Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Axiom of Choice

2009-06-09T17:54:53Z

American888: /* Controversy */

The '''Axiom of Choice''' ('''AC''') in set theory states that "for every nonempty set there is a function that chooses an element from each set." This axiom is powerful because by assuming the existence of such a function, one can then manipulate the function to prove otherwise unprovable theorems. This axiom is controversial because it assumes the existence of a function without demonstrating that it exists, or knowing all of its characteristics. This axiom has been used to prove an apparently absurd result, as in the [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]] discussed below.

To better understand the Axiom of Choice, consider alternative descriptions of it:

The Axiom of Choice holds that:<ref name="willard">Stephen Willard, "General Topology" 1.17, p. 9 (Dover 2004)</ref>

::given any collection of [[set]]s, however large, we can pick one element from each set in the collection.

More precisely, the Axiom of Choice states that:

::For every collection of nonempty sets S, there exists a function f such that f(S) is a member of S for every possible S.

Mathworld explains the Axiom of Choice as follows:<ref name="mathworld">http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AxiomofChoice.html</ref>

::Given any set of mutually disjoint nonempty sets, there exists at least one set that contains exactly one element in common with each of the nonempty sets.

Therefore, "We can choose one [[element]] from every element of a nonempty set of disjoint sets and this process by which we choose these sets will set up a new set."

Yet another helpful explanation of the Axiom of Choice is this:<ref name="kuro5hin">http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/5/23/134430/275</ref>

::If you have a collection of sets C (which may potentially contain an uncountably large number of sets), then there exists a set H, called the choice set, which contains precisely one element from each (non-empty) set in C. H is called the "choice set" because you are essentially going through each set in C and choosing one element from it. One feature of the Axiom of Choice is that H is simply assumed to exist; there is no algorithm given which might tell you how to construct an example of H.

Here is another description of the Axiom of Choice:<ref>http://www.math.vanderbilt.edu/~schectex/ccc/choice.html</ref>

::Let C be a collection of nonempty sets. Then we can choose a member from each set in that collection. In other words, there exists a function f defined on C with the property that, for each set S in the collection, f(S) is a member of S. The function f is then called a choice function.

It has been shown that neither the Axiom of Choice nor its negation will contradict the other axioms of set theory. Thus assuming the Axiom of Choice and assuming its negation will each result in differing, consistent set theories. It is the choice of the mathematician whether to believe the axiom or believe its negation; many people choose to not take a position on this issue at all because the majority of mathematics can be proven without invoking the axiom altogether.

== Instruction ==

In many undergraduate mathematics curricula, the Axiom of Choice is introduced early as a tool for solving problems. It often goes under one of its other guises, such as [[Zorn's Lemma]] or the [[Well-Ordering Theorem]]. Students are taught it as a proof method, but often with little mention of the questionable nature of the axiom. Often, a full discussion of the [[paradox]]es that accompany the axiom is left to a higher (graduate) level special topics course in [[logic]], despite the fact that mathematicians in numerous fields may be tempted to use it and thus should be aware of its controversy. Undergraduate courses also neglect to adequately mention when the axiom is being invoked, giving a false sense that use of the axiom is incidental, rather than documenting its widespread nature in recent mathematical proofs.

== Use of the Axiom of Choice ==

The Axiom of Choice has many equivalent statements, such as the [[Tychonoff theorem]], the Well-Ordering Theorem<ref name="mathworld" />, the existence of [[cardinal number]]s and the existence of a basis for every vector space.<ref>http://marauder.millersville.edu/~bikenaga/linearalgebra/basis/basis.html</ref> In [[algebra]] it is common to use Zorn's Lemma (also equivalent to the Axiom of Choice<ref>http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ZornsLemma.html</ref>) to study [[ideal]]s in infinite [[Noetherian ring]]s.

