007 (EST)

==Broken source link==
Source #6 is a dead link and needs to be updated or removed, even so it appears to be a transcript from a talk show which is not an ideal source, actual data is preferred. [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 17:47, 17 December 2007 (EST)

==I am officially leaving this website after reading this==

As the title would suggest, I am leaving this website because of this article, but not exclusively so. This article is an example of mindless hatred, lack of understanding and common human decency towards those of opposite political persuasions. You claim to be Christian Conservatives - do you even know what it means to be a Christian? Honestly, some of you would prefer spending time at a rally denying basic rights to homosexuals than time spent in a homeless shelter. I will pray for the makers of this article, and will continue to pray for the poor souls who get caught up in your immoral (Amoral) propaganda. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: Usually the [[Parthian Shots]] do better than that, "ModerateCatholic". For example, usually disgruntled users cite something more specific than vague rants. But suit yourself, and please use your real first name if and when you return. May I recommend [[liberal]] [[Wikipedia]] for you in the meantime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:55, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I will pray for you especially, you poor misguided soul. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:P.S- Is the use of the term 'Parthian Shots' a way and means for you to divert accountability for your crimes? Throwing around the term 'Liberal Wikipedia' is another example of your uncontrollable hatred. There will be a home for you in the fiery pits of hell, unless you repent. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:59, 28 December 2007 (EST)

ModCath seems to be a poorly executed caricature. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:41, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

== Pathetic Rubbish ==

There is absolutely no reason for the continued inclusion of this tripe in the article:

{{cquote|[[Deceit]] plays a central role promoting the [[liberal]] belief system with the public, as illustrated by most examples below. Many [[liberals]] promote [[deceit]] if it advances their goals.}}

It adds nothing, and is symptomatic of an abject failure to be able to make any points besides unsubstantiated insults. The insistence of even lower-echelon editors attempting to retain it is simply servile sycophancy. Material such as this reflects abominably upon this site, and unless you desire to demonstrate that this reflection is, in fact, not simply illusory, but indicative of a reality, I suggest that it be removed. --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 22:46, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: "SimonA" (unlikely your real name), obviously many [[liberals]] do use [[deceit]] to advance their goals, and they are very good at it. The entry here on [[deceit]] provides numerous important examples of this. There is no doubting these examples. They were perpetrated by [[liberals]]. Feel free to try to fool users of [[Wikipedia]], but we're not fooled here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 29 December 2007 (EST)

::I think Simon's point is that disingenuous people from all over the political spectrum have used deceit to achieve their goals - for every Stalin, there is a Hitler; for every Castro there is a Bush. Singling out 'liberals' as predisposed liars does not make for a particularly instructive exercise. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 01:03, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:: The point is simple: A: A list compiled by an encyclopædia that bills itself as "Conservapedia" is unlikely to contain any information that would be particularly damaging to Conservatives, ergo, the list here is not valid evidence. B: A list of 13, perhaps dubious, examples of deceit perpetrated by liberals is not sufficient evidence for a generalization of the type made, especially given the fact that the examples pertain only to an extremely small subset of the liberal population. C: Compiling a list of 13 examples of conservative deceit would not be particularly difficult. Would such a production be valid to make a generalization stating that deceit was necessary in conservative propaganda? The answer is obvious.

:: The point is that such a passage is the argumentative equivalent of kicking someone in a sensitive area. I see no reason why it should not be removed. --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 23:16, 29 December 2007 (EST)

::: Many [[liberals]] don't even accept the [[Ten Commandments]], let alone think that [[deceit]] is wrong to advance their goals. You couldn't come close to 13 examples of significant [[deceit]] advanced -- and embraced -- by [[conservatives]]. Note how many of the examples of [[liberal]] [[deceit]] continued to be embraced by other [[liberals]] who recognized the [[deceit]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:27, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:::: "Many [[liberals]] don't even accept the [[Ten Commandments]], let alone think that [[deceit]] is wrong to advance their goals." Entirely tangent. I'm sure many conservatives don't, as well.
:::: And I'm sure that I could. You would just have to look at Jack Chick's web site to get about 10. --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 23:31, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Andy,

My point, as well as Simon's here is that there are 'bad people' on both sides of the spectrum. With this list you are childishly saying 'Liberals are bad, Conservatives are good'. Deceit exists all over the spectrum, from people of faith to none, and from Liberals to Conservatives. Your 'examples' are taken from a tiny minority of high profile Liberals, but if someone were to add a conservative example (Such as the homosexual senator who was rampantly anti-gay rights but did things to men in toilets) you would call it, 'Liberal Lies' or whatever. Again, as I have said before, I will pray for you. You really are a unfortunate misguided soul. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 09:01, 31 December 2007 (EST)

P.S- Where I come from the labels 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' are meaningless. Politics is not motivated by ideology whatsoever - all parties are pragmatic centralists. Calling me Liberal as a result of ''disagreeing with you'' is not only intellectual cowardice its simply rude. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 09:02, 31 December 2007 (EST)

: You're wrong. [[Liberals]] often reject the [[Ten Commandments]], and [[liberals]] use [[deceit]] far more than [[conservatives]] do. The list proves it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:04, 31 December 2007 (EST)
:: Ah. I'm sorry, I thought ModerateCatholic offered a compelling argument based on everyday experience and the last two hundred years of history. Thanks for the heads-up. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 01:10, 25 February 2008 (EST)

The list doesn't prove anything! This is like talking to a ten year old child, honestly. Just keep your hands firmly around your ears and don't allow anything to get in other than stuff you completely and utterly agree with. Thank God I've more faith in the American people, because you would make me hate my own kind. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 09:13, 31 December 2007 (EST)

: About 90% of your edits are talk, talk, talk, in the typical [[liberal style]]. You're in violation of our [[rules]] and your petty namecalling pollutes the site. Last chance for you to convey some knowledge here. Use it or goodbye.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:23, 31 December 2007 (EST)

:OK then. Can you please explain to me the logical basis for your entry in this article? Why have you not included isolated examples of conservative deceit also? Its anti-Academic to do what you have done. 'Typical Liberal Style' - Why don't you grow up. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 10:15, 31 December 2007 (EST)

==Liberals and Deceit==

The sentence at the beginning of the article, saying that liberals engage in deceit but not mentioning conservatives, implies that only liberals deceive. This is clearly absurd, and the "references" seem to be opinion pieces by conservatives. I am new to this website, but I don't see how this article can possibly be useful... isn't this saying that conservatives never deceive, which is clearly not true? I edited this, but someone changed it back without replying to what I said when I changed it.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 02:18, 15 February 2008 (EST)
:Don't remove sections of this article because you disagree with them. Remember, this is a conservative site and you're not allowed to change it to a NPOV. This is not Wikipedia. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 02:26, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::I'm sorry, as I said, I am new. I thought people were supposed to edit in factual information from a conservative viewpoint, which makes sense to me. But you didn't address what I said... do you think the assertion in the article is true, that only liberals deceive? I am a conservative, and I am not perfect... I am sure I have deceived someone at some point. Haven't you? This article doesn't seem informative really, but more like just an attack. Am I misunderstanding something?--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 02:31, 15 February 2008 (EST)
:::This article is not about me or other conservatives. This article is about liberals who deceive and the examples are very informative. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 02:38, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::::I would understand that, but it's just called "deceit", not "liberal deceit", right? Is there some portion of the code or something that I screwed up? It looks like it's just "deceit."--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 02:45, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::::You locked the page without replying. It seems like you're actively trying to keep the page this way, but can't really defend the assertion that only liberals deceive. I came to this site because I was not interested in the little vendettas and biases on Wikipedia, but I guess now I see that there is good reason for Wikipedia policies... I regret having helped make a new article with a substantive nature here before discovering that you guys are only interested in being just as bad as the liberals.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 21:32, 16 February 2008 (EST)

::::: Nobody said that ''only'' [[liberals]] deceive, but the [[liberal]] ideology does permit and encourage deceit. Regardless, I've unlocked the page for you but will re-protect it if edits do not comply with the [[rules]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:38, 16 February 2008 (EST)
::::::My point was that there was an obvious implication by only naming liberals. It would be like saying Saudi Arabians attacked the two towers on 9-11, without mentioning the other nationalities. The implication is one of exclusivity. But thank you for unlocking it, I am glad that we're interested in being unbiased and not pulling a "lib" :)--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 21:41, 16 February 2008 (EST)

:::Well, [[liberals|who]] do you think are the ones always engaging in [[deceit]]? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 02:53, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::::Except that, as I mentioned earlier, it seems pretty silly to claim only liberals deceive. Conservatives are only human too, even if in general more level-headed. I mean, take the recent sex scandals in the House. There was one Republican with pretty good policies who was hitting on a congressional page. I don't remember his name, but that was fairly strong evidence of deceit. I think he had a wife! So I mean, obviously conservatives sometimes deceive, but this article implies that only liberals do. We want to be conservative, but not just LIE, right?--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 03:00, 15 February 2008 (EST)

It was Mark Foley, a Republican in the House.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 03:01, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:...but do you see any examples of [[conservative]] [[deceit]] on this page? Why do you think that is? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 03:19, 15 February 2008 (EST)

::I don't understand. Are you implying that the page IS an example of conservative deceit? If that is the case, I respectfully have to state that I think that is a very poor decision, to knowingly deceive impressionable young people who might go to this page. We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 03:24, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:::No, I was just speculating is all. Draw whatever conclusions you like from the article. Also: in general, be careful. You wouldn't want accused to be accusing Conservapedia of [[deceit]], because that is a very [[deceit|deceitful]], [[liberal]] thing to do! [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:58, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::::But I think Conservapedia IS being deceitful, and I'm not a liberal! This is absurd! It's like an article on cyanide stating, "Liberals have often used cyanide as a murder tool", without mentioning conservatives... the clear implication is that liberals either use cyanide or murder, not conservatives. This is just silly... God created man as imperfect, to declare otherwise is simply hubris and pagan. I am going to change it.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 18:48, 15 February 2008 (EST)

(undent) Interesting discussion! I have just come across the [[Deceit]] page for the first time, and found such an obviously absurd suggestion that it is only liberals who deceive that I felt moved to change it. Which I did, before I came to this page! I see I am not the only one who thinks the wording was silly. Do yourselves/us/your readers a favor, and don't take us for complete idiots. It is patently absurd to suggest that liberals have a monopoly on deceit. By all means use liberal examples, in tune with the proudly acknowledged Conservapedia viewpoint, but don't make the site laughable by appearing to say that only liberals deceive. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:46, 22 February 2008 (EST)

== Piltdown Man ==

Piltdown Man was indeed a deceit, but the continued use of it as an example in the teaching of evolution was not. It was a mistake made by the ''victims'' of the deceit, not a continuation of the deceit by the ''deceivers''. The statement that "evolutionists continued this deceit for decades" is seriously misleading and should be deleted or amended. I suggest a rewrite as follows: 

The [[Piltdown Man]] was a fraudulent "Missing Link" taught to an entire generation of students worldwide from 1912 to 1953 as "proof" that man had evolved from an ape-like species. <s>Darwinists officially declared</s> The Piltdown Man was declared to be authentic and <s>gave it</s> given a formal name: ''Eoanthropus dawsoni,'' in honor of the person who claimed to have found it, Charles Dawson. The British scientific establishment largely supported the validity of Piltdown Man.<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/tenness5.html</ref> But the Piltdown Man was actually a medieval skull combined with a lower jaw from an orangutan and teeth from a chimpanzee, which were then placed in a gravel pit in the village of Piltdown, England. There are reports that as early as 1914 someone at the British Museum privately admitted that "a negro skull and a broken ape jaw" had been "artificially fossilized."<ref>http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_prim_suspects/KEITH/Keith_prosecution/piltdown_unmasked.html</ref> <s>Yet evolutionists continued this deceit</s> Yet this fraud maintained currency for decades, <s>teaching it</s> in textbooks (e.g., the text at issue in the [[Scopes trial]] in 1925) <s>and publicizing it</s> as well as in popular books and magazines (e.g., a 1922 book for the general market illustrated the daily life of the Piltdown Man). <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC02561355&id=L0sDgL6sPh4C&pg=RA1-PR51 ''Everyday Life in the Old Stone Age''], Charles Henry Bourne Quennell, 1922, p. 51.</ref>

: What is the specific part of it you propose changing, and why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:20, 28 February 2008 (EST)

::Reasons as stated. Proposed changes as shown above. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 09:42, 28 February 2008 (EST)

:::Interested, but not surprised, to see that my correction of the inaccuracy in the article has been swiftly reverted. I take it, then, that you disagree with my point that the perpetation of the fraud was an error, not a deliberate deceit! I tried to raise it here, and when nobody disagreed with me I thought perhaps I might be so bold... I should clearly have known better! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:04, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:::: I didn't revert your change, and apologize for not responding here sooner. I don't see how you can disagree with my changes. Large-scale deceit always has perpetrators and accomplices, plus [[deliberate ignorance]]. Surely you don't doubt that the [[Piltdown Man]] had all three among [[evolution]]ists?!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:15, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:::::Well, yes, I do doubt that - but I am well aware that I won't win any such argument in this forum, so I'll leave it at that! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 15:20, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: [[Logic]] is welcome here, Humblpi. It's a bit of cop-out for someone to say (as we often hear) that he can't win. If you make a logical argument, you will win here. But there is no logic in insisting that the crude fraud of the [[Piltdown Man]] was somehow not perpetrated by [[evolutionists]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::You accuse me of "insisting that the crude fraud of the [[Piltdown Man]] was somehow not perpetrated by evolutionists." That is not what I said. Of course the Piltdown fraud was perpetrated by "evolutionists". My point is that the ''perpetuation'' of that fraud was not a plot (and therefore not directly a deceit) but an ''error''. Those who committed the initial fraud were guilty of deceit; those who perpetuated it were not - they were ''victims'' of the fraud, not perpetrators of it. That's all, and I suggested a small change to the article to make that clearer. But you have seen fit to change it back to a twisted version of the truth. It's your website. I leave it there. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 15:54, 29 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The list is [[deceit]]. They are mostly [[liberal]] but that's not our fault. If you have comparable examples of [[deceit]] accepted and promoted by [[conservatives]], then let's see them here. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:54, 1 March 2008 (EST)

What would be the point , you`l only revert them .--[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 09:06, 1 March 2008 (EST)

: That's called a "cop-out". If you have examples, let's see them here. If you don't, please don't pretend otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:13, 1 March 2008 (EST)

But lets be serious your not actually suggesting that conservatives have never been deceitfull have you. What about president nixon. Is he not deceitful. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 13:28, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Former President Nixon was not a conservative, and it is an affront to suggest that. Nixon was a Keynesian (A soft term to describe a socialist) who radically increased spending on social programmes and 'normalised' relations with communist nations. He was a Liberal. [[User:BenSchumin|BenSchumin]] 11:15, 2 March 2008 (EST)

: That's right. By 1972 -- before [[Nixon]]'s cover-up of [[Watergate]], [[conservatives]] were so opposed to Nixon that [[conservatives]] actually tried to defeat him in the [[Republican]] primary by backing [[John Ashbrook]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:24, 2 March 2008 (EST)

SO , the fact of the matter is that he was still a deceitful person, so therefore we should include it. His behaviour was deceitful , he is deceitful , you cant change that. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 17:10, 2 March 2008 (EST)

Oh yes thats it any conservative that commits deceit is actually a liberal , lol , therefore it becomes liberal deceit, it doesnt even matter , as the topic is called deciet its ok to but nixon their. People can decide for themselves weither or not he is a liberal. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 17:13, 2 March 2008 (EST)

:To some degree that's actually true - since [[conservative]]s, and especially Christian conservative values, adheres more to the moral principles of the Bible that explicitly forbids deceit, then one who deceives is not acting like a true conservative would. [[Liberal]]s, on the other hand, does not even seem to try to maintain a moral code.
:Nevertheless, slandering Nixon is inappropriate for this page. Just because it is true does not make it relevant here. [[User:Hammet|Hammet]] 19:25, 2 March 2008 (EST)

== Enron... Nixon... ==

I can hardly think of two more obvious examples of deceit. Why do Nixon and Enron get removed? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 11:44, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:I suppose that, as explained above, they're not really ''true'' conservatives. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 12:57, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::For that matter, shouldn't people like [[Jim & Tammy Bakker]] and [[Jimmy Swaggart]] be added to the list? I would have thought they are prime examples of deceit. I'm sure there's more, but those are the only two that come to mind right now.[[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 13:46, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:::IIRC, the made mistakes and were repentant for those errors. [[Liberals]] deny that they have sinned, and deny their [[deceit]]. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 13:51, 8 March 2008 (EST)

The [[deceit]] in this list is typically ''embraced'' deceit, and run-of-the-mill political lies or fraud are not included.

Keep trying, guys, but you'll have to look a very long time to find just one example of embraced deceit by a [[conservative]] against the numerous examples of [[liberal]] deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:59, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:Nixon said, "I am not a crook," and defended his own deceit. How is that not "embraced"? Enron executives maintained their innocence all the way through the trial. How are they not similarly embracing deceit? Perhaps your definition of "embraced deceit" is such a moving target as to become meaningless.-'''αmεσ''' [[User_talk:AmesG | (advocate)]] 14:08, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::So by your own definition ("The [[deceit]] in this list is typically ''embraced'' deceit, and run-of-the-mill political lies or fraud are not included.") Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell et al are guilty of deceit, given the way they fervently embraced (and haven't repented for) the deceit surrounding Weapons of Mass Destruction? It's a bit disingenuous to tweak the definition every time a name crops up that you wouldn't like to see in the list. Likewise, I can't see how Reagan's deceit surrounding Iran-Contra can be classed as run-of-the-mill political lies. That also seems to imply that you're willing to accept a politician who lies to you, in a run of the mill way?[[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 15:28, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::: Perhaps you also think it was [[deceit]] for Bush to claim to have won the 2000 election?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:35, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::: Why would I think that? True, it did get messy before the final result was announced, but that was as much Gore's fault as anything. At the end of the day the candidate with the most votes won, fair and square. Now, snide remarks aside, shall we get back on topic?[[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 15:51, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::::: Uh oh, you'd better watch yourself, or you won't have any [[liberal friendship|liberal friends]] any more. ''Gore won the most votes, not Bush!''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:03, 8 March 2008 (EST)

<-- Steering back on track, we have two examples that need to be considered:
* Nixon stating "I am not a crook" and then defending this statement
* Bush stating there were WMD's without evidence, and continuing this belief

I know nothing about the first, and not as much as others about the second. As for Bush winning the 2000 election, this has nothing to do with deceit, and instead with the American election system. Bush did not win because he lied about the outcome. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 16:08, 8 March 2008 (EST)

: Bush still claims he won in 2000. Some liberals would say this deceit has been going on for nearly 8 years. Do you think we should include that also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:17, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::Of course not. He won. No deceit involved. Whereas Nixon clearly exemplifies "embraced deceit". I now understand why Enron has been deleted, given that it was a case of simple deceit in the form of theft, not an attempt to influence people's political opinions etc. But surely Nixon... [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 16:20, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::Bush ''did'' win in 2000, even though he still got less votes the way the American political system is structured allowed him to claim victory. While some extreme leftists may view this as deceit, others view it as a reason to change rather than an example of a blatant lie. I don't think anyone here is actually claiming Bush winning the election was an example of deceit, perhaps we could concentrate on the two issues others have raised. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 16:22, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::: OK, then why the obsession with Nixon? Clinton lied and was impeached. We haven't included him, why do you think there was [[embraced deceit]] by Nixon that is so much stronger than Clinton's?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:27, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::::(speaking just for myself, obviously) - I am not obsessed with Nixon, but he was once mentioned on the site and was deleted, and I queried the reason for that deletion. As far as I am aware (I haven't checked all the page history) Clinton has never made an appearance here. I am arguing against the removal of Nixon, not against the addition of Clinton. Adding Clinton might indeed be appropriate, for sure. And no doubt many other politicians of all political hues and persuasions. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 16:32, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::::::Any standard used on Nixon would create a horde of politicians who could be included as well. The key is to find behavior that is out of the ordinary so as to set the actions of the individual apart from his peers. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:44, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

You all seem to be forgetting something. The list says deceit, therfore any1 can be put on it including nixon. If you want it to only be an article on liberals have the guts to call it liberal deceit. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 17:57, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:I seem to recall it used to be called [[Liberal deceit]], but they changed it because some vandals and malcontents kept saying there should be an article for [[Conservative deceit]]. They failed to understand that [[Real Conservatives]] never lie. It's just that occasionally their true statements are non-operative in the reality-based community world at this point in time fnord.
:I've taken the liberty of adding [[Scooter Libby]] to the list. If a conviction for perjury doesn't qualify as Deceit, I'm curious what does. (oh, yeah--ANYTHING a Liberal says.) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 12:42, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Not all convictions are necessarily just, and this one was particularly controversial. You are right however that perjury qualifies as deciet. However, I think it is best to stick to more widely accepted examples. I'm moving the scooter libby example to the talk page for further discussion. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 12:48, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Admittedly there are several other controversial examples on te page. I'll see what I can do about them. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 12:52, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

on second thought, the current examples are pretty good. However you may feel free to suggest any examples that you think are appropriate. Personaly I have nothing against exposing non-liberal deciet. I don't approve of deciet in general. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 13:00, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

== Umm, right ==

This article is stupid. Instead of actually giving information about deceit it just lists heaps of people who are apparently evil liberal liars. Why not actually provide information (like encyclopedias should) rather than listing "examples".

