Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Metropolitan Community Church

2009-03-26T14:29:23Z

ArthurA:

The '''Metropolitan Community Church'''<ref>http://mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home</ref> (MCC) is a faux [[Christian]] [[church]] that openly accepts [[homosexual|homosexuals]].

While some [[liberal]] churches have accepted homosexuals to various degrees, the MCC is unique in that it was founded by Reverend Troy Perry, a minister forced to leave his [[Church of God]] position for homosexuality, expressly to cater to homosexuals.

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[category:Churches]][[Category:Christian Denominations]][[Category:Protestantism]][[category:Homosexuality]]

Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-03-25T16:59:57Z

ArthurA: I thinnk "Kremlinology" should be capitalized, since its root word is a specific place. Also, explained briefly what "the Kremlin" is.

Each year the English language develops about a thousand new words. Over the course of a century, that amounts to 100,000 new words. Since the [[King James Version]] of the [[Bible]] was published in 1611, perhaps a half a million new English words have been developed.

[[Image:Tax-spend.jpg|thumb|480px|The "tax-and-spend" slogan stuck to Harry Hopkins like a well-fitted suit.]]

The inevitable triumph of conservatism over liberalism is apparent from comparing the rates of generation of new terms of each type, and the quality of the terms so generated. Conservative terms are being generated at a faster rate, and with much higher quality, than liberal terms are. In the 20th century, for example, more conservative terms were developed, and they were developed at a steadier pace. The new liberal terms were clustered in the 1920s and 1960s, were fewer in number, and lacked the same high quality.

A small percentage of those new words are tremendously powerful. Here are some examples developed since the King James Version was published. Not a single one of these words was available to the translators of the King James Version:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[accountability]]
|1794
|
|-
|[[American dream]]
|1911<ref>1911 is the date given by the "OED", which refers to the Oxford English Dictionary. The Merriam-Webster dictionary gives a date of 1931.</ref>
|
|-
|assimilate
|late 1800s
|the desired absorption of immigrant groups into the culture and mores of the resident population
|-
|bailout
|1951
|wasting taxpayer money to rescue, temporarily, a failing company
|-
|biased
|1649
|
|-
|bork
|1988
|coined by William Safire to refer to how Democrats savage a conservative nominee, such as their defeat of Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork.
|-
|[[bureaucracy]]
|1818
|
|-
|Columbian
|1757
|relating to Christopher Columbus ''or the United States''
|-
|competitive
|1829
|
|-
|[[conservative]]
|1831
|
|-
|copyright
|1735
|extending private property to protect expressive works
|-
|constant
|1832
|(noun) something unchanging in value
|-
|[[culture war]]
|1991
|widespread use after the book ''Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America'' by James Davison Hunter
|-
|death tax
|1989
|interesting, the term was coined by Canadians opposed to the high estate tax on their assets held in the United States
|-
|demagogue
|1648
|
|-
|[[deregulation]]
|1963
|Reagan won in 1980 by campaigning on this.
|-
|design by committee
|before 1958
|Pejorative directed against collective production by a group
|-
|[[deterrence]]
|1861
|
|-
|dumb down
|1933
|
|-
|[[efficiency]]
|1633
|Ultimately from the Latin ''efficientem'', meaning ''"working out, or accomplishing"''<ref>[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=efficient Online Etymological Dictionary]</ref>
|-
|[[elitism]]
|1950
|
|-
|[[entitlement]]
|1944
|
|-
|[[family values]]
|1916
|widespread use after a speech by Vice President [[Dan Quayle]], 1992
|-
|[[fellow traveller]]
|1925
|May have existed earlier, but popularized in 1924 by Trotsky. Describes a sympathizer of a cause but who does not formally belong to the cause, such as a [[communist]] sympathizer who is not part of the communist party.
|-
|forward-looking
|1800
|planning for the future rather than dwelling on the past
|-
|[[free enterprise]]
|1820
|
|-
|free world
|1949
|areas of the world free of communism
|-
|go-getter
|1921
|
|-
|Good Samaritan
|1640
|how genuine charity is the best approach
|-
|[[grade inflation]]
|1975
|the tendency by Liberal educationalists and public schools to increase marks, irrespective of merit or actual achievement.
|-
|[[grassroots]]
|1901
|
|-
|[[homeschool]]
|1980<ref>The OED assigns a date of origin of 1850 to "homeschool".</ref>
|
|-
|inflationary
|1920
|policies causing inflation of the monetary supply
|-
|initiative
|1793
|self-starting first step toward improvement
|-
|interventionism
|1923
|"governmental interference in economic affairs at home or in political affairs of another country"<ref>Merriam-Webster (1994).</ref>
|-
|invisible hand
|1776
|Coined by Adam Smith in the ''Wealth of Nations'' and widely used today, yet Merriam-Webster fails to recognize it!<ref>This term is absent from the 1994 print edition of the Merriam-Webster dictionary</ref>
|-
|Iron curtain
|1945
|coined by Winston Churchill in a speech in Missouri just after World War II, to describe the communist's figurative wall against freedom
|-
|judicial activism
|1947
|First coined in an article in ''Fortune'' magazine by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.,<ref>http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/278089</ref> and repeatedly used in U.S. Supreme Court opinions since 1967,<ref>''United States v. Wade'',
388 U.S. 218 (1967).</ref> yet as of 2009 [[Merriam-Webster]] dictionary still fails to recognize this widely used term.
|-
|junk science
|1962<ref>http://rated.com/dir/Society/Issues/Environment/Opposing_Views/Junk_Science</ref>
|the corruption of the scientific method to advance other goals
|-
|jury nullification
|1700s
|the power of a jury to overrule the law and acquit an ostensibly guilty defendant; first established in colonies in 1735 in the trial of [[John Peter Zenger]]
|-
|Kremlinology
|1958
|the study of the otherwise indecipherable behavior of the government of the [[communist]] [[Soviet Union]]. Refers to the Kremlin, the traditional seat of Russian government (Soviet or not).
|-
|[[Essay:Liberal hysteria|hysteria]]
|1801
|From the Latin ''hystericus'', from Greek ''hystera '' meaning ''"womb"''<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hysteria Meriam Webster Dictionary]</ref> (an old notion that hysteria was caused by the [[womb]]).
|-
|[[microeconomics]]
|1947
|the study of the economics of the individual person or business
|-
|[[meritocracy]]
|1958
|
|-
|mobocracy
|1754
|rule by a mob, as at Wikipedia
|-
|myopic
|1752
|originally a term in optometry, 1990's used to describe liberals lack of foresight
|-
|ne'er-do-well
|1736
|"an idle worthless person" - Merriam-Webster
|-
|[[opportunity cost]]
|1911
|
|-
|optimism
|1759
|
|-
|parenting
|1958
|Children raising
|-
|patriotism
|1726
|
|-
|[[personhood]] <ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/personhood Personhood] Dictionary.com</ref>
|1955
|Inherent rights guaranteed to all human beings from the beginning of their biological development, including the pre-born, partially born. Also, the state or fact of being a person.
|-
|[[phonics]]
|1684
|
|-
|[[politically correct]]
|1983
|This term originated among radicals at the [[University of Wisconsin-Madison]] to enforce radical orthodoxy, but immediately flipped in usage to become a term of mockery of radicals.<ref>For an early different usage of the word, see 1793 J. WILSON in U.S. Rep. (U.S. Supreme Court) 2 (1798) 462 Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our..language... ‘The United States’, instead of the ‘People of the United States’, is the toast given. This is not politically correct.</ref> The term may have come from Chairman Mao in 1936.
|-
|potential
|1817<ref>Usage here refers to "promise", not "possibility".</ref>
|
|-
|privatize
|1940
|to return a business or enterprise from state to private control; to de-nationalize.
|-
|productive
|1612
|
|-
|[[pro-life]]
|1960
|
|-
|property right
|1853
|
|-
|[[race baiting]]
|1961
| "verbal attacks against members of a racial group" <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/race-baiting]Merriam-Websters race-baiting</ref>
|-
|[[responsibility]]
|1737
|1787 HAMILTON Federalist No. 63 II. 193 Responsibility in order to be reasonable must be limited to objects within the power of the responsible party.
|-
|reverse discrimination
|1969
|the use of quotas or affirmative action to use race or gender to discriminate against a better qualified person
|-
|school choice
|1980
|popularized by Milton Friedman in his book, ''Free to Choose''
|-
|[[self-defense]]
|1651
|
|-
|[[Discipline|self-discipline]]
|1838
|
|-
|self-indulgence
|1753
|
|-
|self-reliant
|1848
|
|-
|spend-and-tax
|2009<ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/02/morning-bell-the-obama-tax-and-spend-economy-is-here/</ref>
|a variation on "tax-and-spend" (see below), "spend-and-tax" consists of spending the money first and then trying to justify raising taxes based on the deficit created by the spending
|-
|straw man
|1896
|an imaginary argument or example set up for the purpose of easily knocking down, while distracting from valid arguments
|-
|tax-and-spend
|1937
|Not yet recognized by Merriam-Webster, it is included in dictionary.com and it means the liberal policy of raising taxes and increasing government spending
|-
|terrorism
|1795
|this was during the French Revolution
|-
|trademark
|1838
|extends the concept of private property to the marks used by business
|-
|traditionalist
|1856
|"adherence to the doctrines or practices of a tradition...the beliefs of those opposed to modernism, liberalism, or radicalism"<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/traditionalist</ref>
|-
|trust but verify
|1980s
|popularized by President Ronald Reagan as the approach to use towards communist [[deceit]]
|-
|vandalism
|1798
|malicious destruction of someone else's property
|-
|victimization
|1840
|
|-
|wannabee
|1981
|a word that criticizes liberal [[status worship]]
|-
|War on Terror
|2001
|no listing at Merriam-Webster, Encyclopedia.com has an anti-American version <ref>[http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O48-waronterrorism.html war on terrorism] Encyclopedia.com</ref> February 2, 2009 Obama ends use of the conservative lexicon. <ref>[http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=17455 Obama administration drops 'war on terror' phrase] Pew Forum, February 2, 2009</ref>
|-
|work ethic
|1951
|a habit of working as a moral good
|-
|worldview
|1858
|a comprehensive way of looking at life and the world; sometimes used to criticize a liberal's irrational belief system
|-
|}

== Rate of Generation of Conservative Terms ==

The rate of generation of conservative terms is increasing:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Century
!# New Conservative Terms
|-
|1600s
|6
|-
|1700s
|16
|-
|1800s
|17
|-
|1900s
|38
|-
|2000s
|2
|-
|}

== Conservative Words Not Yet Recognized by the Dictionary ==

A thousand new words are developed in English each year. Here is a growing list of conservative concepts, each of which is not yet defined by a single word or two.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Not Yet Recognized Terms
!Suggestions
!Comments
|-
|Unaffected by, or impervious to, the media
|mediaproof
|cf. bulletproof. ''Once John became aware of the extent of [[liberal deceit]], he set about mediaproofing his mind''.
|-
|easily amused by [[deceit]]
|dolophile
|from Greek/Latin root ''dolo-'' meaning guile, deceit, deception [http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/664]
|-
|the opposite of [[materialism]]
|spiritualism and idealism have been its philosophical opposites, historically
|[[dualism]] has been suggested, but it is not the ''opposite'' of [[materialism]]; "spiritualism" is not a common term and is the "opposite" of materialism
|-
|runaway jury
|
|The term has existed for decades, but Merriam-Webster has not recognized it yet.
|-
|[[Second generation atheist|second-generation atheist]]
|cradle atheist
|
|-
|denial that [[Hell]] exists
|Hell-denier? Antinfernal?
|
|-
|[[deliberate ignorance]]
|
|the term exists; the dictionary does not yet include it
|-
|proven wrong, a refusal to admit it
|mulism; heel-digger?
|cf. mulish. This refusal is what promoted the [[Parable of the Good Samaritan]].
|-
|slippery slope
|term has been widely used for decades to expose the fallacy of "it doesn't hurt to try"
|-
|[[term limits]]
|
|can you believe this is not in the dictionary yet? Merriam-Webster omits it, but dictionary.com includes it with an origin date of 1861[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/term+limit]
|-
|[[Illegal Alien|illegal alien]]
|
|widely used in court decisions and political discourse for years, Merriam-Webster still does not recognize it is as a term.
|-
|strict constructionism
|
|an important term for over 200 years to describe adherence to the text of the Constitution, Merriam-Webster still does not recognize it.
|-
|[[abstinence denial|denier of the effectiveness of abstinence]]
|abstinence-denier?
|-
|anti-family
|tradition opposer, familiopathic
|
|-
|dramacast
|tabloid news
|mainstream media presents drama fluff stories as news, e.g. 20/20 - Dateline
|-
|[[militant gays]]
|intimidating homosexual
|
|-
|causing harm by spreading falsehoods
|
|e.g., denying or concealing disease and infertility caused by promiscuity
|-
|[[peer pressure]]
|
|can you believe that isn't recognized by Merriam-Webster?
|-
|modern idolatry
|"media idolatry"; "money idolatry"; "celebrity idolatry"
|idolatry conjures images of golden calves, and a modern version is needed
|-
|Rule of Law
|
|
|-
|[[schlockumentary]]
|propaganda film
|documentary films based falsehoods and half-truths
|-
|}

== New Liberal Terms ==

New liberal words often have deceptive, or nonsensical, meanings. Here are some new words created by liberals to combat [[conservatism]]:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[Atheism|atheist]]
|1571
|useful and often deceptive alternative name for an anti-Christian
|-
|[[Big Bang theory|big bang]]
|1948
|term invented by the leading [[British]] physicist Sir [[Fred Hoyle]] to ''mock'' this suggestion of how the universe was formed
|-
|bilingual education
|1972
|a euphemism describing a costly and hurtful program that hinders the learning of English by foreign-born children in American [[public school]]s, which hurts their future opportunities
|-
|[[carbon footprint]]
|1999<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/carbon%20footprint</ref>
|term indicates an individual human's effect on the environment by production of carbon dioxide
|-
|chairperson
|1971
|Even Alice Sturgis, the leading parliamentarian of the 20th century, rejected this cumbersome form of political correctness.
|-
|check-off
|1911
|automatic deduction of union dues by the employer from the employee's paycheck, so he has no choice
|-
|[[class warfare]]
|
|first entered the political lexicon primarily as an attack by liberals against conservatives. <ref>[http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030115.html The art of "class warfare"], Ben Fritz, Spinsanity.org, January 15, 2003</ref>
|-
|[[communism]]
|1840
|
|-
|compassion fatigue
|1968
|Liberals, driven by materialistic self-interest, are likely to suffer from this.
|-
|[[condescension]]
|1647
|
|-
|[[Dark Ages]]
|1730
|A term coined in the so-called [[enlightenment]] to disparage the period between the fall of the [[Roman Empire]] and c.1000, when the Christian faith, and its learning and culture, spread across Europe.
|-
|[[Dead white males|dead white males]]
|
|a disparaging term used of significant figures from previous generations by those who wish to undermine [[Cultural Literacy|cultural literacy]]
|-
|deconstruction
|1973
|a style of interpretation of texts that looks beyond the plain meaning of the text and instead infers social bias
|-
|diva
|1883
|modern use to describe female Hollywood/media personalities
|-
|[[Détente|detente]]
|1970s
|A euphemism referring to pacifist policy re. the Soviet Union
|-
|distributive justice
|
|A term used to redefine socialist abridgment of rights as "just"
|-
|[[enlightenment]]
|1669
|
|-
|[[Environmentalist|environmentalism]]
|1922
|a mixture of [[pseudoscience]] and neo-[[paganism]] used to justify the imposition of [[socialist]]ic controls.
|-
|freethinker
|1692
|the euphemism "free" hides the hostility towards faith, which is not free
|-
|[[fundamentalism]]
|1922
|"a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching"<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalism</ref> From a series of pamphlets called "The Fundamentals" which outlined the movement. Perjorative usage started when the liberal [[Harry Emerson Fosdick]] began using the term in a straw man attack against [[Conservative Christianity]].
|-
|[[feminism]]
|1895
|notionally, "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes"; in reality, the attempt to destroy traditional family, societal and religious values by erasing or undermining natural gender differences.
|-
|[[gay rights]]
|1969
|The movement for civil rights for homosexuals
|-
|glass ceiling
|1984
|the notion that an invisible barrier prevents women and ethnic minorities from reaching high office; an excuse for [[feminist]]s and others to demand [[affirmative action]]
|-
|[[global warming]]
|1969
|The baseless [[environmentalist]] mantra that the earth's temperature is rising, and that human intervention is the cause.
|-
|gun control
|1969
|a euphemism for restricting the right to keep and bear arms
|-
|[[homophobia]]
|1969
|used by Liberals to describe a failure to subscribe 100% to the [[homosexual agenda]].
|-
|[[humanism]]
|1808 <ref>http://newhumanist.org.uk/1740</ref>
|
|-
|[[imperialism]]
|1851
|a clever term later used by liberals to interfere with Christian missionaries and stopping anti-Christian tyranny
|-
|[[isolationism]]
|1922
|a pejorative term that is critical of American politicians putting America first in priorities
|-
|Keynesianism
|1946
|advocacy of 'tax and spend' policies as elaborated by the economist [[John Maynard Keynes]]; a [[euphemism]] for back-door [[Socialism]].
|-
|[[Living Constitution]]
|2000
|a continually evolving Constitution (first used by presidential candidate Al Gore, title of a 1936 book by Howard McBain)
|-
|McCarthyism
|1950
|Originally, investigations by Sen. Joe McCarthy of Communists working in sensitive USA government jobs. Later, it more broadly refers to holding radical leftists accountable for their beliefs and loyalties.
|-
|moderate
|late 1900s
|the original term dates from the French Revolution, but its meaning today is a euphemism for someone who favors abortion and/or supports censorship of Christianity in some ways.
|-
|nationalize
|1800
|a euphemism for the government taking over ownership and control of a large company or entire industry, as in socialism
|-
|natural selection
|1857
|a misleading and euphemistic term for the theory that genetic advantages and conflict dictate survival
|-
|[[population control]]
|1968
|the issue of population dates back to Confucius. Liberals promoted the term after the book The Population Bomb by Paul R. Ehrlich
|-
|[[pro-choice]]
|1975
|a euphemism for insisting on taxpayer-funded [[abortion]]; people who claim to be pro-choice typically oppose ''informed'' choice, which makes the "choice" meaningless
|-
|[[progressivism]]
|1892
|the progressive movement was not entirely liberal; it was started by a Republican and shared some goals with conservatives, and still does
|-
|[[quote mining]]
|non-existent
|a term used by [[evolutionists]] to describe taking quotes out of context in order to damage the position of the quoted party.
|-
|[[racism]]
|
|If you don't support Barack Obama, you are guilty of....
|-
|[[Sexual Discrimination|sexism]]
|1968
|That which is practiced by those who do not give total support to [[feminism]].
|-
|situation ethics
|1955
|a euphemism for denying fixed ethical standards
|-
|strict liability
|1869
|court-imposed liability even when there is no evidence of any fault by the defendant
|-
|Swift-Boating
|2004
|Allegations of unfair campaign tactics.
|-
|undocumented immigrant
|2000
|a [[politically correct]] replacement for illegal alien.
|-
|unfair
|1700
|
|-
|union shop
|1904
|
|-
|[[Unitarian]]
|1687
|
|-
|will to power
|1907
|[[Nietzche]]'s concept of the drive of a superman to perfect himself by exercising creative power; it didn't catch on
|-
|}

== Rate of Generation of Liberal Terms ==

The rate of generation of liberal terms is increasing:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Century
!# New Liberal Terms
|-
|1600s
|4
|-
|1700s
|2
|-
|1800s
|8
|-
|1900s
|25 (7 in the 1960s)
|-
|2000s
|3
|-
|}

== New Terms Difficult to Classify ==

These new terms are difficult to classify:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
|[[Affirmative Action|affirmative action]]
|1961
|first used in [http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal6/eo10925.htm JFK's Executive Order 10925] in 1961 and subsequently promoted by [[LBJ]].
|-
|smoke and mirrors
|1982
|describes the use of deceit, particularly in politics; probably a conservative term, but will await more etymology about it
|-
|[[twilight zone]]
|1949
|the realm of imagination that seems impossible but is difficult to disprove, and which challenges ordinary views of reality
|-
|}

== Downgraded Conservative Terms ==

These conservative terms are less significant:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
|byzantine
|1794<ref>The usage here -- in sense of complex governmental rules -- probably developed later.</ref>
|
|-
|[[entropy]]
|1868
|
|-
|incandescent
|1794
|bright and radiant, conquering darkness, precursor to the invention of the incandescent lamp (light bulb)
|-
|Luddite
|1811
|one who opposes and even destroys technological advances
|-
|[[filibuster]]
|1851
|
|-
|media
|1923
|
|-
|[[milquetoast]]
|1933
|
|-
|normalcy
|1920
|related to the election of [[Warren G. Harding]] by the largest margin yet in history
|-
|}

== Sources ==

*[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ Merriam-Webster dictionary]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Essays]]

Robert E. Lee

2009-03-25T16:05:03Z

ArthurA: /* Assessment */ cleaned up unclear wording

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="250" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:RLee.jpg|200px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: gray no-repeat scroll top left;"|Robert Edward Lee
General, Confederate States Army
|-
|Born
|January 19, 1807
|-
|Died
|October 12, 1870
|-
|}
'''Robert Edward Lee''', was a career officer in the [[United States Army]] before resigning his commission at the outbreak of the [[American Civil War]] and joining the Confederacy, where he commanded of the [[Army of Northern Virginia]] to great effect, so much so that his tactics are still being studied today. Although the Civil War would continue for some months after April 9, 1865, his surrender on that date is generally marked as the effective end of the conflict.