Use of the Axiom of Choice has led to some seemingly absurd results. In the [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]], the Axiom of Choice is used to prove that a solid sphere of infinitely divisible parts may be chopped up and reconstructed as two new spheres of identical size, thereby creating 2 out of only 1. This paradox is proven only through use of the Axiom of Choice, and the authors of this proof did so to criticize this Axiom. One attempt to resolve this apparent contradiction is to show that physical spheres are not [[Lebesgue measurable]].<ref name="kuro5hin" />

The Axiom of Choice can also be used to prove the apparently absurd existence of subsets of the real line which do not have a well-defined Lebesgue measure.<ref>However, it is also possible to construct such a subset without using the Axiom of Choice. See [http://matwbn.icm.edu.pl/ksiazki/fm/fm138/fm13812.pdf "The Hahn-Banach theorem implies the existence of a non-Lebesgue measurable set"]</ref>

The highly publicized proof of [[Fermat's Last Theorem]] relies on the Axiom of Choice, which was one of the points of criticism by [[Marilyn vos Savant]] in her column and book.<ref>Ask Marilyn ® by Marilyn vos Savant, Parade Magazine. November 21, 1993</ref><ref>''The World's Most Famous Math Problem: The Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem and Other Mathematical Mysteries'', Marilyn vos Savant. St. Martin's Griffin, 1993</ref>

Interestingly, it has been proven that any theorem of [[number theory]] which uses the Axiom of Choice may be proven in a different way unaided by the axiom.<ref>http://www.occampress.com/fermat.pdf Page 5</ref>

== Controversy ==
Despite its usefulness, many mathematicians prefer to avoid the Axiom of Choice when possible. Stephen Willard, author of the textbook ''General Topology'', wrote the following after describing the Axiom of Choice:

<blockquote>It is left to the reader to decide that these two statements both say the same thing. What they say is: given any collection of sets, however large, we can pick one element from each set in the collection. It bothers some people because it asserts the existence of a set (...) without giving enough information to determine that set uniquely (by applying a finite number of rules), and it is the ''only'' formal set-theoretic axiom which does this. For this reason it is customary to mention the axiom of choice whenever it is used. It need not be used if the number of sets is finite.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=-o8xJQ7Ag2cC&printsec=frontcover#PPA9,M1 Page 9 of "General Topology"]</ref></blockquote>

The avoidance of the Axiom of Choice reflects a preference for [[constructive proof]]s. AC, by its very nature, is nonconstructive, since it merely asserts that a choice function exists, but does not give an explicit method for its construction. Since the Axiom of Choice is independent of the other axioms, assuming this axiom results in a more constrained system than otherwise. Thus results provable with it might not be provable or might not even be true, without it.

The formulation of a constructive Axiom of Choice is one of three major problems which challenge 21st century logicians.<ref>Edna Ernestine Kramer, "The Nature and Growth of Modern Mathematics", Princeton University
Press, 1982. p. 595.</ref>

Many liberals have used the axiom of choice as a justification for the pro-choice stance on abortion. This just shows how totally dead wrong liberals are. A preferable position for conservatives is the axiom of life, which debunks the axiom of choice.

== Sources ==

*http://www.math.vanderbilt.edu/~schectex/ccc/choice.html

== See also ==

*[[Zermelo-Fraenkel]] [[set theory]].

== References ==

<references/>

[[category:Set Theory]]
[[category:Advanced Mathematics]]

Classical liberal

2009-06-09T17:51:36Z

American888:

A '''classical liberal''' is someone who is [[liberal]] in the original sense of the word: namely, advocating personal freedom.

"Classical liberalism" has often been synonymous with "capitalism." It is important to note this distinction, because American liberals are the exact opposite (i.e. socialists).

A common synonym for 'classical liberal' which is more commonly used in the US is [[libertarian]].

The original philosophy of liberalism (now sometimes called classical liberalism, or [[libertarianism]] in the US), favors many forms of freedom, such as:

*[[Freedom of speech]]
*[[Freedom of religion]]
*The right to form political parties and vote
*Freedom to invest in and use private property
*Freedom to work as one chooses
*Freedom to enter into economic contracts
*Free trade and freedom of migration
*Sexual freedom
*[[Equal rights]] independent of race or sex

This interpretation of liberalism arose during the [[Enlightenment]], and became influential throught the [[American Revolution]] and [[French Revolution]], and was also spread in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by the [[classical economists]]<ref>[http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/economic-liberalism.php]</ref>.