If the admins of this place want it to replace Wikipedia as the Internets main source of info, a good way to start would be to actually provide information. [[User:Fred59|Fred59]] 22:28, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

: Fred, try opening your mind a bit and recognize the well-documented cases of [[deceit]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:36, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Ok, I would like to insult you for your supposedly "open minded" idea of deceit, but I won't.
I'm just saying, rather than listing supposed cases of deciet, shoulden't an encyclopedia describe what deciet is and explain why and how it is used rather than just saying "all these things are eebul liberal lies!!11!" Examples are good, but they should not be the main part of an article on an encyclopedia. [[User:Fred59|Fred59]] 22:07, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

As no one's replying, can I assume its ok for me to start drafting a replacement article with more emphasis on explaining dicete rather than exposing "eebul liberal lies!!11!" [[User:Fred59|Fred59]] 23:59, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

==Scooter Libby==

This example has been suggested. please discuss.

# [[Scooter Libby]], convicted in court of Obstruction of Justice, Making a False Statement, and [Perjury]], for intentionally deceiving the grand jury about how he learned, and “disclosed to the media,” information about Valerie Plame Wilson’s employment by the CIA.

::Yes, that's deceit all right! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:07, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Sounds good to ME, but I'm the one who posted it, so I'm biased. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:36, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: There is no end to the list if we start posting political figures. There were many convictions among Clinton cronies also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

==Examples of deceit==

I realize that this page contains many true and valid example's of deciet, however i don't see how such a list is what we're looking for in an encyclopedia. I think this list has only proved itself a can of worms. I say we only include a description of what deciet is and perhaps one or to more classical examples of deciet such as ananias and saphira. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 13:08, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

:I agree. Large laundry lists don't belong in an encyclopedia. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:51, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

::Encyclopedia's and all reference works, can teach not only by defining a term, but showing it as well. There is an old rhyme about how a person would rather see a sermon, than hear one. By not only defining the term, but providing examples and comparisons, the job this ''conservative encyclopedia'' does is greatly improved, IMO. I do realize that to many in today's world, it seems "out of step" in a society where teaching "right" and "wrong" is held to be archaic. Remember fine counsel is often confused, but examples are always clear! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:33, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::So you agree with Ben (and I) then? I think a few in-depth, well known examples would be much more beneficial to ''any encyclopedia'' that what we have now. Deceit is a pretty simple concept, why explain it with 15 examples? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:16, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: We disfavor deleting information unless a [[rule]] violation is identified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:44, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

HelpJazz, I was saying just the opposite of what you (apparently) were saying. That good examples, which actually demonstrate, are a far better learning aid than just a litany of "facts". I would note that it appears many are overly concerned, ''albeit perhaps a well intentioned concern'', with truncating articles in CP that are "uncomfortable" to some in their uncompromising examples of [[liberal deceit]]. We see that in many places today, a few seeking to redefine, blur or minimize anything that points out uncomfortable facts about the left, and liberals in particular. Why even a factual statement about liberal thinking is branded by some now as ''ad hominem arguments'', which seems to be a new phrase introduced to truncate any and all discussion or disagreement with liberals! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:11, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:I didn't say anything about being uncomfortable, liberal deceit, minimizing criticism of the left, or ad hominem arguments, so I'll just address the relevant portion of your post.
:We are obviously both in agreement (along with Ben, who started this thread) that examples can help explain a concept. I love examples, and try to add them to new articles I create. But don't you agree that a couple of good, solid examples are better than a list of every example we can find? I think this is a more concise and more informative way to make an encyclopedia entry.
:Deceit is a simple concept; at some point all these examples stop being about deceit and start being about denegrating those who are being used as examples (both liberals AND conservatives, as can be seen in the suggestion in the section below). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:00, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::I think I have dealt with the latest twist in liberals trying to shut down discussion by claiming "ad hominem arguments" elsewhere. That argument (liberal fact) is rejected by conservatives outright, and as this is a conservative wiki, has no place here. If you need the link, I think I can find it.

::As for the idea of using fewer examples, I think Andy Schlafly succinctly answered that no, removal of examples showing liberal deceit/bias is not favored. No caveats were provided, correct? I do however think such articles could stand formatting and stylistic improvement, making them easier to read, and highlighting salient points in an improved way. I stand ready to assist anyone wanting to improve Conservapedia's articles, by offering suggestions/examples/ideas as to what is acceptable to conservatives and what is not. Ed Poor, Karajou, Crocotite, Conservative, TerryH and Andy himself are a few others I know who are qualified to provide that information. If someone feels unfairly excluded, please forgive an older person a lapse in memory or familiarity with their work. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:18, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

=="The War in Iraq Is Going Well"==
Isn't that a form of embraced deceit? It's clearly ''not'' going well, and yet the Bush administration refuses to backtrack from its original position, that the war would be and essentially was won in a matter of days. We all know that's false now. Why do they not come out and say it?-[[User:Historian|Historian]] 16:31, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

: Politics is filled with issues like that. There are just as many -- if not more -- examples on the Democratic side.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:42, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::True. It's no secret that politics is dirty on all sides. But if your goal with this article is to prove that no conservatives ever embrace deceit, then, I think this example should be included. Feel free to stack in as many other examples of Democrats doing the same thing as you want.-[[User:Historian|Historian]] 16:55, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::So what? We don't let Charles Manson out of jail just because Pol Pot killed more people, and misdeeds by Democrats '''DO NOT EXCUSE misdeeds by Republicans'''. If you seriously want people to believe that Conservatives have higher moral standards than Liberals, then giving "your" "side" a free pass when they've verifiably done something egregious does not help your case. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 19:01, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::"Going well" as compared to what? The Iraq situation, as compared to the more rampant random violence of months ago, is going better. The "surge", whatever one wants to call it, has improved security, and has been admitted so doing by even former Generals and the like who opposed the war. So clearly saying that isn't a deceit, as measured by military experts, not civilians. Let's not intertwine arguments for or against the American police actions in going into Iraq, or the failings of the democratically elected government of Iraq, with the much narrower discussion about the "surge". And, I think someone needs to reaffirm what Andy just posted above: Someone citing what they believe to be a deceit, doesn't negate or disprove another. Therefore, the entire purpose of the post above, has no basis in logic, and appears to be yet another argumentative ''Red Herring'', something thrown out for just the sake of argument, when that is something more appropriate for a ''Discussion Group or Board'', but does nothing to add content to an encyclopedia project. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:24, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::there is a very large diffrence between going well, and going better. your argument is like saying that since someone in a hospital is dying slower, they are doing well. and the refrence point should be... compared to just after we won the actual war (with the army) in iraq-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:32, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== "Public schools, in contrast, do not teach that deceit is wrong." ==

I beg your pardon? Is there any evidence for this outrageous statement? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:30, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:The [[burden of proof]] is on you, and it should be a light one if you have an example in mind already. "I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:55, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::Er, that's not true. The burden of proof lies upon the one who makes the statement, in this case [[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]].

'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 13:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:That's what I just said: H made the claim that the statement is outrageous and so the burden of proof is upon him. Do I have to make it a [[writing assignment]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::The burden of proof is on the person who posts the statement in the article, not on the one who queries it on a talk page. I refer you to Commandments #1 and #5 - the article should ''not be personal opinion'', and it should ''be verifiable''. So it's not me that needs the writing assignment. I agree that the word "outrageous" was an expression of my personal opinion, but that is expressly allowed on a talk page (Commandment #5). If it helps, though, I'll happily withdraw it: "Public schools, in contrast, do not teach that deceit is wrong." Is there any evidence for this <s>outrageous</s> statement? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:16, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::: BenjaminS claims it to be fact, AND since everything here must be VERIFIED, it is upon Benny to prove that his broad accusation has merit. As far as disproving it, I ask all public-school educated people to remember the time their first grade teacher taught them that lying is bad.
:::PBS (PUBLIC broadcasting) does teach this with the help of the good monsters of Sesame Street (I remember it back when it used to be a good neighborhood). '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 13:22, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Frankly, I prefer Ed's guideline. Not requiring proof of a factual assertion, and instead putting the burden on any naysayers to disprove a fact, will make writing articles much easier.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:00, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Is that a joke? Seriously, that's the worst methodology I've ever heard of. I'm going to go start an entry about the real-life Mighty Morphin Power Rangers which live on another planet at the other end of the galaxy. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:37, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Aschafly, you've reverted Lib1089's deletion of the sentence without adding any additional information. This is made worse because he expressly cited Conservapedia's first commandment in his edit summary: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable". You've run roughshod over that. Please reconsider your edit and either revert it or add information that substantiates the claim. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:20, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Still awaiting a citation, Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 20:46, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

This strikes me as a bit odd. Perhaps my public school system was more conservative than most, but we most certainly were taught that deceit was wrong. In an academic setting, that of course took the form of bans on plagiarism and cheating, which were expressly forbidden, as I imagine they are at most any public school. I would also think that some public schools have honor codes, much like the liberal elite universities all do, that stress honesty and integrity. Finally, there is no evidence that public schools specifically condone deceit, is there? [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 00:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

I just removed that statement. I'm a bit new here but I'm assuming that a statement of that magnitude, not backed up with any references, is an act of vandalism. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 22:24, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Boris Johnson==
Aschlalfy, you have twice reverted factual, sourced, material about Boris Johnson. Why? I didnt state he was conservative so you cant say I was trying to smear conservatives. You will notice his mistress had an abortion to rid themselves of a potentially embarrasing love child. How is this not deceit?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 20:57, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

== Al Gore ==
Took this one out because there was no evidence of deceit, just factual inaccuracy. Gore botched more than a few facts in that film, but there's no reason to chalk that up to anything more than his incompetence. Although, if you can prove an intent to deceive, then by all means, please revert. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 00:00, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

==Richard Nixon==
Added a rather obvious example. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 22:26, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==M Scott Peck==
I removed his book from the further reading list because it is not about deceit as such, but about psycopathy (Evil, in common parlance). [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 10:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

== Nixon, Libby, and Enron ==

What specifically about those named above and their actions qualifies them as not being deceitful? [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 12:50, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

: One-sided and opinionated examples of alleged deceit by a president or corporation do not have sufficient quality to be included in this high-quality entry, which typically consisted of significant, prolonged, embraced and admitted or proven deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:58, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
::I think Nixon's deceit was significant and prolonged. Libby was significant simply for being a high-profile person, and his deceit was prolonged. And Enron's deceit was very significant, costing hundreds of people their savings. All three had their deceit proven in one way or another. It's pretty deceitful to claim otherwise. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 13:03, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:...is it because they're not liberal...? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:06, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:I was about to post here yesterday, but I had just added the entires in question back and [[User:Bugler]] blocked me for it. The answer is that yes, of course, you will find as you continue to edit this 'encyclopedia' that examples of conservative deceit are not allowed. What I recommend is browing the edit list of [[User:Aschlafly]]. He's the owner and founder and essentially disagreeing with him is a sin. If you like that idea feel free to stick around.
:Of course, it's a blatant disregarding of the principles of Conservapedia (see [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]) but hey, he's in charge. What are you going to do? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 19:42, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Could the Bush administrations false statements be counted as deceit? [[User:Ekeegan]]

==Public school deceit==
It's not a required course, but in "Journalism" students were taught about the evils of slander, deceit, and malice. your apathetic neighborhood public schooler [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 16:43, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

==Inherit the Wind==

LearnTogether, unless you have a reference showing where Inherit the Wind is shown in public school science classes, my removal of that entry should stand. I studied it in ''Drama'' in high school, and even in that context it was never presented as "science" or the reality of the Scopes trial. In fact, the teacher used that play as an example of drama based on (then) recent events to attract interest, much as the ''Law & Order'' episodes that are "Torn from the headlines" do today. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 08:26, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

:My high school showed it in science class. In discussions in college with cross sections of students from across the United States, their experiences had been the same. Recent discussions on debate boards left current high school students amazed when I pointed out to them just how far apart the movie was from the reality of the event, a film they had just seen in their science classes. I am glad your school was more enlightened. Many are not. It stays. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:51, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

::Wow, that's sad that your school and others did that (and ironic, because mine was in "Liberal" NYC). I'm not going to challenge your anecdotal evidence, but maybe a reference could be added to state that "This occurred in XYZ H.S. in NameOfState during the 19xx's, and in several other public high schools based on discussions with college students at ABC University in the 19xx's".

::Also, I'd ask that you change the following, "Both completely lied about the facts in order to harm Christianity, misleading students who read or enact the play and everyone who saw the movie.", to something like "The changes in dramatizing the story altered significant facts, misleading students who relied on the film or play as their sole reference for what happened in the actual Scopes trial." Unless you have a valid source that shows the intent of the dramatic changes was to purposefully harm Christianity, then that's just an opinion. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:35, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

==John Edwards==

Should lying about his affair go here? On the one hand, he's certainly a liberal, and it's certainly deceit; on the other hand, a lot of people would likely argue that it's part of a larger pattern of dishonesty among politicians in general ("Never admit to wrongdoing unless you have no choice.")--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:44, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

== Changes ==

Alright so I did some editing for the sake of clarification (morally wrong has much stronger connotations than simply wrong, which can be argued as to having varying degrees of severity).

Also you ought add more historical information, Plato comes to mind as they dealt with the art of sophistry fairly regularly.

I removed the comment about public schools, not necessarily because I disagree with it, but more because it was out of place and lacked any context. Indeed, secular institutions don't teach morality (a non-secular entity) unless you take a class on the subject, but even then it is conducted more in an informative matter than anything else (students are nto expected to take a stance on the issue).

Some of the examples (such as Al Gore) aren't wrong really, Gore believes some dumb things, yet deceit carries with it the connotation of WILLFULLY professing untrue things. Indeed, striking as it is, people do not have a habit of professing things they do not actually believe. Other examples could use some sources, such as the ending sentence about liberal endorsement of lying: people /were/ angry about his behavior, but they also got over it. This is not the same thing as being ok with lying.

I won't touch the scopes monkey trial example, though I will say you need some pretty concrete sources for those assertions: just because something is made to look bad doesn't mean that was intentional, sometimes the facts are arranged and interpreted incorrectly due to error and misunderstanding, not because someone is out to get you.

Otherwise this article needs some work: I suggest expanding the example section to include more historical examples of deceit, a section dedicated to analyzing the moral implications of deceit, and perhaps more about deceit from a Biblical perspective. That's all I can think of now, but I am sure there is more we can add. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 17:59, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

- Ah yes! Almost forgot: about my modification of the Evolution reference, it is within their sincere belief that $_experiment verifies the theory of evolution to varying degrees, so to claim that they are being deceitful is rather baseless unless you can cite a source of all evolutionary scientists willfully deceiving the entire world by professing something that is not. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 18:12, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

-- I would also prefer you'd /say something/ instead of randomly reverting peoples edits, founder of Conservapedia or not. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 20:34, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

== Bible ==

I added some insightful references from the Good Book. Is that a good decision? I'm new here.
--American78

Sheep

2008-09-03T21:37:04Z

American78: /* Sheep in the Bible */ more quotes

{{Taxonomy|image = Sheep.jpg|kingdom = Animalia|phylum = Chordata|subphylum = Vertebrata|class = Mammalia|order = Artiodactyla|suborder = Ruminantia |family = Bovidae|subfamily = Caprinae|genus = Ovis|species = O. aries (Domestic sheep) O. canadensis (Bighorn sheep) O. dalli (Dall Sheep) O. musimon or O. ammon musimon (European Mouflon) O. nivicola (Snow sheep) O. orientalis (Asiatic Mouflon) O. vignei (Urial) O. ammon (Argali) }}
'''Sheep''' are woolly herbivorous [[ungulate]]s, that are farmed in many places for their [[wool]], their fleeces, their [[mutton|meat]] and sometimes their milk. Male sheep are called rams or tups, female sheep are ewes, baby sheep are lambs.

While traditionally thought to be of limited intelligence there are wild (as yet unproven) stories of sheep being able to navigating obstacles designed to hinder their movements.

Sheep farming is particularly important in [[New Zealand]], [[Australia]] and many parts of the [[United Kingdom]], especially [[Wales]] and the wild borderlands of [[Scotland]].

== Wild Sheep ==

Wild varieties of sheep are found in many mountainous regions worldwide. Full species include the [[bighorn sheep]] of North America, the [[mouflon]] of Sardinia and Corsica, and the [[aoudad]] of North Africa. Herds of feral sheep are also known, such as the Soay sheep of certain [[Scotland|Scottish]] islands, believed to have lived wild since the [[Bronze Age]]. Herdwick sheep are unique to the English lake District, Cumbria.

== Sheep in the Bible ==
Sheep are mentioned many times in the [[Bible]], and [[Christians]] are frequently likened to sheep of whom [[God]] is the shepherd, most notably in [[Psalm]] 23:
<blockquote>
1The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want. 
2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. 
(KJV)
</blockquote>
As well as in [[Revelation]] 5:12
<blockquote>
In a loud voice they sang: "Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!"
</blockquote>[http://www.igreetyou.com/ShepherdLamb1.html]
[[Jesus]] is sometimes likened to a lamb, as lambs were often used for sacrifices

==Old and New Worlds==
[[American]] cuisine is noted for the absence of lamb and mutton dishes, and sheep are not widely farmed, perhaps because the idea of a sheep ranch might be perceived as undermining the national 'frontier' self image.

==Sheep in popular culture==
Sheep are often used as a metaphor for unthinking followers of any particular ideology. [[George Orwell]] used them in this way in his novel ''[[Animal Farm]]'' when the sheep could be counted on to back up the animal revolution led by the pigs by baaa-ing ''Four legs good, two legs bad'' when required.

[[Category:Hoofed Mammals]]
[[Category:Biblical Animals]]
[[Category:Livestock]]
[[Category:Domestic Animals]]
[[Category:Kosher Animals]]

Debate:Can conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad

2008-09-03T12:44:33Z

American78:

{{debate}}
What is needed is something different than each. Something that is actually unbiased. CP is certainly biased, so is wikipedia, the difference is that on wikipedia the bias is pretty much accidental; people edit wikipedia from all over the world, people of every conceivable religion, certainly liberal beliefs would come from such a diverse background. Most people haven't even heard of CP on the other hand, and it's unlikely that many people that aren't passionately conservative would bother with the site. Certainly the American flag is not going do draw many people from the rest of the world. Most of the articles that have any real content are from the domain of religion/politics, and this obviously is going to create a huge bias in CP. You would be missing knowledge from more than half of the American population, and that isn't good either.-gendoikari4

Conservapedia in it self is a good idea, but it does have its own flaws, short articles (the page on G W bush on conservapedia is at least 1/8 the size of the wikipedia version) practically no articals on Popular culture(artists, video games, tv shows ect.) the articals are short and could never be used for informative purposes. My question is how can cp ever even compare to wikipedia. what do you think needs to be changened to help Cp thrive?- Serg1

: One of the biggest concerns of Conservapedia is to counteract a perceived bias of Wikipedia. What this does not address, however, is that Conservapedia is inherently biased in the opposite direction. If it the concern is that it is believed that Wikipedia is biased, then the best counteraction can be to present true objective articles, not ones simply biased in the opposite direction. If Conservapedia can accomplish this, then it can succeed in it can find truth. Otherwise, it is just doing the same things it hates Wikipedia for. -Casi
::Quite so. Wikipedia bias is incidental and reflects the contributors, so that sc-fi is elevated far too highly. However, the aspiration is to impartiality. The intention here is for bias. -Stevendavy

:Size alone is not the determining factor for Conservapedia. Articles that put together a coherent and factual base of information are more strongly sought. As is apparent, we don't wish to become [[Wikipedia]]; we feel there are many shortcomings in the way that system is run that prevent it from living up to its potential. We don't want to compete with what they are, but would prefer to be what they should have been.