==Early life==
[[Image:Stratford.jpg|thumb|200px|left|Stratford Hall]]
He was born Robert Edward Lee in Stratford Hall, the ancestral home of the Lees in Westmoreland County, Virginia, and the fourth child of Colonel Henry Lee III ("Light Horse" Harry Lee) and Ann Hill Carter. His family had produced many prominent figures in American history (among them was Richard Lee, signer of the Declaration of Independence), and Lee's father had been George Washington's favorite cavalry leader during the American Revolution as well as governor of Virginia; indeed, it was Henry Lee who delivered the famous eulogy at Washington's funeral. Years later Robert would continue relations with the Washington family by marrying a distant cousin, Mary Anne Randolph Custis, the great granddaughter of Martha Washington and heiress to several plantations.

Henry Lee unfortunately was a spendthrift, squandering his wealth in land speculating schemes, eventually losing the Stratford home. In 1812 he discovered a friend's newspaper in Baltimore had made polical enemies, and when Henry had defended him from rioters he ended up horribly beaten, and took to the Bahamas in hopes the tropical climate might restore his health. He would die on Cumberland Island, Georgia, while on his way home six years later, his attempts at restoring his health fruitless (Smith, pp. 8-9). By this time Robert was 11, and Henry had left Ann seven children to take care of with little more than an aristocratic name and a small endowment from her father. Robert was already close to his mother, and from her he learned strength of character, high moral priciples, and the ability to pinch what little money they had. He had to: brothers Henry IV and Carter were attending college and Smith put to sea as a midshipman; sister Anne was continually sick, and mother was increasingly becoming an invalid. This had the effect of causing Robert to grow up fast, while his poverty led him to excel at whatever task came his way (Freeman, pg. 11).

==Early military years==
[[Image:Lee4.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Lee as he looked in 1831.]]
:''Sir''
:''I hereby accept the appointment to the station of a Cadet in the service of the United States, with which I have been honoured by the President.''
:''The above is the declaration of consent which my letter of appointment instructs me should accompany my acceptance.''
:''I remain with the highest respect, Sir''
:''Your most obliged & most obedient Servant''

:''R. E. LEE''

Although an outstanding student at Alexandria Academy, where he excelled in mathematics, Robert was unable to afford a university education, so the only option available to him was a slim possibility of an appointment to the United States Military Academy. Through the services of the family's councellor, William H. Fitzhugh of Ravensworth, Robert obtained a letter of recommendation and personally delivered it to John C. Calhoun, then the Secretary of War. Robert was successful, and he was appointed March 11, 1824, to begin studies the following year for the graduating class of 1829 (Freeman, pp. 12-13). His conduct at West Point during his four years there was exemplary. At the top or near it in every field of study, he would attain the unheard-of rank of cadet staff sergeant at the end of his first year, and be selected adjutant, the most sought-after rank, during his final year. When he graduated in 1829, he was ranked second (behind Charles Mason), and had no demerits (Freeman, pp. 15-19).

Despite his high bearing, he made friends easily and no one of record took a dislike to him. By this time he had become a handsome young man; with manners to match; he was referred to as "the marble model" at the academy. One cadet spoke years later of Lee: "His personal appearance surpassed in manly beauty that of any cadet in the corps. Though firm in his position and perfectly erect, he had none of the stiffness so often assumed by men who affect to be very strict in their ideas of what is military" (Freeman, pg. 17).

He selected the Engineering Corps after graduation, the branch of the Army considered most elite, but his first duty station was far from it. Cockspur Island, Georgia, at the mouth of the Savannah River, where he labored for days in mosquito-infested mud building the drainage dikes and canal that became part of Fort Pulaski (TL 8, pg. 12).
[[Image:Mlee1.jpg|thumb|200px|left|Mary Anne Randolph Custis in 1831, at the time of her marriage to Robert.]]
Within his first two years, he was back in Alexandria for something far more pleasant: his marriage to Mary Custis in June, 1831. The marriage also gave him title to the Custis Estate at Arlington, a majestic building with a columned entrance reminiscent of classical Greek and Roman architecture.

The marriage was blissful for the first four years, and Mary gave birth to two children: George Washington Custis (nicknamed "Boo") in 1832, and Mary Custis in 1835. It was soon after that the elder Mary developed arthritis, leaving Robert stunned. "I never saw a man so changed and saddened" lamented a relative later. In spite of her affliction, Mary produced five more children: William Henry Fitzhugh ("Roonie") in 1837; Anne ("Annie") in 1839; Agnes in 1841; Robert Edward Jr. ("Rob") in 1843; and Mildred in 1846 (TL 8, pg. 14).

==Mexico==
Congress approved a declaration of war against [[Mexico]] on May 13, 1846, and by the following January Captain Lee received orders to join Major General [[Winfield Scott]] at Brazos, where he was included with the general staff on planning operations for an invasion of the city of [[Veracruz]]. Landings began on March 9, and by March 17 Lee had placed a large number of cannon some 700 yards from the Mexican defenses, his engineering skills successful as the enemy was unaware of his placements. During the next few days as a naval bombardment was taking place, Lee ran his lines closer; he would open fire himself on March 24. Two days later a truce was granted, and Veracruz capitulated (Freeman, pp. 58-59).

Lee then set to work at finding a path to Mexico City over ground which was difficult, but not impossible, for Scott's army to pass over. A series of engagements took place on the route, among them an attack on Cerro Gordo. Scott's plan for action called for an infantry assault simultaneous with an artillery bombardment; Lee was to lead a brigade around the northern flank to cut off the enemy's retreat. Before nightfall took place on April 18, 1847, some 3,000 Mexican soldiers had surrendered, and the remainder were in flight to the rear; the leader of the Mexican force, General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, had barely managed to escape (Freeman, pp. 61-62).

"I am impelled to make special mention of the services of Captain R.E. Lee," Scott wrote in one of his reports. "This officer, greatly distinguished at the siege of Vera Cruz, was again indefatigable during these operations (Cerro Gordo), in reconnaissance as daring as laborious, and of the utmost value." The recognition also met that Robert was placed ahead of fellow soldiers who served with him in Mexico, among them [[P.G.T Beauregard]], [[Joseph E. Johnston]], and [[Thomas J. Jackson]] (Nagel, pg. 249). Scott would rely heavily on Lee in the next few months, as Mexico City was finally taken in September, again with Lee making observations of enemy terrain and using it to his advantage. He would be brevetted to major before the war drew to a close, and brevetted again to lieutenant colonel at its close; Scott would call him "the very best soldier that I ever saw in the field" (Freeman, pg. 76).

==Between the wars==
[[Image:Arlington.jpg|thumb|200px|left|Arlington House, the home of Robert and Mary Lee in Alexandria, Virginia.]]
Fort Carroll in Baltimore Harbor was his next duty station for three years, followed by three years as superintendent of West Point in 1852. During his time there he improved the course curriculum and spent much time with the cadets; he also had the pleasure of watching his son George march with the cadets, beaming with pride as he graduated first in his class in 1854.

In 1855 Lee was sent to Texas, serving Colonel Albert Sidney Johnston of the 2nd Cavalry. There he helped protect settlers from Indian attacks. Lee was not happy to be away from his family for extended periods of time, as Mary's invalidity was increasing. On the death of his mother-in-law in 1859 he was forced to leave Texas and serve as executor of the estate.

In October of 1859, a crisis erupted at the Federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry in northern Virginia; a fanatical abolitionist named John Brown and a small force of 21 men held some sixty hostages; there was the threat that Brown was hoping for a general slave revolt. As the nearest ranking officer, Lee was ordered to the area, where he commanded U.S. Marines in the storming of the arsenal, wounding Brown and capturing or killing the rest.

"I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union," Lee said in a letter to his son. "I will sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation." Such thoughts went through his mind during the sixteen months following John Brown's raid; by April, 1861 seven states had seceded over the longs years of the slavery and states rights questions. On April 18, 1861, four days after the fall of Fort Sumter, Lieutenant General Winfield Scott offered Lee command of all Union forces assembling for the insurrection. "I could take no part in an invasion of the southern states," was his reply, and Lee resigned his commission, ending more than thirty years of service (Smith, pp. 84-87). A fortnight later, Virginia herself seceded, and Lee, feeling a duty to his "native state", offered his services.

==The Civil War==
[[Image:Lee5.jpg|thumb|200px|right|General Robert E. Lee as he looked during the war.]]
Lee was appointed commander in chief of all Confederate forces in Virginia, and among his tasks were to concentrate troops and logistics at places to repel any expected invasion. During this time, Lee was driven out of western Virginia by a Union force under Major General George B. McClellan, thus holding the area for the Union (it would eventually become the state of West Virginia in 1863). He was also among the few on both sides to realize that, instead of a short, decisive, and relatively bloodless conflict, this would be a long, bloody affair. Lee served several rather unrewarding positions between July 1861 and June 1862, the last of which was military adviser to President Jefferson Davis; despite this he was able to work out a coherent strategy for the Confederate defense.

During McClellan’s Peninsular Campaign in May 1862, troops under Confederate General Joseph E. Johnston were being driven towards Richmond by the heavily equipped and organized Army of the Potomac. To relieve the pressure on Johnston, Lee collaborated with Thomas J. (“Stonewall”) Jackson to turn several minor garrisons into a superb force which then struck at targets in the Shenandoah Valley; the surprised Federals were forced into retreating, leaving Washington under threat. This in turn caused Lincoln to withhold from McClellan a large corps by which McClellan had planned to attack Richmond; on May 31, McClellan was attacked by Johnston’s forces at Fair Oaks. Although inconclusive, Johnston was wounded and had to withdraw from active duty. Davis then gave command to Lee.
====Field command====
[[Image:Trav1.jpg|thumb|200px|left|Lee and Traveller were a familiar sight on the battlefield.]]
:''"It is well war is so frightful, otherwise we should become too fond of it"'' Lee, at the Battle of Fredericksburg.
Within three weeks Johnston’s former command had been transformed into a new Army of Northern Virginia. Lee transferred his headquarters to the field so as to be near his men. When Jackson arrived with his men from the valley, Lee struck at McClellan on the north bank of the Chickhominy River, defeating the right wing and descending on McClellan’s supply line from his York River base. This was the start of the Seven Days battles, which in a series of encounters McClellan was forced to withdraw his army to the wharves of Berkley Plantation, getting aid from vessels of the U.S. Navy. The Seven Days was the first Confederate victory since First Bull Run, and Lee became a major hero.

He then inflicted several defeats on the Union - some very severe – especially on August 29-30, 1862 at Manassas, Virginia in the Second Battle of Bull Run. Lee then crossed into Maryland, in part to gather Southern sympathizers in that state, and also to carry the fight to enemy territory, with which he planned on drawing the enemy out of Virginia.
[[Image:SWall.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Stonewall Jackson, Lee's chief lieutenant.]]
Unfortunately his battle plans fell into Union hands, and the Army of the Potomac, again under McClellan, met him at Sharpsburg, Maryland on September 17 in the Battle of Antietam, which became, with well over 19,000 casualties, the single bloodiest day in American history. Lee lost this battle, and was able to retreat back into Virginia, reorganize his army, and by December he seized back the initiative with a decisive victory over the Union army (under Ambrose Burnside) at Fredericksburg. The following May, 1863, the battle of Chancellorsville took place, and although outnumbered by at least two to one, he divided his forces twice and circled the Federals under "Fighting Joe" Joseph Hooker in one of the most audacious maneuvers in military history. He also suffered the irreparable loss of Stonewall Jackson, mortally wounded while reconnoitering the left flank (Smith, pp. 158-162).

Again, Lee tried to draw the enemy out of Virginia; this time he crossed the Potomac and headed north into Pennsylvania, where he hoped to re-supply his men. He was met and stopped during the first week of July, in a massive, three-day engagement at Gettysburg. The battle would become the storied "high tide" of the Confederacy, and after the war Southern historians would strive to find ways to excuse Lee for the battle, blaming the devastating loss on many of Lee's subordinates (especially James Longstreet, who opposed Lee's strategy for the battle). Although there were major failures by subordinates, most notably General A.P. Hill allowing a general engagement to occur in opposition to Lee's orders and General Dick Ewell keeping his corp deployed North of the battlefield, limiting its effectiveness, much of the blame lies with Lee himself. General Lee gave very discretionary orders that were often misinterpreted, and during the battle was often conspicuosly absent from the action. He was also not yet comfortable with using Longstreet as a strategic advisor as Jackson had been, not agreeing with Longstreet's general defensive mindset. Although the loss was a combination of many factors, Lee showed his usual grace in accepting full responsibility for the battle. (Smith, pp. 164-167).

====Final year of the war====
:''"I'm afraid they're going to get me a general I don't understand."'' Lee, on the many changes of generals at the helm of the Army of the Potomac.
In May 1864, Lee faced a proved fighter: [[Ulysses S. Grant]], just appointed as commanding general of all Union forces, who went after Lee with enormous superiority in men, cavalry, and logistics. For his part, Grant could neither defeat nor outmaneuver Lee during the next several months. Starting with the Battle of the Wilderness, Lee and Grant met in a series of battles that made up the Overland Campaign. Marked by heavy entrechment that would culminate in the Siege of Petersburg, the Campaign began with the Battle of the Wilderness and continued with a series of redeployments Southward as Grant attempted to continuously move around Lee's right flank. At the battles of Wilderness, Spotsylvania Court House, North Anna, and Cold Harbor, Grant sustained heavy losses of 50,000 men. Lee would also suffer heavy losses, as well as the death of his cavalry commander, J.E.B. Stuart, at the battle of Yellow Tavern, and the temporary loss of James Longstreet, wounded by friendly fire at the Wilderness.

But Grant kept after him, his losses replaced by new recruits, while Lee’s army was draining in both men and supplies. Grant realized that his current line of attack was not working, and made a large redeployment to Petersburg, an important rail junction South of Richmond. Lee had no other choice but to place his starving men in defensive positions and endure a long siege; due to Lee’s mastery of engineering his field fortifications were able to hold the Federals back from June 1864, to April 1865. As his army began to dissipate due to lack of supplies and desertions, Lee realized it would only be a matter of time before the lines broke. By the end of March, the final supply connections to Lee's armies were broken, and on April 2, Lee was forced to retreat from Petersburg.

Forced to abandon Petersburg and Richmond, lee attempted to escape to the West. Several days later, his army was finally surrounded at Appomattox Court House. On the morning of April 9, he ordered one last attempt to break out, but found he had no choice but to surrender [http://www.civilwarhome.com/grantlee.htm][http://www.civilwarhome.com/surrender.htm]; the pain of the surrender considerably lessened by the generous terms offered by Grant, who not only allowed the surrendered officers to retain their swords and side arms, but allowed the men to take with them their horses and mules to get a badly-needed spring crop planted if the country was to rebound from the years of war (Lee, pg. 153). Lee conceded this would have the best possible effect on the men, and would do much to reconciliate the country. With the formalities of surrender over, there was one order left to pass on to his men:

:''HDQRS. ARMY OF NORTHERN VIRGINIA,''
:''April 10, 1865.''

:''After four years of arduous service, marked by unsurpassed courage and fortitude, the Army of Northern Virginia has been compelled to yield to overwhelming numbers and resources. I need not tell the brave survivors of so many hard-fought battles, who have remained steadfast to the last, that I have consented to the result from no distrust of them. But, feeling that valor and devotion could accomplish nothing that could compensate for the loss that must have attended the continuance of the contest, I determined to avoid the useless sacrifice of those whose past services have endeared them to their countrymen.''
:''By the terms of the agreement officers and men can return to their homes and remain until exchanged. You will take with you the satisfaction that proceeds from the consciousness of duty faithfully performed; and I earnestly pray that a merciful God will extend to you his blessing and protection.''
:''With an increasing admiration of your constancy and devotion to your country, and a grateful remembrance of your kind and generous considerations for myself, I bid you all an affectionate farewell.''

:''R. E. LEE,''
:''General'' [http://www.civilwarhome.com/leeorder.htm]

==Later years==
[[Image:Lee-oath.gif|thumb|150px|left|Lee's oath of amnesty was lost in 1865, preventing a full restoration of citizenship. When it was found a century later, Lee's restoration was pushed through Congress, and President Gerald Ford signed the bill on July 22, 1975.]]
At the age of 58, Lee was out of work. He was living in a borrowed home in Richmond, taking care of his invalid wife and three daughters. Numerous offers for income did come his way in the ensuing months, each requesting use of his name, with largest sum valued at $50,000. Lee turned each of them down. He also discovered that a grand jury had assembled in Norfolk with the intention of putting him on trial for treason; only the intervention of Grant, who demanded that President Andrew Johnson respect the conditions of Confederate paroles in light of the surrender, was the trial canceled and charges quietly dropped (Freeman, pp. 516-518). Although he applied for amnesty and a full restoration of citizenship, this was not granted; his amnesty document had disappeared (possibly deliberately) within the National Archives, and would not be seen again for a century.
[[Image:Lee3.jpg|thumb|200px|right|A week after Appomattox, General Lee sat for photographer Matthew Brady. Standing with him are long-time aide Lieutenant Colonel Walter H. Taylor (right), and son Major General George Washington Custis Lee.]]
Trusting in God to provide some means of sustenance, he had a visitor to his door in the form of Judge John W. Brockenbrough, who, to Lee's great surprise, had told him that he was unanimously elected to be president of Washington College in Lexington, Virginia.
:''"I consider the proper education of (the South's) youth one of the most important objects now to be obtained, and one from which the greatest benefits may be expected. Nothing will compensate us for the depression of the standard of our moral and intellectual culture, and each state should take the most energetic measures to revive its schools and colleges, and, if possible, to increase the facilities of instruction, and to elevate the standard of living."'' (Freeman, pg. 527)
Even though the college itself was on hard times (it had less than a semester of financial life left when Lee took over), Lee set at once to revitalizing it. With donors from across the country, he was able to hire staff and faculty, put up additional buildings, and add more books to the library. More important was the curriculum he installed: law, chemistry, and engineering had replaced studies in the classics. As to the rules, he insisted on one, namely "every young man must conduct himself as a gentleman." Everything else was needless, he said (TL 27, pp. 57-59).

Although they were not friends, Lee never forgot Grant's magnanimity at Appomattox, and would not tolerate an unkind word to be said about him. Once, when a college faculty member did just that when Grant was running for president, the retort from an angry Lee was unforgettable: "Sir, if you dare presume to speak anything disrespectful of General Grant in my presence again, either you or I will sever your connections with this university."

But as the years went by his own health deteriorated. His heart condition hindered his work (he suffered several mild heart attacks on the battlefields), and his once-frequent rides on Traveller became less so. On September 28, 1870, Lee had a stroke. He never recovered, and died October 11, his last words the familiar command to begin the movement of his army, "Strike the tent." (TL 27, pg. 60)

Two weeks later, in memory of Lee and his remarkable achievement of restoring new life to Washington College, the trustees changed the name to Washington and Lee University.

==Assessment==
As a man Lee was many things. He had a bad temper; when he was enraged, the officers who happened to be in his tent would make a hasty retreat. No one regretted it more than himself, and he took great pains to control it. He was a firm believer in God, and he would be on his knees daily. He had called Union soldiers "the enemy", but he continually prayed for them, as well as for his own. He was aristocratic, but he knew humility, and he would sit with the lowliest of privates during church services. He was deeply disappointed that his amnesty did not go through, but he chose to be a good citizen anyway, leading the South by example.

<blockquote>
Robert was a legend in his own lifetime. He is known as the Hero of the South and respected by both the North and the South. When Civil War Generals are analyzed, Robert is always at the top of the list. <ref>[http://www.imahero.com/herohistory/robert_herohistory.htm Robert E. Lee] </ref>
</blockquote>

== See also ==

*[[Gallery of American Heroes]]

==References==
*Freeman, Douglas Southall. ''Lee'', Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, (1935); abridged one-volume edition, edited by Richard Harwell (1961)
*Lee, Robert Edward, Jr. ''Recollections and Letters of General Robert E. Lee'', Konecky & Konecky, New York (1992)
*Nagel, Paul C. ''The Lees of Virginia'', Oxford University Press, New York & London (1990)
*Nolan, Alan T. ''Lee Considered'', University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC (1991)
*Smith, Eugene O. ''Lee and Grant: a Dual Biography'', McGraw-Hill, New York (1991)
*Time-Life Books ''The Civil War'', vol. 8 (''Lee Takes Command''), Time Inc, New York (1984)
*Time-Life Books ''The Civil War'', vol. 27 (''The Nation Reunited''), Time Inc, New York (1987)
<references/>

==External links ==
*[http://home.wlu.edu/~stanleyv/pentrans.htm Washington and Lee University: collection of Lee's letters]
*[http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2323 ''Recollections and Letters of General Robert E. Lee'', By R.E. Lee Jr., via Project Gutenburg]
*[http://www.civilwarhome.com/leeorder.htm Lee's General Order number 9]
*[http://www.civilwarhome.com/grantlee.htm Correspondence between Grant and Lee for the surrender]
*[http://www.civilwarhome.com/surrender.htm Details of the surrender, by Brigadier General Horace Porter, USA]
*[http://www.lewrockwell.com/wilson/wilson23.html Robert E. Lee: Traitor or American Hero?]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Lee, Robert E}}
[[Category:American Civil War]]
[[Category:Military Commanders]]

Talk:World History Lecture Ten

2009-03-25T15:04:54Z

ArthurA:

*''Earlier the abolition movement, which was motivated mostly by Christianity rather than by non-Christian reform movements, wiped out slavery and slave trade worldwide by 1888. ''
There was a slave market at Taif, about 40 miles outside Mecca, which was not shut down until 1962. ([http://www.thedailystar.net/2004/07/27/d40727150297.htm] and [http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue3/jv6n3a7.html footnote-18]) People who came from all over the world on their journey to Mecca but didn't have the fare for a round trip often fell afoul of the local authorities once the festivities ended. A penniless pilgrim from far away may resort to stealing food for example, which would end up placing him on the auction block at Taif. And a rich pilgrim, before returning home could pick up a bargain-basement wife or man slave at Taif before departing. This is a line of investigation I've been following for some time, as it appears the Saudi regime agreed to ending this millenium-plus old Islamic practice in exchange for increased cooperation with the West, but it's difficult to find a source document with the exact language for closing the slave market.