Classical liberalism is the primary [[ideology]] behind politics in the United States. Both modern American [[liberalism]] and [[conservatism]] are branches of classical liberalism, as they both seek to promote individual freedom, though in different ways. Other ideologies which are not popular in the US include [[socialism]], [[communism]], and [[fascism]].

A prominent publication which promotes liberalism in the original sense of the word is the British news magazine [[The Economist]].

==References==
<references />
[[category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Libertarianism]]

Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?

2009-06-09T17:45:50Z

American888:

==See Also==
* [[Debate: What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim?]]
* [[Debate:Obama's preacher.]]
==Arguments that Obama is a Muslim==
''The following list of claims was originally from the [[Barack Obama]] page, but additional claims may be added.''

(guidelines: a "CLAIM" argues ''for'' the premise, a "RESPONSE" argues against; use "COUNTER" to argue against a RESPONSE, i.e. favoring the premise.)

* '''CLAIM''': Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.
** '''RESPONSE''': This is actually two claims:
*** '''CLAIM''': Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim.
**** '''RESPONSE''': Based on what evidence? There is a rumor that he was educated in a [[Madrassa]] in Indonesia, but this is patently false; Obama did attend a local public school (not a madrassa) in Jakarta between the ages of 6 and 8, where he received some Muslim education as is standard in the Indonesian public school system; after that he was enrolled in a Roman Catholic school. He did not appear to take his religious studies seriously in either school, according to his own accounts (and possibly witnesses).
*** '''CLAIM''': Fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.
**** '''RESPONSE 1''': Possibly true, but this is only relevant if Obama was at some point a Muslim. He was never a Muslim.
***** '''COUNTER''': Never was a Muslim, hmmmmmm. If his father was a Muslim, that would make Obama a Muslim at birth.
****** '''RESPONSE''': This depends on several things: (1) whose laws you recognize (Muslim? Christian? US?); (2) even if you choose to favor Islam's laws over the others, there is some vagueness which requires further research. (3) If he's claimed as a Muslim by the Muslims (or some group of them), would this prevent him from also being a Christian, as he clearly has shown far more interest and activity within that faith than within Islam?
**** '''RESPONSE 2''': his father was an ex-muslim atheist. We have no proof to counter that. Obama was never a Muslim.
***** '''COUNTER''': no proof exists that Senoir was an Atheist.
****** '''RESPONSE''': His family says he was. They are more authoritative than anything except proof as to someone's personal beliefs.
**** '''RESPONSE 3''': The 1% issue is a fallacy of weak induction called the "composition fallacy". Every argument it gets into will be a weak argument.
* '''CLAIM''': Obama's middle name (Hussein) references Husayn, who was the grandson of Muhammad, which most Christians would not retain.
** '''RESPONSE 1''': Most Christians also wouldn't run for president of the United States; does this prove that Obama also didn't do that?
** '''RESPONSE 2''': What evidence do you have that most Christians would not retain the middle name they were given at birth just because it references a mythological figure from another religion?
** '''RESPONSE 3''': Even if most Christians would decide to change their birth name as you claim, how does this prove that Obama is not a Christian because he did not? "Most" is not "all". Are you implying that any Christian who would ''not'' do such a thing isn't a "real Christian"?
* '''CLAIM''': Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith."
** '''RESPONSE''': The description for the YouTube video linked to as support for that claim says " It is as clear as day that he's putting sarcastic quotes around "my Muslim faith" since the entire question is about his (actual) Christian faith."
* '''CLAIM''': Obama said the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset," and recited "with a first-class [Arabic] accent" the opening lines: "Allah is Supreme! ... I witness that there is no god but Allah ...."
** '''RESPONSE 1''': How does this prove he's a Muslim? Probably many professors of Islamic studies would also be able to do these things, but that doesn't make them all Muslims. What it makes them (and Obama) is educated (and possibly gifted in the area of language) -- both excellent qualities in a world leader.
** '''RESPONSE 2''': The only source for this allegation is apparently NYT columnist Nicholas Kristof (''NYT'', 2007-03-06, "[http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/opinion/06kristof.html Obama: Man of the World]"), who (as I understand it) is generally rather positive about Obama. Perhaps this is being taken out of context?
* '''CLAIM''': Obama stated that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader who became a Muslim, inspired him in his youth.
** '''RESPONSE 1''': Many black people were influenced by Malcolm X. You'll have to show a high degree of correlation between "being influenced by Malcom X" and "converting to Islam while denying it publicly".
** '''RESPONSE 2''': "Nation of Islam" is not part of the Islamic religion but was founded in the US, presumably based loosely on Islamic ideals. Do you have any evidence that Obama is a NoI member? Wouldn't NoI be very interested in publicizing Obama's membership if he had joined, as a way of promoting themselves?
* '''CLAIM''': Obama raised nearly $1 million and campaigned for a Kenyan presidential candidate who had a written agreement with Muslim leaders promising to convert Kenya to an Islamic state that bans Christianity.