:CP has continued to both grow and fill out articles. Pop culture is not our primary concern, but that area has been growing as well. While we certainly have areas where continued improvement is sought, many of the predictions of doom sounded in debate pages back around February and March are rather laughable when read today. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:53, 27 December 2007 (EST)

::I do understand that CP is a good idea(the conservative versiion of wikipedia) but really it hasnt met my standards of any wiki(the information on it is too short) I wish that CP can shadow other wikis and (as learn together stated) become what wikipedia should have been And stay that way. Another question is manifested through this conclusion though; How?-Serg1 07:27, 28 december 2007

:::How do you eat an elephant? -- one bite at a time. While there are a number of short articles, especially in helping to fill out categories and wikilinks, many of the articles that were short 9 months ago have been substantially expanded. Any editors making positive contributions, yourself included, can have a hand in turning this site into the resource that was envisioned upon its creation. Some areas, such as a fluid linking and category structure, have already seen great improvement and are becoming top rate. With each day we continue to improve. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:42, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Conservapedia is far too liberal to be any good. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 06:43, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:Oh dear. I can't agree; Joe, I dare say you almost remind me of the obnoxious type of person that goes around claiming the [[New York Times]] has a conservative bias. In any case, I agree with Casi. The point here should not be to right a conservative article or go on a rant Because We Can. It should be to write an unbiased truth about something. And if we go off simply writing rants, then we will not be considered reliable. Unfortunately, I do think that 65% of the population will be uninterested in ''any'' site that openly identifies with an ideology, so that alone will disqualify CP from contention with WP. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 23:03, 3 January 2008 (EST)

::I agree with the unbiased truth. However, I think that Conservapedia is not fulfilling its function as unbiased. For example, the article on [[Feminism]] states that "Feminists prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses," which is not true since I know many Feminist women who prefer to wear skirts and dresses as is the overall trend. Feminism falls along a spectrum, which is why the article is polarized. Also, Conservapedia has a considerable amount of internet references rather than scholarly peer-reviewed articles, which significantly undermines its credibility.--[[User:Skeem|Skeem]] 23:01, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

It should never seek to become Wikipedia, and it never will. Wikipedia tries to be neutral as much as possible. Conservapedia is conservative by definition. Therefore, it will not be used by anyone who isn't a conservative American citizen. People from anywhere else in the world with any other political orientations will not use it. [[User:CappyR|CappyR]] 22:41, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia can certainly become as BIG as Wikipedia if not BIGGER. But CP should possibly consider renaming itself to something less biased than Conservapedia. Even though Wikipedia is extremely liberal, the name itself doesn't imply it. CP on the other hand announces it in it's name as a conservative only source. Perhaps CP should rename itself BiasFreepedia.com. That's my TWO cents. --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 23:21, 8 January 2008 (EST)

I agree, the name(CP0 doesnt seem non biased

I definitely agree with Casi, and coming from sort of the same direction is that Wikipedia is trying to be a real encycopledia with true information, not true information that is edited to make it suit someones views on how that information should be represented. It is twisting the truth, and that alone makes it unreliable as a mainstream encyclopedia. With that said I am sure many people come here to get the type of 'information' that they seek. I actually think it is rather sad that an encyclopedia used to be something you could rely on, and now it is just another forum for people with a certain way of thinking who are trying their best to make sure others end up with the same belief system as them. Information has nothing to do with opinions...--[[User:Truce|truce]] 20:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)

to Watchman, I doubt Wikipedia intended to be 'liberal'...it is just the way it has come about. This site intends to be conservative, so I don't think the name should be changed. If the name was changed to something less suspicious it would be deceiving people, unless that is of course what you want...just because you view the information here as being accurate because it accurately expresses your opinions on a subject doesn't make it the truth. --[[User:Truce|truce]] 20:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)

I do not believe Conservapedia could ever become as big as Wikipedia and if it ever did I think it would be a great shame. A site condemning the 'liberal bias' and condoning conservative and Christian bias, discussing homosexuality, liberal views and atheism in a blatant negative manner only shows how small minded some people are. The fact that the site only allows for American English to be used only supports my theory that it has been organised and created by a group of fascists; whatever happened to freedom of speech? As a British atheist I can't say that I am a fan of this site and I dare say that the majority of British people, regardless of religion, will not be fans because of the site condemning the use of British English; this is why Conservapedia will never be as big as Wikipedia; they are cutting themselves off from potential users. Though I am sure they wouldn't want people who use the British spelling of the English language using their site...funny that us British are being told that our spelling of a language created by us is wrong, specially when the majority of English speaking country spells things our way; not the American. Also funny that Conservapedia exclusively promotes and supports creationism which would suggest that 'God' is omnipotent yet is against homosexuality...if one believes 'God' is omnipotent then one is saying that he/she/it created all life including those homosexuals but if homosexuality is right then surely one is criticising the work of 'God' and saying he/she/it made a mistake; I find that most interesting.

Dear Brit--- Homosexuality is not the work of GOD, Homosexuality is a choice made by human beings. GOD has given us freedom of will to follow HIS teachings and will or not. You are assuming, without any scientific foundation, that homosexuality is genetic or biological, which the article on this site does not support nor does the scientific community. Reading the complete article first, so you can make an honest and intelligent argument, would be wise, so as not to look the fool.
Concerning the English language, their are many dialects, which result in multiple pronunciations and spellings of words. Your assertion that the rest of the English speaking world follows the British example is rubbish and purposefully deceitful.(a practice commonly used by liberals, due to their lack of core values, lose morals and low intelligence. And in your case, the lack of guts and fortitude to at least sign your online name.) The roots of the English language were indeed "invented" by the Anglo Saxons, with heavy influences from old Norse, German, and French. And as with many languages it has evolved over time, many words used in the U.K. are of American origin and vice versa. Further more, I am forced to use your spelling when I frequent British sites as well, but I'm not whining. Where is Winston Churchill when you need him? Majorpain a.k.a. Mike.

If the criteria for becoming as big as Wikipedia is as the angry atheist Brit has listed, then it's well worth NOT becoming like Wikipedia. Perhaps, it's the Brits that are polluting our online Wiki-resources with such liberal trash. Go George Washington! Cheers! --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 22:37, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
:So many people coming to support the site are not welcome. This is why the site is in decline, the pointless anger against people who would support the poject. It is a problem. I acknowledge that some of my spelling has had to be 'corrected', but the deep suspision of anyone not like enough goes against the broadness stated in the word encyclopedia.[[User:Stevendavy|Stevendavy]] 20 March 2008 (EDT)

For a start, articles should be licensed under GFDL or CC. Why should anyone be motivated to edit an encyclopedia ''for free'' when their work ends up being owned by that encyclopedia? If I edit conservapedia, can anyone guarantee that my work will not someday fall into someone's hands who will claim exclusive rights over it, without giving me compensation? No. The reason I edit wikipedia is not because I trust the people who run it, but because GFDL guarantees that this will never happen. The wikimedia foundation only owns the servers, not the information on them. If they became corrupt one day and decided to use wikipedia to their personal advantage, somebody would soon create a fork that isn't corrupt. The GFDL allows this. With conservapedia on the other hand there is no guarantee. [[User:Cambrasa|Cambrasa]] 12:22, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

The problem currently is that various articles are far too biased, and there are too many religious fundamentalists registered on this site. Case in point, historical articles such as "paper" barely has a single paragraph, whereas religious articles such as intelligent design/creationism/etc has many pages.
[[User:Intranetusa|Intranetusa]] 14:12, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

If you really want to get people to read these articles for more than entertainment or a good laugh then you have to take the subjective entries out of your article text. Too many of your articles on controversial issues end up being nothing more than politically and religiously charged attacks or refutes of direct text from Wikipedia. Every article on here that has more than one line of explanation sounds like nothing more than an argument worthy of the opinion page of a bad news paper. It’s not about being bias or not, it’s about presenting both sides of an argument with as much information as possible and allowing the reader to decide which side they believe. This web site is a giant debate fueled by hate and promotion of fear. For as much respect and love for religion that is expressed here there sure aren’t very many people that have learned from it. So the truth might set you free but a strong opinion despite the facts just makes for good entertainment. --[[User:FactMan|FactMan]] 21:52, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

This place can't be the next Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't have to shut down every night for fear of SUBVERSIVE VANDALS. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 21:56, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

A perceived bias and a genuine bias are two completely different things. Conservapedia tells you about a bias up front, which would scare away anyone looking for a neutral source of information. But those on conservapedia feel that Wiki is biased the other way so they must compensate by leaning conservatively. Typically, those who edit wikipedia are fairly tech savy and probably are fairly young. However, as more people age and they become more familiar with the internet/blogging/etc. , they want to make their voice heard. This argument essentially comes down to older users vs. younger users. Now, I know there has been a trend lately of younger people being more conservative. However, I don't think the trend has changed significantly enough to swing the demographic of young voters over to the Republican side. I don't know who said it or where it is attributed to, but I believe the quote is "If you are young and not liberal, you have no heart. If you are old and are not conservative, you have no brain." Thank you for enduring my rambling. And no, it cannot become the next wikipedia. Anything with a bias up front is not going to gain mainstream attention, especially considering the exposure Wikipedia already has. But hey, articles like this just Conservapedia larger. -[[User:ITfreq51|ITfreq51]] 19 April, 2008

No. It does not matter whether you view this as good or bad. But the two wikis are based on completely different attitudes and perspectives. Conservapedia is from a conservative, Christian point of view(correct me if I'm wrong), while Wikipedia highlights NPOV, which stands for Neutral Point of View(by that it means that so the articles will not offend a particualr group of people). Both Wikis see each other as biased. Wikipedia appeals to all people because it is intended not to target a specific group or to make specific comments about a group. COnservapedia will appeal to Conservatives, but then maybe not the mainstream. (P.S. If you are against this could you also leave your comment on my [[User talk:Faizaguo|talk page]]? Because my Watchlist is flooded. Thanks)--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 12:43, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Can CP become as big as Wiki? Certainly. But we need to point out the outrageous bias that wikipedia stands for and embraces. This bias can be found in almost all articles dealing with issues of contention. NPOV in their eyes is the extreme liberal view, the one that militants will tell you is the only truth. The sad thing is that if we were better organized and had more committed members, Wiki wouldn't be able to get away with the garbage and biases that are so rampant. --[[User:Irpw|Irpw]]

:I think it would be difficult, because, wikipedia is already so big, and conservapedia is not really that well known.[[User:Red4tribe|Red4tribe]] 12:33, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
::Stout heart! In AD100 the Roman Empire was very big, and [[Christianity]] little known. Out of little acorns, great oaks grow. We may yet be of small consequence (though that is debatable), but in the future...! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:52, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Yes, I agree. In term s of quality articles, we have already overtaken the liberals!--American78

ACLU

2008-09-03T11:45:07Z

American78:

[[Image:Nghfuyr.png|right|thumb|Current logo of the ACLU.]]
The '''ACLU''' is the American Civil Liberties Union, a [[leftist]], [[secular]]-[[Progressivism|progressive]] organization. It was run for its first 30 years by an [[United States of America|American]] [[Socialism|socialist]] named [[Roger Baldwin]], who helped found it in 1920. This organization pursues a [[leftist]] agenda that includes [[censoring]] prayer and recognition of [[God]] from public institutions, such as [[public schools]].

[[Image:ACLU and Islam.jpg|right|400px|It All Depends On Whose Church Is Being Separated]]
==Communism==
I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself…I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.
-Founder Roger Baldwin
==Illegal Immigration==

The [[ACLU]] demanded $2.3 million in fees for challenging a law against [[illegal immigration]]. This demand "illustrates the circus the ACLU brought to this case," the Mayor of Hazelton, Pennsylvania said. "They had 20 attorneys sitting in the courtroom at a time, 16 of them doing nothing but running up the bill."<ref>http://www.centredaily.com/news/state/story/194756.html]</ref>

In the Hazleton case the ACLU persuaded a [[federal]] [[court]] to declare a municipal ordinance to be unconstitutional, even though other federal courts have upheld similar laws since then. The Hazleton case is on appeal.

==Censoring God==
The ACLU often insists that the [[Establishment Clause]] of the [[Constitution of the United States|Constitution]] requires censorship of religious expression. In 2007, for example, the [[ACLU]] of [[Tennessee]] sought to stop prayer and prayer-related activities by the volunteer [[Praying Parents]]. ''Doe v. Wilson County Sch. Sys.'', 524 F. Supp. 2d 964 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 9, 2007).

ACLU chapters frequently sue to compel removal displays of the [[Ten Commandments]] from public property. For example, in ''McCreary County v. ACLU'', 545 U.S. 844 (2005), the ACLU of Kentucky forced two counties to remove displays of the Ten Commandments from their courthouses. In another case ''Glassroth v. Moore'', 229 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (2002) the Alabama chapter sued [[Alabama]] [[Supreme Court]] [[Chief Justice]] Roy Moore to remove a Ten Commandments Monument, with Moore remarking "fearing that I would not obey his order, decided to threaten other state officials and force them to remove the monument if I did not do so". A threat of heavy fines was his way of coercing obedience to that order". In Utah, the ACLU even announced a scavenger hunt for anyone who could find a display of the Ten Commandments monument that the ACLU could demand be removed. The ACLU typically receives substantial legal fees from the government in each of these cases.

In 1994, the ACLU of New Jersey sued Jersey City, New Jersey to challenge a menorah and a Christmas tree at city hall. A federal district judge declared the display to be unconstitutional, but the appellate court, in a 2-1 opinion written by now-Justice [[Samuel Alito]], found a modified display to be constitutional. ''ACLU of New Jersey v. Schundler'' (1999). Then-Judge Alito wrote, "government may celebrate Christmas in some manner and form, but not in a way that endorses Christian doctrine."

In 2007, the ACLU Foundation of Texas filed an [[amicus brief]] for removal of a longstanding monument to William Mosher outside Harris County Civil Courthouse because the statute contained a depiction of an open Bible. ''Staley v. Harris County'', 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 9296 (5th Cir. 2007). The court ruled that Harris County must pay attorneys fees to the [[Americans United For Separation of Church & State]], which often appears along with the ACLU in demanding removal of religious symbols from government property and censoring criticism of evolution in public school.

The ACLU demanded that Los Angeles County remove a tiny cross from the Los Angeles County seal, even though the seal contained nearly a dozen symbols including the Greek goddess Pomona standing on the shore of the Pacific Ocean -- about which the ACLU did not complain. The seal also displayed other California motifs, including the Spanish galleon San Salvador, a tuna fish, a cow, stars representing the movie and television industries, the Hollywood Bowl, oil derricks, and a pair of engineering instruments to represent Los Angeles' contributions to industrial construction and space exploration. The cross was a tiny part of the seal. But Los Angeles County gave into the ACLU's demands and spent $700,000 to censor the cross and replace it on all official government documents, publications and signage.

The ACLU of Louisiana demanded that a school board stop allowing an invocation to be said at the beginning of its meetings. In ''[[Doe v. Tangipahoa Parish School Bd.]]'' (2007), an [[en banc]] [[Fifth Circuit]] dismissed the claim for lack of proof that anyone had been injured or even offended by hearing these invocations.

==Censoring [[Intelligent Design]]==
In 2004, the ACLU filed [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]].<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> If the plaintiffs, five parents in the Georgia district, won the case, the school district would have to pay their lawyers. The ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled. The school district agreed to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution", and to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum, which includes evolution, although that wasn't under dispute in the original suit. In addition, they paid $166,669.12 to Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore.<ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

Another example of ACLU litigation was ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]].''<ref>Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District:
Decision of the Court, 400 F.Supp.2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005) [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html]</ref>, also known as the [[Intelligent design]] case. The ACLU prevailed in prohibiting administrators from reading a short statement that mentions [[Intelligent Design]] to students, and forbade the school board from issuing a warning that Darwin's theory has gaps.<ref>''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District,'' 400 F.Supp.2d 707.</ref> In his opinion, Judge [[John E. Jones III]] heavily relied on the later-vacated ruling in ''[[Selman v. Cobb County School District]]'', and on ACLU briefs.<ref>90% of the section on intelligent design was from the ACLU's briefs. A Comparison of Judge Jones’ Opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover with Plaintiffs’ Proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law”, by David DeWolf & John West, Discovery Institute, December 12, 2006
[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3829&program=CSC - Views and News]</ref> He also cited the [[Establishment test]], the [[Lemon test]], and the [[reasonable student standard]].<ref>''Kitzmiller,'' 400 F. Supp. 2d at 725 (coming to the conclusion reached in ''Selman'' by the Court's own reasoning), ''compare'' Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 13005 (11th Cir. May 25, 2006) at *pincite needed*.</ref> The judge also ordered fees paid to the ACLU and its lawyers, totaling $2,067,000.<ref>''See'' 42 U.S.C. s 1988 (describing relief afforded victorious plaintiff of a 1983 action as including attorney fees).</ref>

==Harming the Boy Scouts==

The ACLU filed a lawsuit to prohibit the federal government from continuing to allow the [[Boy Scouts]], a charitable organization for teenagers, to use an Army base in Virginia for a quadrennial gathering known as the Boy Scout Jamboree; in 2005, more than 40,000 Boy Scouts attended this event.

Although the Boy Scouts have been conducting this Jamboree on government property for 70 years, this lawsuit was not filed until 1999, after the Boy Scouts enforced its policy against having openly homosexual Scout leaders. The theory of the lawsuit was that because Scouts swear an oath of "duty to God," it violates the Establishment Clause for the government to allow this joint project.

A federal district court ruled for the ACLU, but the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit overturned the lower court ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the suit which will allow the government to continue to sponsor this event for the Boy Scouts.<ref>See [[Essay:Boy Scouts Rout ACLU]]</ref>

== Pornography ==

In [[Ashcroft v. ACLU]] (2004), the ACLU challenged and invalidated the [[Child Online Protection Act]], which would have required pornographers to take reasonable steps to restrict access by minors to porn on the Internet. The Act, which the Supreme Court struck down at the request of the ACLU, did not censor a single word or picture. It merely required the pornographers to screen their websites from minors, which can be done by credit card or other verification.

The ACLU often argues in favor of pornography before courts and administrative boards. Charles Rust-Tierney was an executive for the ACLU of Virginia who argued against the use of Internet filters on the computers at the Loudoun County Library Board:<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55983</ref>

:"The ACLU of Virginia urges the board to carefully consider a new Internet Use Policy that allows for maximum Internet access ...."

Rust-Tierney, who served as the Virginia ACLU president until 2005, was serving on its board of directors when he was arrested in February 2007 for possession of child pornography that a U.S. magistrate described as "the most perverted and nauseating and sickening type of child pornography" she ever had seen. The former Virginia ACLU president later entered a guilty plea and was sentenced to eight years in jail.<ref>''Ibid.''</ref>

==Same-sex Marriage==
The ACLU of New Jersey filed an amicus curiae brief in favor of same-sex marriage in ''Lewis v. Harris'', 188 N.J. 415 (1006). The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in favor of civil unions, but by a 4-3 margin did not require same-sex marriage.

The ACLU sues schools when a student alleges encountering "anti-gay peer harassment and bullying based on his perceived sexual orientation." <ref>http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/28618prs20070221.html</ref> The ACLU holds the school (and hence the taxpayers) liable for actions based on conduct by some students towards others.

The ACLU of Minnesota sued to force the Osseo Area School District to grant equal access to the schools public address (PA) system, yearbook, fundraising and field trips by a pro-homosexual school club named the Straights and Gays for Equality (“SAGE”).<ref>''Straights & Gays for Equality v. Osseo Area Schs.'', 471 F.3d 908 (8th Cir. 2006).</ref> The school district already had a club entitled "Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Trans-gender, Questioning and Allies," and already had a SAGE club, but SAGE was designated as non-curricular and wanted the additional rights of communication.

The ACLU invoked the Equal Access Act to argue that as long as the school district granted these rights to other clubs, such as cheerleading and synchronized swimming, it must grant these rights to SAGE also. No, the school district argued in defending its action, cheerleading is related to physical education while SAGE is not, and thus SAGE should not have the same rights. However, there were other non phys-ed sports that got funding.

The district court ruled in favor of the ACLU, and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit unanimously affirmed. The Court ordered the school district to give SAGE the same rights as the cheerleading club. The ACLU will be able to demand substantial attorneys' fees at taxpayer expense.