Upon deeper investigation what is revealed is the trip to Mecca has long been a cover for the worldwide slave trade, and may infact still be practiced to some extent. Islamic societies did not build jails or prisons. Local troublemakers, and the "shiftless unemployed", so to speak, were often sold to slave caravans making the journey to Mecca where the highest prices could be commanded.

Bin Laden's anger at the West is in large part due to Islamic regimes, such as the House of Saud, caving in to Western pressures and breaking long held Islamic traditions and Islamic societies methods of dealing with common social problems. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:31, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Here's another source,
[http://www.pogledi.co.yu/english/78.php ''Islam and Slavery: The Concealed Truth''], Srdja Trifkovic, Xavier University of Louisiana, New Orleans, November 14, 2003.

== Preliminary corrections ==

I might make a thorough and detailed list if I have time, but upon glancing through the part on Africa so far I have picked up on two aspects that stood out to me, both rather minor:

*The explorer's name is David Livingstone not Livingston as it is listed on at least one occasion.
*The suggestion that the Nile is unusual in flowing north is rather ambiguous. This idea that it is unusual is simply due to human perception, in that modern maps have north at the top and so it seems counter-intuitive that 'up river' would be 'down south'.
[[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 09:42, 27 February 2009 (EST)

== A World War I Thought ==

This is a thought I've had on the Great War; feel free to use it if you like. While the war itself was dull from a military standpoint, it was of immense political importance. World War I was a huge factor in the Russian Revolution, which, of course, led to Soviet Communism. Further, the conditions that Germany was left in after World War I were a key factor in the ride to power of Hitler and Nazism. (I think that there probably would have been some kind of Russian Revolution without World War I, though the results might have been radically different. I doubt Hitler could have risen to power if Germany wasn't left in abysmal shape after the war.) I'd argue that the two great international conflicts of the 20th Century were World War II and the Cold War. Nazi Germany was a key player in World War II (Japan gets "credit" too, of course), and Soviet Russia was, similarly, a key player in the Cold War. Thus, the two great conflicts of the 20th Century were largely defined by nations that, arguably, would not have existed if not for World War I. I realize this is pretty simplistic, but I'm sure you could expand on it. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 11:04, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Talk:World History Lecture Nine

2009-03-25T14:38:08Z

ArthurA: /* Revolution versus Civil War? */ new section

I've never before heard it said that the Whigs were the anteedents of the Labour Party. The conventioanal argument is that Whig=Liberal and Tory=Conservative, but even that is a gross over-simplification of the changes in political allegiance during the 19th and early 20th centuries. It is probably far truer to say that Whiggism led to economic and political Liberalism in the mid-19th century which in turn greatly influenced the 20th century Conservative Party with its individualist, free trade, laissez faire policies. Mrs Thatcher was nothing if not a classic nineteenth century Liberal. Also, in the late 19th century the Liberal Party split over Home Rule for Ireland and a large faction - known as Liberal Unionists - joined the Conservative Party (hence its full name, the Conservative and Unionist Party - nothing to do with Ulster Unionists). Yes, the late 19th century Liberal Party had trade union candidates, known as 'Lib Labs'; some of these joined the Labour Party when it was established (as the Labour Representation Committee) in 1900. But to say the Whigs developed into Labour is simply not the case. (unsigned)

'''Reply''' by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:48, 27 June 2007 (EDT):

Of course, the lecture's statement that the (leftist) modern Labour Party is a substitute for the (leftist) Whig Party of old is a simplification of this interesting facet of English history. But it is a correct simplication, as confirmed by the Columbia Encyclopedia quoted below. Admittedly, there is a step in between that entailed the more conservative Liberal Party. But the migration from leftist to Liberal to leftist does not break the chain.

From the Columbia Encyclopedia:

The Liberal party was an outgrowth of the Whig party that, after the Reform Bill of 1832 (see Reform Acts), joined with the bulk of enfranchised industrialists and business classes to form a political alliance that, over the next few decades, came to be called the Liberal party. Much of the Liberal program was formulated by an important manufacturing middle-class element of the party known as the Radicals, who were strongly influenced by Jeremy Bentham. The Liberals distinguishing policies included free trade, low budgets, and religious liberty. Their anti-imperialism reflected confidence in Britain's economic supremacy. Most Liberals believed in the economic doctrines of laissez-faire and thought labor unions, factory acts, and substantial poor relief a threat to rapid industrialization.
...

By 1914 the Liberal government had passed substantial welfare legislation but, unwilling to adopt a full socialist program, the Liberals began to lose support to the new Labour party. The party's stubborn adherence to the doctrine of free trade, arguments between the Lloyd George and Asquith factions of the party, long years of depression, the Irish problem, growing labor radicalism, and the rise of a working-class party all account for the rapid postwar decline of the Liberals.
...

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright© 2004, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V. All rights reserved.

:: Apologies for omitting to sign above. I think (perhaps mistakenly) that you are drawing your argument and inferring a link from this section of the quotation:''By 1914 the Liberal government had passed substantial welfare legislation but, unwilling to adopt a full socialist program, the Liberals began to lose support to the new Labour party.'' Certainly there was a radical interventionist wing of the party, under Lloyd George, which fostered this 'welfare' legislation; but (as with Lloyd George's post WW1 housing programme) this was to prevent socialism by improving living standards for the poor, rather than to encourage socialism. Some individual liberal politicians moved 'left', but I maintain that there is a much stronger philosophical link between nineteenth century classical economic Liberalism and modern UK Conservatism, and indeed even between mid-C19 radicalism - most of whose exponents were enthusiastic individualists and anti-Socialists - and modern Conservatism. Anyway... thanks in any case for your considered response. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:01, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Religious Persecution ==

''In the 1600s in England, there was some of the worst religious persecution in the history of the world, as Protestants harshly persecuted each other and there was also continuous conflict between Protestants and Catholics. The conflict between Anglicans and Puritans in England was particularly severe, causing many Puritans to flee to New England.''

To class the examples you give as "some of the worst religious persecution in the history of the world" is completely alien to the facts. Conflict between Anglicans and Puritans was not 'particularly severe' by world standards, or even Englsish standards: no executions were involved, by contrast with the hundreds of Catholics killed in the Elizabethan and 17th century persecutions and scores of Protestants killed in the 16th century Marian persecution). Contrast that with the Holocaust, with Tsarist antisemitic pogroms, with the butcheries of the Crusades, with the massacres perpetrated during the German Religious Wars, the French Wars of Religion, the Thirty Years War; the killings of Chinese Christians during the Boxer Rising - I could go on and on. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 12:52, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Corrections ==

*You simply eliminate Edward VI and Mary I as not being 'noteworthy'. They may have had relatively short reigns but they were important nonetheless.
*To say Elizabeth I is the most popular would need some sort of reliable survey to back it up, and to clarify whether that is from a contemporary perspective or not.
*As it stands the wording suggest she was formally excommunicated before 1559, in fact this took place afterwards in 1570.
*You completely omit the Gunpowder Plot, probably the defining event of James' reign, which is still commemorated to this day.
*Charles I did accept the Petition of Right, though he never intended to abide by it.
*You label the first civil war as purely religious. This was not the case. Yes Cromwell was a Puritan but to say all Parliamentarians were is incorrect. Although there was a split along religious lines the names used for either side, Royalists and Parliamentarians tells the story much better.
*The 'remainder' of William Prynne's ears were not removed but were branded with SL for 'seditious libeller'.
*You jump straight from describing the power wielded by certain Puritans to saying that this caused them to emigrate, though this makes no sense.
*Although Cromwell was essentially a dictator it should be noted that he refused the offer of Kingship.
*The US was not the only example of a revolution that did not lead to dictatorship. Venustiano Carranza became president of Mexico after overthrowing a dictator but did not become one himself. There are of course also many non-violent revolutions that did not lead to dictatorships, especially in recent decades.
*Charles II did not immediately take over after Cromwell's death.
*The Labour Party did NOT form from the Whigs. The Whigs developed into the Liberal party (even then not a straightforward matter), which has under gone many changes to become the Liberal Democrats today, the 3rd largest party. The Labour Party was not created until the early 20th century.
*You fail to mention the Battle of the Boyne. This was a hugely significant battle between Protestant and Catholic and has ramifications to this day. It was also the last battle in which two English kings faced each other.
*Your statement regarding the French revolution ''"ended up with nearly everyone being executed by the guillotine"'' is an overstatement to say the very least!
*You criticise the arbitrary nature of some of the French declarations, but most such statements are arbitrary. The phrase 'pursuit of happiness' is extremely vague for instance.
*I think you are mistaken in attributing any significant credit to Adam Smith for economic expansion as part of the industrial revolution. He was really more of an observer of it such that his ideas were significant later on.
*The vast majority of the cotton for Britain came from its colonies, not America, with the USA being independent by pretty much the start of the industrial revolution. Britain was also engaged in hostilities with the US for some time and so significant trade of cotton was unlikely between them.
*I think your claim that Britain tried to hide the secrets of the Industrial revolution is woefully inaccurate. This portrays it as if the revolution was a single event that was tightly controlled by single group, which of course it was not.
*You suggest the industrial revolution was simply built on the use of iron for example, neglecting the fact that revolutions in the extraction of iron for instance were part of the revolution.
*James Watt did not invent the steam engine (a common misconception), he simply improved it.
*You get into a discussion on the agrarian revolution after discussing the industrial revolution, which is odd given how they occurred the other way around.
*You characterise enclosure as simply the buying up of land. In fact much of it was simply the pre-existing owners enclosing their land. Certainly much buying and selling then occurred but this was not the defining feature of enclosure.
*Again when referring to Spain and Austria-Hungary you put far too great an emphasis on the role of Adam Smith and simply dismiss the consensus amongst historians in favour of said mistake.
*This sentence ''"If you are a businessman or investor, then you love the industrial revolution because it enables you to make money without being a farmer, and gives you access to all sorts of goods and products that might not otherwise be available, such as computers"'' seems to be mixed up in its temporal context.

I hope this has been of use. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 23:12, 25 February 2009 (EST)

== The Virgin Queen? ==

Is it worth mentioning Elizabeth I's reputation as "The Virgin Queen"? I know historians debate how true that was, but its why one of the colonies that caused Great Britain so much trouble later on is called ''Virgin''ia. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 10:34, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

== Revolution versus Civil War? ==

Might it be worth differentiating between revolutions and civil wars, since both are covered here?

My personal definition is that its a civil war until the rebels win, then the victors get to call it a revolution, but I'm little more than an amateur historian with specific interests (mostly American history, from the <s>Late Unpleasantness</s> Civil War on.) [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 10:38, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Talk:World History Lecture Nine

2009-03-25T14:34:15Z

ArthurA: /* The Virgin Queen? */ new section

Star Trek franchise

2009-03-25T14:19:58Z

ArthurA: /* Relationship Views */

''This article is an overview of all the Star Trek productions. For the original television series, see [[Star Trek (original series)]]''
[[Image:startrektoscast.jpg|thumb|right|The crew of the Enterprise from the original 1960s show.]]
'''Star Trek''' is a number of [[television]] series and [[movie]]s set in the future when mankind is exploring the [[galaxy]] in [[spaceship]]s and joining with other [[sentience|sentient]] inhabitants of the galaxy.

''Star Trek'' began with a television series produced by [[Gene Roddenberry]] in 1966, and was followed by several other series and movies until the present time.
''Star Trek'' has a large following among [[science fiction]] fans, with [[book]]s, [[magazine]]s, [[website]]s, and [[convention]]s devoted to the imaginary universe.

== The series ==

{| class="wikitable" style="float:right"
|-
! Series name || Original air dates || Number of episodes
|-
| [[Star Trek (original series)|Star Trek: The Original Series (TOS)]] || 1966-1969 || style="text-align:right" | 80  
|-
| Star Trek: The Animated Series (TAS) || 1973-1974 || style="text-align:right" | 22  
|-
| Star Trek: The Next Generation (TNG) || 1987-1994 || style="text-align:right" | 178  
|-
| Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (DS9) || 1993-1999 || style="text-align:right" | 176  
|-
| Star Trek: Voyager (VOY) || 1995-2001 || style="text-align:right" | 172  
|-
| Star Trek: Enterprise (ENT) || 2001-2005 || style="text-align:right" | 98  
|}

Five live-action series have been made, plus one animated series.

=== The original series ===
{{main|Star Trek (original series)}}

The [[Star Trek (original series)|original series]] has the mostly-[[human]] crew of the ''U.S.S. Enterprise'' exploring the galaxy and performing various missions for ''Starfleet'', the authority which controls the ship.
These missions may be diplomatic or defensive, particularly in connection with the hostile races, the [[Extraterrestrial life in Star Trek#Klingon|Klingon]]s and the [[Extraterrestrial life in Star Trek#Romulan|Romulan]]s.

=== The Next Generation ===
''The Next Generation'' followed the theme of the original series, but set some years later with a new crew and a new ship, also named the ''U.S.S. Enterprise''.
By this time, the Klingons were at peace with the Federation, and the crew included a Klingon security officer, as well as various other non-human races.
Also on the crew was ''Data'', an android.

A major foe introduced with this series was the [[Borg]], a "collective" of [[drone]]s, beings from various races who were "assimilated" into the collective.
When encountering another spaceship, the Borg would often introduce themselves with the statement "''"We are the Borg. Lower your shields. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. Resistance is futile!''". The "resistance is futile" phrase has since entered popular culture.

=== Deep Space Nine ===
Unlike each of the other series, ''Deep Space Nine'' was set on a space station near the planet Bajor, around the time that the ''Next Generation'' series finished.
The station, originally built by the Cardassians, was administered by Starfleet and with a mixed Starfleet and Bajoran workforce.

The space station protected the only known stable [[wormhole]] through which ships could pass to another part of the galaxy.
One of the characters on the space station was a "shape-shifter", a being that could assume any form.

=== Voyager ===
''Voyager'' was the name of a Starfleet ship that became trapped in another part of the galaxy, and the series revolved around the crew's attempts to return home, encountering many new races along the way.
The series was set around the same time as ''Deep Space 9''.

The part of the galaxy ''Voyager'' was trapped in was also the part of the galaxy from which the Borg originated, and the Borg is an enemy they encounter numerous times.
Additionally, one of the characters who joins the series part way through is "Seven of Nine", a former Borg drone, originally human, who is successfully largely transformed back into a human, although retaining some of the Borg implants and struggling to adapt to human society, having been assimilated into the Borg at a young age.

=== Enterprise ===
''Enterprise'' is set prior to any other series, at the time when humans are first starting to travel well beyond Earth, and develop much of the technology that would be common-place in series set later.
The mostly-human crew travel in a ship also named ''Enterprise''

== The movies ==

Ten Star Trek movies have been produced, with an eleventh due out in May 2009.

The first six follow on from the original television series.
The seventh (''Generations'') was made after ''The Next Generation'' series, but includes a "crossover" from the original series.
The eighth to tenth movies follow on from ''The Next Generation'' series.
The eleventh movie is a prequel to the original series.

{| class="wikitable"
!Movie Name || Year of Release || MPAA Rating
|-
|Star Trek: The Motion Picture || 1979 || PG
|-
|Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan || 1982 || PG
|-
|Star Trek III: The Search for Spock || 1984 || PG
|-
|Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home || 1986 || PG
|-
|Star Trek V: The Final Frontier || 1989 || PG
|-
|Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country || 1991 || PG
|-
|Star Trek: Generations || 1994 || PG
|-
|Star Trek: First Contact || 1996 || PG-13
|-
|Star Trek: Insurrection || 1998 || PG
|-
|Star Trek: Nemesis || 2002 || PG-13
|-
|Star Trek || 2009 || N/A
|}

== Extraterrestrial life ==
{{main|Extraterrestrial life in Star Trek}}

The drama of the shows typically arises from the crew's contact with various forms of [[extraterrestrial life]], mostly, but not always, [[humanoid]] (e.g. the "Crystalline Entity"). In various ways, the [[premise]] of the [[ancient astronaut theory]] is used to assert the seeding of [[life]] throughout the [[galaxy]] as brought up in ''The Next Generation'', although not to the overt extent of a later, unrelated, TV series, [[Stargate SG-1]].

== Religion in Star Trek ==
As a [[humanist]], Gene Roddenberry infused Star Trek with humanism's dream of a world (or galaxy in this case) where humanity (and many other intelligent beings) were constantly improving the life quality of all beings both through improving technology and improving societal conditions.
People worked together for the common good, rather than for money, and without any class or other distinctions.
This is a small part of what is expected in the Christian view of [[heaven]], except that humanism believes that mankind can achieve this through its own efforts, rather than with the help of God.

Roddenberry rarely had the shows overtly reject religion, although some episodes would make reference to it as a part of culture. For instance in an episode with a man who could not die, it was noted that in one of his personas in Earth history he had been [[Lazarus]] (who [[Jesus]] raised from the dead). In another episode a world where the [[Roman Empire]] never fell was now chasing down followers of "the son" (which the crew mistook to be "sun") and their message of peace and love instead of violence and oppression.

Later series, under the control of other producers particularly after Roddenberry died, also brought religious concepts into the show, but seldom with the same direct references to Christianity, but rather to more generic religious thought.

=== The Next Generation ===

An episode of ''Star Trek: The Next Generation'' has one major example of anti-religion bias. The third-season episode entitled "Who Watches the Watchers," implies that an alien culture discarding religious beliefs is a positive development.
In the episode "Tapestry", Captain Picard dies and goes to the "afterlife" where he meets his erstwhile adversary "Q" who implies that he is God. Picard refuses to believe this, and makes a comment that "The Universe is not so badly run." This suggests that Picard was aware of the concept of God, but does not indicate that he believed in God. That phrase might be pointed more toward the character of Q controlling the universe than God's existence. However the majority of episodes remain silent on religion. In another episode where the ship is trapped and an alien will perform experiments that will kill up to half the crew, Picard discusses with 'Data' (actually the alien in disguise) what happens after one dies and says some believe in a god who keeps them in their present form forever and others believe that this is all there is. When questioned further, he says that he finds the universe is too orderly to believe that this is all there is and thinks that we will go on existing in a reality that we can not currently comprehend.<ref>Episode [http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Where_Silence_Has_Lease Where Silence has Lease] on Memory-Alpha.</ref><ref>[http://tng.trekcore.com/episodes/scripts/128.txt Episode Script]</ref>

=== Bajoran religion ===

''Star Trek: Deep Space 9'' included religion more than any other series. An overarching theme of the series was the relation of the main character, Captain Benjamin Sisko, to the Bajoran religion in his role as the emissary to the Bajoran prophets. The prophets were beings who lived in a stable wormhole (a unique phenomenon in the Star Trek universe referred to by the Bajorans as the Celestial Temple) that perceived all of time as a single event with no concept of past, present, or future. Despite their immense dissimilarity to other races in the galaxy, the Prophets took unusual interest in Bajor, sending 'orbs' which were used as tools of prophecy by the Bajoran clergy, and in Sisko who it is revealed exists solely to fulfill a predetermined historical path in an Armageddon-like showdown as the avatar of the prophets against the 'Pah Wraiths' (aliens like the Prophets who were expelled from the Celestial Temple).

=== Other religions ===

''Star Trek: Deep Space 9'' also had the Dominion, in which the Founders (shape-shifting aliens sometimes called changelings) are treated as living gods by the races under their control.

The Klingon religion in various series suggests that the first Klingons realized they had no need for their gods, and killed them, although they still hold to an afterlife where the honorable dead join with the deified Kahless and the dishonorable dead are forced to spend eternity on the Barge of the Dead with the demon-like figure Fecklarr.

The Ferengi (mainly in ''Star Trek: Deep Space 9'') had a religion of sorts based on the concept of The Great River (as shown in "Faith, Treachery and The Great River"), which was similar to "[[The invisible hand]]" a phrase coined by [[Adam Smith]]. Ferengi also hold that if they achieve enough profit during their lives, they will meet the Blessed Exchequer who will grant them access to the Divine Treasury, whereas an unsuccessful Ferengi may find himself left in the Vault of Eternal Destitution.