** '''RESPONSE 1''': Where is the evidence that Obama campaigned for Odinga?
** '''RESPONSE 2''': While this might demonstrate that Obama was friendly to Islam, this does not prove that he is Muslim. The Eisenhower administration arranged a coup-d'etat in Iran in 1952, replacing the democratically-elected president with a monarchy. Does that make Eisenhower an anti-democratic royalist? Donald Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam Hussein; does that make him a Muslim terrorist?
* '''CLAIM''': Obama's claims of conversion to Christianity arose after he became politically ambitious, lacking a date of conversion or baptism.
** '''RESPONSE 1''': Has anyone bothered to ask his church (or his office) to see if they have a record of this?
** '''RESPONSE 2''': Many people do not keep track of these dates.
* '''CLAIM''': On the campaign trail Obama has been reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria, which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.
** '''RESPONSE''': So... everyone who reads that book is a Muslim?
* '''CLAIM''': Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam.
** '''RESPONSE 1''': Ah-HA! So every time he denies he's a Muslim, that PROVES he really IS! ...Hey, maybe you're a Muslim too! Go on, prove me wrong.
** '''RESPONSE 2''': A vital component of all conspiracy theories is that evidence against the claim is forged and there for constitutes evidence for it. The issue represents a known glitch in human reasoning and a trap that you cannot easily reason someone out of; the "9/11 truthers" are the same way.
* '''CLAIM''' Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one.
** '''RESPONSE''': Right, and I bet he uses "C.E." instead of "A.D." in his dates, and maybe even the Metric System. He also pronounces "divisive" with a short "i" in the second syllable. What in the world does this have to do with anything?
*** '''COUNTER''': If educated, you pronounce what you have learned. Where did he learn the Muslim use of Pokistan? Occidental teach this? University of Chicago teach this? Does Harvard teach this? Only a Muslim knows the proper way to pronounce so he was taught by Muslims.
**** '''RESPONSE 1''' fallacious argument. This still does not demonstrate any evidence for Muslimhood. For one thing, many non-muslims pronounce Pakistan this way (and probably many Muslims give it the more American pronunciation).
**** '''RESPONSE 2''': I don't know, but the obvious answer would be in the Indonesian public school he attended early in life. There are certainly many places a well-educated person might pick up an odd (or perhaps more correct) pronunciation.
**** '''RESPONSE 3''': "Only a Muslim knows the proper way to pronounce so he was taught by Muslims." - and yet you clearly are claiming to know the muslim way to pronounce it (otherwise you would not know whether or not his pronunciation is the correct muslim form) by your own logic therefore, YOU are a muslim.
* '''CLAIM''': Many of Obama's statements about religion conflict with Christianity, leading one group to demonstrate with a 7-part video series, "Why Barack Obama is Not a Christian."
** '''RESPONSE''': Christianity has a wide range of views on a lot of different subjects, and any one person's views are bound to be "un-Christian" by someone's lights. When I have time, I will review the linked videos and respond in more detail. ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4cMB8ktCT8 Reason #1], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHlelAui5fs Reason #2], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHlelAui5fs Reason #3])
* '''CLAIM''': Obama was thoroughly exposed to Christianity as an adult in Chicago prior to attending law school, yet no one at law school saw him display any interest in converting. Obama unabashedly explained how he became "churched" in a 2007 speech: "It's around that time [while working as an organizer for the Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC) in Chicago] that some pastors I was working with came around and asked if I was a member of a church. 'If you're organizing churches,' they said, 'it might be helpful if you went to a church once in a while.' And I thought, 'I guess that makes sense.'"
** '''RESPONSE''': Perhaps he is simply not very enthusiastic about Christianity. Many people who aren't Muslims feel the same way.
* '''CLAIM''': Obama is mentioned as helping to organize the 1995 million man march led by black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan from the Nation of Islam.
** '''RESPONSE''': ...and therefore...? (This is basically the Malcolm X argument in a weaker form.)
*** '''COUNTER''' (I think): if Obama organized a rally for Hitler, then we can clearly say he was a Nazi supporter. But Obama organized a rally for Jew bigot Farrakhan, he can't possibly be a Muslim supporter. (yeah right)
**** '''RESPONSE''' That's not proof, and only circumstantial evidence, that he was NOI. And aside from the NOI is not Islam.
***** '''COUNTER''' The correlation is more than justified. What cause did Obama support? a Muslim cause.
****** '''RESPONSE 1''': Read up on the million man march. It wasn't a Muslim cause.
****** '''RESPONSE 2''': Since when does supporting "a Muslim cause" automatically make one a Muslim?
****** '''RESPONSE 3''': What do you mean by "a Muslim cause"? Muslims favor male dominance in marriage and firm suppression of homosexuality -- does that mean Conservapedia is Muslim, just because Conservapedia also supports these causes?