Similarly, the ACLU of Florida sued the Okeechobee School Board to force it to allow a Gay-Straight Alliance club at Okeechobee High School. Though the school objected to this club as a "sex-based" club, the ACLU persuaded a federal judge to rule in its favor, and it will likely recover substantial attorneys fees at taxpayer expense. See ''Gay-Straight Alliance of Okeechobee High Sch. v. School Board of Okeechobee County'', 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25729 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 6, 2007).

==Abortion==
The ACLU is generally against laws that restrict access to [[abortion]], such as parental notification when a minor seeks an abortion and informed consent for the woman herself. ACLU attorneys have argued several cases in support of abortion. For example, the woman called "Jane Doe" in the [[abortion]] case of ''[[Doe v. Bolton]]'' (1973) says "she was pressured by ACLU attorneys to opt for [[abortion]] and that the case was based on fraud."<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52210</ref>

==Polygamy==
The ACLU has defended [[polygamy|polygamists]].<ref>During a question-and-answer session after a speech at Yale University, ACLU president Nadine Strossen stated that her organization has "defended the right of individuals to engage in polygamy," [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44977 World Net Daily] June 25, 2005</ref><ref>
The ACLU views freedom of religion and the establishment clause as inseparable: In order for people to have religious freedom, their government must neither endorse nor prohibit any religious position.[http://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/16163prs19990716.html ACLU press release July 16 1999].</ref>

==Free Speech==

The ACLU is the single biggest legal advocate for pornography (see above), claiming that it is a form of [[free speech]]. Less significantly, the ACLU has also helped -- or not helped -- in the following cases:

*The ACLU rarely defends Christian speech, and virtually never defends speech that is critical of homosexuality. The ACLU was silent with respect to the widely publicized censorship of a T-shirt critical of homosexuality that was worn by student Tyler Chase Harper at his public school. "It's hard to explain the ACLU's apparent equanimity about the violation of Mr. Harper's First Amendment rights -- unless you consider the content of his speech. This case does not appear to be anomalous. Despite its professed commitment to religious liberty, for example, the ACLU tends to absent itself from cases on college campuses involving the associational rights of Christian student groups to discriminate against gay students, in accordance with their religious beliefs."<ref>Wendy Kaminer, "The American Liberal Liberties Union," Wall Street Journal (May 23, 2007).</ref> Months ''after'' that stinging criticism, the ACLU filed a carefully worded [[amicus curiae]] brief in subsequent litigation in this case that defended Harper because he "neither substantially disrupted the school nor invaded the rights of other students."<ref>http://www.aclusandiego.org/article_downloads/000293/HarperAmicusDistrictCourtFinal.pdf . Buried in the brief near the end of an argument is the statement that "and because "to allow a Day of Silence one day while banning Mr. Harper's shirt the next day may give rise to an inference of viewpoint discrimination rather than justified regulation of student speech regardless of viewpoint" -- but note that it does not argue that inference of viewpoint discrimination would be correct.</ref>

*In 1978, the ACLU defended the right of the National Socialist Party of America (neo-Nazi) to march through Skokie, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago that is a community of a large number of Jewish people and Holocaust survivors. The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the village to issue a permit for demonstration to the Nazi Party, which was never used, that was later upheld by the Supreme Court. The ACLU experienced a severe backlash over this case when membership dropped by 25% and plunged the organization $500,000 in debt. <ref> http://openweb.tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/1978-2/1978-02-23-NBC-6.html </ref> <ref> http://www.acluprocon.org/ACLUHistory/HistoryTable.html</ref>

*On January 16, 2008, the ACLU issued a statement supporting Sen. Larry Craig(R-ID) to have his guilty plea to misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct in a Minnesota airport restroom withdrawn on the basis that a closed bathroom stall is a private location. While not advocating sex in public bathrooms, the ACLU suggested the police have better means of enforcing laws instead of using entrapment. <ref>http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/33697prs20080116.html</ref>

*In September 2000, the ACLU represented the North American Man/Boy Love Association when the parents of Jeffrey Curley, who was raped, tortured and murdered by two men, filed a $200 million federal lawsuit for wrongful death. John Roberts, the executive director of the Massachusetts ACLU stated, ''It's not a real popular case, but the First Amendment issues are clear.'' The case was dismissed on a technicality. A subsequent lawsuit filed against the murderers, who were not represented by the ACLU, was successful. Jeffrey Curley's father, Robert Curley, was sympathetic to the ACLU's opposition to his lawsuit. "I really do have a lot of respect for them, they are very consistent in who they defend. It takes a lot of nerve to defend the groups they have over the years. They have a lot of courage." <ref>http://sidesplitters.catastrophe.net/arch/2002/www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberfortytwo.htm</ref> <ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0DE0D91530F932A3575AC0A9669C8B63</ref>

*The ACLU has been involved with lawsuits filed against Attorney Generals Reno, Ashcroft and Gonzales when fighting the enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). Federal courts have consistently ruled COPA violates the constitutional protection of free speech and have forbidden enforcement by the federal government. The most current ruling on March 22, 2007 is being appealed.<ref> http://www.mediacoalition.org/legal/copa/index.htm </ref>

*In 1949, the ACLU defended Father Arthur Terminiello, an ex-Catholic priest, who gave a speech at a rally in Chicago that was laced with racist, anti-Semitic and anti-Communist comments. Father Terminiello was fined $100 for violating Chicago's breach of peace ordinance. This fine was later reversed by the Supreme Court. <ref> http://www.comm.unt.edu/faculty/terminiello_v.htm</ref> <ref> http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12808pub19941231.html</ref>

*The ACLU of Nevada successfully defended the right of a street preacher, Jim Webber, to proselytize his pro-Jesus, anti-sin, and occasional anti-homosexual messages on the Las Vegas strip. The unsuccessful campaign conducted by the casinos failed and allowed Webber and others to stay. Webber is quoted as saying, "the ACLU has been my guardian angel. They have been the ones that have provided the ability for me to stand on the street and talk with people about Jesus Christ." <ref>http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=548951&page=1</ref> <ref>http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Mar-05-Sun-2006/news/6197557.html</ref>

==Free Exercise Clause==
The ACLU at times defends the religious rights of American citizens and residents. See 'ACLU Defense of Freedom of Religious Practice and Expression' at the ACLU's website for 60 examples of Christians and 45 examples of non-Christians represented by the ACLU to protect their religious rights. <ref> http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html </ref>

On March 14, 2008, the ACLU sent a letter to the Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy of Inver Grove Heights Minnesota expressing their disapproval of alleged school sponsored prayer during school hours. Concerns were raised about alleged violations of the establishment clause and the 'Lemon Test' because '… the school is improperly involved in promoting and facilitating after-school religious studies conducted under the auspices of the Mosque that is housed in the same building as the school.' Further inquiries are on-going. <ref> http://www.aclu-mn.org/downloads/LettertoTarekAcademy.pdf </ref> <ref> http://www.aclu-mn.org/home/news/aclumnopensinvestigationof.htm </ref>

==Prisoner and student rights==

In the 2007 case ''Spratt v. Rhode Island Department of Corrections'', the ACLU brought suit against the Rhode Island Adult Correctional Institute following the prison's decision to bar Christian prisoner and lay minister Wesley Spratt from preaching to other inmates during weekly services. The ACLU won the case on appeal, securing the right for Spratt to hold religious services for other inmates so long as these do not conflict with prison security.<ref>ACLU: Appeals Court Overturns Ban on Christian Preacher in Rhode Island Prison (4/9/2007)[http://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/29578prs20070409.html]</ref>

In 2004, student Abbey Moler selected a bible verse to accompany her picture in a school yearbook. The school subsequently removed this text before publication. The ACLU filed suit against the Utica Community School District, on the grounds that this censorship violated Moler's first-amendment rights to free expression and freedom of religion. The case was settled out of court, with the school district agreeing to replace the verse in following prints of the yearbook and correct it by means of a sticker in copies still in its possession.<ref>ACLU: After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries (5/11/2004)
[http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12845prs20040511.html]</ref><ref> The settlement between the ALCU and the school district stated:
* The district will place a sticker with Moler's original entry in the copies of the yearbook on file with the school.
* The district has instructed the Stevenson High School yearbook staff not to censor students' yearbook entries solely because they contain religious or political speech that others might find offensive.
* The district recently provided and will continue to provide in-service training and advice to school staff on free speech and religious freedom issues that arise in school.
* The district will write a letter of regret to Moler apologizing for the failure to include her entry in the yearbook.</ref>

==Medical Records==

The ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief in favor of the privacy of Rush Limbaugh in his medical records when he was under investigation for 'doctor shopping.' The ACLU argued that the privacy rights of a patient were being violated.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108140,00.html</ref>

== Terrorism ==

The ACLU has challenged the authority of the President to authorize wireless wiretaps of overseas communications without submitting to judicial oversight. In ''[[ACLU v. NSA]]'', the Court of Appeals for the [[Sixth Circuit]] rejected the ACLU's challenge.

==Views of the ACLU Founder==

Roger Baldwin, a co-founder of the ACLU and its first leader, was born and raised in Massachusetts. He said that his "social work began in my mind in the Unitarian Church when I was ten or twelve years old, and I started to do things that I thought would help other people.”

In the 1920 and 1930s he was sympathetic to the social goals and aspirations of the emerging communist nations. In 1934, Balwin published his goals in Soviet Russia Today:<ref>The Volokh Conspiracy (blog entry), Eugene Volokh, September 7, 2005 [http://volokh.com/posts/1126138099.shtml]</ref>

:I believe in non-violent methods of struggle as most effective in the long run for building up successful working class power. Where they cannot be followed or where they are not even permitted by the ruling class, obviously only violent tactics remain. I champion civil liberty as the best of the non-violent means of building the power on which workers rule must be based. If I aid the reactionaries to get free speech now and then, if I go outside the class struggle to fight against censorship, it is only because those liberties help to create a more hospitable atmosphere for working class liberties. The class struggle is the central conflict of the world; all others are incidental.

:Proletarian Liberty in Practice

:When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever. Dictatorship is the obvious means in a world of enemies at home and abroad. I dislike it in principle as dangerous to its own objects. But the Soviet Union has already created liberties far greater than exist elsewhere in the world. They are liberties that most closely affect the lives of the people — power in the trade unions, in peasant organizations, in the cultural life of nationalities, freedom of women in public and private life, and a tremendous development of education for adults and children. . . .

In 1940 he successfully fought to revise the ACLU charter to prohibit those affiliated with totalitarian organizations from serving on the ACLU board. The immediate target was the former-Wobbly and present Communist Party member, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn.

In 1947 General Douglas MacArthur arranged for Baldwin to serve as a civil liberties consultant in Japan.

==See Also==

*[[NAMBLA]]
*[[Fred Phelps]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/ACLU|Articles about the '''ACLU''' from previous "Breaking News" ]]
{{liberalism}}
==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/blog/baldwin.pdf Baldwin speaks in defense of communism from 1934]
*http://www.aclu.org
*Anti-ACLU sites:
**http://www.stoptheaclu.com/
**http://www.aclj.org

[[category:politics]]
[[Category:Liberal Organizations]]

ACLU

2008-09-03T11:41:50Z

American78:

[[Image:Nghfuyr.png|right|thumb|Current logo of the ACLU.]]
The '''ACLU''' is the American Civil Liberties Union, a [[leftist]], [[secular]]-[[Progressivism|progressive]] organization. It was run for its first 30 years by an [[United States of America|American]] [[Socialism|socialist]] named [[Roger Baldwin]], who helped found it in 1920. This organization pursues a [[leftist]] agenda that includes [[censoring]] prayer and recognition of [[God]] from public institutions, such as [[public schools]].

[[Image:ACLU and Islam.jpg|right|400px|It All Depends On Whose Church Is Being Separated]]
==Communism==
{{CQuote|''''''I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself…I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.}}
-Founder Roger Baldwin
==Illegal Immigration==

The [[ACLU]] demanded $2.3 million in fees for challenging a law against [[illegal immigration]]. This demand "illustrates the circus the ACLU brought to this case," the Mayor of Hazelton, Pennsylvania said. "They had 20 attorneys sitting in the courtroom at a time, 16 of them doing nothing but running up the bill."<ref>http://www.centredaily.com/news/state/story/194756.html]</ref>

In the Hazleton case the ACLU persuaded a [[federal]] [[court]] to declare a municipal ordinance to be unconstitutional, even though other federal courts have upheld similar laws since then. The Hazleton case is on appeal.

==Censoring God==
The ACLU often insists that the [[Establishment Clause]] of the [[Constitution of the United States|Constitution]] requires censorship of religious expression. In 2007, for example, the [[ACLU]] of [[Tennessee]] sought to stop prayer and prayer-related activities by the volunteer [[Praying Parents]]. ''Doe v. Wilson County Sch. Sys.'', 524 F. Supp. 2d 964 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 9, 2007).

ACLU chapters frequently sue to compel removal displays of the [[Ten Commandments]] from public property. For example, in ''McCreary County v. ACLU'', 545 U.S. 844 (2005), the ACLU of Kentucky forced two counties to remove displays of the Ten Commandments from their courthouses. In another case ''Glassroth v. Moore'', 229 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (2002) the Alabama chapter sued [[Alabama]] [[Supreme Court]] [[Chief Justice]] Roy Moore to remove a Ten Commandments Monument, with Moore remarking "fearing that I would not obey his order, decided to threaten other state officials and force them to remove the monument if I did not do so". A threat of heavy fines was his way of coercing obedience to that order". In Utah, the ACLU even announced a scavenger hunt for anyone who could find a display of the Ten Commandments monument that the ACLU could demand be removed. The ACLU typically receives substantial legal fees from the government in each of these cases.

In 1994, the ACLU of New Jersey sued Jersey City, New Jersey to challenge a menorah and a Christmas tree at city hall. A federal district judge declared the display to be unconstitutional, but the appellate court, in a 2-1 opinion written by now-Justice [[Samuel Alito]], found a modified display to be constitutional. ''ACLU of New Jersey v. Schundler'' (1999). Then-Judge Alito wrote, "government may celebrate Christmas in some manner and form, but not in a way that endorses Christian doctrine."

In 2007, the ACLU Foundation of Texas filed an [[amicus brief]] for removal of a longstanding monument to William Mosher outside Harris County Civil Courthouse because the statute contained a depiction of an open Bible. ''Staley v. Harris County'', 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 9296 (5th Cir. 2007). The court ruled that Harris County must pay attorneys fees to the [[Americans United For Separation of Church & State]], which often appears along with the ACLU in demanding removal of religious symbols from government property and censoring criticism of evolution in public school.

The ACLU demanded that Los Angeles County remove a tiny cross from the Los Angeles County seal, even though the seal contained nearly a dozen symbols including the Greek goddess Pomona standing on the shore of the Pacific Ocean -- about which the ACLU did not complain. The seal also displayed other California motifs, including the Spanish galleon San Salvador, a tuna fish, a cow, stars representing the movie and television industries, the Hollywood Bowl, oil derricks, and a pair of engineering instruments to represent Los Angeles' contributions to industrial construction and space exploration. The cross was a tiny part of the seal. But Los Angeles County gave into the ACLU's demands and spent $700,000 to censor the cross and replace it on all official government documents, publications and signage.

The ACLU of Louisiana demanded that a school board stop allowing an invocation to be said at the beginning of its meetings. In ''[[Doe v. Tangipahoa Parish School Bd.]]'' (2007), an [[en banc]] [[Fifth Circuit]] dismissed the claim for lack of proof that anyone had been injured or even offended by hearing these invocations.

==Censoring [[Intelligent Design]]==
In 2004, the ACLU filed [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]].<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> If the plaintiffs, five parents in the Georgia district, won the case, the school district would have to pay their lawyers. The ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled. The school district agreed to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution", and to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum, which includes evolution, although that wasn't under dispute in the original suit. In addition, they paid $166,669.12 to Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore.<ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

Another example of ACLU litigation was ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]].''<ref>Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District:
Decision of the Court, 400 F.Supp.2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005) [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html]</ref>, also known as the [[Intelligent design]] case. The ACLU prevailed in prohibiting administrators from reading a short statement that mentions [[Intelligent Design]] to students, and forbade the school board from issuing a warning that Darwin's theory has gaps.<ref>''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District,'' 400 F.Supp.2d 707.</ref> In his opinion, Judge [[John E. Jones III]] heavily relied on the later-vacated ruling in ''[[Selman v. Cobb County School District]]'', and on ACLU briefs.<ref>90% of the section on intelligent design was from the ACLU's briefs. A Comparison of Judge Jones’ Opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover with Plaintiffs’ Proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law”, by David DeWolf & John West, Discovery Institute, December 12, 2006
[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3829&program=CSC - Views and News]</ref> He also cited the [[Establishment test]], the [[Lemon test]], and the [[reasonable student standard]].<ref>''Kitzmiller,'' 400 F. Supp. 2d at 725 (coming to the conclusion reached in ''Selman'' by the Court's own reasoning), ''compare'' Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 13005 (11th Cir. May 25, 2006) at *pincite needed*.</ref> The judge also ordered fees paid to the ACLU and its lawyers, totaling $2,067,000.<ref>''See'' 42 U.S.C. s 1988 (describing relief afforded victorious plaintiff of a 1983 action as including attorney fees).</ref>

==Harming the Boy Scouts==

The ACLU filed a lawsuit to prohibit the federal government from continuing to allow the [[Boy Scouts]], a charitable organization for teenagers, to use an Army base in Virginia for a quadrennial gathering known as the Boy Scout Jamboree; in 2005, more than 40,000 Boy Scouts attended this event.

Although the Boy Scouts have been conducting this Jamboree on government property for 70 years, this lawsuit was not filed until 1999, after the Boy Scouts enforced its policy against having openly homosexual Scout leaders. The theory of the lawsuit was that because Scouts swear an oath of "duty to God," it violates the Establishment Clause for the government to allow this joint project.

A federal district court ruled for the ACLU, but the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit overturned the lower court ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the suit which will allow the government to continue to sponsor this event for the Boy Scouts.<ref>See [[Essay:Boy Scouts Rout ACLU]]</ref>

== Pornography ==

In [[Ashcroft v. ACLU]] (2004), the ACLU challenged and invalidated the [[Child Online Protection Act]], which would have required pornographers to take reasonable steps to restrict access by minors to porn on the Internet. The Act, which the Supreme Court struck down at the request of the ACLU, did not censor a single word or picture. It merely required the pornographers to screen their websites from minors, which can be done by credit card or other verification.

The ACLU often argues in favor of pornography before courts and administrative boards. Charles Rust-Tierney was an executive for the ACLU of Virginia who argued against the use of Internet filters on the computers at the Loudoun County Library Board:<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55983</ref>

:"The ACLU of Virginia urges the board to carefully consider a new Internet Use Policy that allows for maximum Internet access ...."

Rust-Tierney, who served as the Virginia ACLU president until 2005, was serving on its board of directors when he was arrested in February 2007 for possession of child pornography that a U.S. magistrate described as "the most perverted and nauseating and sickening type of child pornography" she ever had seen. The former Virginia ACLU president later entered a guilty plea and was sentenced to eight years in jail.<ref>''Ibid.''</ref>

==Same-sex Marriage==
The ACLU of New Jersey filed an amicus curiae brief in favor of same-sex marriage in ''Lewis v. Harris'', 188 N.J. 415 (1006). The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in favor of civil unions, but by a 4-3 margin did not require same-sex marriage.

The ACLU sues schools when a student alleges encountering "anti-gay peer harassment and bullying based on his perceived sexual orientation." <ref>http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/28618prs20070221.html</ref> The ACLU holds the school (and hence the taxpayers) liable for actions based on conduct by some students towards others.

The ACLU of Minnesota sued to force the Osseo Area School District to grant equal access to the schools public address (PA) system, yearbook, fundraising and field trips by a pro-homosexual school club named the Straights and Gays for Equality (“SAGE”).<ref>''Straights & Gays for Equality v. Osseo Area Schs.'', 471 F.3d 908 (8th Cir. 2006).</ref> The school district already had a club entitled "Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Trans-gender, Questioning and Allies," and already had a SAGE club, but SAGE was designated as non-curricular and wanted the additional rights of communication.

The ACLU invoked the Equal Access Act to argue that as long as the school district granted these rights to other clubs, such as cheerleading and synchronized swimming, it must grant these rights to SAGE also. No, the school district argued in defending its action, cheerleading is related to physical education while SAGE is not, and thus SAGE should not have the same rights. However, there were other non phys-ed sports that got funding.