== Relationship Views ==

In addition to his views on religion, Gene Roddenberry had views on relationships which were considered controversial at the time the Original Series was on air, and even today. In fact, a historic event—the first interracial kiss on network television—was between Lieutenant Uhura ([[Nichelle Nichols]]) and Captain Kirk ([[William Shatner]]).<ref>''Plato's Stepchildren'', originally aired Nov. 22, 1968</ref> (Note that it was portrayed as something the characters were psychically compelled to do; it was not a willing kiss between romantic partners.)

Gene Roddenberry was also supportive of same-sex relationships, and wanted to integrate homosexual characters into his second series, ''Star Trek: The Next Generation'', reasoning that by the 24th century "no one would care." However, this proposal was met with resistance by [[Paramount Studios]] who reasoned that because the show would eventually be syndicated, it would be accessible to young children for whom such material would be extremely inappropriate.

Despite the absence of major homosexual characters, several storylines have indirectly depicted homosexual and other relationships in a positive, or at the very least ambiguous light. For example, in ''Star Trek: The Next Generation'', Commander William Riker (presumed heterosexual from a previous relationship with Deanna Troi) falls in love with an individual from an androgynous race.<ref>''The Outcast'', originally aired Mar. 16, 1992.</ref>
In ''Star Trek: DS9'', Lieutenant Commander Jadzia Dax (a [[Trill]], a being comprising a humanoid host of a member of another, asexual, species) briefly resumes a relationship with a wife from a previous lifetime (a male host of the same symbiont), and they are shown kissing on screen.<ref>''Rejoined'', originally aired Oct. 30, 1995.</ref>

== Institutions ==

The ''United Federation of Planets'' is the multi-world government based on [[Earth]], and under which auspices Starfleet operates.

''Starfleet'' is the exploratory and defensive organisation which operates the various starships.

The ''Academy'' is where Starfleet officers and crew are trained.

== Technology ==
The universe of Star Trek has an array of advanced technology, some of which has foreshadowed real developments.
This technology includes computer speech recognition, atom-level fabrication, massive energy production, and faster-than-light travel.

All Starfleet members from the time of ''The Next Generation'' on wear broach-size devices on their uniforms which allow instant two-way communication between crew-members or between the crew-member and the ship's computer.

The ''transporters'', being developed at the time of ''Enterprise'', disassemble and reassemble inanimate and animate things, including people, allowing them to be transported over moderate distances. For example, transporters are frequently used to send people from a spaceship in orbit to the surface of a planet and return.

''Replicators'', introduced in ''The Next Generation'' use similar technology to fabricate inanimate objects from a molecular or atomic level. This includes spare parts for the ships. Specialised ''food replicators'' can fabricate a wide variety of food, which is suitable for everyday use, but can on occasions not be quite as good as the real thing.

''Holodecks'' and ''holosuites'' (the latter on Deep Space Nine) are rooms containing ''holoprojectors'' that project holographic images with solidity, allowing people to interact with the images. A computer controls the images, which includes holographic people who appear just like real people.
The ''Voyager'' series introduced an "emergency medical hologram", a holographic doctor which could be activated in the case of an emergency.
In this case, the ship's real doctor was killed, and the holographic doctor was a regular character, with enhanced abilities including being able to activate and deactivate himself.
He also managed to acquire a portable holographic projector that he could wear, allowing him to leave the confines of the ship's sick bay and its fixed holographic projectors.

''Phasers'' are the classic "ray gun", emitting a beam that, depending on the setting, was capable of stunning or killing the person on the receiving end.

''Tricorders'' were hand-held devices combining the functions of a computer, communicator, and laboratory for sensing and testing objects.
Specialised ''medical tricorders'' were also used by medical officers.

''Warp drives'' allow spaceships to travel vast distances by creating a sub-space 'bubble' around the ship, allowing faster-than-light travel, a necessity when travelling around the galaxy as part of a day's work.

== The Prime Directive ==
Starfleet had The Prime Directive which said that they should not interfere with the natural progression of a species. The directive sometimes clashed with morality or common sense and on many occasions was ignored by Starfleet officers. There was also a Temporal Prime Directive which said that when going into the past (by various means) they should not try to alter the course of history. When someone from Starfleet (or elsewhere) violated the directive officers were justified in working to stop them as long as they did not violate the directive themselves.

== Star Trek in culture ==

[[image:284699main image 1204 946-710.jpg|300px|thumb|Gene Roddenberry and original series cast members at the launch of the space shuttle ''Enterprise''.]]
Various concepts from Star Trek have entered popular culture, including the following:
* The [[Extraterrestrial life in Star Trek#Vulcan|Vulcan]] greeting, ''Live long and prosper''.
* The [[Borg]] warning that ''resistance is futile''.
* The [[Klingon]] language has been developed as a complete artificial language.
* The first [[space shuttle]], ''Enterprise'', was named for the ship in [[Star Trek (original series)|the original series]].

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Television Shows]]
[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Science fiction]]
[[Category:Star Trek| ]]

Star Trek franchise

2009-03-25T14:17:55Z

ArthurA:

''This article is an overview of all the Star Trek productions. For the original television series, see [[Star Trek (original series)]]''
[[Image:startrektoscast.jpg|thumb|right|The crew of the Enterprise from the original 1960s show.]]
'''Star Trek''' is a number of [[television]] series and [[movie]]s set in the future when mankind is exploring the [[galaxy]] in [[spaceship]]s and joining with other [[sentience|sentient]] inhabitants of the galaxy.

''Star Trek'' began with a television series produced by [[Gene Roddenberry]] in 1966, and was followed by several other series and movies until the present time.
''Star Trek'' has a large following among [[science fiction]] fans, with [[book]]s, [[magazine]]s, [[website]]s, and [[convention]]s devoted to the imaginary universe.

== The series ==

{| class="wikitable" style="float:right"
|-
! Series name || Original air dates || Number of episodes
|-
| [[Star Trek (original series)|Star Trek: The Original Series (TOS)]] || 1966-1969 || style="text-align:right" | 80  
|-
| Star Trek: The Animated Series (TAS) || 1973-1974 || style="text-align:right" | 22  
|-
| Star Trek: The Next Generation (TNG) || 1987-1994 || style="text-align:right" | 178  
|-
| Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (DS9) || 1993-1999 || style="text-align:right" | 176  
|-
| Star Trek: Voyager (VOY) || 1995-2001 || style="text-align:right" | 172  
|-
| Star Trek: Enterprise (ENT) || 2001-2005 || style="text-align:right" | 98  
|}

Five live-action series have been made, plus one animated series.

=== The original series ===
{{main|Star Trek (original series)}}

The [[Star Trek (original series)|original series]] has the mostly-[[human]] crew of the ''U.S.S. Enterprise'' exploring the galaxy and performing various missions for ''Starfleet'', the authority which controls the ship.
These missions may be diplomatic or defensive, particularly in connection with the hostile races, the [[Extraterrestrial life in Star Trek#Klingon|Klingon]]s and the [[Extraterrestrial life in Star Trek#Romulan|Romulan]]s.

=== The Next Generation ===
''The Next Generation'' followed the theme of the original series, but set some years later with a new crew and a new ship, also named the ''U.S.S. Enterprise''.
By this time, the Klingons were at peace with the Federation, and the crew included a Klingon security officer, as well as various other non-human races.
Also on the crew was ''Data'', an android.

A major foe introduced with this series was the [[Borg]], a "collective" of [[drone]]s, beings from various races who were "assimilated" into the collective.
When encountering another spaceship, the Borg would often introduce themselves with the statement "''"We are the Borg. Lower your shields. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. Resistance is futile!''". The "resistance is futile" phrase has since entered popular culture.

=== Deep Space Nine ===
Unlike each of the other series, ''Deep Space Nine'' was set on a space station near the planet Bajor, around the time that the ''Next Generation'' series finished.
The station, originally built by the Cardassians, was administered by Starfleet and with a mixed Starfleet and Bajoran workforce.

The space station protected the only known stable [[wormhole]] through which ships could pass to another part of the galaxy.
One of the characters on the space station was a "shape-shifter", a being that could assume any form.

=== Voyager ===
''Voyager'' was the name of a Starfleet ship that became trapped in another part of the galaxy, and the series revolved around the crew's attempts to return home, encountering many new races along the way.
The series was set around the same time as ''Deep Space 9''.

The part of the galaxy ''Voyager'' was trapped in was also the part of the galaxy from which the Borg originated, and the Borg is an enemy they encounter numerous times.
Additionally, one of the characters who joins the series part way through is "Seven of Nine", a former Borg drone, originally human, who is successfully largely transformed back into a human, although retaining some of the Borg implants and struggling to adapt to human society, having been assimilated into the Borg at a young age.

=== Enterprise ===
''Enterprise'' is set prior to any other series, at the time when humans are first starting to travel well beyond Earth, and develop much of the technology that would be common-place in series set later.
The mostly-human crew travel in a ship also named ''Enterprise''

== The movies ==

Ten Star Trek movies have been produced, with an eleventh due out in May 2009.

The first six follow on from the original television series.
The seventh (''Generations'') was made after ''The Next Generation'' series, but includes a "crossover" from the original series.
The eighth to tenth movies follow on from ''The Next Generation'' series.
The eleventh movie is a prequel to the original series.

{| class="wikitable"
!Movie Name || Year of Release || MPAA Rating
|-
|Star Trek: The Motion Picture || 1979 || PG
|-
|Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan || 1982 || PG
|-
|Star Trek III: The Search for Spock || 1984 || PG
|-
|Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home || 1986 || PG
|-
|Star Trek V: The Final Frontier || 1989 || PG
|-
|Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country || 1991 || PG
|-
|Star Trek: Generations || 1994 || PG
|-
|Star Trek: First Contact || 1996 || PG-13
|-
|Star Trek: Insurrection || 1998 || PG
|-
|Star Trek: Nemesis || 2002 || PG-13
|-
|Star Trek || 2009 || N/A
|}

== Extraterrestrial life ==
{{main|Extraterrestrial life in Star Trek}}

The drama of the shows typically arises from the crew's contact with various forms of [[extraterrestrial life]], mostly, but not always, [[humanoid]] (e.g. the "Crystalline Entity"). In various ways, the [[premise]] of the [[ancient astronaut theory]] is used to assert the seeding of [[life]] throughout the [[galaxy]] as brought up in ''The Next Generation'', although not to the overt extent of a later, unrelated, TV series, [[Stargate SG-1]].

== Religion in Star Trek ==
As a [[humanist]], Gene Roddenberry infused Star Trek with humanism's dream of a world (or galaxy in this case) where humanity (and many other intelligent beings) were constantly improving the life quality of all beings both through improving technology and improving societal conditions.
People worked together for the common good, rather than for money, and without any class or other distinctions.
This is a small part of what is expected in the Christian view of [[heaven]], except that humanism believes that mankind can achieve this through its own efforts, rather than with the help of God.

Roddenberry rarely had the shows overtly reject religion, although some episodes would make reference to it as a part of culture. For instance in an episode with a man who could not die, it was noted that in one of his personas in Earth history he had been [[Lazarus]] (who [[Jesus]] raised from the dead). In another episode a world where the [[Roman Empire]] never fell was now chasing down followers of "the son" (which the crew mistook to be "sun") and their message of peace and love instead of violence and oppression.

Later series, under the control of other producers particularly after Roddenberry died, also brought religious concepts into the show, but seldom with the same direct references to Christianity, but rather to more generic religious thought.

=== The Next Generation ===

An episode of ''Star Trek: The Next Generation'' has one major example of anti-religion bias. The third-season episode entitled "Who Watches the Watchers," implies that an alien culture discarding religious beliefs is a positive development.
In the episode "Tapestry", Captain Picard dies and goes to the "afterlife" where he meets his erstwhile adversary "Q" who implies that he is God. Picard refuses to believe this, and makes a comment that "The Universe is not so badly run." This suggests that Picard was aware of the concept of God, but does not indicate that he believed in God. That phrase might be pointed more toward the character of Q controlling the universe than God's existence. However the majority of episodes remain silent on religion. In another episode where the ship is trapped and an alien will perform experiments that will kill up to half the crew, Picard discusses with 'Data' (actually the alien in disguise) what happens after one dies and says some believe in a god who keeps them in their present form forever and others believe that this is all there is. When questioned further, he says that he finds the universe is too orderly to believe that this is all there is and thinks that we will go on existing in a reality that we can not currently comprehend.<ref>Episode [http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Where_Silence_Has_Lease Where Silence has Lease] on Memory-Alpha.</ref><ref>[http://tng.trekcore.com/episodes/scripts/128.txt Episode Script]</ref>

=== Bajoran religion ===

''Star Trek: Deep Space 9'' included religion more than any other series. An overarching theme of the series was the relation of the main character, Captain Benjamin Sisko, to the Bajoran religion in his role as the emissary to the Bajoran prophets. The prophets were beings who lived in a stable wormhole (a unique phenomenon in the Star Trek universe referred to by the Bajorans as the Celestial Temple) that perceived all of time as a single event with no concept of past, present, or future. Despite their immense dissimilarity to other races in the galaxy, the Prophets took unusual interest in Bajor, sending 'orbs' which were used as tools of prophecy by the Bajoran clergy, and in Sisko who it is revealed exists solely to fulfill a predetermined historical path in an Armageddon-like showdown as the avatar of the prophets against the 'Pah Wraiths' (aliens like the Prophets who were expelled from the Celestial Temple).

=== Other religions ===

''Star Trek: Deep Space 9'' also had the Dominion, in which the Founders (shape-shifting aliens sometimes called changelings) are treated as living gods by the races under their control.

The Klingon religion in various series suggests that the first Klingons realized they had no need for their gods, and killed them, although they still hold to an afterlife where the honorable dead join with the deified Kahless and the dishonorable dead are forced to spend eternity on the Barge of the Dead with the demon-like figure Fecklarr.

The Ferengi (mainly in ''Star Trek: Deep Space 9'') had a religion of sorts based on the concept of The Great River (as shown in "Faith, Treachery and The Great River"), which was similar to "[[The invisible hand]]" a phrase coined by [[Adam Smith]]. Ferengi also hold that if they achieve enough profit during their lives, they will meet the Blessed Exchequer who will grant them access to the Divine Treasury, whereas an unsuccessful Ferengi may find himself left in the Vault of Eternal Destitution.

== Relationship Views ==

In addition to his views on religion, Gene Roddenberry had views on relationships which were considered controversial at the time the Original Series was on air, and even today. In fact, a historic event—the first interracial kiss on network television—was between Uhura ([[Nichelle Nichols]]) and Captain Kirk ([[William Shatner]]).<ref>''Plato's Stepchildren'', originally aired Nov. 22, 1968</ref> (Note that it was portrayed as something the characters were psychically compelled to do; it was not a willing kiss between romantic partners.)

Gene Roddenberry was also supportive of same-sex relationships, and wanted to integrate homosexual characters into his second series, ''Star Trek: The Next Generation'', reasoning that by the 24th century "no one would care." However, this proposal was met with resistance by [[Paramount Studios]] who reasoned that because the show would eventually be syndicated, it would be accessible to young children for whom such material would be extremely inappropriate.

Despite the absence of major homosexual characters, several storylines have indirectly depicted homosexual and other relationships in a positive, or at the very least ambiguous light. For example, in ''Star Trek: The Next Generation'', Commander William Riker (presumed heterosexual from a previous relationship with Deanna Troi) falls in love with an individual from an androgynous race.<ref>''The Outcast'', originally aired Mar. 16, 1992.</ref>
In ''Star Trek: DS9'', Lieutenant Commander Jadzia Dax (a [[Trill]], a being comprising a humanoid host of a member of another, asexual, species) briefly resumes a relationship with a wife from a previous lifetime (a male host of the same symbiont), and they are shown kissing on screen.<ref>''Rejoined'', originally aired Oct. 30, 1995.</ref>

== Institutions ==

The ''United Federation of Planets'' is the multi-world government based on [[Earth]], and under which auspices Starfleet operates.

''Starfleet'' is the exploratory and defensive organisation which operates the various starships.

The ''Academy'' is where Starfleet officers and crew are trained.

== Technology ==
The universe of Star Trek has an array of advanced technology, some of which has foreshadowed real developments.
This technology includes computer speech recognition, atom-level fabrication, massive energy production, and faster-than-light travel.

All Starfleet members from the time of ''The Next Generation'' on wear broach-size devices on their uniforms which allow instant two-way communication between crew-members or between the crew-member and the ship's computer.

The ''transporters'', being developed at the time of ''Enterprise'', disassemble and reassemble inanimate and animate things, including people, allowing them to be transported over moderate distances. For example, transporters are frequently used to send people from a spaceship in orbit to the surface of a planet and return.

''Replicators'', introduced in ''The Next Generation'' use similar technology to fabricate inanimate objects from a molecular or atomic level. This includes spare parts for the ships. Specialised ''food replicators'' can fabricate a wide variety of food, which is suitable for everyday use, but can on occasions not be quite as good as the real thing.

''Holodecks'' and ''holosuites'' (the latter on Deep Space Nine) are rooms containing ''holoprojectors'' that project holographic images with solidity, allowing people to interact with the images. A computer controls the images, which includes holographic people who appear just like real people.
The ''Voyager'' series introduced an "emergency medical hologram", a holographic doctor which could be activated in the case of an emergency.
In this case, the ship's real doctor was killed, and the holographic doctor was a regular character, with enhanced abilities including being able to activate and deactivate himself.
He also managed to acquire a portable holographic projector that he could wear, allowing him to leave the confines of the ship's sick bay and its fixed holographic projectors.

''Phasers'' are the classic "ray gun", emitting a beam that, depending on the setting, was capable of stunning or killing the person on the receiving end.

''Tricorders'' were hand-held devices combining the functions of a computer, communicator, and laboratory for sensing and testing objects.
Specialised ''medical tricorders'' were also used by medical officers.

''Warp drives'' allow spaceships to travel vast distances by creating a sub-space 'bubble' around the ship, allowing faster-than-light travel, a necessity when travelling around the galaxy as part of a day's work.

== The Prime Directive ==
Starfleet had The Prime Directive which said that they should not interfere with the natural progression of a species. The directive sometimes clashed with morality or common sense and on many occasions was ignored by Starfleet officers. There was also a Temporal Prime Directive which said that when going into the past (by various means) they should not try to alter the course of history. When someone from Starfleet (or elsewhere) violated the directive officers were justified in working to stop them as long as they did not violate the directive themselves.

== Star Trek in culture ==

[[image:284699main image 1204 946-710.jpg|300px|thumb|Gene Roddenberry and original series cast members at the launch of the space shuttle ''Enterprise''.]]
Various concepts from Star Trek have entered popular culture, including the following:
* The [[Extraterrestrial life in Star Trek#Vulcan|Vulcan]] greeting, ''Live long and prosper''.
* The [[Borg]] warning that ''resistance is futile''.
* The [[Klingon]] language has been developed as a complete artificial language.
* The first [[space shuttle]], ''Enterprise'', was named for the ship in [[Star Trek (original series)|the original series]].

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Television Shows]]
[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Science fiction]]
[[Category:Star Trek| ]]

Methodism

2009-03-25T13:33:27Z

ArthurA: /* Colleges and Universities with Methodist Affiliation */ added Kentucky's Union College -- hey, my sister and her husband and alumni, so this is familial pride

'''Methodism''' is a [[Christian]] denomination partly based on the teachings of [[John Wesley]]. When Wesley was at [[Oxford University]], he founded a group of Christian students dedicated to prayer and a methodical discipline. Others made fun of them calling them "Methodists."

In the United States there are several major Methodists bodies:
* The [[United Methodist Church]]
* [[Methodist Episcopal Church, South]] since 1939 part of the United Methodist Church)
* The [[Free Methodist Church]]
* The African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME)
* The [[Christian Methodist Church]]
* The African Methodist Episcopal Church, Zion

All Methodist groups have the "connectional" form of government. They have [[bishop]]s, annual conferences and general conferences. The annual conference, presided by a bishop, is divided in districts presided by superintendents.

The bishop together with the superintendents appoint the local ministers.

John Wesley, the founder was a minister of the [[Church of England]] (Anglican) who on May 22, 1739 had a conversion experience, while listening to the reading of [[Luther]]'s commentary to the Letter to the Romans. He preached the gospel in England over 40 years after his conversion, and tens of thousands joined his lay groups. They remained in the Church of England until after Wesley's death.

In the United States, with John Wesley's permission and support, the Methodists organized themselves as a separate denomination in December, 1784. Held in Baltimore, the Christmas Conference saw the ordination of pastors and the election of Francis Asbury as Superintendent, or bishop, of the newly formed Methodist Episcopal Church.

== Beliefs ==

Methodists are [[Protestants]] and believe the [[Bible]] to be a form of revelation along with reason, church tradition, and personal experience. This fourfold act of revelation is referred to as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. They are [[Arminianism|Arminian]] in doctrine, but unlike Arminian [[Baptists]], Methodists baptize infants. Methodists are also characterized by their belief in [[Christian Perfection]], the doctrine that teaches that a person, in his earthly life, can reach a state where he is able not to sin. Like [[Pentecostalism|Pentecostals]], Methodists also emphasize the importance of revival in the church.