This is a rubbish way to pursue a debate. I can see why the original arguments were laid out like this, but adding more & more unsigned comments to the middle of this is just making a mess. Much better to put any new suggestions or criticisms below. Just offering my opinion. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 13:04, 13 November 2008 (EST)

: I really like this way of doing it, although I think a shorthand signing with a key at the bottom would be better, if no one objects I'll look at the page history and do that tomorrow.

: The point is not ''who said something'' but ''whether it makes sense''. A comment which hasn't been refuted is one for which nobody has been able to think of a refutation (or felt strongly enough about it to write it down here, anyway). I wouldn't object to people signing their comments, but what might be more useful is if people would indicate their agreement with ''any'' comments they agree with, not just their own. --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 10:42, 19 November 2008 (EST)

While I agree, do you think it will actually make a difference? They're not going to change the Obama article unless Obama gets denounced by every mosque from here to mecca, and even then they'd probably just call it [[deceit]]. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 13:21, 13 November 2008 (EST)

: Agreed. A question I'd like to pursue with the "in crowd" here is: what is the philosophical basis of Conservapedia's fact-base? Is it ultimately derived from Andy Schlafly's authority (i.e. ultimately whatever he says is true ''is'' true as far as Conservapedia is concerned), or from Scripture (in which case: how do we decide between multiple conflicting interpretations?), or from objective reality, or what? --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 10:42, 19 November 2008 (EST)

==NormanS's View==

I agree with the above, there is little to no evidence that Obama is a Muslim. In fact the whole myth seems to have been started by Andy Martin, a colourful "lawyer" (he was rejected from the bar) who is known for his racist rants against Jews and other groups and his frivolous lawsuits. As an Australian based McCain supporter and a pretty Conservative Christian I was upset when Obama won. However, the reason I oppose him is because of his policies, not because of some misguided claim about his religion. If you really were interested in making personal attacks against him you'd be better off accepting his claim that he's a Christian and then pointing out how hypocritical he is. That said, there is no integrity in attacking a person's character over their policies, regardless of their political ideology.

As one of the articles posted in the news section stated, the repeated claims that Obama was a Muslim made people vote for him, not against him. The article in its present state reads as a parody and does nothing to help the conservative cause. If this project is to have any credibility it must be rewritten to a balanced viewpoint which discusses his policies, rather than making ridiculous strawman arguments and personal attacks. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 21:45, 11 November 2008 (EST)

:A couple of things to add to the above. 1. Andy Martin started this rumour (in 2004), claiming he had "evidence" that Obama was a Muslim & had lied to the America people about his faith, though Martin did not make any of this alleged evidence available to the public or even make it clear what kind of evidence it was. 2. A week before the election, Andy Martin appeared on CNN, ''retracting'' his claim that Obama is a Muslim, and replacing it with an even crazier theory - that Obama is the long lost son of the journalist and left-wing activitist Frank Marshall Davis. Again he claimed to have uncoverded proof of this, but offered no evidence whatsoever. See this [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxrDlugBj4o film]. Since Martin now states that Obama is not a Muslim, this clearly proves him to have been lying about having any real evidence that Obama was.