The district court ruled in favor of the ACLU, and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit unanimously affirmed. The Court ordered the school district to give SAGE the same rights as the cheerleading club. The ACLU will be able to demand substantial attorneys' fees at taxpayer expense.

Similarly, the ACLU of Florida sued the Okeechobee School Board to force it to allow a Gay-Straight Alliance club at Okeechobee High School. Though the school objected to this club as a "sex-based" club, the ACLU persuaded a federal judge to rule in its favor, and it will likely recover substantial attorneys fees at taxpayer expense. See ''Gay-Straight Alliance of Okeechobee High Sch. v. School Board of Okeechobee County'', 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25729 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 6, 2007).

==Abortion==
The ACLU is generally against laws that restrict access to [[abortion]], such as parental notification when a minor seeks an abortion and informed consent for the woman herself. ACLU attorneys have argued several cases in support of abortion. For example, the woman called "Jane Doe" in the [[abortion]] case of ''[[Doe v. Bolton]]'' (1973) says "she was pressured by ACLU attorneys to opt for [[abortion]] and that the case was based on fraud."<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52210</ref>

==Polygamy==
The ACLU has defended [[polygamy|polygamists]].<ref>During a question-and-answer session after a speech at Yale University, ACLU president Nadine Strossen stated that her organization has "defended the right of individuals to engage in polygamy," [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44977 World Net Daily] June 25, 2005</ref><ref>
The ACLU views freedom of religion and the establishment clause as inseparable: In order for people to have religious freedom, their government must neither endorse nor prohibit any religious position.[http://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/16163prs19990716.html ACLU press release July 16 1999].</ref>

==Free Speech==

The ACLU is the single biggest legal advocate for pornography (see above), claiming that it is a form of [[free speech]]. Less significantly, the ACLU has also helped -- or not helped -- in the following cases:

*The ACLU rarely defends Christian speech, and virtually never defends speech that is critical of homosexuality. The ACLU was silent with respect to the widely publicized censorship of a T-shirt critical of homosexuality that was worn by student Tyler Chase Harper at his public school. "It's hard to explain the ACLU's apparent equanimity about the violation of Mr. Harper's First Amendment rights -- unless you consider the content of his speech. This case does not appear to be anomalous. Despite its professed commitment to religious liberty, for example, the ACLU tends to absent itself from cases on college campuses involving the associational rights of Christian student groups to discriminate against gay students, in accordance with their religious beliefs."<ref>Wendy Kaminer, "The American Liberal Liberties Union," Wall Street Journal (May 23, 2007).</ref> Months ''after'' that stinging criticism, the ACLU filed a carefully worded [[amicus curiae]] brief in subsequent litigation in this case that defended Harper because he "neither substantially disrupted the school nor invaded the rights of other students."<ref>http://www.aclusandiego.org/article_downloads/000293/HarperAmicusDistrictCourtFinal.pdf . Buried in the brief near the end of an argument is the statement that "and because "to allow a Day of Silence one day while banning Mr. Harper's shirt the next day may give rise to an inference of viewpoint discrimination rather than justified regulation of student speech regardless of viewpoint" -- but note that it does not argue that inference of viewpoint discrimination would be correct.</ref>

*In 1978, the ACLU defended the right of the National Socialist Party of America (neo-Nazi) to march through Skokie, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago that is a community of a large number of Jewish people and Holocaust survivors. The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the village to issue a permit for demonstration to the Nazi Party, which was never used, that was later upheld by the Supreme Court. The ACLU experienced a severe backlash over this case when membership dropped by 25% and plunged the organization $500,000 in debt. <ref> http://openweb.tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/1978-2/1978-02-23-NBC-6.html </ref> <ref> http://www.acluprocon.org/ACLUHistory/HistoryTable.html</ref>

*On January 16, 2008, the ACLU issued a statement supporting Sen. Larry Craig(R-ID) to have his guilty plea to misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct in a Minnesota airport restroom withdrawn on the basis that a closed bathroom stall is a private location. While not advocating sex in public bathrooms, the ACLU suggested the police have better means of enforcing laws instead of using entrapment. <ref>http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/33697prs20080116.html</ref>

*In September 2000, the ACLU represented the North American Man/Boy Love Association when the parents of Jeffrey Curley, who was raped, tortured and murdered by two men, filed a $200 million federal lawsuit for wrongful death. John Roberts, the executive director of the Massachusetts ACLU stated, ''It's not a real popular case, but the First Amendment issues are clear.'' The case was dismissed on a technicality. A subsequent lawsuit filed against the murderers, who were not represented by the ACLU, was successful. Jeffrey Curley's father, Robert Curley, was sympathetic to the ACLU's opposition to his lawsuit. "I really do have a lot of respect for them, they are very consistent in who they defend. It takes a lot of nerve to defend the groups they have over the years. They have a lot of courage." <ref>http://sidesplitters.catastrophe.net/arch/2002/www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberfortytwo.htm</ref> <ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0DE0D91530F932A3575AC0A9669C8B63</ref>

*The ACLU has been involved with lawsuits filed against Attorney Generals Reno, Ashcroft and Gonzales when fighting the enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). Federal courts have consistently ruled COPA violates the constitutional protection of free speech and have forbidden enforcement by the federal government. The most current ruling on March 22, 2007 is being appealed.<ref> http://www.mediacoalition.org/legal/copa/index.htm </ref>

*In 1949, the ACLU defended Father Arthur Terminiello, an ex-Catholic priest, who gave a speech at a rally in Chicago that was laced with racist, anti-Semitic and anti-Communist comments. Father Terminiello was fined $100 for violating Chicago's breach of peace ordinance. This fine was later reversed by the Supreme Court. <ref> http://www.comm.unt.edu/faculty/terminiello_v.htm</ref> <ref> http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12808pub19941231.html</ref>

*The ACLU of Nevada successfully defended the right of a street preacher, Jim Webber, to proselytize his pro-Jesus, anti-sin, and occasional anti-homosexual messages on the Las Vegas strip. The unsuccessful campaign conducted by the casinos failed and allowed Webber and others to stay. Webber is quoted as saying, "the ACLU has been my guardian angel. They have been the ones that have provided the ability for me to stand on the street and talk with people about Jesus Christ." <ref>http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=548951&page=1</ref> <ref>http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Mar-05-Sun-2006/news/6197557.html</ref>

==Free Exercise Clause==
The ACLU at times defends the religious rights of American citizens and residents. See 'ACLU Defense of Freedom of Religious Practice and Expression' at the ACLU's website for 60 examples of Christians and 45 examples of non-Christians represented by the ACLU to protect their religious rights. <ref> http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html </ref>

On March 14, 2008, the ACLU sent a letter to the Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy of Inver Grove Heights Minnesota expressing their disapproval of alleged school sponsored prayer during school hours. Concerns were raised about alleged violations of the establishment clause and the 'Lemon Test' because '… the school is improperly involved in promoting and facilitating after-school religious studies conducted under the auspices of the Mosque that is housed in the same building as the school.' Further inquiries are on-going. <ref> http://www.aclu-mn.org/downloads/LettertoTarekAcademy.pdf </ref> <ref> http://www.aclu-mn.org/home/news/aclumnopensinvestigationof.htm </ref>

==Prisoner and student rights==

In the 2007 case ''Spratt v. Rhode Island Department of Corrections'', the ACLU brought suit against the Rhode Island Adult Correctional Institute following the prison's decision to bar Christian prisoner and lay minister Wesley Spratt from preaching to other inmates during weekly services. The ACLU won the case on appeal, securing the right for Spratt to hold religious services for other inmates so long as these do not conflict with prison security.<ref>ACLU: Appeals Court Overturns Ban on Christian Preacher in Rhode Island Prison (4/9/2007)[http://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/29578prs20070409.html]</ref>

In 2004, student Abbey Moler selected a bible verse to accompany her picture in a school yearbook. The school subsequently removed this text before publication. The ACLU filed suit against the Utica Community School District, on the grounds that this censorship violated Moler's first-amendment rights to free expression and freedom of religion. The case was settled out of court, with the school district agreeing to replace the verse in following prints of the yearbook and correct it by means of a sticker in copies still in its possession.<ref>ACLU: After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries (5/11/2004)
[http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12845prs20040511.html]</ref><ref> The settlement between the ALCU and the school district stated:
* The district will place a sticker with Moler's original entry in the copies of the yearbook on file with the school.
* The district has instructed the Stevenson High School yearbook staff not to censor students' yearbook entries solely because they contain religious or political speech that others might find offensive.
* The district recently provided and will continue to provide in-service training and advice to school staff on free speech and religious freedom issues that arise in school.
* The district will write a letter of regret to Moler apologizing for the failure to include her entry in the yearbook.</ref>

==Medical Records==

The ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief in favor of the privacy of Rush Limbaugh in his medical records when he was under investigation for 'doctor shopping.' The ACLU argued that the privacy rights of a patient were being violated.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108140,00.html</ref>

== Terrorism ==

The ACLU has challenged the authority of the President to authorize wireless wiretaps of overseas communications without submitting to judicial oversight. In ''[[ACLU v. NSA]]'', the Court of Appeals for the [[Sixth Circuit]] rejected the ACLU's challenge.

==Views of the ACLU Founder==

Roger Baldwin, a co-founder of the ACLU and its first leader, was born and raised in Massachusetts. He said that his "social work began in my mind in the Unitarian Church when I was ten or twelve years old, and I started to do things that I thought would help other people.”

In the 1920 and 1930s he was sympathetic to the social goals and aspirations of the emerging communist nations. In 1934, Balwin published his goals in Soviet Russia Today:<ref>The Volokh Conspiracy (blog entry), Eugene Volokh, September 7, 2005 [http://volokh.com/posts/1126138099.shtml]</ref>

:I believe in non-violent methods of struggle as most effective in the long run for building up successful working class power. Where they cannot be followed or where they are not even permitted by the ruling class, obviously only violent tactics remain. I champion civil liberty as the best of the non-violent means of building the power on which workers rule must be based. If I aid the reactionaries to get free speech now and then, if I go outside the class struggle to fight against censorship, it is only because those liberties help to create a more hospitable atmosphere for working class liberties. The class struggle is the central conflict of the world; all others are incidental.

:Proletarian Liberty in Practice

:When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever. Dictatorship is the obvious means in a world of enemies at home and abroad. I dislike it in principle as dangerous to its own objects. But the Soviet Union has already created liberties far greater than exist elsewhere in the world. They are liberties that most closely affect the lives of the people — power in the trade unions, in peasant organizations, in the cultural life of nationalities, freedom of women in public and private life, and a tremendous development of education for adults and children. . . .

In 1940 he successfully fought to revise the ACLU charter to prohibit those affiliated with totalitarian organizations from serving on the ACLU board. The immediate target was the former-Wobbly and present Communist Party member, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn.

In 1947 General Douglas MacArthur arranged for Baldwin to serve as a civil liberties consultant in Japan.

==See Also==

*[[NAMBLA]]
*[[Fred Phelps]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/ACLU|Articles about the '''ACLU''' from previous "Breaking News" ]]
{{liberalism}}
==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/blog/baldwin.pdf Baldwin speaks in defense of communism from 1934]
*http://www.aclu.org
*Anti-ACLU sites:
**http://www.stoptheaclu.com/
**http://www.aclj.org

[[category:politics]]
[[Category:Liberal Organizations]]

ACLU

2008-09-03T11:41:02Z

American78:

[[Image:Nghfuyr.png|right|thumb|Current logo of the ACLU.]]
The '''ACLU''' is the American Civil Liberties Union, a [[leftist]], [[secular]]-[[Progressivism|progressive]] organization. It was run for its first 30 years by an [[United States of America|American]] [[Socialism|socialist]] named [[Roger Baldwin]], who helped found it in 1920. This organization pursues a [[leftist]] agenda that includes [[censoring]] prayer and recognition of [[God]] from public institutions, such as [[public schools]].

[[Image:ACLU and Islam.jpg|right|400px|It All Depends On Whose Church Is Being Separated]]
==Communism==
{{CQuote|I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself…I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.}}
-Founder Roger Baldwin
==Illegal Immigration==

The [[ACLU]] demanded $2.3 million in fees for challenging a law against [[illegal immigration]]. This demand "illustrates the circus the ACLU brought to this case," the Mayor of Hazelton, Pennsylvania said. "They had 20 attorneys sitting in the courtroom at a time, 16 of them doing nothing but running up the bill."<ref>http://www.centredaily.com/news/state/story/194756.html]</ref>

In the Hazleton case the ACLU persuaded a [[federal]] [[court]] to declare a municipal ordinance to be unconstitutional, even though other federal courts have upheld similar laws since then. The Hazleton case is on appeal.

==Censoring God==
The ACLU often insists that the [[Establishment Clause]] of the [[Constitution of the United States|Constitution]] requires censorship of religious expression. In 2007, for example, the [[ACLU]] of [[Tennessee]] sought to stop prayer and prayer-related activities by the volunteer [[Praying Parents]]. ''Doe v. Wilson County Sch. Sys.'', 524 F. Supp. 2d 964 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 9, 2007).

ACLU chapters frequently sue to compel removal displays of the [[Ten Commandments]] from public property. For example, in ''McCreary County v. ACLU'', 545 U.S. 844 (2005), the ACLU of Kentucky forced two counties to remove displays of the Ten Commandments from their courthouses. In another case ''Glassroth v. Moore'', 229 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (2002) the Alabama chapter sued [[Alabama]] [[Supreme Court]] [[Chief Justice]] Roy Moore to remove a Ten Commandments Monument, with Moore remarking "fearing that I would not obey his order, decided to threaten other state officials and force them to remove the monument if I did not do so". A threat of heavy fines was his way of coercing obedience to that order". In Utah, the ACLU even announced a scavenger hunt for anyone who could find a display of the Ten Commandments monument that the ACLU could demand be removed. The ACLU typically receives substantial legal fees from the government in each of these cases.

In 1994, the ACLU of New Jersey sued Jersey City, New Jersey to challenge a menorah and a Christmas tree at city hall. A federal district judge declared the display to be unconstitutional, but the appellate court, in a 2-1 opinion written by now-Justice [[Samuel Alito]], found a modified display to be constitutional. ''ACLU of New Jersey v. Schundler'' (1999). Then-Judge Alito wrote, "government may celebrate Christmas in some manner and form, but not in a way that endorses Christian doctrine."

In 2007, the ACLU Foundation of Texas filed an [[amicus brief]] for removal of a longstanding monument to William Mosher outside Harris County Civil Courthouse because the statute contained a depiction of an open Bible. ''Staley v. Harris County'', 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 9296 (5th Cir. 2007). The court ruled that Harris County must pay attorneys fees to the [[Americans United For Separation of Church & State]], which often appears along with the ACLU in demanding removal of religious symbols from government property and censoring criticism of evolution in public school.

The ACLU demanded that Los Angeles County remove a tiny cross from the Los Angeles County seal, even though the seal contained nearly a dozen symbols including the Greek goddess Pomona standing on the shore of the Pacific Ocean -- about which the ACLU did not complain. The seal also displayed other California motifs, including the Spanish galleon San Salvador, a tuna fish, a cow, stars representing the movie and television industries, the Hollywood Bowl, oil derricks, and a pair of engineering instruments to represent Los Angeles' contributions to industrial construction and space exploration. The cross was a tiny part of the seal. But Los Angeles County gave into the ACLU's demands and spent $700,000 to censor the cross and replace it on all official government documents, publications and signage.

The ACLU of Louisiana demanded that a school board stop allowing an invocation to be said at the beginning of its meetings. In ''[[Doe v. Tangipahoa Parish School Bd.]]'' (2007), an [[en banc]] [[Fifth Circuit]] dismissed the claim for lack of proof that anyone had been injured or even offended by hearing these invocations.

==Censoring [[Intelligent Design]]==
In 2004, the ACLU filed [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]].<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> If the plaintiffs, five parents in the Georgia district, won the case, the school district would have to pay their lawyers. The ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled. The school district agreed to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution", and to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum, which includes evolution, although that wasn't under dispute in the original suit. In addition, they paid $166,669.12 to Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore.<ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

Another example of ACLU litigation was ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]].''<ref>Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District:
Decision of the Court, 400 F.Supp.2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005) [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html]</ref>, also known as the [[Intelligent design]] case. The ACLU prevailed in prohibiting administrators from reading a short statement that mentions [[Intelligent Design]] to students, and forbade the school board from issuing a warning that Darwin's theory has gaps.<ref>''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District,'' 400 F.Supp.2d 707.</ref> In his opinion, Judge [[John E. Jones III]] heavily relied on the later-vacated ruling in ''[[Selman v. Cobb County School District]]'', and on ACLU briefs.<ref>90% of the section on intelligent design was from the ACLU's briefs. A Comparison of Judge Jones’ Opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover with Plaintiffs’ Proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law”, by David DeWolf & John West, Discovery Institute, December 12, 2006
[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3829&program=CSC - Views and News]</ref> He also cited the [[Establishment test]], the [[Lemon test]], and the [[reasonable student standard]].<ref>''Kitzmiller,'' 400 F. Supp. 2d at 725 (coming to the conclusion reached in ''Selman'' by the Court's own reasoning), ''compare'' Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 13005 (11th Cir. May 25, 2006) at *pincite needed*.</ref> The judge also ordered fees paid to the ACLU and its lawyers, totaling $2,067,000.<ref>''See'' 42 U.S.C. s 1988 (describing relief afforded victorious plaintiff of a 1983 action as including attorney fees).</ref>

==Harming the Boy Scouts==

The ACLU filed a lawsuit to prohibit the federal government from continuing to allow the [[Boy Scouts]], a charitable organization for teenagers, to use an Army base in Virginia for a quadrennial gathering known as the Boy Scout Jamboree; in 2005, more than 40,000 Boy Scouts attended this event.

Although the Boy Scouts have been conducting this Jamboree on government property for 70 years, this lawsuit was not filed until 1999, after the Boy Scouts enforced its policy against having openly homosexual Scout leaders. The theory of the lawsuit was that because Scouts swear an oath of "duty to God," it violates the Establishment Clause for the government to allow this joint project.

A federal district court ruled for the ACLU, but the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit overturned the lower court ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the suit which will allow the government to continue to sponsor this event for the Boy Scouts.<ref>See [[Essay:Boy Scouts Rout ACLU]]</ref>

== Pornography ==

In [[Ashcroft v. ACLU]] (2004), the ACLU challenged and invalidated the [[Child Online Protection Act]], which would have required pornographers to take reasonable steps to restrict access by minors to porn on the Internet. The Act, which the Supreme Court struck down at the request of the ACLU, did not censor a single word or picture. It merely required the pornographers to screen their websites from minors, which can be done by credit card or other verification.

The ACLU often argues in favor of pornography before courts and administrative boards. Charles Rust-Tierney was an executive for the ACLU of Virginia who argued against the use of Internet filters on the computers at the Loudoun County Library Board:<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55983</ref>

:"The ACLU of Virginia urges the board to carefully consider a new Internet Use Policy that allows for maximum Internet access ...."

Rust-Tierney, who served as the Virginia ACLU president until 2005, was serving on its board of directors when he was arrested in February 2007 for possession of child pornography that a U.S. magistrate described as "the most perverted and nauseating and sickening type of child pornography" she ever had seen. The former Virginia ACLU president later entered a guilty plea and was sentenced to eight years in jail.<ref>''Ibid.''</ref>

==Same-sex Marriage==
The ACLU of New Jersey filed an amicus curiae brief in favor of same-sex marriage in ''Lewis v. Harris'', 188 N.J. 415 (1006). The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in favor of civil unions, but by a 4-3 margin did not require same-sex marriage.

The ACLU sues schools when a student alleges encountering "anti-gay peer harassment and bullying based on his perceived sexual orientation." <ref>http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/28618prs20070221.html</ref> The ACLU holds the school (and hence the taxpayers) liable for actions based on conduct by some students towards others.

The ACLU of Minnesota sued to force the Osseo Area School District to grant equal access to the schools public address (PA) system, yearbook, fundraising and field trips by a pro-homosexual school club named the Straights and Gays for Equality (“SAGE”).<ref>''Straights & Gays for Equality v. Osseo Area Schs.'', 471 F.3d 908 (8th Cir. 2006).</ref> The school district already had a club entitled "Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Trans-gender, Questioning and Allies," and already had a SAGE club, but SAGE was designated as non-curricular and wanted the additional rights of communication.