== Colleges and Universities with Methodist Affiliation ==
* Northwestern University (Illinois)
* Ohio Wesleyan (Ohio)
* Baldwin Wallace (Ohio)
* Otterbein (Ohio)
* Defiance (Ohio)
* Kenyon College (Ohio)
* Ohio Northern (Ohio)
* Southern Methodist University (Texas)
* Hendrix College (Arkansas)
* Albion College (Michigan)
* Boston University (formerly)
* Union College (Kentucky)

==Bibliography==
===Britain and world===
* Dowson, Jean and Hutchinson, John ''John Wesley: His Life, Times and Legacy'' [CD-ROM], (2003) Methodist Publishing House, TB214
* Dreyer, Frederick. ''The Genesis of Methodism'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/read/111876331?title=The%20Genesis%20of%20Methodism online edition]
* Harmon, Nolan B., ed. ''The Encyclopedia of World Methodism'', (1974) ISBN 0-687-11784-4.
* Heitzenrater, Richard P. ''Wesley and the People Called Methodists'', (1994)
* Hempton, David. ''Methodism: Empire of the Spirit'', (2005) ISBN 0-300-10614-9, major new interpretive history
* Hempton, David. ''Methodism and Politics in British Society, 1750-1850'', (1984), ISBN 0-80471-269-7
* Kent, John, ''Wesley and the Wesleyans'', (2002) ISBN 0-521-45532-4

=== USA and Canada ===
* Cameron, Richard M., ed. ''Methodism and Society in Historical Perspective'', 4 vol., (1961)
* Lyerly, Cynthia Lynn. ''Methodism and the Southern Mind, 1770-1810'', (1998)
* Meyer, Donald. ''The Protestant Search for Political Realism, 1919-1941'', (1988) in ACLS e-books
* Rawlyk, G.A. ''The Canada Fire: Radical Evangelicalism in British North America, 1775-1812'' (1994)
* Schmidt, Jean Miller ''Grace Sufficient: A History of Women in American Methodism, 1760-1939'', (1999)
* Semple, Neil ''The Lord's Dominion: The History of Canadian Methodism'' (1996)
* Sweet, William Warren ''Methodism in American History'', (1954) 472 p.
* Wigger, John H. ''Taking Heaven by Storm: Methodism and the Rise of Popular Christianity in America'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Taking-Heaven-Storm-Methodism-Christianity/dp/0252069943/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228379123&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search] 269pp; focus on 1770-1910
* Wigger, John H.. and Nathan O. Hatch. ''Methodism and the Shaping of American Culture'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Methodism-Shaping-American-Culture-Wigger/dp/0687048540/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195465108&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]

=== African Americans ===
* Campbell, James T. ''Songs of Zion: The African Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States and South Africa''], (1995) [http://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.00589 ACLS e-book]; [http://www.questia.com/read/57035537?title=Songs%20of%20Zion%3a%20The%20African%20Methodist%20Episcopal%20Church%20in%20the%20United%20States%20and%20South%20Africa online at [[Questia]]]
* George, Carol V.R. ''Segregated Sabbaths: Richard Allen and the Rise of Independent Black Churches, 1760-1840'', (1973)
* Montgomery, William G. ''Under Their Own Vine and Fig Tree: The African-American Church in the South, 1865-1900'', (1993) * Walker, Clarence E. ''A Rock in a Weary Land: The African Methodist Episcopal Church During the Civil War and Reconstruction'', (1982)
* Wills, David W. and Newman, Richard, eds. ''Black Apostles at Home and Abroad: Afro-American and the Christian Mission from the Revolution to Reconstruction'', (1982)

=== Primary sources ===
* Richey, Russell E., Rowe, Kenneth E. and Schmidt, Jean Miller (eds.) ''The Methodist Experience in America: a sourcebook'', (2000) ISBN 0-687-24673-3 – 756 p. of original documents
* Sweet, W. W., ed. ''Religion on the American Frontier. Vol. IV, 1783-1840: The Methodists, A Collection of Source Materials'' (1964) [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0043-5597(194710)3:4:4%3C542:ROTAF1%3E2.0.CO;2-P online review] 800 pp. of documents regarding the American frontier

== See also ==
* [[United Methodist Church]]
* [[Methodist Episcopal Church, South]]. since 1939 part of the United Methodist Church)
* [[Free Methodist Church]]
* The [[Christian Methodist Church]]

[[Category:Methodism]]
[[Category:Christian Denominations]]
[[Category:Revivals]]

World Council of Churches

2009-03-25T13:31:37Z

ArthurA: cleaned up some wording

The '''World Council of Churches''' (WCC) is a world-wide fellowship of churches, linked by their cmomon faith in, and worship of, [[Jesus Christ]].

It combines at total of 349 different churches, representing some 550 million Christians. Included in the fellowship are most of the world’s [[Orthodox]] churches; the historic denominational traditional churches, such as the the [[Anglican]], [[Baptist]], [[Lutheran]], [[Methodist]] and [[Reformed]], as well as many united and independent churches.

The [[Roman Catholic|Roman Catholic Church]] is not a member, but does have a formal working relationship with the WCC. In addition, the WCC is building relations with various [[Evangelical]] and [[Pentecostal]] churches.

The WCC offers its members churches a forum to reflect, speak, act, worship and work together, challenge and support each other, share and debate with each other. As members of this fellowship, WCC member churches:
* are called to the goal of visible unity in one faith and one eucharistic fellowship;
* promote their common witness in work for mission and evangelism;
* engage in Christian service by serving human need, breaking down barriers between people, seeking justice and peace, and upholding the integrity of creation; and
* foster renewal in unity, worship, mission and service.

==Geographic split==
Member churches and their congregations are divided as follows:

*North America: 31 churches with 72,000,000 members
*Caribbean: 13 churches, with 2,600,000 members
*South America: 28 churches, with 4,500,000 members
*Europe: 81 churches, with 287,000,000 members
*Asia: 75 churches, with 62,600,000 members
*Pacific: 17 churches, with 2,000,000 members
*Middle East: 12 churches, with 9,700,000 members
*Africa: 92 churches, with 131,935,000 members

==History==
In 1937, church leaders agreed to establish a World Council of Churches, although the finalisation if the official organization was interrupted by the outbreak of the [[World War 2]]. It was not until 1948, that representatives of 147 churches finally met in [[Amsterdam]] to constitute the WCC.

The goal of the WCC was not to create a global "mega-church", nor to standardize worship, but rather to deepen the bond of fellowship between Christian churches and communities - in essence, a physical portrayal of the "one holy, catholic and apostolic church".

The current Secretary-general is Rev. Dr Samuel Kobia of the Methodist Church in Kenya, although he has announced he will not seek re-election.

==Achievements==

* New councils of churches and other ecumenical bodies in different countries and regions have created a genuinely worldwide ecumenical network of which the WCC is an integral part. The creation of this network has inspired its members to share an extraordinary number of resources of all kinds - theological, liturgical, spiritual, material and human.
* The Roman Catholic Church is a full member of many national ecumenical and several regional ecumenical organizations and has a regular working relationship with the WCC.
* Shared convictions on faith, life and witness are increasingly enriching theological reflection undertaken from strictly confessional perspectives. For example, theologians from different church traditions working together in the WCC's Faith and Order Commission produced a statement on baptism, eucharist and ministry that has led to new worship patterns within churches, and to a greater understanding and changed relationships between churches of different confessional traditions.
* During the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, Christians are drawn together into the prayer of our Lord that all may be one so that the world may believe. This Week, whose theme is developed each year by the Faith and Order Commission with the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, draws churches at the local level into deeper fellowship.
* Since its creation, the WCC has supported and inspired church participation in struggles for justice, peace and creation. One example is the highly-valued support given by the churches, through the WCC's Programme to Combat Racism, to the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. Support to efforts to bring about an end to the two decades-long civil conflict in Sudan, or to reunification of North and South Korea, or to the defence of human rights in Latin America during the decades of brutal military dictatorships in that region are three among many other examples.
* Recognition of the importance of inter-religious dialogue and relations with other faiths, as well as of the churches' responsibility for the integrity of creation, have been particular hallmarks of the ecumenical movement.

==External links==
*[http://www.oikoumene.org/en/home.html Home Page of the World Council of Churches]
*[http://www.oikoumene.org/en/member-churches/global-bodies-and-mission-communions/wcc.html#c23067 Alphabetical list of member churches]

[[category:Christian Organizations]]

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Novels

2009-03-25T12:55:24Z

ArthurA:

''Animal Farm'' is anti-Communist and ''1984'' is anti-totalitarian; this doesn't make them conservative. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:59, 14 January 2008 (EST)
:''Animal Farm'' is actually anti-Stalinist, but yeah. In fact, ''1984'' is quite liberal. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 12:12, 14 January 2008 (EST)
::The two books have many themes in common, including playing up an outside threat to seize or retain power. How is it that one's con and the other's lib?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 12:25, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
Ok, so this was in an edit, but not on this page, but I want to raise the issue anyway. How is The Moon is a Harsh Mistress not conservative? The statement of TANSTAAFL (There ain't no such thing as a free lunch) is best statement of the bedrock of conservatism I've ever heard.[[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 11:27, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

::: In fact, wasn't Orwell a socialist, disillusioned with what the USSR became, as opposed to what he hoped it would be? [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:55, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Ayn Rand's novels may have some conservative themes, but she was an outspoken atheist, and this is reflected in at least some of her work, especially ''Atlas Shrugged''.--[[User:Martib|Martib]] 23:01, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

: Right, her junk shouldn't be on this list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

: Oh, and as far as Rand goes, no list of "greatest novels" should include anything as utterly unreadable as ''Atlas Shrugged''! :-) [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:55, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

I was just wondering why Lord of the Rings was on the list. Certainly it has some themes that might be derived from Christianity since Tolkien was a devout Christian, but I fail to see how this or any other aspect sets it aside as distinctly 'conservative'. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 13:25, 25 February 2009 (EST)

: Listing ''The Moon is a Harsh Mistress'' as conservative is a stretch. I'd term it libertarian (almost hardcore libertarian, though not as much so as, say, Ayn Rand's works), not conservative. (We all know that libertarians do share a number of viewpoints with conservatives, but also differ on many key beliefs.) If you want to include a Heinlein novel, I'd suggest ''Starship Troopers''. It, like ''Moon'' is somewhat libertarian in its viewpoint, but not as much so, and ''Troopers'' is also unwaveringly pro-military, a good conservative value. Support for the military simply isn't a theme that's even addressed in ''Moon''. (For what its worth, I know several libertarian science fiction fans, including a few absolute raving libertarians, and they generally rank Heinlein up there with Rand as their favorite authors.)

: I agree with RobertWDP that ''Lord of the Rings'' doesn't belong on the list. Great books though they are, I don't think Tolkien had much if any political motivation in writing them. (In fact, as I understand it, his motivation was to create something he felt Great Britain lacked -- a "myth cycle" analogous to the mythology of Greece, Rome, the Norse, Egypt, etc.) And while Tolkien was a Christian, and there are Christian elements in the books, they're not as explicitly Christian as, for instance, CS Lewis' body of work, which is steeped in Christian allegory. If you want to include a work of fantasy, I'd suggest the ''Narnia'' books, though even those I'd find it a bit of a stretch to consider them especially reflective of ''conservative'' Christianity as opposed to Christianity in general. (Disclosure: I've read LotR numerous times. I've only read Narnia once, and that's been a while back.) [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:52, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Novels

2009-03-25T12:52:42Z

ArthurA:

''Animal Farm'' is anti-Communist and ''1984'' is anti-totalitarian; this doesn't make them conservative. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:59, 14 January 2008 (EST)
:''Animal Farm'' is actually anti-Stalinist, but yeah. In fact, ''1984'' is quite liberal. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 12:12, 14 January 2008 (EST)
::The two books have many themes in common, including playing up an outside threat to seize or retain power. How is it that one's con and the other's lib?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 12:25, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
Ok, so this was in an edit, but not on this page, but I want to raise the issue anyway. How is The Moon is a Harsh Mistress not conservative? The statement of TANSTAAFL (There ain't no such thing as a free lunch) is best statement of the bedrock of conservatism I've ever heard.[[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 11:27, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Ayn Rand's novels may have some conservative themes, but she was an outspoken atheist, and this is reflected in at least some of her work, especially ''Atlas Shrugged''.--[[User:Martib|Martib]] 23:01, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

: Right, her junk shouldn't be on this list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

I was just wondering why Lord of the Rings was on the list. Certainly it has some themes that might be derived from Christianity since Tolkien was a devout Christian, but I fail to see how this or any other aspect sets it aside as distinctly 'conservative'. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 13:25, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Listing ''The Moon is a Harsh Mistress'' as conservative is a stretch. I'd term it libertarian (almost hardcore libertarian, though not as much so as, say, Ayn Rand's works), not conservative. (We all know that libertarians do share a number of viewpoints with conservatives, but also differ on many key beliefs.) If you want to include a Heinlein novel, I'd suggest ''Starship Troopers''. It, like ''Moon'' is somewhat libertarian in its viewpoint, but not as much so, and ''Troopers'' is also unwaveringly pro-military, a good conservative value. Support for the military simply isn't a theme that's even addressed in ''Moon''. (For what its worth, I know several libertarian science fiction fans, including a few absolute raving libertarians, and they generally rank Heinlein up there with Rand as their favorite authors.)

I agree with RobertWDP that ''Lord of the Rings'' doesn't belong on the list. Great books though they are, I don't think Tolkien had much if any political motivation in writing them. (In fact, as I understand it, his motivation was to create something he felt Great Britain lacked -- a "myth cycle" analogous to the mythology of Greece, Rome, the Norse, Egypt, etc.) And while Tolkien was a Christian, and there are Christian elements in the books, they're not as explicitly Christian as, for instance, CS Lewis' body of work, which is steeped in Christian allegory. If you want to include a work of fantasy, I'd suggest the ''Narnia'' books, though even those I'd find it a bit of a stretch to consider them especially reflective of ''conservative'' Christianity as opposed to Christianity in general. (Disclosure: I've read LotR numerous times. I've only read Narnia once, and that's been a while back.) [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:52, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Fairness Doctrine

2009-03-24T12:30:27Z

ArthurA: /* Opposition to mandated fairness */ even liberals get their first names capitalized :-)

The '''fairness doctrine''' was a policy of the U. S. [[Federal Communications Commission]] from 1949 until 1987. Daniel Henninger wrote in the ''Wall Street Journal,
{{Cquote|[[Ronald Reagan]] tore down this wall (the Fairness Doctrine) in 1987... and [[Rush Limbaugh]] was the first man to proclaim himself liberated from the [[East Germany]] of [[liberal media]] domination.” <ref>[http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/p_hollrah/06262007.htm The Nazification of the American Left], Paul R. Hollrah, ''New Media Journal'', June 26, 2007.</ref>}}
The doctrine required broadcasters who aired material on controversial issues to provide "equal time" for the expression of opposing views. The net result was censorship, since broadcasters simply refrained from airing public affairs programing.

==Opposition to mandated fairness==
One recurring criticism of this requirement was that it had the effect of limiting broadcast-media treatment of certain controversial subjects. <ref>Doris A. Garber, "Mass Media and American Politics" (Washington: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1980), p. 93. Garber found that "the media frequently shy away from programs dealing with controversial public issues to avoid demands to air opposing views in place of revenue-producing programs.'' </ref>

Under [[FCC]] regulations, however, the media could avoid the problem of furnishing additional air-time for opposing views if they included opposing views on the issues in their regular news programming. The courts tended to side with radio and television media if they can bring forth reasonably good evidence of "fairness" in the coverage.

One effect of its demise was to open the doors to today's political "talk radio," previously inhibited by stations' concerns that they would be required to give time to opposing views. Liberals such as Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) have tried to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine. Conservatives fear it will cost them their dominance of talk radio. <ref>[http://michellemalkin.com/2007/06/20/fairness-doctrine-watch-a-progressive-attack-on-talk-radio/ Fairness Doctrine Watch: A “progressive” attack on talk radio].</ref>

[[Image:Fairness-doc.jpg|thumb|350px|Paul Nowak in 2007 satirized liberal paranoia of talk radio. <ref> [http://newsbusters.org/node/13855 Paul Nowak Satirizes Liberal Paranoia of Talk Radio] </ref>]]

With the rise of alternatives like cable TV, the networks lost their monopoly on news and public affairs programming. President Ronald Reagan helped introduce competition into the marketplace of ideas by deregulating the broadcast industry and had the FCC drop the "fairness doctrine". Reagan's idea was that broadcasters could endorse whatever views it chose (see [[free speech]] and [[freedom of the press]]).
<ref>[http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm The Fairness Doctrine], Museum of Broadcast Communication</ref>

Representative [[Mike Pence]] R-Indiana) says “There’s nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine” <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286972,00.html Lawmaker Aims to Block Any Change to Talk Radio Rules]</ref>

[[Philip Terzian]] at the [[Weekly Standard]] says "Revival of the Fairness Doctrine is not intended to facilitate "both sides of the story" but to shut down conservative talk radio." <ref>http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/926hhctd.asp Radio Free America</ref>

==Obama opposes fairness doctrine==
Although conservatives had long feared that a Democratic president would impose a fairness doctrine, the Obama White House officially announced that Obama "does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated."<ref> Fox News report, [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/18/white-house-opposes-fairness-doctrine/ Feb. 19. 2008]</ref>

==See also==
*[[Censorship]]
*[[Conservative talk radio]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Fairness Doctrine|Articles about the '''Fairness Doctrine''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

== References ==
<references/>

[[category:United States Political Doctrines]]
[[category:broadcasting]]

Pope Pius IX

2009-03-24T11:52:17Z

ArthurA: "cult" is a very strong word and should not be used lightly.

'''Pope Pius IX''' (May 13, 1792-February 7, 1878) - born '''Giovanni Maria Mastai-Ferretti''' - was the [[Pope]] and leader of the [[Catholic church]] from June 16, 1846 to February 7, 1878 the longest reign in Church history. He convened the [[First Vatican Council]], which declared the Pope was infallible under certain conditions. He encouraged the rapid growth of religiosity among lay people, which strengthened the Church; he especially promoted devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus as symbol of love.

He began his papacy as a liberal reformer, but quickly reversed directions in 1846-48 because of his inability to reconcile the demands of religious and temporal power. [[Metternich]] in Austria and conservative cardinals, in particular secretary of state Cardinal Pasquale Gizzi (1787-1849), feared a popular uprising, but could not restrain the reforming pope. Pius IX's ambivalent handling of the constitutional issue and his decision not to join a war of Italian national liberation against Austria in April 1848 sparked revolution in the Papal States and drove the pope from Rome.

He fought [[secularism]] in [[Italy]] and [[France]], and helped the German Catholics defeat the [[Kulturkampf]].

He was proclaimed a [[saint]] during the papacy of [[Pope John Paul II]].

==Further reading==
* Chadwick, Owen. ''A History of the Popes, 1830-1914'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/read/12355195?title=A%20History%20of%20the%20Popes%2c%201830-1914 online edition]
* Hales, E. E. Y. ''Pio Nono. A Study in European Politics and Religion in the Nineteenth Century'' (1954), on Pope Pius IX [http://www.questia.com/read/9277182?title=Pio%20Nono%3a%20A%20Study%20in%20European%20Politics%20and%20Religion%20in%20the%20Nineteenth%20Century onl;ine edition]

[[Category:Popes|Pius IX, Pope]]
[[Category:Catholic Church]]

Sean Hannity

2009-03-23T18:51:27Z

ArthurA: calling Limbaugh's show the number one radio show of all time is debatable (and probably unquantifiable without being more specific).

[[Image:SHannity.jpg|right|thumb|230px]]
'''Sean Hannity''' (born December 30, 1961) is a [[conservative]] talk show host and [[television]] host of [[Fox News]]'s show [[Hannity]], as well as host of [[Hannity's America]]. The youngest of four children, Hannity was born in [[New York City]] to Irish immigrants. He dropped out of college to embark on a [[radio]] career, and in 1988 was at a small-town station of WVNN in [[Huntsville, Alabama]]. He later broke into a Top 10 market in Atlanta at 640 AM WGST. His national recognition came as an occasional substitute host on the top rated ''The [[Rush Limbaugh]] Show''. Allegedly on his first guest show, he dropped the golden [[EIB]] microphone because of a case of high nerves. The attention gained from substitute-hosting the show paved his way to national syndication.

==Television==
Sean Hannity was asked to join the newly formed Fox News Channel (FNC) in September 1996<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1242,00.html</ref>.
He accepted the offer and became co-host with Alan Colmes of ''Hannity and Colmes'', a prime time one-hour debate-driven talk show focusing on the controversial issues and newsmakers of the day.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1242,00.html</ref> January 9th, 2009 was the final show of Hannity & Colmes, replaced the following week with Seans solo self-entitled show [[Hannity_(tv_show)|Hannity]]. ''Hannity and Colmes'' ranked among the leading cable TV news show (just behind ''Larry King Live'' and the ''O'Reilly Factor''). Hannity also has a weekend show on Fox News, [[Hannity's America]].

==Controversy==
Hannity angered traditional [[Catholics]] with his antagonistic treatment of Father Thomas Euteneuer on March 9, 2007, during which Hannity criticized Fr. Euteneuer for prominent sex scandals in the Catholic Church.<ref>http://thebadguy.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/video-of-the-hannity-euteneuer-squabble</ref> After heated remarks by Hannity during the interview, he finally asked the priest, "Wait, would you deny me Communion?" To which Fr. Euteneuer responded, "I would."<ref>http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/070320</ref>

==Books==
Hannity's books use patriotic rhetoric as a main theme. His first book, in 2002, was entitled ''Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism''. The book remained on the ''New York Times'' bestseller list for 17 weeks.<ref>http://www.harpercollins.com/authors/24930/Sean_Hannity/index.aspx</ref>
In 2004 he wrote ''Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism''. In this book he "reveals how the disgraceful history of appeasement has reached forward from the days of [[Neville Chamberlain]] and [[Jimmy Carter]] to corrupt the unrepentant leftists of the modern [[Democratic Party]] from [[Howard Dean]] and [[John Kerry]] to [[Bill Clinton|Bill]] and [[Hillary Clinton]]."