:As Norman says, Andy Martin has a history of spurious and vicious lawsuits and paranoid racist statements, and this is the guy you are giving credence to if you believe the myth that Obama is a Muslim. This is who started it. Clearly this was intended as a tactic to stop people voting for Obama. It hasn't succeeded & it's too late now. We should just let it go & get on with our lives. Clinging to this silly racist rumour can only damage Conservapedia's credibility. And it is a racist rumour - if we were talking about a white politician, this rumour wouldn't exist at all.

:That said, I don't expect this to make any difference at all. This subject has been debated over & over, but Andrew Schlafly is determined to cling on to this story, even in opposition to most of the editors here & some of the prominent administrators. I hope he is willing to engage in this debate, but I really don't think he will. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 07:33, 12 November 2008 (EST)

The constitution says that there should be no religous test for office.... Just a thought.
--[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]
: I've totally avoided getting into the question of "why is it so terrible if Obama actually were Muslim?" because the article never actually says "...and therefore he shouldn't be President." Colin Powell did an excellent job of addressing that issue in his endorsement (which I won't link for fear of accidentally promoting evil liberal concepts like diversity and religious tolerance). --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 14:11, 13 November 2008 (EST)
::I must admit that I am confused about this point. Why should we care if he were a Muslim? Are all Muslims evil? Are all Muslims terrorists? Do all Muslims want to damage the USA? What point is being made here?--[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 15:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==What's the Point?==

I don't see what good it does to say that Obama is a muslim. Why can't we just take him at his word and let God judge his heart? Conservapedia's dwindling credibility is at stake; we will only look foolish if we make such unproven claims. I say we spend more time talking about how Obama is a baby-killer and a socialist-- both established facts (though the term "baby-killer" isn't widely used). --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 14:23, 13 November 2008 (EST)
: I second this suggestion, though probably for different reasons. --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 21:05, 13 November 2008 (EST)

==Retitle Request==
This page should be renamed "Why Obama is not a Muslim." Just for the sheer number of excuses given here. It seems that Obama was born a Muslim, disputed. That he took Muslim classes, disputed. That his stepfather was Muslim, disputed. Later in life, he extensively reads about Muslims leaders, disputed. Exclusively organized a march for the Nation of Islam, disputed. Friends with known Muslims, disputed. Pastor of twenty years is an outspoken defender of Muslims, disputed. Helps in the election of Muslims in Kenya, disputed. Get my drift? Just can't possibly be a Muslim. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 23:56, 13 November 2008 (EST)
: I think this argument was brought forth in an earlier discussion on this topic and was easily defeated. Think of all the "disputed" things as individual pieces of evidence in a bigger puzzle. Lets say you are a detective trying to solve a crime. You may find 10 different things in your investigation which point to a certain suspect. Each thing individually may be disputed, and no individual one may be the "smoking gun", but from the sheer amount of them one can deduce that the suspect is most likely the perpetrator. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 00:04, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:: So, the volume of accusations is proof they are true? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 00:05, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::: The volume is just a pattern. The only way we will know for sure is if Obama says, yes, all along my heart belongs to Muhammed. Even then, I am sure the left would discount it all as "ahh, he really didn't take it all seriously." --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 00:10, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:::: So... you can't actually know, but you're just going to say you're right anyway because it works better for you politically? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 00:12, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::::: Clever, but no. Likely Muslim- yes. I want him to succeed, believe me my family is counting on him. There are over 1 billion Muslims, being a Muslim isn't a bad thing. Secret Muslim is something much different, much. Did you ever here of prophesy? The anti-Christ comes impersonating Christ. I want to believe these are not the end times. One way we will know for sure is how Obama governs as leader.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 00:19, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Personally, I don't buy into hocuspocus future-sight jibberjabber. So yes, I've heard of prophecy, but no, I don't give it any heed. But I can see how you'd get "impersonating Christ" from someone accused of being a socialist. [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 00:24, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::::::You be best to educate yourself on Revelation. It seems Barry is called many things, and such a short life so far, Commie Messiah.--Jpatt 00:34, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::Every Pope, Peter the Great, and most U.S. Presidents have been called antichrist. It's a bit premature to suggest he'll be more powerful than all of those when he hasn't been sworn in yet; he could turn out to be another Buchanan. --Interiot 09:45, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::Right, I don't believe in futuresight, therefore I should take its claims seriously. Aside from that, both sides insult the other frequently. How does that prove anything? You're slinging mud just to see if any sticks. HDCase 13:17, 14 November 2008 (EST)
===The Pattern===
HDCase raises the point that it's not that any one of these points is the smoking gun, it's the pattern towards which they all point -- the puzzle into which they all seem to fit. This is a point which needed to be raised, because I think it's what the original article was driving at although it didn't say so explicitly.