The ACLU invoked the Equal Access Act to argue that as long as the school district granted these rights to other clubs, such as cheerleading and synchronized swimming, it must grant these rights to SAGE also. No, the school district argued in defending its action, cheerleading is related to physical education while SAGE is not, and thus SAGE should not have the same rights. However, there were other non phys-ed sports that got funding.

The district court ruled in favor of the ACLU, and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit unanimously affirmed. The Court ordered the school district to give SAGE the same rights as the cheerleading club. The ACLU will be able to demand substantial attorneys' fees at taxpayer expense.

Similarly, the ACLU of Florida sued the Okeechobee School Board to force it to allow a Gay-Straight Alliance club at Okeechobee High School. Though the school objected to this club as a "sex-based" club, the ACLU persuaded a federal judge to rule in its favor, and it will likely recover substantial attorneys fees at taxpayer expense. See ''Gay-Straight Alliance of Okeechobee High Sch. v. School Board of Okeechobee County'', 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25729 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 6, 2007).

==Abortion==
The ACLU is generally against laws that restrict access to [[abortion]], such as parental notification when a minor seeks an abortion and informed consent for the woman herself. ACLU attorneys have argued several cases in support of abortion. For example, the woman called "Jane Doe" in the [[abortion]] case of ''[[Doe v. Bolton]]'' (1973) says "she was pressured by ACLU attorneys to opt for [[abortion]] and that the case was based on fraud."<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52210</ref>

==Polygamy==
The ACLU has defended [[polygamy|polygamists]].<ref>During a question-and-answer session after a speech at Yale University, ACLU president Nadine Strossen stated that her organization has "defended the right of individuals to engage in polygamy," [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44977 World Net Daily] June 25, 2005</ref><ref>
The ACLU views freedom of religion and the establishment clause as inseparable: In order for people to have religious freedom, their government must neither endorse nor prohibit any religious position.[http://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/16163prs19990716.html ACLU press release July 16 1999].</ref>

==Free Speech==

The ACLU is the single biggest legal advocate for pornography (see above), claiming that it is a form of [[free speech]]. Less significantly, the ACLU has also helped -- or not helped -- in the following cases:

*The ACLU rarely defends Christian speech, and virtually never defends speech that is critical of homosexuality. The ACLU was silent with respect to the widely publicized censorship of a T-shirt critical of homosexuality that was worn by student Tyler Chase Harper at his public school. "It's hard to explain the ACLU's apparent equanimity about the violation of Mr. Harper's First Amendment rights -- unless you consider the content of his speech. This case does not appear to be anomalous. Despite its professed commitment to religious liberty, for example, the ACLU tends to absent itself from cases on college campuses involving the associational rights of Christian student groups to discriminate against gay students, in accordance with their religious beliefs."<ref>Wendy Kaminer, "The American Liberal Liberties Union," Wall Street Journal (May 23, 2007).</ref> Months ''after'' that stinging criticism, the ACLU filed a carefully worded [[amicus curiae]] brief in subsequent litigation in this case that defended Harper because he "neither substantially disrupted the school nor invaded the rights of other students."<ref>http://www.aclusandiego.org/article_downloads/000293/HarperAmicusDistrictCourtFinal.pdf . Buried in the brief near the end of an argument is the statement that "and because "to allow a Day of Silence one day while banning Mr. Harper's shirt the next day may give rise to an inference of viewpoint discrimination rather than justified regulation of student speech regardless of viewpoint" -- but note that it does not argue that inference of viewpoint discrimination would be correct.</ref>

*In 1978, the ACLU defended the right of the National Socialist Party of America (neo-Nazi) to march through Skokie, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago that is a community of a large number of Jewish people and Holocaust survivors. The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the village to issue a permit for demonstration to the Nazi Party, which was never used, that was later upheld by the Supreme Court. The ACLU experienced a severe backlash over this case when membership dropped by 25% and plunged the organization $500,000 in debt. <ref> http://openweb.tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/1978-2/1978-02-23-NBC-6.html </ref> <ref> http://www.acluprocon.org/ACLUHistory/HistoryTable.html</ref>

*On January 16, 2008, the ACLU issued a statement supporting Sen. Larry Craig(R-ID) to have his guilty plea to misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct in a Minnesota airport restroom withdrawn on the basis that a closed bathroom stall is a private location. While not advocating sex in public bathrooms, the ACLU suggested the police have better means of enforcing laws instead of using entrapment. <ref>http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/33697prs20080116.html</ref>

*In September 2000, the ACLU represented the North American Man/Boy Love Association when the parents of Jeffrey Curley, who was raped, tortured and murdered by two men, filed a $200 million federal lawsuit for wrongful death. John Roberts, the executive director of the Massachusetts ACLU stated, ''It's not a real popular case, but the First Amendment issues are clear.'' The case was dismissed on a technicality. A subsequent lawsuit filed against the murderers, who were not represented by the ACLU, was successful. Jeffrey Curley's father, Robert Curley, was sympathetic to the ACLU's opposition to his lawsuit. "I really do have a lot of respect for them, they are very consistent in who they defend. It takes a lot of nerve to defend the groups they have over the years. They have a lot of courage." <ref>http://sidesplitters.catastrophe.net/arch/2002/www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberfortytwo.htm</ref> <ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0DE0D91530F932A3575AC0A9669C8B63</ref>

*The ACLU has been involved with lawsuits filed against Attorney Generals Reno, Ashcroft and Gonzales when fighting the enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). Federal courts have consistently ruled COPA violates the constitutional protection of free speech and have forbidden enforcement by the federal government. The most current ruling on March 22, 2007 is being appealed.<ref> http://www.mediacoalition.org/legal/copa/index.htm </ref>

*In 1949, the ACLU defended Father Arthur Terminiello, an ex-Catholic priest, who gave a speech at a rally in Chicago that was laced with racist, anti-Semitic and anti-Communist comments. Father Terminiello was fined $100 for violating Chicago's breach of peace ordinance. This fine was later reversed by the Supreme Court. <ref> http://www.comm.unt.edu/faculty/terminiello_v.htm</ref> <ref> http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12808pub19941231.html</ref>

*The ACLU of Nevada successfully defended the right of a street preacher, Jim Webber, to proselytize his pro-Jesus, anti-sin, and occasional anti-homosexual messages on the Las Vegas strip. The unsuccessful campaign conducted by the casinos failed and allowed Webber and others to stay. Webber is quoted as saying, "the ACLU has been my guardian angel. They have been the ones that have provided the ability for me to stand on the street and talk with people about Jesus Christ." <ref>http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=548951&page=1</ref> <ref>http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Mar-05-Sun-2006/news/6197557.html</ref>

==Free Exercise Clause==
The ACLU at times defends the religious rights of American citizens and residents. See 'ACLU Defense of Freedom of Religious Practice and Expression' at the ACLU's website for 60 examples of Christians and 45 examples of non-Christians represented by the ACLU to protect their religious rights. <ref> http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html </ref>

On March 14, 2008, the ACLU sent a letter to the Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy of Inver Grove Heights Minnesota expressing their disapproval of alleged school sponsored prayer during school hours. Concerns were raised about alleged violations of the establishment clause and the 'Lemon Test' because '… the school is improperly involved in promoting and facilitating after-school religious studies conducted under the auspices of the Mosque that is housed in the same building as the school.' Further inquiries are on-going. <ref> http://www.aclu-mn.org/downloads/LettertoTarekAcademy.pdf </ref> <ref> http://www.aclu-mn.org/home/news/aclumnopensinvestigationof.htm </ref>

==Prisoner and student rights==

In the 2007 case ''Spratt v. Rhode Island Department of Corrections'', the ACLU brought suit against the Rhode Island Adult Correctional Institute following the prison's decision to bar Christian prisoner and lay minister Wesley Spratt from preaching to other inmates during weekly services. The ACLU won the case on appeal, securing the right for Spratt to hold religious services for other inmates so long as these do not conflict with prison security.<ref>ACLU: Appeals Court Overturns Ban on Christian Preacher in Rhode Island Prison (4/9/2007)[http://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/29578prs20070409.html]</ref>

In 2004, student Abbey Moler selected a bible verse to accompany her picture in a school yearbook. The school subsequently removed this text before publication. The ACLU filed suit against the Utica Community School District, on the grounds that this censorship violated Moler's first-amendment rights to free expression and freedom of religion. The case was settled out of court, with the school district agreeing to replace the verse in following prints of the yearbook and correct it by means of a sticker in copies still in its possession.<ref>ACLU: After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries (5/11/2004)
[http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12845prs20040511.html]</ref><ref> The settlement between the ALCU and the school district stated:
* The district will place a sticker with Moler's original entry in the copies of the yearbook on file with the school.
* The district has instructed the Stevenson High School yearbook staff not to censor students' yearbook entries solely because they contain religious or political speech that others might find offensive.
* The district recently provided and will continue to provide in-service training and advice to school staff on free speech and religious freedom issues that arise in school.
* The district will write a letter of regret to Moler apologizing for the failure to include her entry in the yearbook.</ref>

==Medical Records==

The ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief in favor of the privacy of Rush Limbaugh in his medical records when he was under investigation for 'doctor shopping.' The ACLU argued that the privacy rights of a patient were being violated.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108140,00.html</ref>

== Terrorism ==

The ACLU has challenged the authority of the President to authorize wireless wiretaps of overseas communications without submitting to judicial oversight. In ''[[ACLU v. NSA]]'', the Court of Appeals for the [[Sixth Circuit]] rejected the ACLU's challenge.

==Views of the ACLU Founder==

Roger Baldwin, a co-founder of the ACLU and its first leader, was born and raised in Massachusetts. He said that his "social work began in my mind in the Unitarian Church when I was ten or twelve years old, and I started to do things that I thought would help other people.”

In the 1920 and 1930s he was sympathetic to the social goals and aspirations of the emerging communist nations. In 1934, Balwin published his goals in Soviet Russia Today:<ref>The Volokh Conspiracy (blog entry), Eugene Volokh, September 7, 2005 [http://volokh.com/posts/1126138099.shtml]</ref>

:I believe in non-violent methods of struggle as most effective in the long run for building up successful working class power. Where they cannot be followed or where they are not even permitted by the ruling class, obviously only violent tactics remain. I champion civil liberty as the best of the non-violent means of building the power on which workers rule must be based. If I aid the reactionaries to get free speech now and then, if I go outside the class struggle to fight against censorship, it is only because those liberties help to create a more hospitable atmosphere for working class liberties. The class struggle is the central conflict of the world; all others are incidental.

:Proletarian Liberty in Practice

:When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever. Dictatorship is the obvious means in a world of enemies at home and abroad. I dislike it in principle as dangerous to its own objects. But the Soviet Union has already created liberties far greater than exist elsewhere in the world. They are liberties that most closely affect the lives of the people — power in the trade unions, in peasant organizations, in the cultural life of nationalities, freedom of women in public and private life, and a tremendous development of education for adults and children. . . .

In 1940 he successfully fought to revise the ACLU charter to prohibit those affiliated with totalitarian organizations from serving on the ACLU board. The immediate target was the former-Wobbly and present Communist Party member, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn.

In 1947 General Douglas MacArthur arranged for Baldwin to serve as a civil liberties consultant in Japan.

==See Also==

*[[NAMBLA]]
*[[Fred Phelps]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/ACLU|Articles about the '''ACLU''' from previous "Breaking News" ]]
{{liberalism}}
==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/blog/baldwin.pdf Baldwin speaks in defense of communism from 1934]
*http://www.aclu.org
*Anti-ACLU sites:
**http://www.stoptheaclu.com/
**http://www.aclj.org

[[category:politics]]
[[Category:Liberal Organizations]]

ACLU

2008-09-03T11:40:03Z

American78:

[[Image:Nghfuyr.png|right|thumb|Current logo of the ACLU.]]
The '''ACLU''' is the American Civil Liberties Union, a [[leftist]], [[secular]]-[[Progressivism|progressive]] organization. It was run for its first 30 years by an [[United States of America|American]] [[Socialism|socialist]] named [[Roger Baldwin]], who helped found it in 1920. This organization pursues a [[leftist]] agenda that includes [[censoring]] prayer and recognition of [[God]] from public institutions, such as [[public schools]].

[[Image:ACLU and Islam.jpg|right|400px|It All Depends On Whose Church Is Being Separated]]
==Communism==
{{CGQuote|I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself…I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.}}
-Founder Roger Baldwin
==Illegal Immigration==

The [[ACLU]] demanded $2.3 million in fees for challenging a law against [[illegal immigration]]. This demand "illustrates the circus the ACLU brought to this case," the Mayor of Hazelton, Pennsylvania said. "They had 20 attorneys sitting in the courtroom at a time, 16 of them doing nothing but running up the bill."<ref>http://www.centredaily.com/news/state/story/194756.html]</ref>

In the Hazleton case the ACLU persuaded a [[federal]] [[court]] to declare a municipal ordinance to be unconstitutional, even though other federal courts have upheld similar laws since then. The Hazleton case is on appeal.

==Censoring God==
The ACLU often insists that the [[Establishment Clause]] of the [[Constitution of the United States|Constitution]] requires censorship of religious expression. In 2007, for example, the [[ACLU]] of [[Tennessee]] sought to stop prayer and prayer-related activities by the volunteer [[Praying Parents]]. ''Doe v. Wilson County Sch. Sys.'', 524 F. Supp. 2d 964 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 9, 2007).

ACLU chapters frequently sue to compel removal displays of the [[Ten Commandments]] from public property. For example, in ''McCreary County v. ACLU'', 545 U.S. 844 (2005), the ACLU of Kentucky forced two counties to remove displays of the Ten Commandments from their courthouses. In another case ''Glassroth v. Moore'', 229 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (2002) the Alabama chapter sued [[Alabama]] [[Supreme Court]] [[Chief Justice]] Roy Moore to remove a Ten Commandments Monument, with Moore remarking "fearing that I would not obey his order, decided to threaten other state officials and force them to remove the monument if I did not do so". A threat of heavy fines was his way of coercing obedience to that order". In Utah, the ACLU even announced a scavenger hunt for anyone who could find a display of the Ten Commandments monument that the ACLU could demand be removed. The ACLU typically receives substantial legal fees from the government in each of these cases.

In 1994, the ACLU of New Jersey sued Jersey City, New Jersey to challenge a menorah and a Christmas tree at city hall. A federal district judge declared the display to be unconstitutional, but the appellate court, in a 2-1 opinion written by now-Justice [[Samuel Alito]], found a modified display to be constitutional. ''ACLU of New Jersey v. Schundler'' (1999). Then-Judge Alito wrote, "government may celebrate Christmas in some manner and form, but not in a way that endorses Christian doctrine."

In 2007, the ACLU Foundation of Texas filed an [[amicus brief]] for removal of a longstanding monument to William Mosher outside Harris County Civil Courthouse because the statute contained a depiction of an open Bible. ''Staley v. Harris County'', 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 9296 (5th Cir. 2007). The court ruled that Harris County must pay attorneys fees to the [[Americans United For Separation of Church & State]], which often appears along with the ACLU in demanding removal of religious symbols from government property and censoring criticism of evolution in public school.

The ACLU demanded that Los Angeles County remove a tiny cross from the Los Angeles County seal, even though the seal contained nearly a dozen symbols including the Greek goddess Pomona standing on the shore of the Pacific Ocean -- about which the ACLU did not complain. The seal also displayed other California motifs, including the Spanish galleon San Salvador, a tuna fish, a cow, stars representing the movie and television industries, the Hollywood Bowl, oil derricks, and a pair of engineering instruments to represent Los Angeles' contributions to industrial construction and space exploration. The cross was a tiny part of the seal. But Los Angeles County gave into the ACLU's demands and spent $700,000 to censor the cross and replace it on all official government documents, publications and signage.

The ACLU of Louisiana demanded that a school board stop allowing an invocation to be said at the beginning of its meetings. In ''[[Doe v. Tangipahoa Parish School Bd.]]'' (2007), an [[en banc]] [[Fifth Circuit]] dismissed the claim for lack of proof that anyone had been injured or even offended by hearing these invocations.

==Censoring [[Intelligent Design]]==
In 2004, the ACLU filed [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]].<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> If the plaintiffs, five parents in the Georgia district, won the case, the school district would have to pay their lawyers. The ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled. The school district agreed to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution", and to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum, which includes evolution, although that wasn't under dispute in the original suit. In addition, they paid $166,669.12 to Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore.<ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

Another example of ACLU litigation was ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]].''<ref>Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District:
Decision of the Court, 400 F.Supp.2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005) [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html]</ref>, also known as the [[Intelligent design]] case. The ACLU prevailed in prohibiting administrators from reading a short statement that mentions [[Intelligent Design]] to students, and forbade the school board from issuing a warning that Darwin's theory has gaps.<ref>''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District,'' 400 F.Supp.2d 707.</ref> In his opinion, Judge [[John E. Jones III]] heavily relied on the later-vacated ruling in ''[[Selman v. Cobb County School District]]'', and on ACLU briefs.<ref>90% of the section on intelligent design was from the ACLU's briefs. A Comparison of Judge Jones’ Opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover with Plaintiffs’ Proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law”, by David DeWolf & John West, Discovery Institute, December 12, 2006
[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3829&program=CSC - Views and News]</ref> He also cited the [[Establishment test]], the [[Lemon test]], and the [[reasonable student standard]].<ref>''Kitzmiller,'' 400 F. Supp. 2d at 725 (coming to the conclusion reached in ''Selman'' by the Court's own reasoning), ''compare'' Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 13005 (11th Cir. May 25, 2006) at *pincite needed*.</ref> The judge also ordered fees paid to the ACLU and its lawyers, totaling $2,067,000.<ref>''See'' 42 U.S.C. s 1988 (describing relief afforded victorious plaintiff of a 1983 action as including attorney fees).</ref>

==Harming the Boy Scouts==

The ACLU filed a lawsuit to prohibit the federal government from continuing to allow the [[Boy Scouts]], a charitable organization for teenagers, to use an Army base in Virginia for a quadrennial gathering known as the Boy Scout Jamboree; in 2005, more than 40,000 Boy Scouts attended this event.

Although the Boy Scouts have been conducting this Jamboree on government property for 70 years, this lawsuit was not filed until 1999, after the Boy Scouts enforced its policy against having openly homosexual Scout leaders. The theory of the lawsuit was that because Scouts swear an oath of "duty to God," it violates the Establishment Clause for the government to allow this joint project.

A federal district court ruled for the ACLU, but the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit overturned the lower court ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the suit which will allow the government to continue to sponsor this event for the Boy Scouts.<ref>See [[Essay:Boy Scouts Rout ACLU]]</ref>

== Pornography ==

In [[Ashcroft v. ACLU]] (2004), the ACLU challenged and invalidated the [[Child Online Protection Act]], which would have required pornographers to take reasonable steps to restrict access by minors to porn on the Internet. The Act, which the Supreme Court struck down at the request of the ACLU, did not censor a single word or picture. It merely required the pornographers to screen their websites from minors, which can be done by credit card or other verification.

The ACLU often argues in favor of pornography before courts and administrative boards. Charles Rust-Tierney was an executive for the ACLU of Virginia who argued against the use of Internet filters on the computers at the Loudoun County Library Board:<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55983</ref>

:"The ACLU of Virginia urges the board to carefully consider a new Internet Use Policy that allows for maximum Internet access ...."

Rust-Tierney, who served as the Virginia ACLU president until 2005, was serving on its board of directors when he was arrested in February 2007 for possession of child pornography that a U.S. magistrate described as "the most perverted and nauseating and sickening type of child pornography" she ever had seen. The former Virginia ACLU president later entered a guilty plea and was sentenced to eight years in jail.<ref>''Ibid.''</ref>

==Same-sex Marriage==
The ACLU of New Jersey filed an amicus curiae brief in favor of same-sex marriage in ''Lewis v. Harris'', 188 N.J. 415 (1006). The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in favor of civil unions, but by a 4-3 margin did not require same-sex marriage.

The ACLU sues schools when a student alleges encountering "anti-gay peer harassment and bullying based on his perceived sexual orientation." <ref>http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/28618prs20070221.html</ref> The ACLU holds the school (and hence the taxpayers) liable for actions based on conduct by some students towards others.

The ACLU of Minnesota sued to force the Osseo Area School District to grant equal access to the schools public address (PA) system, yearbook, fundraising and field trips by a pro-homosexual school club named the Straights and Gays for Equality (“SAGE”).<ref>''Straights & Gays for Equality v. Osseo Area Schs.'', 471 F.3d 908 (8th Cir. 2006).</ref> The school district already had a club entitled "Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Trans-gender, Questioning and Allies," and already had a SAGE club, but SAGE was designated as non-curricular and wanted the additional rights of communication.