==Radio==
Hannity reaches approximately 12.5 million radio listeners each day, second only behind Rush Limbaugh.<ref>''Newsweek'', April 27, 2007, p. 29</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

== See also ==

*[[Conservative Links]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.hannity.com/ Sean Hannity's Official Website]
*[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1242,00.html Biography] at Fox News

{{DEFAULTSORT:Hannity, Sean}}
[[Category:Conservative Commentators]]
[[Category:Broadcasters]]

Conservative talk radio

2009-03-23T17:53:32Z

ArthurA: Coulter doesn't have a radio show, and is more a written word and television personality.

'''Conservative talk radio''' in the [[United States]] is a phenomenon that got its start in the 1980's when the [[Fairness Doctrine]] was allowed to expire under [[Ronald Reagan|President Reagan]].

This allowed broadcasters to present a political opinion or point of view or pundit without being required to allow equal time for alternative views or rebuttal.

At the same time, AM radio was languishing in the shadow of the higher quality sound of FM, with no remarkable content to attract listeners.

Into this perfect storm of opportunity rode [[Rush Limbaugh]], with his brand of outlandish self-depreciation and mockery and conservative positions. He has since been followed by many other more or less successful pundits; likewise the millions of listeners Limbaugh attracted to Talk Radio let to the creation of the [[Fox Radio Network]].
[[Liberal talk radio]] has been rather less successful.

==Challenges to free speech==

{{slob unfair}}

==Personalities==

===Neil Boortz===
Neil Boortz is a self-styled [[libertarian]] based out of Atlanta, [[Georgia|GA]].

===Sean Hannity===
''(main article, see [[Sean Hannity]])''

===Rush Limbaugh===
''(main article, see [[Rush Limbaugh]])''

===Bill O'Reilly===
''(main article, see [[Bill O'Reilly]])''

==Networks==

==Syndicators==

==See Also==
*[[Liberal censorship]]

==Footnotes==
<references/>

[[Category:Conservative Media]]
[[category:media]]
[[category:broadcasting]]

Howard Zinn

2009-03-23T14:30:22Z

ArthurA:

[[Howard Zinn]] (born 1922) is an [[American]] historian, most famous for his book, ''[[A People's History of the United States]]''. The book has sold over a million copies and gives a far-left interpretation of political history.

It does not incorporate the newer theories of history, but provides an energetic heavy-handed attack on conservatives, business, and white men. His book is stuck in 1950, methodologically, and does not appreciate the scholarship of the last 4 decades in the "new" intellectual, political, economic, diplomatic, military, cultural or social history. His "newest" ideas are that the white male "working class" -- as well as blacks, Indians, and women -- are victims of capitalism, a stock notion of 1930s socialist philosophy regarding workers.

[[Category: Historians]]
[[Category: Liberal Activists]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Zinn, Howard}}

Talk:Howard Zinn

2009-03-23T14:28:33Z

ArthurA:

What's the meaning of "does not incorporate the newer theories of history", in reference to Zinn's ''People's History of the United States''? I'm not disputing that there are "newer theories of history"; I'm wondering which specific theories it doesn't incorporate. I'm confident Zinn would assert it does contain newer theories and would probably say that's the entire point of the book. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 09:05, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
::Zinn is stuck in 1950, methodologically, and does not appreciate the scholarship of the last 4 decades in the "new" intellectual, political, economic, diplomatic, military, cultural or social history. His "newest" ideas is that workers--and also blacks, Indians, and women--are victims of capitalism, a stock notion of the 1930s regarding workers. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 09:33, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
:::Thanks for the clarification. I'm making a minor edit to your update to the page, but that's purely to make what I think is better phrasing. Incidentally, I've read People's History -- its provocative, as was its intention, but its ultimately foolishness. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 10:28, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Howard Zinn

2009-03-23T13:05:10Z

ArthurA: New page: What's the meaning of "does not incorporate the newer theories of history", in reference to Zinn's ''People's History of the United States''? I'm not disputing that there are "newer theori...

Debate:Do ALL suicides go to hell?

2009-03-20T11:43:58Z

ArthurA: /* Not Necessarily */

==Not Necessarily==
I understand killing yourself is an ultimatum sin. But what about people who suffer from depression? They have a chemical imbalance in their brain that causes them intense grief. They become so helpless they turn to suicide. Would God punish someone for dieing of cancer? Someone who commits suicide from depression is not thinking with a clear mind due to the depression. However, their are those who commit suicide out of cowardice. I believe those who commit suicide to escape punishment are the ones who go to hell. Not the ones who can't mentally control their emotions. -- [[User:GordonF|GordonF]] 24:05, 15 March 2009.

:Just as we don't know who goes to Heaven or hell (that is for Jesus alone to decide), we don't know if all suicides end in hell. The mercy of God's love is not fathomable. All humans are not worthy of God's glory, yet he loves us no matter. I can see instance where a good holy person and mother loses a child to suicide. The Lord would never break her eternal heart saying she must separate her from her beloved offspring in Heaven, because of the evil one's bidding. For all we know, some suicides may end up in Purgatory. This being just a purification stop with a guarantee of Heaven eventually.--[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 02:10, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

::Strictly speaking, suicide is a mortal sin, but not an ''unforgivable'' sin. The only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Consequently, I think we have reason to hope that, in at least some cases, suicide is forgiven. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:16, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
:::In the Divine Comedy, only one suicide is shown outside Hell, namely [[Cato the Younger]], who guards the gate of Purgatory. He committed suicide rather than surrender, which the Romans considered a noble act. However, Dante doesn't explain why Cato should escape Hell so the exact reasoning behind his placement is a bit of a mystery, even for scholars.

:::I forgot about Purgatory jpatt. As for Dante one should remember he was going on the seven vices and came up with it from his imagination. However Dante gave a great perspective. [[User:GordonF|GordonF]] 18:30, 15 March 2009

::::I don't think all suicides go to Hell. For example: King Saul, the first king of Israel, falls on his own sword after a horrible defeat and to escape capture by the Philistines. [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=9&chapter=31] In fact, it doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that committing suicide automatically send you to Hell. As stated above, the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. (I think that ''if'' the Bible said suicide was okay, lots of people would be killing themselves just to get to Heaven.) -[[User:Solomos|Christopher Solomos]] 01:09, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

:::::I've heard it said that suicide is a sin because it is the intentional destruction of a gift of God. Not only that, its the intentional destruction of God's greatest gift -- the gift of life itself. Now, if you take the traditional Protestant position that all your sins must be forgiven to avoid Hell, and that you must request forgiveness to receive it, then suicides do go to Hell, because they commit a sin and then die before they could ask forgiveness. (Well, ignoring cases like someone who jumps off a bridge, thinks better of it, and asks forgiveness on the way down.) However, we must ultimately remember that God is a loving God. I don't think God would condemn a person who did not have control over their own actions due to mental illness. I also don't think God would condemn the poor people who chose to jump out of the World Trade Center on 9/11 rather than burn to death.

:::::However, this leads to another question: what about actions that aren't strictly speaking, suicide, but still self-destructive? For instance, the case of someone who "drank himself to death". (The question of whether or not drinking alcohol is a sin in and of itself is an entire new topic....) [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 07:43, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

Impeachment and removal

2009-03-19T17:16:05Z

ArthurA: /* Bill Clinton */

'''Impeachment and removal''' are the two steps in taking a high government official, such as a president or a judge, from his position. It is typically used in cases of [[malfeasance]] (see also [[recall election]]).

The first step, ''impeachment'', is a formal accusation by a simple majority of the House. This vote leaves the accused in office, while he is "tried" by the Senate. A two-thirds majority there results in removal from office.

Sixteen federal officials have been impeached (i.e., charged) by the
House of Representatives, but the Senate has removed (i.e., convicted) only seven. [http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764613.html]

The [[United States House of Representatives]] has "sole power of impeachment." The House has to vote on articles of impeachment. If they pass by a majority, the President is not yet removed from office, until (and unless) the next step is completed.

The impeachment case is sent to the [[United States Senate]] for trial. If the Senate votes by a two-thirds majority to convict, then the person will be removed from office.

In impeachment cases against the [[President of the United States|President]], the Chief Justice of the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] shall preside.

==Impeachment in 19th Century America==

By 1804, Jeffersonian [[Democratic-Republicans]] had control of [[Congress]] and set their sights on removing Federalist Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase. The House of Representatives impeached him, and trial began with the Senate as the jury. His prosecutor was [[John Randolph]], a partisan Jeffersonian who was distantly related to the Federalist Chief Justice [[John Marshall]]. 25 out of 34 Senators were Jeffersonians, so conviction and removal of the Federalist Chase for his political biases seemed likely.

But the effort failed. During the trial Randolph himself criticized Jefferson over a separate issue, the infamous [[Yazoo land fraud]] in [[Georgia]], an issue that split Jeffersonians. Meanwhile, the case against Chase amounted to little more than some intemperate remarks he made while sitting as trial judge in a grand jury proceeding. The Senators were unimpressed, and at most 19/34 voted to convict on any of the charges, far short of the requisite 2/3rd.
The independence of the judiciary was established by this failed effort to remove a Supreme Court justice. However, the episode did encourage future justices not to engage directly in politics. No effort to impeach a Supreme Court justice has since made any progress.

==Andrew Johnson==

After the [[Civil War]], President Andrew Johnson became the enemy of Radical Republicans who controlled Congress. President Johnson vetoed their legislation and even called their leaders "traitors". Flush from winning the war, the likes of Republican Senators Thaddeus Stevens (PA) and Charles Sumner (MA) were not about to back down. Sumner, after all, was the fellow who once delivered an unconscionably disrespectful speech against elderly South Carolina Senator Andrew Butler, whereupon his outraged nephew [[Preston Brooks]] beat Sumner senseless with a cane.

When the House of Representatives impeached President Johnson by an overwhelming vote of 126 to 47, his ouster appeared to be a fait accompli. President Johnson had violated the Tenure in Office Act by dismissing his Secretary of War, and he had been intemperate in his name-calling of key senators. In addressing the jury of 54 senators, the prosecutor referred to President Johnson as an "accidental Chief" and "the elect of an assassin." Witnesses testified for both the prosecution and the defense.

The prosecutors – called “managers” in impeachment trials – were confident of victory. Manager Thaddeus Stevens described President Johnson as the "wretched man, standing at bay, surrounded by a cordon of living men, each with the axe of an executioner uplifted for his just punishment." Manager John Bingham brought the public galleries to their feet with his oratory: "May God forbid that the future historian shall record of this day's proceedings, that by reason of the failure of the legislative power of the people to triumph over the usurpations of an apostate President, the fabric of American empire fell and perished from the earth."

2/3rd vote was necessary for conviction, and it all turned on Senator [[Edmund Ross]] of Kansas. Like real jurors, he spoke to no one during the proceedings and no one knew which was he was leaning. But he voted "not guilty," and President Johnson was acquitted by one vote. The Radical Republicans were defeated, and never again enjoyed their unprecedented power.

==Impeachment in recent history==

In 1974, no impeachment proceedings had occurred since the Johnson trial over a hundred years earlier). Most Americans thought of impeachment as something quaint and bizarre in the history books.

===Richard Nixon===

In the House of Representatives decided to begin impeachment proceedings against [[Richard M. Nixon]], on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with the Watergate affair. At the time, congressmen and their staffs were unfamiliar with the law and proceedings involved with impeachment, and needed to research the question.

On July 27, 1974 the Committee on the Judiciary voted to recommend three articles of impeachment. The articles concerned his obstruction of justice during the Watergate investigations. Before his near-certain impeachment and conviction could occur, Nixon resigned from the presidency on August 9, 1974, after key Congressional allies told him his fate was all but assured. Thus, Nixon was never actually impeached.

===Bill Clinton===

President [[Bill Clinton]] was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, on charges of [[perjury]] and [[obstruction of justice]] relating to testimony he had given in a [[civil lawsuit]] a former Arkansas government employee had brought for [[sexual harassment]]. He was acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999 on a party-line vote.

President Clinton was doing well in the polls and ready to pick his successor for the White House by late 1998. His leadership enabled the Democratic Party to do surprisingly well in the mid-term elections, and President Clinton was seeking to leave a lasting legacy.

The House of Representatives impeached him for making false statements under oath, which is perjury, and trial was scheduled for the Senate in 1999. First Lady Hillary Clinton accused her opponents of being part of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" against her husband. The Democratic Senators all lined up behind President Clinton, promising to vote for acquittal.

Republicans enjoyed a majority in the Senate but lacked votes anywhere close to the requisite 2/3rd majority to convict. President Clinton was a lame-duck at that point anyway, and the real battle was over his ability to influence politics beyond his term.

The managers of the impeachment presented their case, but the Senate prevented them from calling key witnesses such as Clinton’s closest aides. The procedural rules hamstrung the trial and served to protect the president. Without the presentation of the full case, President Clinton easily survived the final vote.

But the victory was Pyrrhic. The Democratic presidential nominee in 2000, Al Gore, felt he had to distance himself from Clinton and that probably made the difference on Election Day. Since then, Clinton has had little success in campaigning for candidates, failing with Governor Gray Davis in California in the recall. Hillary Clinton, pollsters choice to run in 2004, apparently felt it was too soon to make an attempt. The political ramifications of the impeachment trial continue.

==Popular usage==

In colloquial English, speakers frequently fail to distinguish between the accusation by the House, and the (possible) subsequent removal by the Senate. Thus when someone says, "That official was impeached," you may not know whether they meant ''charged but not convicted'' or ''removed from office''.

Two US presidents have been ''impeached'' but neither was removed from office.

[[Category:United States Politics]]
[[Category:United States History]]

Impeachment and removal

2009-03-19T17:15:03Z

ArthurA: making Nixon and Clinton sub sections under recent history

'''Impeachment and removal''' are the two steps in taking a high government official, such as a president or a judge, from his position. It is typically used in cases of [[malfeasance]] (see also [[recall election]]).

The first step, ''impeachment'', is a formal accusation by a simple majority of the House. This vote leaves the accused in office, while he is "tried" by the Senate. A two-thirds majority there results in removal from office.

Sixteen federal officials have been impeached (i.e., charged) by the
House of Representatives, but the Senate has removed (i.e., convicted) only seven. [http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764613.html]

The [[United States House of Representatives]] has "sole power of impeachment." The House has to vote on articles of impeachment. If they pass by a majority, the President is not yet removed from office, until (and unless) the next step is completed.

The impeachment case is sent to the [[United States Senate]] for trial. If the Senate votes by a two-thirds majority to convict, then the person will be removed from office.

In impeachment cases against the [[President of the United States|President]], the Chief Justice of the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] shall preside.

==Impeachment in 19th Century America==

By 1804, Jeffersonian [[Democratic-Republicans]] had control of [[Congress]] and set their sights on removing Federalist Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase. The House of Representatives impeached him, and trial began with the Senate as the jury. His prosecutor was [[John Randolph]], a partisan Jeffersonian who was distantly related to the Federalist Chief Justice [[John Marshall]]. 25 out of 34 Senators were Jeffersonians, so conviction and removal of the Federalist Chase for his political biases seemed likely.

But the effort failed. During the trial Randolph himself criticized Jefferson over a separate issue, the infamous [[Yazoo land fraud]] in [[Georgia]], an issue that split Jeffersonians. Meanwhile, the case against Chase amounted to little more than some intemperate remarks he made while sitting as trial judge in a grand jury proceeding. The Senators were unimpressed, and at most 19/34 voted to convict on any of the charges, far short of the requisite 2/3rd.
The independence of the judiciary was established by this failed effort to remove a Supreme Court justice. However, the episode did encourage future justices not to engage directly in politics. No effort to impeach a Supreme Court justice has since made any progress.

==Andrew Johnson==

After the [[Civil War]], President Andrew Johnson became the enemy of Radical Republicans who controlled Congress. President Johnson vetoed their legislation and even called their leaders "traitors". Flush from winning the war, the likes of Republican Senators Thaddeus Stevens (PA) and Charles Sumner (MA) were not about to back down. Sumner, after all, was the fellow who once delivered an unconscionably disrespectful speech against elderly South Carolina Senator Andrew Butler, whereupon his outraged nephew [[Preston Brooks]] beat Sumner senseless with a cane.

When the House of Representatives impeached President Johnson by an overwhelming vote of 126 to 47, his ouster appeared to be a fait accompli. President Johnson had violated the Tenure in Office Act by dismissing his Secretary of War, and he had been intemperate in his name-calling of key senators. In addressing the jury of 54 senators, the prosecutor referred to President Johnson as an "accidental Chief" and "the elect of an assassin." Witnesses testified for both the prosecution and the defense.

The prosecutors – called “managers” in impeachment trials – were confident of victory. Manager Thaddeus Stevens described President Johnson as the "wretched man, standing at bay, surrounded by a cordon of living men, each with the axe of an executioner uplifted for his just punishment." Manager John Bingham brought the public galleries to their feet with his oratory: "May God forbid that the future historian shall record of this day's proceedings, that by reason of the failure of the legislative power of the people to triumph over the usurpations of an apostate President, the fabric of American empire fell and perished from the earth."

2/3rd vote was necessary for conviction, and it all turned on Senator [[Edmund Ross]] of Kansas. Like real jurors, he spoke to no one during the proceedings and no one knew which was he was leaning. But he voted "not guilty," and President Johnson was acquitted by one vote. The Radical Republicans were defeated, and never again enjoyed their unprecedented power.

==Impeachment in recent history==

In 1974, no impeachment proceedings had occurred since the Johnson trial over a hundred years earlier). Most Americans thought of impeachment as something quaint and bizarre in the history books.

===Richard Nixon===

In the House of Representatives decided to begin impeachment proceedings against [[Richard M. Nixon]], on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with the Watergate affair. At the time, congressmen and their staffs were unfamiliar with the law and proceedings involved with impeachment, and needed to research the question.

On July 27, 1974 the Committee on the Judiciary voted to recommend three articles of impeachment. The articles concerned his obstruction of justice during the Watergate investigations. Before his near-certain impeachment and conviction could occur, Nixon resigned from the presidency on August 9, 1974, after key Congressional allies told him his fate was all but assured. Thus, Nixon was never actually impeached.

===Bill Clinton===

President [[Bill Clinton]] was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, on charges of [[perjury]] and [[obstruction of justice]] relating to testimony he had given in a [[civil lawsuit]] a former Arkansas government employee had brought for [[sexual harassment]]. He was acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999 on a party-line vote.

President Clinton was doing well in the polls and ready to pick his successor for the White House by late 1998. His leadership enabled the Democratic Party to do surprisingly well in the mid-term elections, and President Clinton was seeking to leave a lasting legacy.

The House of Representatives impeached him for making false statements under oath, which is perjury, and trial was scheduled for the Senate in 1999. First Lady Hillary Clinton accused her opponents of being part of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" against her husband. The Democratic Senators all lined up behind President Clinton, promising to vote for acquittal.

Republicans enjoyed a majority in the Senate but lacked votes anywhere close to the requisite 2/3rd majority to convict. President Clinton was a lame-duck at that point anyway, and the real battle was over his ability to influence politics beyond his term.

The managers of the impeachment presented their case, but the Senate prevented them from calling key witnesses such as Clinton’s closest aids. The procedural rules hamstrung the trial and served to protect the president. Without the presentation of the full case, President Clinton easily survived the final vote.

But the victory was Pyrrhic. The Democratic presidential nominee in 2000, Al Gore, felt he had to distance himself from Clinton and that probably made the difference on Election Day. Since then, Clinton has had little success in campaigning for candidates, failing with Governor Gray Davis in California in the recall. Hillary Clinton, pollsters choice to run in 2004, apparently felt it was too soon to make an attempt. The political ramifications of the impeachment trial continue.

==Popular usage==

In colloquial English, speakers frequently fail to distinguish between the accusation by the House, and the (possible) subsequent removal by the Senate. Thus when someone says, "That official was impeached," you may not know whether they meant ''charged but not convicted'' or ''removed from office''.

Two US presidents have been ''impeached'' but neither was removed from office.

[[Category:United States Politics]]
[[Category:United States History]]

Impeachment and removal

2009-03-19T17:13:27Z

ArthurA: /* Impeachment in recent history */

'''Impeachment and removal''' are the two steps in taking a high government official, such as a president or a judge, from his position. It is typically used in cases of [[malfeasance]] (see also [[recall election]]).

The first step, ''impeachment'', is a formal accusation by a simple majority of the House. This vote leaves the accused in office, while he is "tried" by the Senate. A two-thirds majority there results in removal from office.

Sixteen federal officials have been impeached (i.e., charged) by the
House of Representatives, but the Senate has removed (i.e., convicted) only seven. [http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764613.html]

The [[United States House of Representatives]] has "sole power of impeachment." The House has to vote on articles of impeachment. If they pass by a majority, the President is not yet removed from office, until (and unless) the next step is completed.

The impeachment case is sent to the [[United States Senate]] for trial. If the Senate votes by a two-thirds majority to convict, then the person will be removed from office.