To me, however, what this pattern points toward is this:
* a man who had what many Americans would see as a rather unconventional upbringing -- which happened to include a lot of exposure to Islam
* a man who followed his conscience rather than thinking "what will look bad on my political resume, down the road?"
* a man for whom many people have strong antipathy, for a number of reasons-- and who is therefore likely to be seen in a sinister light no matter what the evidence. Some of the accusations above only "work" at all because of the sheer volume and repetition of the "Obama is Muslim" [[big lie]] -- he defends himself against discussion of "my Muslim faith", and that becomes additional "proof".

I mean, look, what indications has the guy ever really given that he's ''Islamic'' rather than, say, just another obnoxious (to you) liberal? Seems to me you'd be better off accusing him of being a closet atheist; I could probably make a case for that if I had the inclination. But Muslim?

Some people will believe what they want to believe regardless of the evidence -- and it's part of what makes America great that this is ok. We can tolerate a diversity of ideas and still get along with each other -- "We could stand touching noses for a week at a time and never see eye-to-eye". (Just don't go expecting your point of view to be taken seriously if you don't have the evidence to back it up.) --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 18:48, 19 November 2008 (EST)

==Muslim discussion is Obama's fault==
It's the Obama mandate not to answer questions. It is his fault these possibly rumor, possibly truth exists. He says that he is not a Muslim. Hello, not good enough. Specific questions to answers needed (which he fails to provide). --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:: He shouldn't have to repeat his awnser. Once is enough. --[[User:Ekeegan|Ekeegan]] 00:05, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::So specific questions to answers are not needed because...... he said he is Christian? It seems that Obama was born a Muslim, "No, I am Christian." That he took Muslim classes, "No, I am Christian." That his stepfather was Muslim, "No, I am Christian." Later in life, he extensively reads about Muslims leaders, "No, I am Christian." Exclusively organized a march for the Nation of Islam, "No, I am Christian." Friends with known Muslims, "No, I am Christian." Pastor of twenty years is an outspoken defender of Muslims, "No, I am Christian." Helps in the election of Muslims in Kenya, "No, I am Christian." Get my drift? No need to ask him anything because we have the answer already.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 00:15, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Ignoring his answers doesn't mean he did not give them. Obama born a Muslim? No, he said pretty plainly that his father was an atheist, and besides, you don't get religion until you are old enough, Islamic law may say that he inherited the religion, but 'only if you follow Islamic law, which he does not, because he is not a Muslim. That he took Muslim classes?Yes, he did go to a public school in Indonesia, where he doubtlessly received a minor amount of Muslim instruction between the ages of 6 and 8, he then went on to a catholic school where he received doubtlessly received Catholic instruction from 8-10, I don't see people running around spouting how Obama is a Catholic even though the Catholic is more likely to have stuck since he got it when he was older and there for likely remembers more, in either case he left for his grand parents place after that and from that point on there is no connection until he becomes involved with the black liberation movement (which I'm sure he became involved in because of the Draw to Islam, because it had nothing else to offer him, its not as if he is a black man... oh right, he is black, silly me) Later in life he extensively reads about Muslims leaders We are involved in a nuber of conflicts and trade situations with a part of the world that is primarily Muslim, he would have to be an Idiot not to, you know who else reads extensively about Muslims? Bush 43. You know who reads extensively about Christians? Richard Dawkins, Does that make him a christian? No it does not. Exclusively organized a march for the Nation of Islam I'll admit I don't know anything about any march that he organized exclusively, I do know that he was involved in getting people organized for marches and the like, and that the Black issue that NOI dealt with was Obama's main issue at the tie, so it seems likely that that is the