The ACLU invoked the Equal Access Act to argue that as long as the school district granted these rights to other clubs, such as cheerleading and synchronized swimming, it must grant these rights to SAGE also. No, the school district argued in defending its action, cheerleading is related to physical education while SAGE is not, and thus SAGE should not have the same rights. However, there were other non phys-ed sports that got funding.

The district court ruled in favor of the ACLU, and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit unanimously affirmed. The Court ordered the school district to give SAGE the same rights as the cheerleading club. The ACLU will be able to demand substantial attorneys' fees at taxpayer expense.

Similarly, the ACLU of Florida sued the Okeechobee School Board to force it to allow a Gay-Straight Alliance club at Okeechobee High School. Though the school objected to this club as a "sex-based" club, the ACLU persuaded a federal judge to rule in its favor, and it will likely recover substantial attorneys fees at taxpayer expense. See ''Gay-Straight Alliance of Okeechobee High Sch. v. School Board of Okeechobee County'', 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25729 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 6, 2007).

==Abortion==
The ACLU is generally against laws that restrict access to [[abortion]], such as parental notification when a minor seeks an abortion and informed consent for the woman herself. ACLU attorneys have argued several cases in support of abortion. For example, the woman called "Jane Doe" in the [[abortion]] case of ''[[Doe v. Bolton]]'' (1973) says "she was pressured by ACLU attorneys to opt for [[abortion]] and that the case was based on fraud."<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52210</ref>

==Polygamy==
The ACLU has defended [[polygamy|polygamists]].<ref>During a question-and-answer session after a speech at Yale University, ACLU president Nadine Strossen stated that her organization has "defended the right of individuals to engage in polygamy," [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44977 World Net Daily] June 25, 2005</ref><ref>
The ACLU views freedom of religion and the establishment clause as inseparable: In order for people to have religious freedom, their government must neither endorse nor prohibit any religious position.[http://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/16163prs19990716.html ACLU press release July 16 1999].</ref>

==Free Speech==

The ACLU is the single biggest legal advocate for pornography (see above), claiming that it is a form of [[free speech]]. Less significantly, the ACLU has also helped -- or not helped -- in the following cases:

*The ACLU rarely defends Christian speech, and virtually never defends speech that is critical of homosexuality. The ACLU was silent with respect to the widely publicized censorship of a T-shirt critical of homosexuality that was worn by student Tyler Chase Harper at his public school. "It's hard to explain the ACLU's apparent equanimity about the violation of Mr. Harper's First Amendment rights -- unless you consider the content of his speech. This case does not appear to be anomalous. Despite its professed commitment to religious liberty, for example, the ACLU tends to absent itself from cases on college campuses involving the associational rights of Christian student groups to discriminate against gay students, in accordance with their religious beliefs."<ref>Wendy Kaminer, "The American Liberal Liberties Union," Wall Street Journal (May 23, 2007).</ref> Months ''after'' that stinging criticism, the ACLU filed a carefully worded [[amicus curiae]] brief in subsequent litigation in this case that defended Harper because he "neither substantially disrupted the school nor invaded the rights of other students."<ref>http://www.aclusandiego.org/article_downloads/000293/HarperAmicusDistrictCourtFinal.pdf . Buried in the brief near the end of an argument is the statement that "and because "to allow a Day of Silence one day while banning Mr. Harper's shirt the next day may give rise to an inference of viewpoint discrimination rather than justified regulation of student speech regardless of viewpoint" -- but note that it does not argue that inference of viewpoint discrimination would be correct.</ref>

*In 1978, the ACLU defended the right of the National Socialist Party of America (neo-Nazi) to march through Skokie, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago that is a community of a large number of Jewish people and Holocaust survivors. The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the village to issue a permit for demonstration to the Nazi Party, which was never used, that was later upheld by the Supreme Court. The ACLU experienced a severe backlash over this case when membership dropped by 25% and plunged the organization $500,000 in debt. <ref> http://openweb.tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/1978-2/1978-02-23-NBC-6.html </ref> <ref> http://www.acluprocon.org/ACLUHistory/HistoryTable.html</ref>

*On January 16, 2008, the ACLU issued a statement supporting Sen. Larry Craig(R-ID) to have his guilty plea to misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct in a Minnesota airport restroom withdrawn on the basis that a closed bathroom stall is a private location. While not advocating sex in public bathrooms, the ACLU suggested the police have better means of enforcing laws instead of using entrapment. <ref>http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/33697prs20080116.html</ref>

*In September 2000, the ACLU represented the North American Man/Boy Love Association when the parents of Jeffrey Curley, who was raped, tortured and murdered by two men, filed a $200 million federal lawsuit for wrongful death. John Roberts, the executive director of the Massachusetts ACLU stated, ''It's not a real popular case, but the First Amendment issues are clear.'' The case was dismissed on a technicality. A subsequent lawsuit filed against the murderers, who were not represented by the ACLU, was successful. Jeffrey Curley's father, Robert Curley, was sympathetic to the ACLU's opposition to his lawsuit. "I really do have a lot of respect for them, they are very consistent in who they defend. It takes a lot of nerve to defend the groups they have over the years. They have a lot of courage." <ref>http://sidesplitters.catastrophe.net/arch/2002/www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberfortytwo.htm</ref> <ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0DE0D91530F932A3575AC0A9669C8B63</ref>

*The ACLU has been involved with lawsuits filed against Attorney Generals Reno, Ashcroft and Gonzales when fighting the enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). Federal courts have consistently ruled COPA violates the constitutional protection of free speech and have forbidden enforcement by the federal government. The most current ruling on March 22, 2007 is being appealed.<ref> http://www.mediacoalition.org/legal/copa/index.htm </ref>

*In 1949, the ACLU defended Father Arthur Terminiello, an ex-Catholic priest, who gave a speech at a rally in Chicago that was laced with racist, anti-Semitic and anti-Communist comments. Father Terminiello was fined $100 for violating Chicago's breach of peace ordinance. This fine was later reversed by the Supreme Court. <ref> http://www.comm.unt.edu/faculty/terminiello_v.htm</ref> <ref> http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12808pub19941231.html</ref>

*The ACLU of Nevada successfully defended the right of a street preacher, Jim Webber, to proselytize his pro-Jesus, anti-sin, and occasional anti-homosexual messages on the Las Vegas strip. The unsuccessful campaign conducted by the casinos failed and allowed Webber and others to stay. Webber is quoted as saying, "the ACLU has been my guardian angel. They have been the ones that have provided the ability for me to stand on the street and talk with people about Jesus Christ." <ref>http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=548951&page=1</ref> <ref>http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Mar-05-Sun-2006/news/6197557.html</ref>

==Free Exercise Clause==
The ACLU at times defends the religious rights of American citizens and residents. See 'ACLU Defense of Freedom of Religious Practice and Expression' at the ACLU's website for 60 examples of Christians and 45 examples of non-Christians represented by the ACLU to protect their religious rights. <ref> http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html </ref>

On March 14, 2008, the ACLU sent a letter to the Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy of Inver Grove Heights Minnesota expressing their disapproval of alleged school sponsored prayer during school hours. Concerns were raised about alleged violations of the establishment clause and the 'Lemon Test' because '… the school is improperly involved in promoting and facilitating after-school religious studies conducted under the auspices of the Mosque that is housed in the same building as the school.' Further inquiries are on-going. <ref> http://www.aclu-mn.org/downloads/LettertoTarekAcademy.pdf </ref> <ref> http://www.aclu-mn.org/home/news/aclumnopensinvestigationof.htm </ref>

==Prisoner and student rights==

In the 2007 case ''Spratt v. Rhode Island Department of Corrections'', the ACLU brought suit against the Rhode Island Adult Correctional Institute following the prison's decision to bar Christian prisoner and lay minister Wesley Spratt from preaching to other inmates during weekly services. The ACLU won the case on appeal, securing the right for Spratt to hold religious services for other inmates so long as these do not conflict with prison security.<ref>ACLU: Appeals Court Overturns Ban on Christian Preacher in Rhode Island Prison (4/9/2007)[http://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/29578prs20070409.html]</ref>

In 2004, student Abbey Moler selected a bible verse to accompany her picture in a school yearbook. The school subsequently removed this text before publication. The ACLU filed suit against the Utica Community School District, on the grounds that this censorship violated Moler's first-amendment rights to free expression and freedom of religion. The case was settled out of court, with the school district agreeing to replace the verse in following prints of the yearbook and correct it by means of a sticker in copies still in its possession.<ref>ACLU: After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries (5/11/2004)
[http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12845prs20040511.html]</ref><ref> The settlement between the ALCU and the school district stated:
* The district will place a sticker with Moler's original entry in the copies of the yearbook on file with the school.
* The district has instructed the Stevenson High School yearbook staff not to censor students' yearbook entries solely because they contain religious or political speech that others might find offensive.
* The district recently provided and will continue to provide in-service training and advice to school staff on free speech and religious freedom issues that arise in school.
* The district will write a letter of regret to Moler apologizing for the failure to include her entry in the yearbook.</ref>

==Medical Records==

The ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief in favor of the privacy of Rush Limbaugh in his medical records when he was under investigation for 'doctor shopping.' The ACLU argued that the privacy rights of a patient were being violated.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108140,00.html</ref>

== Terrorism ==

The ACLU has challenged the authority of the President to authorize wireless wiretaps of overseas communications without submitting to judicial oversight. In ''[[ACLU v. NSA]]'', the Court of Appeals for the [[Sixth Circuit]] rejected the ACLU's challenge.

==Views of the ACLU Founder==

Roger Baldwin, a co-founder of the ACLU and its first leader, was born and raised in Massachusetts. He said that his "social work began in my mind in the Unitarian Church when I was ten or twelve years old, and I started to do things that I thought would help other people.”

In the 1920 and 1930s he was sympathetic to the social goals and aspirations of the emerging communist nations. In 1934, Balwin published his goals in Soviet Russia Today:<ref>The Volokh Conspiracy (blog entry), Eugene Volokh, September 7, 2005 [http://volokh.com/posts/1126138099.shtml]</ref>

:I believe in non-violent methods of struggle as most effective in the long run for building up successful working class power. Where they cannot be followed or where they are not even permitted by the ruling class, obviously only violent tactics remain. I champion civil liberty as the best of the non-violent means of building the power on which workers rule must be based. If I aid the reactionaries to get free speech now and then, if I go outside the class struggle to fight against censorship, it is only because those liberties help to create a more hospitable atmosphere for working class liberties. The class struggle is the central conflict of the world; all others are incidental.

:Proletarian Liberty in Practice

:When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever. Dictatorship is the obvious means in a world of enemies at home and abroad. I dislike it in principle as dangerous to its own objects. But the Soviet Union has already created liberties far greater than exist elsewhere in the world. They are liberties that most closely affect the lives of the people — power in the trade unions, in peasant organizations, in the cultural life of nationalities, freedom of women in public and private life, and a tremendous development of education for adults and children. . . .

In 1940 he successfully fought to revise the ACLU charter to prohibit those affiliated with totalitarian organizations from serving on the ACLU board. The immediate target was the former-Wobbly and present Communist Party member, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn.

In 1947 General Douglas MacArthur arranged for Baldwin to serve as a civil liberties consultant in Japan.

==See Also==

*[[NAMBLA]]
*[[Fred Phelps]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/ACLU|Articles about the '''ACLU''' from previous "Breaking News" ]]
{{liberalism}}
==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/blog/baldwin.pdf Baldwin speaks in defense of communism from 1934]
*http://www.aclu.org
*Anti-ACLU sites:
**http://www.stoptheaclu.com/
**http://www.aclj.org

[[category:politics]]
[[Category:Liberal Organizations]]

Bleeding Kansas

2008-09-03T01:29:33Z

American78:

'''Bleeding Kansas''' is the name given to a "civil war" that took place in [[Kansas]] in the early 1850s over the issue of [[slavery]]. It led to the [[Kansas-Nebraska Act]], which introduced the idea of [[popular sovereignty]]. This did not immediately lead to peace, but beget further violence such as raids in [[Lawrence]] and by [[John Brown]]. The violence was the result of liberal southern democrats pouring in from [[Mississippi]].

[[Category: Kansas]]
[[Category: Slavery]]

Bleeding Kansas

2008-09-03T01:28:56Z

American78:

'''Bleeding Kansas''' is the name given to a "civil war" that took place in [[Kansas]] in the early 1850s over the issue of [[slavery]]. It led to the [[Kansas-Nebraska Act]], which introduced the idea of [[popular sovereignty]]. This did not immediately lead to peace, but beget further violence such as raids in [[Lawrence]] and by [[John Brown]]. The violence was the result of liberal southern democrats pouring in from [[Missouri]].

[[Category: Kansas]]
[[Category: Slavery]]

Heat death of the universe

2008-09-03T01:11:59Z

American78:

According to [[secular]] physicists, the '''heat death of the universe''' is one possible scenario for the final fate of the [[universe]]. It speculates that, over time, all [[energy]] in the universe will eventually be converted to heat energy, which will then be spread more or less evenly over all space in accordance with the second law of [[thermodynamics]]. With all [[energy]] so widely distributed, the universe will revert to an extremely cold state, and nowhere will there be a sufficient concentration of energy to sustain any physical activity or movement. This theory is ristricted to atheists.

[[category:Astronomy]]
[[category:Physics]]

Grouper

2008-09-03T01:03:19Z

American78:

'''Grouper''' is a saltwater fish common in tropical waters. The largest known grouper is 180 pounds(aprox). [http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/1/17/nation/20035627&sec=nation]
Grouper gets it's name from the portugese word for fish, ''Garoupa''.

== Origin ==
According to baraminology, groupers were not part of the Arc as they could survive a flood and were probably created during the first 7 days of the world.

Talk:Fruits

2008-09-03T01:01:05Z

American78:

[[Fruit]] redirects here. Shouldn't it be the opposite? --[[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 19:48, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Why is there no mention of the Fruits of the Holy Spirit?

Fruits

2008-09-03T00:59:47Z

American78:

[[Image:Cam10.jpg|left]]
'''Fruits''' (French: fruit, German: Frucht, Greek: καρπός, Spanish: fruta, Russian: плод; фрукты) are the edible part of a plant, like [[apple]]s, [[grape]]s, [[peach]]es, [[mulberry|mulberries]], [[banana]]s, etc.

Fruits that consist of ripened ovaries alone, such as the [[tomato]] and [[pea]] pod, are called true fruits.
{{cquote|
''An apple a day keeps the doctor away''
}}

Fruits are the primary diet of numerous animals, including the [[fruit fly]], [[bat]]s, and [[sloth]]s.

Fruit is often used by the Bible to represent prosperity or production.
== Biblical References ==
{{cquote|'''Galatians 5:22, 23''' But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.}}
{{cquote|'''Isaiah''' And the fruitful field shall be esteemed as a forest?}}
==See also==
*[[Banana]]
*[[Fruits of the Holy Spirit]]
*[[Coconut]]

== External links ==
*[http://www.foodsubs.com/Fruittroex.html Tropical fruit]
*[http://www.thefruitpages.com/tropical.shtml Exotic fruit]
*[http://www.freefoto.com/browse/09-08-0?ffid=09-08-0 Fruit - Images]
*[http://www.healthychild.net/articles/na12fruit.html Fan fruits] For kids.

[[category:botany]]
[[category:food and Drink]]
[[Category:Terms]]

Human Rights Watch

2008-09-03T00:57:41Z

American78:

'''Human Rights Watch''' (HRW) is a large, well-funded
<ref>HRW has a full-time staff of 190 employees worldwide and a budget of approximately $22 million per year. [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6258 Discover the Networks] </ref>
[[liberal]] advocacy group presenting itself as a [[human rights]] watchdog. One of its four co-founders also founded [[SDS]], a pro-communist group masquerading as a supporter of [[democracy]]. This exposes the extremist origens of the group.

HRW mainly criticizes the [[United States]]<ref>Discover the Networks-A guide to the liberal Left,http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6258</ref> and [[Israel]].<ref> “Human Rights Watch shows a disturbing disparity in its treatment of Israel and China.” Gerald M. Steinberg(head of the Program on Conflict Management at Bar Ilan University and is the editor of NGO Monitor.) May 2006 http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzdkNDA3NTY4ZmMwMzFmNWYwYTBkMWU4MzFiMTMxNGM </ref>
Yet it studiously avoids any criticism of Arab groups who launch rocket attacks against Israeli civilians.<ref>“NGOs Make War on Israel” Gerald M. Steinberg Middle East Quarterly Summer 2004, http://www.meforum.org/article/633</ref>
As [[conservative]] author and [[human rights]] activist [[David Horowitz]] stated, Human Rights Watch is a "reflexive Israel-basher … who, in his zest to pillory Israel at every turn, is little more than an ally of the barbarians".<ref> Rosa Brooks on Criticism of Human Rights Watch, Kevin Jon Heller, http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1157149379.shtml</ref>

[[Alan M. Dershowitz]], <ref>Alan Dershowitz bio,http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/#blogger_bio</ref> professor of law at Harvard Law School and one of the most distinguished defenders of individual rights, wrote regarding HRW,
{{Cquote|"Who will guard the guardians?" asked Roman satirist Juvenal. Now we must ask, who is watching Human Rights Watch, one of the world's best-financed and most influential human rights organizations? It turns out that they cook the books about facts, cheat on interviews, and put out pre-determined conclusions that are driven more by their ideology than by evidence. These are serious accusations, and they are demonstrably true……... Human Rights Watch no longer deserves the support of real human rights advocates. Nor should its so-called reporting be credited by objective news organizations.” <ref>Alan Dershowitz,[ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/the-human-rights-watch-_b_27701.html “The "Human Rights Watch" Watch, Installment 1”] </ref>" }}

==History==

===1978-1998===

Human Rights Watch (HRW) was founded under the name, “Helsinki Watch.” Its original goal was to monitor the [[Soviet]]'s adherence to human rights provisions in the [[Helsinki Accords]]. In 1980, the organization started to develop a number of “Watch” committees in [[America]], [[Asia]], and [[Africa]]. <ref> Discover the Networks, http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6258</ref>
These committees monitored human rights compliance of government and groups inside these continents. In the 1980’s the organization heavily scrutinized the [[Region Doctrine]], they also denounced the [[United States]] aiding of anti-[[communist]] fighters in [[Latin America]].
Jeri Laber, one of the founders of HRW, stated, "Americas Watch reports … were eagerly read in the United States by people who deplored the Reagan policies." <ref> Discover the Networks, http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6258</ref>
Critics claimed that Human Rights Watch painted a bad picture of the freedom fighters in Latin America, while glossing over the abuses of their communist governments. In 1980, [[Turkey]] began a major [[military]] campaign against a [[Kurdish]] terrorist group, the [[PKK]]. HRW documented the violations caused by the Turkish forces in their efforts, highlighting the abuses in the justice system, and use of [[torture]] by the government. In 1994 HRW’s “African Watch” covered the [[genocide]] in [[Rwanda]].<ref> Human Rights Watch, “Rawanda”,1994, http://www.hrw.org/reports/1995/WR95/AFRICA-08.htm#P397_139563</ref> , Their work documenting the atrocities in the region later won them praise from Karel Kovanda, the [[Czech Republic]]'s ambassador to the [[United Nations]], who stated in 2004, “I already knew the track record of Human Rights Watch in its work in my own country. I had every reason to believe that the organization was equally meticulous and well-informed on Rwanda.”<ref> Karel Kovanda, Czech ambassador to the [[United Nations]], 2004,http://hrw.org/about/what_they_say.html </ref>

===1998-2006===
In 1998, Human Rights Watch united all of its “Watch” groups under the United States based HRW in 1988. They led the effort of non-governmental organizations in pressuring the United States to enter [[Kosovo]] to stop the 'genocide'. When [[NATO]] and the United States began their operation, HRW was one of the most critical organizations of its handling. They frequently wrote articles on the abuses carried out by the United States in their use of [[Cluster Bombs]]. <ref> HRW, “NATO's Use of Cluster Munitions in Yugoslavia”, 1999, http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/kosovo98/cluster.shtml </ref>
After [[9-11|September 11, 2001]] terrorist attacks on the United States, HRW called for the United States to settle the terrorist attacks as a legal matter, rather then using military force to wipe out the [[Taliban]]. <ref> Discover the Networks, http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6258</ref> HRW endorsed the [[Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2004]] <ref>Summary: Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2004by The Rights Working Group, http://www.bordc.org/threats/legislation/clrasummary.php</ref>,a bill that would take away vital tools that the United States enacted after the September 11th attacks. HRW has been critical of both of the United States recent operations in [[Iraq]] and [[Afghanistan]]. A HRW report alleged that there was, “excessive use of force by U.S. troops.” They state that they were, "deeply concerned about the consistent reports we are getting about women, children and unarmed civilians being killed." Even though they admitted that they did not have complete reports from the ground in Iraq. <ref> Discover the Networks, http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6258</ref>

===2006-2007===
In 2006, HRW greatly criticized [[Israel]]’s defense against the terrorist group [[Hezbollah]]. They created a report entitled, “Israel's Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians in Lebanon.” <ref> “Israel's Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians in Lebanon.” Human Rights Watch, August 2006, http://hrw.org/reports/2006/lebanon0806/lebanon0806web.pdf</ref>
Critics also stated that HRW also defended the terrorist organization. In a 2006 report they stated that there was no evidence of Hezbollah’s use of civilians as human shields, this was obviously not true. <ref>Alan Dershowitz,[ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/the-human-rights-watch-_b_27701.html “The "Human Rights Watch" Watch, Installment 1”] </ref>
HRW started campaigning for the United States to intervene in Darfur, Sudan, to end the atrocities committed in the region. Over its years, HRW has been embraced by the left, well being deplored by conservatives and supporters of Israel. HRW wrote president, [[George Bush]], and asked him to release prisoners that he was holding in “secret prisons”, they also called on him to stop the use of [[Guantanamo Bay]] as a U.S. [[prison]] for captured [[terrorist]]. The organization’s director, Kenneth Roth, claimed that the United States has lost its credibility on human rights. "The trend is bleak, but not irreversible," <ref> Kenneth Roth, Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/11/AR2007011101658.html</ref> Roth stated in a report in 2007. The organizations credibility has been brought into serious question.