In impeachment cases against the [[President of the United States|President]], the Chief Justice of the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] shall preside.

==Impeachment in 19th Century America==

By 1804, Jeffersonian [[Democratic-Republicans]] had control of [[Congress]] and set their sights on removing Federalist Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase. The House of Representatives impeached him, and trial began with the Senate as the jury. His prosecutor was [[John Randolph]], a partisan Jeffersonian who was distantly related to the Federalist Chief Justice [[John Marshall]]. 25 out of 34 Senators were Jeffersonians, so conviction and removal of the Federalist Chase for his political biases seemed likely.

But the effort failed. During the trial Randolph himself criticized Jefferson over a separate issue, the infamous [[Yazoo land fraud]] in [[Georgia]], an issue that split Jeffersonians. Meanwhile, the case against Chase amounted to little more than some intemperate remarks he made while sitting as trial judge in a grand jury proceeding. The Senators were unimpressed, and at most 19/34 voted to convict on any of the charges, far short of the requisite 2/3rd.
The independence of the judiciary was established by this failed effort to remove a Supreme Court justice. However, the episode did encourage future justices not to engage directly in politics. No effort to impeach a Supreme Court justice has since made any progress.

==Andrew Johnson==

After the [[Civil War]], President Andrew Johnson became the enemy of Radical Republicans who controlled Congress. President Johnson vetoed their legislation and even called their leaders "traitors". Flush from winning the war, the likes of Republican Senators Thaddeus Stevens (PA) and Charles Sumner (MA) were not about to back down. Sumner, after all, was the fellow who once delivered an unconscionably disrespectful speech against elderly South Carolina Senator Andrew Butler, whereupon his outraged nephew [[Preston Brooks]] beat Sumner senseless with a cane.

When the House of Representatives impeached President Johnson by an overwhelming vote of 126 to 47, his ouster appeared to be a fait accompli. President Johnson had violated the Tenure in Office Act by dismissing his Secretary of War, and he had been intemperate in his name-calling of key senators. In addressing the jury of 54 senators, the prosecutor referred to President Johnson as an "accidental Chief" and "the elect of an assassin." Witnesses testified for both the prosecution and the defense.

The prosecutors – called “managers” in impeachment trials – were confident of victory. Manager Thaddeus Stevens described President Johnson as the "wretched man, standing at bay, surrounded by a cordon of living men, each with the axe of an executioner uplifted for his just punishment." Manager John Bingham brought the public galleries to their feet with his oratory: "May God forbid that the future historian shall record of this day's proceedings, that by reason of the failure of the legislative power of the people to triumph over the usurpations of an apostate President, the fabric of American empire fell and perished from the earth."

2/3rd vote was necessary for conviction, and it all turned on Senator [[Edmund Ross]] of Kansas. Like real jurors, he spoke to no one during the proceedings and no one knew which was he was leaning. But he voted "not guilty," and President Johnson was acquitted by one vote. The Radical Republicans were defeated, and never again enjoyed their unprecedented power.

==Impeachment in recent history==

In 1974, no impeachment proceedings had occurred since the Johnson trial over a hundred years earlier). Most Americans thought of impeachment as something quaint and bizarre in the history books.

In the House of Representatives decided to begin impeachment proceedings against [[Richard M. Nixon]], on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with the Watergate affair. At the time, congressmen and their staffs were unfamiliar with the law and proceedings involved with impeachment, and needed to research the question.

On July 27, 1974 the Committee on the Judiciary voted to recommend three articles of impeachment. The articles concerned his obstruction of justice during the Watergate investigations. Before his near-certain impeachment and conviction could occur, Nixon resigned from the presidency on August 9, 1974, after key Congressional allies told him his fate was all but assured. Thus, Nixon was never actually impeached.

==Bill Clinton==

President [[Bill Clinton]] was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, on charges of [[perjury]] and [[obstruction of justice]] relating to testimony he had given in a [[civil lawsuit]] a former Arkansas government employee had brought for [[sexual harassment]]. He was acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999 on a party-line vote.

President Clinton was doing well in the polls and ready to pick his successor for the White House by late 1998. His leadership enabled the Democratic Party to do surprisingly well in the mid-term elections, and President Clinton was seeking to leave a lasting legacy.

The House of Representatives impeached him for making false statements under oath, which is perjury, and trial was scheduled for the Senate in 1999. First Lady Hillary Clinton accused her opponents of being part of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" against her husband. The Democratic Senators all lined up behind President Clinton, promising to vote for acquittal.

Republicans enjoyed a majority in the Senate but lacked votes anywhere close to the requisite 2/3rd majority to convict. President Clinton was a lame-duck at that point anyway, and the real battle was over his ability to influence politics beyond his term.

The managers of the impeachment presented their case, but the Senate prevented them from calling key witnesses such as Clinton’s closest aids. The procedural rules hamstrung the trial and served to protect the president. Without the presentation of the full case, President Clinton easily survived the final vote.

But the victory was Pyrrhic. The Democratic presidential nominee in 2000, Al Gore, felt he had to distance himself from Clinton and that probably made the difference on Election Day. Since then, Clinton has had little success in campaigning for candidates, failing with Governor Gray Davis in California in the recall. Hillary Clinton, pollsters choice to run in 2004, apparently felt it was too soon to make an attempt. The political ramifications of the impeachment trial continue.

==Popular usage==

In colloquial English, speakers frequently fail to distinguish between the accusation by the House, and the (possible) subsequent removal by the Senate. Thus when someone says, "That official was impeached," you may not know whether they meant ''charged but not convicted'' or ''removed from office''.

Two US presidents have been ''impeached'' but neither was removed from office.

[[Category:United States Politics]]
[[Category:United States History]]

Bill O'Reilly

2009-03-18T20:30:11Z

ArthurA: /* Criticism */

[[Image:Bll.png|thumb|right|Bill O' Reilly On The O' Reilly Report]]
'''Bill O'Reilly''' is a commentator and host of the show ''The O'Reilly Factor'' on the [[Fox News Channel]], which he calls the "No Spin Zone." O'Reilly often remarks that his personal [[political]] viewpoint is not captured by the modern [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] and [[Republican Party|Republican]] archetypes and would rather call himself a "traditionalist" and "independent". In this vein, he has expressed support for some positions not traditionally associated with his political supporters, instead associated with [[liberals]], including [[anthropogenic climate change]] and [[civil union]]s for both [[heterosexual]] and [[homosexual]] couples.

''The O'Reilly Factor'' is the highest-rated hour on any cable news channel. Over 2.5 million people watch the show each night and millions more listen to his own radio show.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/23/60minutes/main645202.shtml Bill O'Reilly: "No Spin"] Transcript 60 Minutes with Mike Wallace aired Sept. 26, 2004. </ref>

Recently [[Conservative|conservatives]] criticized O'Reilly [http://www.conservapedia.com/Fox_News_Channel#Fox_News_Channel_and_Homosexuality regarding his views in relation to homosexuality].

==Views on prejudice and racism==
Although O'Reilly has condemned white [[racist]] prejudice against U.S. blacks, some remarks he made underscoring the fact that black-owned and [[Italian]]-owned restaurants are comparable were deliberately misinterpreted by the far-left group [[Media Matters]].

They took comments he made praising black restaurants in Harlem for being on par with suburban Italian restaurants as an expression of "surprise", but of course they gave no reason for this interpretation and they dismissed O'Reilly's response (again without giving a reason). [http://mediamatters.org/items/200709210007?f=h_top]

==Criticism==
O'Reilly has often been accused of berating his guests. He is deeply disliked by many on the [[leftist|far-left]], who often accuse him of distorting facts or [[slander]]ing those unfriendly to his position. He has occasionally been criticized by conservatives on certain issues such as his stance on [[gun control]]. Even [[Rush Limbaugh]] said he was "Ted Baxter"<ref>http://biz.yahoo.com/nytimes/080707/1194790458472.html?.v=3</ref>, referring to the idiotic TV anchorman on [[The Mary Tyler Moore Show]].

==Trivia==
* O'Reilly and [[Stephen Colbert]] have a friendly rivalry <ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16698834/</ref>, even appearing on each others' shows.

== See also ==
*[[Conservative Links]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT: Oreilly, Bill}} 
[[Category:Broadcasters|Oreilly, Bill]]

Bill O'Reilly

2009-03-18T20:29:45Z

ArthurA:

[[Image:Bll.png|thumb|right|Bill O' Reilly On The O' Reilly Report]]
'''Bill O'Reilly''' is a commentator and host of the show ''The O'Reilly Factor'' on the [[Fox News Channel]], which he calls the "No Spin Zone." O'Reilly often remarks that his personal [[political]] viewpoint is not captured by the modern [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] and [[Republican Party|Republican]] archetypes and would rather call himself a "traditionalist" and "independent". In this vein, he has expressed support for some positions not traditionally associated with his political supporters, instead associated with [[liberals]], including [[anthropogenic climate change]] and [[civil union]]s for both [[heterosexual]] and [[homosexual]] couples.

''The O'Reilly Factor'' is the highest-rated hour on any cable news channel. Over 2.5 million people watch the show each night and millions more listen to his own radio show.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/23/60minutes/main645202.shtml Bill O'Reilly: "No Spin"] Transcript 60 Minutes with Mike Wallace aired Sept. 26, 2004. </ref>

Recently [[Conservative|conservatives]] criticized O'Reilly [http://www.conservapedia.com/Fox_News_Channel#Fox_News_Channel_and_Homosexuality regarding his views in relation to homosexuality].

==Views on prejudice and racism==
Although O'Reilly has condemned white [[racist]] prejudice against U.S. blacks, some remarks he made underscoring the fact that black-owned and [[Italian]]-owned restaurants are comparable were deliberately misinterpreted by the far-left group [[Media Matters]].

They took comments he made praising black restaurants in Harlem for being on par with suburban Italian restaurants as an expression of "surprise", but of course they gave no reason for this interpretation and they dismissed O'Reilly's response (again without giving a reason). [http://mediamatters.org/items/200709210007?f=h_top]

==Criticism==
O'Reilly has often been accused of berating his guests. He is deeply disliked by many on the [[leftist|far-left]], who often accuse him of distorting facts or [[slander]]ing those unfriendly to his position. He has occasionally been criticized by conservatives on certain issues such as his stance on [[gun control]]. Even [[Rush Limbaugh]] said he was "Ted Baxter"<ref>http://biz.yahoo.com/nytimes/080707/1194790458472.html?.v=3</ref>, the idiotic TV anchorman on [[The Mary Tyler Moore Show]].

==Trivia==
* O'Reilly and [[Stephen Colbert]] have a friendly rivalry <ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16698834/</ref>, even appearing on each others' shows.

== See also ==
*[[Conservative Links]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT: Oreilly, Bill}} 
[[Category:Broadcasters|Oreilly, Bill]]

Talk:Bill O'Reilly

2009-03-18T20:25:31Z

ArthurA: /* Colbert? */ new section

==Opinion Show==
It's kind of obvious that the O'Reilly factor is an opinion show, so it should stay that way. -- {{unsigned|PSMax8956}} 10:01, 2 August 2007

*That might be a little to radical for some people here, how about "political commentary show"? [[User:Overture|Overture]] 13:02, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

**OK, that should work. -- {{unsigned|PSMax8956}} 10:03, 2 August 2007

== typo ==

I was just gonna fix the phrase "25 million people a nightly" but can't because it's protected. Sadness, utter sadness. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 21:31, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

same here, was wondering about that. -- {{unsigned|Veganman}} 18:38, 7 September 2007

==Harlem restaurant==

Although O'Reilly made the restaurant comparison as an example of how silly he had long known anti-black prejudice to be, Media Matters pretended he had been "surprised" to discover just recently that they were comparable. [http://mediamatters.org/items/200709210007?f=h_top ] They chose to misinterpret the phrase "couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference" as in indication of surprise rather than taking O'Reilly obvious meaning of, "See? This is what I was saying all along."

I've been to restaurants in Harlem too. They are comparable, and it's no big deal. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:44, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

==Assault==
What? Nothing about billo's assault of an Obama staffer? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:09, 3 February 2008 (EST)
:What assault might that be? Did he hurt someone's feeling? Oh no! (sarcasm) [[User:Wahrheit|Wahrheit]] ([[User talk:Wahrheit|talk]]) 17:02, 22 February 2008 (EST)

==Andrea Mackris lawsuit==

Should this article cover the lawsuit entanglement between O'Reilly and Mackris? Or does that fall outside the scope of this project? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:22, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

== Colbert? ==

The article says Colbert and O'Reilly have a "friendly rivalry". That seems to be a stretch. If there's anyone that inspired the character of Stephen Colbert, its O'Reilly, and its no friendly homage; its out and out parody. And when O'Reilly appeared on Colbert's show, O'Reilly was obviously uncomfortable -- he obviously muttered "this was a mistake" shortly into the interview. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 16:25, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

Robert Heinlein

2009-03-16T19:29:30Z

ArthurA:

'''Robert Heinlein''' (full name: '''Robert Anson Heinlein'''; sometimes known to fans as RAH; numerous pseudonyms, notably Anson Macdonald) (1907-1988) was one of the most popular and influential [[science fiction]] writers of the twentieth century, often viewed as one of the "Big Three" authors with [[Arthur C. Clarke]] and [[Isaac Asimov]]. His work helped define the genre; Asimov referred to his work as "the third nova" of science fiction, an entry into the field that changed it substantially from that which came before.

His many novels included ''The Puppet Masters,'' ''Starship Troopers,'' ''The Moon is a Harsh Mistress,'' and ''Stranger in a Strange Land.'' He also wrote numerous novels for young people, often referred to as "Heinlein juveniles", including ''Double Star'', ''Citizen of the Galaxy'' and ''Star Beast''. (The fact they are written for young people does not mean that they only appeal to the young -- like many of the best works written for teenagers, they can be read, and are read, by adults.) Heinlein also authored many short stories, including "And He Built a Crooked House" and "All You Zombies."

His politics defied categorization. They were broadly libertarian. He was a strong supporter of the military, as shown in ''Starship Troopers'' and other works, and was an ardent opponent of [[Communism]], demonstrated in an essay about his vacation in Soviet Russia, but also espoused the sexual revolution of the 1960s, as strongly shown in many of his later works, and alluded to in earlier ones, and was very skeptical of organized religion, especially [[fundamentalism]], demonstrated in works like ''Job: A Comedy of Justice'' and the novella ''Revolt in 2100''.

==See also==
*[[Grok]]

[[Category:Authors|Heinlein, Robert A]][[Category:Science fiction]]
[[Category:Libertarianism]]

Robert Heinlein

2009-03-16T18:38:33Z

ArthurA: more on the politics of one of my favorite authors

'''Robert Heinlein''' (full name: '''Robert Anson Heinlein'''; sometimes known to fans as RAH; numerous pseudonyms, notably Anson Macdonald) (1907-1988) was one of the most popular and influential [[science fiction]] writers of the twentieth century, often viewed as one of the "Big Three" authors with [[Arthur C. Clarke]] and [[Isaac Asimov]]. His work helped define the genre; Asimov referred to his work as "the third nova" of science fiction, an entry into the field that changed it substantially from that which came before.

His many novels included ''The Puppet Masters,'' ''Starship Troopers,'' ''The Moon is a Harsh Mistress,'' and ''Stranger in a Strange Land.'' He also wrote numerous novels for young people, often referred to as "Heinlein juveniles", including ''Double Star'', ''Citizen of the Galaxy'' and ''Star Beast''. (The fact they are written for young people does not mean that they only appeal to the young -- like many of the best works written for teenagers, they can be read, and are read, by adults.) Heinlein also authored many short stories, including "And He Built a Crooked House" and "All You Zombies."

His politics defied categorization. They were broadly libertarian. He was a strong supporter of the military, as shown in ''Starship Troopers'' and other works, and was an ardent opponent of [[Communism]], demonstrated in an essay about his vacation in Soviet Russie, but also espoused the sexual revolution of the 1960s, as strongly shown in many of his later works, and alluded to in earlier ones, and was very skeptical of organized religion, especially [[fundamentalism]], demonstrated in works like ''Job: A Comedy of Justice'' and the novella ''Revolt in 2100''.

==See also==
*[[Grok]]

[[Category:Authors|Heinlein, Robert A]][[Category:Science fiction]]
[[Category:Libertarianism]]

Newt Gingrich

2009-03-16T18:10:55Z

ArthurA: probably better to point out he's possible running for President in 2012

[[Image:Newtgingrich.jpg|200px|right|]]
'''Newt Gingrich''' (born June 17, 1943) is a [[conservative]] politician. Representing [[Georgia]], Gingrich served as [[Speaker of the United States House of Representatives| Speaker]] of the House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999, preceding [[J. Dennis Hastert]] and succeeding [[Thomas Foley]]. Widely considered a mastermind of the Republican revolution that swept [[Congress]] in the 1994 elections, the well-known architect of the “[[Contract with America]]” <ref>http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=59</ref> that led the [[Republican Party]] to victory in 1994 by capturing the majority in the U.S. House for the first time in forty years.

Gingrich remains very popular among many conservatives. He has repeatedly placed near the top of Republican presidential polls recently, even though he has not formed a campaign committee.

Under his leadership, Congress passed [[welfare reform]], passed the first balanced budget in a generation, and passed the first tax cut in sixteen years. In addition, the Congress restored funding to strengthen our defense and intelligence capabilities, an action later lauded by the bipartisan [[9/11 Commission]].

Gingrich's congressional career ended in 1998 when he abruptly resigned from Congress after poor showings from Republicans in elections and after being reprimanded by the House ethics panel (he was later cleared of any wrongdoing).<ref>http://www.salon.com/news/letters/2006/01/11/gingrich/index.html</ref>

== Speakership ==
*All ten items in the Contract With America were brought to a vote in the U.S. House in the first 100 days (the promise was to bring them to a vote). Nine of the ten items passed the House. The sole exception was term limits which received a plurality but required a two-thirds majority as a Constitutional Amendment.
*Committee Chairmen were term-limited as was the Speakership.
*The Legislative branch was cut including the Speaker's office. Also reduced were committee sizes. Unnecessary perks like the House barbershop, shoeshine and ice service were eliminated.
*The Congress was forced to live under the same laws as the rest of the land - OSHA, disabilities, workplace laws, members, staff etc.
*A big six accounting firm audited the U.S. House's finances for the first time in history.
*The Budget was balanced for the first time in a generation. When Time Magazine named Gingrich their Man of the Year in 1995, they said that because of Newt a balanced budget was no longer a question of if, but when.
*Tax rates were cut for the first time in 17 years. Included were a lowering of the [[capital gains]] tax rate, a $500 per child tax credit and new tax credits for tuition to college and voc-tech schools. The cap gains tax actually ended being scored as a [[revenue]] increase, a shift in tax policy debate due to Gingrich's success.
*Military spending increased for the first time in over 10 years including funding for a national missile defense.
*The line-item veto passed and was signed into law.
*Six of the bills were signed into law by the President. (In 1996, [[Bill Clinton| President Clinton]] pointed to 13 separate reforms that were contained within the Contract with America at the Democratic National Convention.)<ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/acceptance-speech-to-1996-democratic-convention</ref>
*More women were appointed to leadership positions in the House than anytime in history.
*Increased funding for the Violence Against Women Act by 700%.
*[[Megan's Law]] was passed. <ref>http://www.registeredoffenderslist.org/national-alert/?engine=adwords!3475&keyword=%2Amegan%27s+law%2A&match_type=&gclid=CKC_9fSEi4sCFSMhYQodWTGRHQ</ref><ref>http://www.klaaskids.org/pg-legmeg.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=31</ref>

== Post Congressional Activities ==
*Started the Center for Health Transformation, January 2003. <ref>http://www.healthtransformation.net/about/History/</ref>

== Quotes ==
*"There is no attack on American culture more deadly and more historically dishonest than the secular effort to drive God out of America's public life."
*“All free people stand on Reagan's shoulders. His principled policies proved that free markets create wealth, that the rule of law sustains freedom, and that all people everywhere deserve the right to dream, to pursue their dreams, and to govern themselves.”
*“The idea that a congressman would be tainted by accepting money from private industry or private sources is essentially a socialist argument.”
*If [[Thomas Edison]] invented electric light today, Dan Rather would report it on CBS News as "candle making industry threatened".”
*“Perseverance is the hard work you do after you get tired of doing the hard work you already did.”<ref>http://thinkexist.com/quotes/newt_gingrich*“It is impossible to maintain civilization with 12-year-olds having babies, with 15-year-olds killing each other, with 17-year-olds dying of AIDS and with 18-year-olds getting diplomas they can't read”
/</ref>

== Writings ==

As an author, Gingrich has published nine books including the best sellers, ''Contract with America'' and ''To Renew America'' and his most recent book, ''Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America''. In June 2005, ''Never Call Retreat'' concluded Newt's series of active history studies in the lessons of warfare based on a fictional account of the [[Battle of Gettysburg]] and its aftermath. And in ''Saving Lives & Saving Money'', Gingrich demonstrates how to transform health and healthcare into a 21st century system.<ref>http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=71][http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=blended&field-keywords=newt%20gingrich%20books&results-process=default&dispatch=search/ref=pd_sl_aw_tops-1_blended_28026792_1&results-process=default</ref>

== Personal Life ==
Newt Gingrich has publicly admitted to having been engaged in an extra-marital sexual relationship during the period he was pushing for [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]]'s impeachment. ""The honest answer is yes," Gingrich, a potential 2012 Republican presidential candidate, said in an interview with Focus on the Family founder [[James Dobson]]. "There are times that I have fallen short of my own standards. There's certainly times when I've fallen short of God's standards." Gingrich argued in the interview, however, that he should not be viewed as a hypocrite for pursuing Clinton's infidelity. "''The President of the United States got in trouble for committing a felony in front of a sitting federal judge''," the former Georgia congressman said of Clinton's 1998 House impeachment on perjury and obstruction of justice charges. "I drew a line in my mind that said, 'Even though I run the risk of being deeply embarrassed, and even though at a purely personal level I am not rendering judgment on another human being, as a leader of the government trying to uphold the rule of law, I have no choice except to move forward and say that you cannot accept ... perjury in your highest officials." <ref>http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1597666,00.html?cnn=yes</ref>

[[Image:Newt Callista.jpg|thumb|Newt and Callista]]
*In 1962, Gingrich married Jackie Battley. They had two daughters together. Gingrich divorced Jackie Battley in 1980.
*Gingrich married Marianne Ginther in late 1981. Gingrich divorced his second wife, Marianne, in 2000 after his attorneys acknowledged Gingrich's relationship with his current wife, Callista Bisek, a former congressional aide.
*By August 2000, Gingrich married Bisek.
*The Gingrich family includes two daughters, two sons-in-law, and two grandchildren.