reason. Friends with known Muslims Heck yes he is, he is open and up front about this and there is no problem with that. People of different faiths can be friends so long as they aren't bigoted idiots, can you be friends with a Muslim? Would a Muslim be friends with you? Pastor of 20 years an outspoken defender of Muslims So was my Catholic Priest, that doesn't make him or me or my old priest a Muslim, there is nothing wrong with Islam that isn't wrong with a whole lot of other religions, there is no reason to attack it (exclusively) so there is a great deal of reason to stand up for it, even if you aren't a member your self. Helps in election of Muslims in Kenya Both Barrack Obama and the Kenyan Govt. have come out and said there is no truth to that story. The Story is based on a fax of unknown origin and unknown destination (i.e. someone could have made it and faxed it from one end of the office to the other) and cites the PAC Firends of Senator BO, but no such PAC exists. Obamas finances have been well looked at, and there is no missing million dollars, and there is no record of him dealing with this. Just like the birth in Kenya story the only evidence to support it is that there is no evidence around it because it's not even remotely plausible. You are clutching at straws, but Obama actually answered the questions, hes not a Muslim, and there is nothing he can do about that (well he could convert) the problem you have isn't that he hasn't been forthcoming, its that you are wrong and unhappy about it. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::Thanks for the insight. It is still 100% Obama's fault this controversey exists. It is like pulling teeth without meds. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 15:36, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::I'm sorry but I don't buy that you even looked. Most of these issues have been discussed pretty widely, if you only listen to conservative talk radio or very conservative talking heads you wont get that sort of information, but if you pop on to snopes or read the economist or WSJ (both conserative papers I might add) you will get most of the information. The problem is not that Obama didn't put the information out, its that you have coddled your self in undiverse media that has insulated you from the facts in this case. Just like you wouldn't get information on a republican getting screwed over unfairly in the San Fransisco Chronical you aren't going to get information on how a demopcrat is being slighted on the rush limbaugh show. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 23:35, 18 November 2008 (EST)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

==Who cares==

who cares what is Obama's faith? is that REALLY important?--[[User:SocialDemocratic|SocialDemocratic]] 10:45, 27 November 2008 (EST)

It is not important whether or not he is a Muslim. What counts is that we keep alive the seed of doubt in people's minds that he ''might'' be and this will help create a sense of anxiety in people who might be tempted to support him. [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 10:07, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Gloria are you seriously suggesting that we should try to appeal to people's innate xenophobia or racism in trying to convince them that Obama is bad? [[User:Nrupert|Nrupert]] 13:49, 11 December 2008 (EST)

No, only their mistrust of the dishonest! [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 13:55, 11 December 2008 (EST)

I have always been a conservative because I believe in the constitution, and I am sick of this blatant rejection of constitutional principles. This is the best nation on earth, the only land where someone can be free to exercise whatever religion they choose. WHY are you going AGAINST the American constitution? I bet you are a liberal. - [[User:American888|American888]] 13:45, 09 June 2009 (EST)

==Obama Is An Atheist==

I have presented this view elsewhere on Conservapedia. I maintain that Obama's apathy toward religion does not prove that he is a closet Muslim, but rather that he is a secret atheist. Occam's Razor argues that the simplest explanation is often the more likely, and I believe that the fact that Obama goes to the gym instead of to church simply indicates that his views on religion are tepid, not that he is staging secret Muslim prayer sessions. The fact that he says the sound of the Muslim call to prayer is beautiful simply indicates that he is another liberal with anti-American leanings. The list goes on. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 23:38, 16 February 2009 (EST)