==Founders==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Name
! Position
! Biography
|-
|[[Bob Bernstein]]
|Founder
|[[CEO]] of [[Random House]] publishers
|-
|[[Aryeh Neier]]
|Founder
|Neier worked 15 years at the liberal [[American Civil Liberties Union]] (ACLU). He currently serves as President of the [[Open Society Institute (OSI)]], a foundation funded by liberal [[George Soros]], who was also OSI’s founder. <ref> “Open Society Institute”, Discover the Networks, http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/funderprofile.asp?fndid=5181&category=79</ref> Neier was co-founder of [[Students for a Democratic Society]] in 1959.
|-
|-
|[[Orville Schell]]
|Founder
|As a former graduate of their school of [[journalism]], Scheell now stands as Dean of the [[University of California]], Berkley. Schell is a liberal and claims to be a "Discontented [[Democrat]]." <ref> Discover the Networks, http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6258</ref>
|-
|[[Jeri Laber]]
|Founder
|Senior Adviser to Human Rights Watch, was formerly executive director of its [[Helsinki]] division. She is a prominent journalist and political activist.
|-
|-
|}

==Political Position==
[[Image:HumanRightsWatch1.jpg‎ |thumb|200px|Members of Human Rights Watch with Speaker of the House, [[Nancy Pelosi]]]]
Evan though HRW claims that it is a “non-partisan” human rights group, many of the views held by HRW reflect those of [[American]] [[liberal]]s. They believe that [[abortion]] is “first and foremost a human right<ref> Discover the Networks, http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6258</ref>
" and support gay marriage. The organization is also a opponent "in all circumstances" of the [[death penalty]], stating that the death penalty is "a form of punishment that is unique in its barbarity and finality<ref> Discover the Networks, http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6258</ref>
." The organizations work has had a liberal approach of blaming America first.

==Organizational Structure==

===Method===
Human Rights Watch states that the organization, “tries to strike a balance in its work between countries with the worst human rights problems and countries where there is a moment of special opportunity for us to propel change.” <ref>Human Rights Watch, “Frequently Asked Questions”
http://www.hrw.org/about/faq/</ref>
When the location for work is agreed upon, the organization sends out a “fact find group” which is sent from their headquarters. These groups use the method of interviewing victims and witnesses in the crisis zone. These finding are published into dozens of books and reports posted on the organizations website. In intense times of crisis, the organization covers the “up-to-the-minute information.”In some situations the organization uses the help of organizations, such as [[United Nations]], the [[European Union]], international financial institutions, and the [[United States Government]]. In particularly egregious abuses, “Human Rights Watch may press for the withdrawal of military and certain economic support.” <ref>Human Rights Watch, “Frequently Asked Questions”
http://www.hrw.org/about/faq/</ref>

===Location===
In 1998, Human Rights Watch united the international organization in United States. They based their main organization headquarters on 350 Fifth Avenue St, New York. HRW has anchored offices in major United States cities, including, [[Chicago]], [[New York]], [[Washington D.C.]], [[Los Angeles]], and [[San Francisco]]<ref>Locations of Human Rights Watch, http://www.hrw.org/contact.html </ref>.
They also created offices internationally in [[Brussels]], [[Geneva]], [[Berlin]], [[Toronto]], and [[London]]. The organization has been criticized for having a lack of [[diversity]] in headquarter locations. <ref> “Who’s Behind Human Rights Watch,”(2004), http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/HRW.html</ref> When on a assignment the "fact finding group" will, in some cases, make temporary headquarters in the conflict zone.

===Leadership===
Human Rights Watch consists of a Board of Directors and chairmen from five continents, along with three other boards which cover specific issues<ref> Human Rights Watch Board and Committee’s, http://www.hrw.org/about/info/board.html </ref>. Each board consists of chairmen and co-chairmen, with exception of the board on “Terrorism and Counterterrorism.” The smallest board, “Terrorism and Counterterrorism,” consist of eight members, while the largest board consists of over forty members. Although the organization composed of 190 full time employees’, they also hire part time employee’s, bringing the number to 255 working employee's working for the organization
<ref>Human Rights Watch, “Frequently Asked Questions”
http://www.hrw.org/about/faq/</ref>. HRW also has a ‘Counsel’, which can be joined by giving donations to the organization (usually $5,000), the counsel remains primarily symbolic. While this list of counsel members used to be confidential; it is now since open to the public<ref> “Who’s Behind Human Rights Watch,”(2004), http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/HRW.html</ref>. The organizations main leadership role is held by the executive director. This position has been held, since 1993, by Kenneth Roth, a graduate of [[Yale Law School]], [[Brown University]], and former prosecutor<ref> HRW website, Kenneth Roth, http://www.hrw.org/about/bios/kroth.htm </ref>.[[Bill O'Reilly]] called Roth, the “stand up man” for the organization, his job includes talking to the media and overseeing the organizations operations. <ref>O’Reilly Factor, 2004, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138990,00.html</ref>

===Funding===
The organization total operating cost for Human Rights Watch annual in 2006 was $30,185,486.
<ref>Human Rights Watch, “Frequently Asked Questions”
http://www.hrw.org/about/faq/</ref>
HRW is a non-governmentally organization ([[NGO]]), which receives its funding from private donors and foundations. The organization claims that they do not accept money from government institutions. Its annual budget is 22 million, ten million behind [[Amnesty International]], another human rights monitoring group. In January of 2005, the Oakland-based Golden West Financial Corporation gave a grant of 15 million dollars over a five years period to the organization.<ref> Foundation Center, 2005, http://foundationcenter.org/sanfrancisco/gitn/sf_gitn_010105.html</ref>, this was the largest contribution to the organization in its twenty-seven year history. Other contributors to the organization include; Ahmanson Foundation, Carnegie Corporation of New York, Ford Foundation, Columbia Foundation, William and Floea Hewlett Foundation, John D. & Catherin T. MacArthur Foundation, Nathan Cummings foundation, Joyce Foundation, JEHT Foundation, J.M. Kaplan Fund, the Open Society Institute, the Davie and Lucile Packard Foundation, Righteous Persons Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fud, Scherman Foundation, and the Rockefellers Foundation<ref> Discover the Networks, http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6258</ref> . HRW financial statements are made public on the organizations website<ref> Financial Statements for Human Rights Watch, 2004- http://www.hrw.org/annual-report/finStmt2004.pdf, 2005- http://www.hrw.org/annual-report/finStmt2005.pdf, 2006- http://www.hrw.org/annual-report/finStmt2006.pdf </ref>.

===Website===
The main tool used by the human rights organization is their website (hrw.org). The website receives an estimated average of 48 thousand visitors a day in 2006, which led to an average 118,642 daily page views<ref>Human Rights Watch, “Frequently Asked Questions”
http://www.hrw.org/about/faq/</ref>
. The site also gives HRW the ability to report up to the minute happenings when the situation calls for it. HRW has been criticized for having most of its reports and website in English only <ref> “Who’s Behind Human Rights Watch,”(2004), http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/HRW.html</ref>.

==Criticism==

===Anti-Israel===
The Israeli conflict with the Palestinians and [[Hezbollah]] has brought about serious questions of HRW objectivity. During the span of four years, from October 2000 to April 2004, HWR wrote one-hundred and three reports, the vast majority of these reports condemned Israel<ref>“NGOs Make War on Israel” Gerald M. Steinberg
Middle East Quarterly Summer 2004, http://www.meforum.org/article/633</ref>. During the same time the organization only wrote thirty highlighting the Palestinian terror attack.

According to [[Gerald M. Steinberg]], a research associate at the BESA Center for Strategic Studies, HRW has ignored the terrorist suicide attacks designed to kill innocent civilians, while criticizing Israel for a, “policy of targeted killing of terrorist leaders, such as [[Hamas]] leaders Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ar-Rantisi<ref>“NGOs Make War on Israel” Gerald M. Steinberg
Middle East Quarterly Summer 2004, http://www.meforum.org/article/633</ref>
.” He wrote later in the same article, “The political bias of non-governmentally organizations on the Middle East, coupled with their lack of public accountability and transparency, is beginning to chip away at their credibility<ref>“NGOs Make War on Israel” Gerald M. Steinberg
Middle East Quarterly Summer 2004, http://www.meforum.org/article/633</ref>
.”

In 2006, HRW released a 50 page report, "Fatal Strikes: Israel's Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians in [[Lebanon]]," which covered civilians deaths they claimed were caused by Israel in their conflict with the terrorist group [[Hezbollah]]. Israel stated that the many of the deaths were caused by Hezbollah’s use of civilian areas and human shields. HRW stated that there was no evidence that Hezbollah used human shields, but this notion was widely known as untrue. While focusing on Israel’s “indiscriminate bombing”, HRW failed to report significantly on Hezbollah’s launching of 2,000 rockets at civilian areas. HRW criticized Israel’s building of a fence in the [[West Bank]], calling it part of an "illegal" land grab<ref>NGO Monitor, 2005, http://www.ngo-monitor.org/archives/news/HRWLetter-NYSun.htm</ref>. [[Anthony Weiner]], a Democrat Congressman, was shocked at the idiosyncrasy of the charges, he stated, "Given that the security fence has inarguably reduced [[terrorism]] and death by would-be Palestinian bombers, it seems any organization truly concerned about human rights should be supporting [[Israel]]'s right to construct it”<ref>NGO Monitor, 2005, http://www.ngo-monitor.org/archives/news/HRWLetter-NYSun.htm</ref>. Even a liberal newsmagazine, [[The New Republic]], could not resist the slant of HRW coverage<ref> Rosa Brooks on Criticism of Human Rights Watch, Kevin Jon Heller, http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1157149379.shtml</ref>
.
===Hypocrisy===
Human Rights Watch has called on the [[United States]] to stop workplace discrimination on nationality and class inside the United States and other countries, but the organization does not even follow that standard, nearly hiring all of their employee's from American and English nationalities<ref>http://www.antiwar.com/rep/treanor1.html</ref>. The Committee members for HRW also include only decisions makers from the upper-class, none from the middle-income class. Nearly all of the organizations articles and reports are produced in English, HRW claims that they are not produced in more languages because of the cost of translation. They have asked for volunteers to translate reports and documents. The organization has held double standard in its dealings in the [[Middle East]]. President of the Zionist Organization of America, Morton Klein, stated, "For Human Rights Watch to call on Israel and Jews not to live in Judea and Samaria is simply racist. Why is it that Arabs can live in Israel, and Arabs can live in the West Bank, and Jews cannot live in the West Bank?” <ref>NGO Monitor, 2005,http://www.ngo-monitor.org/archives/news/HRWLetter-NYSun.htm</ref>.

==See Also==
*[[Human rights]]

==External Links==

*[http://hrw.org/ Human Rights Watch Official Website]
{{liberalism}}
==References==
<div class="references-small" style="-moz-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
<references/>
</div>
[[Category:Liberal Organizations]]

Amnesty International

2008-09-03T00:55:59Z

American78: /* Criticism */

As stated by their homepage: "'''Amnesty International''' (AI) is a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights." Founded in the UK in 1961, the organization works to highlight reported deviations from the [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]] of the [[United Nations]]. It attempts to garner public support, most notably in the form of [[letter writing campaigns]], in the belief that this can exert political pressure.

It was the winner of the 1977 [[Nobel Prize|Nobel Peace Prize]].

==Amnesty's goals==

At the 27th International Council meeting, 2005, it was decided that:

"''Amnesty International’s vision is of a world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards. In pursuit of this vision, Amnesty International’s mission is to undertake research and action focused on preventing and ending grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination, within the context of its work to promote all human rights.''"

This manifests itself as Amnesty's goals:

#Abolish [[capital punishment]]
#Put an end to [[extrajudicial execution]]s and "disappearances"
#Put an end to torture and ill-treatment
#Put an end to unlawful killings in armed conflict
#Ensure conditions in prisons meet international standards of human rights
#Ensure rapid and fair trials for all [[prisoner of conscience|prisoners of conscience]]
#Ensure free education to all children worldwide
#Put an end to the recruitment and use of child soldiers
#Promote economic, social and cultural rights for marginalised communities
#Protect human rights defenders
#Protect the rights of [[refugee]]s, [[Immigration|migrants]] and [[asylum seeker]]s

One topic of particular controversy is the organisation's stance on [[abortion]], as both pro- and anti-abortion members belong to Amnesty. In August 2007, Amnesty International changed its position to [[pro-choice]]. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/8/21/153220.shtml?s=ic Amnesty International Becomes a Pro-Choice Organization]. ''NewsMax'' Aug. 21, 2007 </ref> <ref> [http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGORG500412007 Amnesty International takes on divided world] "Amnesty International committed itself to strengthening the organization's work on the prevention of unwanted pregnancies and other factors contributing to women's recourse to abortion and affirmed the organization’s policy on selected aspects on abortion (to support the decriminalisation of abortion, to ensure women have access to health care when complications arise from abortion and to defend women's access to abortion, within reasonable gestational limits, when their health or human rights are in danger), emphasizing that women and men must exercise their sexual and reproductive rights free from coercion, discrimination and violence." ''Amnesty International'' 17th August 2007</ref>
<ref> [http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGPOL300122007 Amnesty International defends access to abortion for women at risk] ''Amnesty International'' 14th June 2007</ref>

==Criticism==
[[Image:Amnesty international1.jpg|right|200px|thumb| A summary of all critical press releases
put out by Amnesty over the period 1995–1998.<ref name="Phelps" />]]
Amnesty International has disproportionately criticized free democratic nations over authoritarian nations with grave human rights abuses, such as [[Cuba]], [[Vietnam]], and [[North Korea]]. This exposes a anti-american standpoint increasingly common in liberal groups. Peter Phelps, a writer for [[Australia]]’s leading free market think tank; The Institute for Public Affairs, wrote that Amnesty International has deviated from its founding goals,

<blockquote>
“In the midst of the Cold War, Amnesty was a beacon to prisoners of conscience languishing in the Gulags of the Soviet empire and the work camps of Communist
China. It was an institution whose time had come. Today, its time has passed. Rather than attack real abuses of human rights, it has lost sight of its original objectives. It has become, like Greenpeace, the Wilderness Society and ACOSS, yet another self-perpetuating bureaucracy. More effort is directed into recruiting new members, whose subscription fees pay for this entrenched class of apparatchiks, than in exposing real violations of human rights.</blockquote>

<blockquote>
The decline in standards has become especially apparent over the last five years.
The collapse of the Soviet empire has deprived Amnesty of most of its raison d’être.
In its place is an active campaign against free, democratic nations. For example, in Amnesty’s 1999 Annual Report on the Internet, 165 lines of text were devoted to criticism of Australia’s human rights. In contrast, the Communist dictatorship of North Korea had only 83 lines of critical text. Yet there is simply no comparison between the human rights records of Australia and North Korea.”
<ref name="Phelps">Phelps, Peter, [http://www.ipa.org.au/files/review51-3.pdf Amnesty Infomercial], ''Review'', (Intitute of Public Affairs), September 1999, p.13.</ref></blockquote>

One of the main reasons for the disproportionate criticism has been Amnesty Internationals flawed methodology which relies heavily on the press inside of nations. This leads to a nation that is free and open, but had minor infractions, receiving much more criticism then a closed nation.<ref name="Phelps" />

==References==
<references/>

==Also See==
*[[Human rights]]
*[[Human Rights Watch]]
==External Links==
[http://www.amnesty.org/ Amnesty International's homepage]
[[category:politics]]
[[Category:Nobel laureates in Peace]]
[[Category:Liberal Organizations]]

Fruits

2008-09-02T23:43:15Z

American78:

[[Image:Cam10.jpg|left]]
'''Fruits''' (French: fruit, German: Frucht, Greek: καρπός, Spanish: fruta, Russian: плод; фрукты) are the edible part of a plant, like [[apple]]s, [[grape]]s, [[peach]]es, [[mulberry|mulberries]], [[banana]]s, etc.

Fruits that consist of ripened ovaries alone, such as the [[tomato]] and [[pea]] pod, are called true fruits.
{{cquote|
''An apple a day keeps the doctor away''
}}

Fruits are the primary diet of numerous animals, including the [[fruit fly]], [[bat]]s, and [[sloth]]s.

== Biblical References ==
{{cquote|'''Galatians 5:22, 23''' But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.}}
{{cquote|'''Isaiah''' And the fruitful field shall be esteemed as a forest?}}
==See also==
*[[Banana]]
*[[Fruits of the Holy Spirit]]
*[[Coconut]]

== External links ==
*[http://www.foodsubs.com/Fruittroex.html Tropical fruit]
*[http://www.thefruitpages.com/tropical.shtml Exotic fruit]
*[http://www.freefoto.com/browse/09-08-0?ffid=09-08-0 Fruit - Images]
*[http://www.healthychild.net/articles/na12fruit.html Fan fruits] For kids.

[[category:botany]]
[[category:food and Drink]]
[[Category:Terms]]

Fruits

2008-09-02T23:42:17Z

American78:

[[Image:Cam10.jpg|left]]
'''Fruits''' (French: fruit, German: Frucht, Greek: καρπός, Spanish: fruta, Russian: плод; фрукты) are the edible part of a plant, like [[apple]]s, [[grape]]s, [[peach]]es, [[mulberry|mulberries]], [[banana]]s, etc.

Fruits that consist of ripened ovaries alone, such as the [[tomato]] and [[pea]] pod, are called true fruits.
{{cquote|
''An apple a day keeps the doctor away''
}}

Fruits are the primary diet of numerous animals, including the [[fruit fly]], [[bat]]s, and [[sloth]]s.

== Biblical References ==
{{cquote|'''Galatians 5:22, 23''' But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.}}
{{cquote|Isaih''' And the fruitful field shall be esteemed as a forest?}}
==See also==
*[[Banana]]
*[[Fruits of the Holy Spirit]]
*[[Coconut]]

== External links ==
*[http://www.foodsubs.com/Fruittroex.html Tropical fruit]
*[http://www.thefruitpages.com/tropical.shtml Exotic fruit]
*[http://www.freefoto.com/browse/09-08-0?ffid=09-08-0 Fruit - Images]
*[http://www.healthychild.net/articles/na12fruit.html Fan fruits] For kids.

[[category:botany]]
[[category:food and Drink]]
[[Category:Terms]]

Grouper

2008-09-02T23:19:32Z

American78:

Grouper

2008-09-02T23:16:15Z

American78: New page: '''Grouper''' is a saltwater fish common in tropical waters. The largest known grouper is 180 pounds(aprox). [http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/1/17/nation/20035627&sec=natio...

'''Grouper''' is a saltwater fish common in tropical waters. The largest known grouper is 180 pounds(aprox). [http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/1/17/nation/20035627&sec=nation]