== External links ==
*[http://newt.org/AboutNewt/tabid/57/Default.aspx Official Bio]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Speakers of the House(US)|Gingrich, Newt]]

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-03-16T12:08:59Z

ArthurA: /* Affirmative Action is a conservative word? */ bothering to sign it this time

==Couple of points==
* Interventionalism is an ugly kludge. The word should be "interventionism".
* Some of the terms are just not Conservative in '''any''' meaningful way. For example "design by committee" is used by both Liberals and Conservatives to describe the same problem.
* A word to describe Conservative concept may be worth calling a "Conservative word", but the mere fact that Conservatives like or dislike something doesn't mean the word is Liberal or Conservative. "Grassroots" isn't a Conservative word-- it's a word for local community activism, regardless of political bent. Ditto phonics. "Condescention" isn't a Liberal word, and it was originally, considered to be the Christian virtue of treating one's social inferiors as equals.
* I don't know anyone who denies the '''effectiveness''' of abstinence, Liberal, Conservative, or pink-and-green-striped.
[[User:Pepperlynn|Pepperlynn]] 17:48, 23 February 2009 (EST)

: Your first point is good, and I just changed it. You could have changed it yourself.

: Your second point is baseless. The conservative terms do reflect conservative insights. Sure, sometimes liberals use them. Sometimes atheists quote from the Bible too.

: Your third point again is misguided. Liberals say "community organizing" or "community activism." Conservatives say "grassroots". The concepts are different, though similar. Think about it more.

: Your fourth point shows you don't yet recognize the liberal viewpoint in its full deceit. Stick around here and you will. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:14, 23 February 2009 (EST)

==Some suggestions==
How about 'responsibility' (1737) and 'self-discipline' (1838)? [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 08:58, 10 January 2009 (EST)

: Superb ideas!!! Fantastic. Please add them. I have some that will add also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:19, 10 January 2009 (EST)

The list is good, but it doesn't say why they are ''conservative'' words. Perhaps something could be added related to this? Also, I have a suggestion: 'Rags to Riches'? *Hopeful* [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 11:13, 10 January 2009 (EST)

What are the criteria for "conservative words" (as distinct from "liberal words"?) [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 14:10, 10 January 2009 (EST)

As per "radar", I suggest "sonar" and "laser" (also acronyms, from similar domain), and "radio".

: (edit conflict) Words that express more precisely a conservative concept, or criticize more effectively a liberal characteristic. I'm going to insert Mike Salter's suggestions above, for example, and feel free to add your own.

: The distribution of the words as a function of time (and perhaps what was happening at the time) will become illuminating.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 10 January 2009 (EST)

: P.S. I don't see sonar, laser and radio as adding any conservative insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:: Understood. But "radar" does? [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 14:27, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::: Yes, because it was the first and it has broader use than your other example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:28, 10 January 2009 (EST)
::: I understand precedence going to the earliest word, but don't see how "radar" expresses more precisely a conservative concept, or criticizes more effectively a liberal characteristic. [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 14:33, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::: Your point is well-taken, and I agree this is borderline. However, I would still say that "radar" is a conservative concept/insight that is used effectively to convey a powerful conservative idea. Let's see what others think before deleting it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:57, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Well, RADAR was created in Britain just before WW2 - indeed, it was one of the reasons why Britain defeated the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain. So I'm not really sure why it's on a list of American Conservative words when Britain is highly liberal by comparison to America. Also, I added one - 'self-determination'. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 15:13, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Frankly, I'm confused. I normally think of "radar" (in the non-scientific sense) as meaning perception. "In the public's radar" means "something the public notices." Is there a different conservative conception of the word? [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 15:14, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: The inclusion of "radar" is debatable, but essentially it is a powerful self-defense mechanism conceptually analogous to the [[Reagan]]'s concept of [[SDI]] and the [[Second Amendment]], which [[liberals]] loathed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:49, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Here's two:
*pro-life ([http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pro-life 1976], though I'd prefer a better citation since the quote they have underneath is very anti-conservative.)
*normalcy (1920 in the Conservative sense, although dated back to 1857 in a mathematical sense. In a rare glimmer of unbiased truth on a political subject, the WP article even states: ''"Furthermore, the concept apparently encapsulated what Americans wanted, since he was elected president over his Democratic opponent James Cox by the greatest margin since the popular vote was introduced."'')
-[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 14:40, 10 January 2009 (EST)

: Fantastic suggestions, both of them. Very insightful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:57, 10 January 2009 (EST)

"elitism" (1947) - Seems to be used much more widely with this last election campaign. [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 15:26, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:Conversely, "populism" and "grassroots," which have formed an important basis of conservative politics since 1980 (earlier?) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 17:17, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:: "grassroots" is a good suggestion, and I just added it. "populism" is not a term used particularly by conservatives; nor does it yield any conservative insight that I am aware of.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:40, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:::Seriously? Populism is used continually to refer to Reagan, and more recently, George Bush and Sarah Palin, as they seek to speak for the "people" as opposed to "elites." Strikes me as deeply conservative. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 17:44, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::: I don't doubt that liberals, the media, history books, and a diversity other people use the term. I doubt that any of the conservatives you mention, or any other conservatives, use the term much. It would be easy for you to prove me wrong, if I were wrong. I don't see anything conservative or insightful about the term. Majority rules? That's a mundane, almost meaningless concept at best. It begs the question of what the majority thinks at a particular time, which of course is very fickle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Pat Buchanan calls himself a populist (though it notes Goldwater and Reagan would not use the term). [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n15_v47/ai_17161967] Rove calls Bush a populist on taxation [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905EFD61130F930A15752C0A9659C8B63]. I suppose there are two different concepts of the word: first, the classical "majority rules" idea which was rejected by the founding fathers in favor of checks and balances, and second, the modern term, conservative "populism," which refers to deriving your power from the people and relying on widely and deeply held conservative Christian values (example would be Palin's emphasis on the "real America" and blue collar workers) as opposed to deriving your power from intellectuals and media magnates. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:21, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Phyllis Schlafly refers to the Goldwater ideology as populist, and she'd know! [http://www.eagleforum.org/column/1998/june98/98-06-10.html] [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:31, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: The word ''populist'' has a far better tone than the word'' populism''. Similarly, the word ''fundamentalist'' has a far better tone than ''fundamentalism''. In political contexts, these are four completely different words. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:32, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: The problem comes when liberals attempt to use the terms as smears, and we stop using them as a result. I for one am proud to call myself a fundamentalist, and I know many other who feel the same way. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:35, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:::::: Me too. I take pride in saying I believe in fundamentalism. All would agree that ''-ism'' added to almost any word gives it a negative tone, yes? For example, "science + t + ism = scientism" and scientism always refers to a bad set of science-related ideas. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:42, 10 January 2009 (EST)
(Unindent) You have a point there. But now you have liberals calling muslim terrorists "fundamentalist muslims," to try to paint us with the same brush. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:54, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: The cites above are interesting but inconclusive. RickD's point in distinguishing "populist" from "populism" is superb. None of the above cites refer to "populism" in a conservative or even favorable light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Some suggestions off the top of my head: Truth, Integrity those these are quite general I think they contrast well with the article on liberal deceit. [[User:JamesDW|JamesDW]] 21:16, 11 January 2009 (EST)

==Pro-life==

Andy, do you have a cite for the earlier attestation of "pro-life" than the one I provided? I think it's great that you've found a date that predates [[Roe v. Wade]]. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 18:38, 10 January 2009 (EST)

==Atheism==
It's not an English word; it's Greek. The claim is hardly "Silly," ASchlafly. But given your other claims on the page, IE that "quote mining" A: is a word and B: Was never invented, I guess I can forgive you for thinking that. [[User:RaymondS|RaymondS]] 00:04, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Use of the Adjective "New" ==

Is "new" the right word to be using for terms that originated in the 1600's and 1700's? `I'm not saying they should be removed from the list, but referring to them as "new" implies that they were originated with the modern conservative movement. Maybe these should be referred to as ''Powerful'' or ''Significant'' conservative words, which makes their date of origin irrelevant. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:10, 11 January 2009 (EST)

==Origins==
I used the Oxford English Dictionary to correct the years of origin for some conservative words--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 12:45, 11 January 2009 (EST)

: You made a mess of the entry. For example, the date you inserted for "conservative" is not for the political sense used here. Now I have to clean up your mess ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:13, 11 January 2009 (EST)

::Then you should have made it clear you wished this to done in the current political context.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 13:20, 11 January 2009 (EST)

:::Be courteous, please. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 13:22, 11 January 2009 (EST)

:: The atheism date may perhaps need changing too, in that case. In the 16th century it probably applied to matters in which there was no superficial need for God, or to people who had never been given a choice regarding the matter (for example, in the 16th century you could be burned for being a Protestant/Catholic or for witchcraft; imagine what they would do to a modern atheist!). Today, however, the term has been changed to mean one who has apparently ''voluntarily'' rejected God. I hope this helps; I also added racism to the list of Liberal words earlier. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:26, 11 January 2009 (EST)

==Spiritualism==
This may be a cultural/linguistic difference, but in the UK 'spiritualism' has a very specific meaning, of belief in communication with the dead. This was very popular in the early twentieth century, even Conan Doyle was a believer, but has since abated, though there are spiritualist 'churches' and mediums around. I would have said that 'spirituality' was the opposite of materialism, or 'religious feeling', 'religiosity', 'belief'. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 13:10, 11 January 2009 (EST)
:Not a cultural difference, but a plurality of definitions. Spirit-conjuring charlatans like to use the term, but in a philosophic context, ti's opposed to materialism. A similar opposite is "idealism," which also a number of unrelated non-philosophical definitions. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 13:17, 11 January 2009 (EST)
::I suggested dualism, which seems the best fit to me. Materialism can be phrased as the believe that everything boils down to matter, there is only one ontological world/realm and that's the realm of matter. I don't think there is an exact opposite of that (well, perhaps believing in no worlds at all, but that's just stupid), there are just alternatives like dualism and pluralism which believe in resp. two or more realms of existence and of these two dualism is the strongest held position.
::Another kind of opposite would be idealism, the belief that there is only one ontological realm and that's the realm of the mind, but even this one is more of an alternative than an opposition and not a strong position either.
::Anyways, asking for an opposite of materialism isn't very realistic, since it all depends on what you deem an opposite. What's the opposite of "one"? Is it zero, minus one, any number greater than one or "eno"? It all depends on the context, and in the context of ontological philosophy dualism is the strongest opposition to materialism. --[[User:TBrouwer|TBrouwer]] 18:43, 11 January 2009 (EST)

::: The opposite would be a sensible equivalent of anti-materialism, or immaterialism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:18, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Reversion ==

I had to revert many of Saxplayer's dates, and some minor edits were lost in the reversion. Feel free to reinstate if their quality is improved (e.g., spell "tyranny" correctly, or give a date of origin for "racism"). Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:33, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Conservapedia ==

Surely this must be one of the newest words that should earn a place! --[[User:JamesDW|JamesDW]] 23:09, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Definition / Categorisation ==

I'm reluctant to edit the page, as it may be reverted, but I have a suggestion for the opening. The term "conservative word" isn't defined, and could have many possible meanings, such as "a word coined by a conservative", or "a word for a conservative principle", or "a word commonly used by conservatives, but not by liberals or other groups". The list being produced includes examples of all these. Perhaps the page should therefore be split into accordingly different sections: "Words coined by conservatives to describe liberal principles", "Words which encapsulate conservative principles", "terms and concepts invented by conservatives", and so on.--[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:53, 12 January 2009 (EST)

: No, I disagree. The meaning is obvious enough and splintering into different categories would obscure rather than enlighten. Your three suggested "different" meanings in fact lack any significant differences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:25, 12 January 2009 (EST)

:: I concur with ASchlafly. As well as obscuring the information, if I were to go onto a page and see in the contents box "Words coined by conservatives to describe liberal principles" or "Words which encapsulate conservative principles", I would quickly go and find another page. They hardly grab one's interest. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 11:42, 12 January 2009 (EST)

== New word for 'liberal'? ==

Does anyone have any suggestions for a more descriptive word for 'liberal'? I find 'liberal' to be an unsatisfactory description for liberals in the present day, since they tend to support large government and curbs on freedom. Perhaps an alternative word would better sum up the set of views that liberals hold?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 04:47, 3 February 2009 (EST)

==[[Fellow traveller]]==
Is this a conservative word? I think its from the early 1900s and originally described communist sympathizers who did not belong to a communist party. It also might be a good word for now to describe your "terrorist sympathizer" situation.

Other suggestions: design-by-committee and democide. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:53, 8 February 2009 (EST)

: All three are superb suggestions for this entry. Please add them with informative material, such as date of first use. Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 10 February 2009 (EST)

== New article -> New liberal words? ==

I believe we discussed this prior to the server move where we lost a weeks worth of edits. I remember creating a new article on [[New liberal words]], by removing that section from this article. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 14:24, 17 February 2009 (EST)

== Words? ==

Many of these are phrases not words. How long can a phrase get? Can Reagan's acceptance speech be listed as a new word? We need guidance on what a word is. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 10:41, 18 February 2009 (EST)

: What are you talking about? The vast majority ''are'' words. If you're genuinely so confused, then I doubt we can help you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:44, 18 February 2009 (EST)

:: "Terms" would probably be a more accurate description than "words". However I assume that most people will be able to work things out from the examples given. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 10:47, 18 February 2009 (EST)

:: "affirmative action" is two words, "Affirmative" and "Action", a full 43% of the listed "Words" are really phrases like this, not including the words with hyphens. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:38, 18 February 2009 (EST)

== Humanism ==

Since Humanists and Big Bang were originally pejorative terms should they be under the conservative list? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:38, 18 February 2009 (EST)

: No, because they are liberal terms now. And I doubt their origin was conservative, either. Fred Hoyle was not a conservative. He was a liberal who rejected the theory of evolution.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:27, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::Wasn't Hoyle ''ridiculing'' the idea of the [[Big Bang]]? I'll go take a look at the [[Fred Hoyle]] article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:30, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::: Yes, he was ridiculing it. But liberals adopted the term and made it popular.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 20 February 2009 (EST)

:: Evolution is a separate issue. they are only united by the fact that they both are in the standard naturalistic view of the origin of the universe. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 11:59, 22 February 2009 (EST)

== We should make a unifying convention or get rid of the divide ==

There are words that belong in both groups, that or we need a clear convention used through out. Communism is most often used by Conservatives, its a sore subject for liberals (you know, with the millions killed and mass poverty and all) and they rarely talk about it. I just want a better convention than "because Andy figures this way is best". --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:17, 23 February 2009 (EST)

== A new word? ==

Andy - "self determination"? It started around colonial times, so it could well be from the 1700's. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:45, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

: Date is 1670, and I'm sure it's all that conservative. Sometimes it is a euphemism for something harmful, like communism in Cuba. But thanks for the suggestion!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:12, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

:: You're very welcome - I made the suggestion because I felt that it is one of the reasons that America freed Iraq (a move opposed by liberals and supported by conservatives); so that the people there could hold fair elections, rather than suffer under Hussein's despotism. At the end of the day though, you probably know more than me on this subject, so I'll defer to your wisdom! [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:19, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

::: You raise interesting issues, but I think Saddam Hussein was also "self-determination" by Iraqis, right?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

::::(Edit conflict) Oh, and what about "survival of the fittest" for a liberal word? I noticed you mentioned it in your lecture. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:28, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
::::I think you're right about Saddam Hussein coming to power, but I also believe that towards the end of his reign many wanted him out, but were compelled to vote for him or else be punished (this is why I think the American system, with its two-term limit, is the best in the world). Mugabe is a good example of this; when he came to power, he was hailed as an African anti-oppression hero, and Zimbabwe was held up as an excellent example of post-colonialism. Now, however, his people want him out but are prevented from voting him out by the security forces (and when they did vote him out, it was declared illegal) and the world, including Africa, recognises him as a madman and a tyrant. In the meantime, the country is starving and in the grip of a cholera epidemic. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:28, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

"Natural selection" is a misleading euphemism, and the explanation discusses why. Also, it's improper to refer to creationists accepting a claim by evolutionists as though that somehow fully resolves the matter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:32, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action is a conservative word? ==

Why is "affirmative action" considered a conservative word?

It was first used in [http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal6/eo10925.htm JFK's Executive Order 10925] in 1961 (not 1965, as the essay states), and later "pushed" by LBJ.

Criticism of it is certainly a conservative concept, and it is now largely used critically by conservatives, but it hardly seems to qualify as a conservative "word" (or, more accurately, "term"). [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:08, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-03-16T11:07:39Z

ArthurA: /* New Liberal Terms */ "Unitarian" should be capitalized; it refers to a religion. Its a proper noun, whether we like that religion's beliefs or not.

Each year the English language develops about a thousand new words. Over the course of a century, that amounts to 100,000 new words. Since the [[King James Version]] of the [[Bible]] was published in 1611, perhaps a half a million new English words have been developed.

The inevitable triumph of conservatism over liberalism is apparent from comparing the rates of generation of new terms of each type, and the quality of the terms so generated. Conservative terms are being generated at a faster rate, and with much higher quality, than liberal terms are. In the 20th century, for example, more conservative terms were developed, and they were developed at a steadier pace. The new liberal terms were clustered in the 1920s and 1960s, were fewer in number, and lacked the same high quality.

A small percentage of those new words are tremendously powerful. Here are some examples developed since the King James Version was published:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[accountability]]
|1794
|
|-
|[[Affirmative Action|affirmative action]]
|1965
|
|-
|American dream
|1911<ref>1911 is the date given by the "OED", which refers to the Oxford English Dictionary. The Merriam-Webster dictionary gives a date of 1931.</ref>
|
|-
|bailout
|1951
|The verbal form ''to bail out'' (in a figurative sense, which is meant here) dates from the 1580s. The literal sense is somewhat earlier. <ref>OED, ''bail, v1''</ref>
|-
|bork
|1988
|coined by William Safire to refer to how Democrats savage a conservative nominee, such as their defeat of Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork.
|-
|[[bureaucracy]]
|1818
|
|-
|Columbian
|1757
|relating to Christopher Columbus or the United States
|-
|competitive
|1829
|
|-
|[[conservative]]
|1831
|
|-
|copyright
|1735
|extending private property to protect expressive works
|-
|[[culture war]]
|1991
|widespread use after the book ''Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America'' by James Davison Hunter
|-
|demagogue
|1648
|
|-
|[[deregulation]]
|1963
|Reagan won in 1980 by campaigning on this.
|-
|design by committee
|before 1958
|Pejorative directed against collective production by a group
|-
|[[deterrence]]
|1861
|
|-
|dumb down
|1933
|
|-
|[[efficiency]]
|1633
|Ultimately from the Latin ''efficientem'', meaning ''"working out, or accomplishing"''<ref>[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=efficient Online Etymological Dictionary]</ref>
|-
|[[elitism]]
|1950
|
|-
|[[entitlement]]
|1944
|
|-
|[[family values]]
|1916
|widespread use after a speech by Vice President [[Dan Quayle]], 1992
|-
|[[fellow traveller]]
|1925
|May have existed earlier, but popularized in 1924 by Trotsky. Describes a sympathizer of a cause but who does not formally belong to the cause, such as a [[communist]] sympathizer who is not part of the communist [[party]].
|-
|[[free enterprise]]
|1820
|
|-
|free world
|1949
|areas of the world free of communism
|-
|go-getter
|1921
|
|-
|Good Samaritan
|1640
|how genuine [[charity]] is the best approach
|-
|[[grade inflation]]
|1975
|the tendency by Liberal educationalists and public schools to increase marks, irrespective of merit or actual achievement.
|-
|[[grassroots]]
|1901
|
|-
|[[homeschool]]
|1980<ref>The OED assigns a date of origin of 1850 to "homeschool".</ref>
|
|-
|interventionism
|1923
|"governmental interference in economic affairs at home or in political affairs of another country"<ref>Merriam-Webster (1994).</ref>
|-
|invisible hand
|1776
|Coined by Adam Smith in the ''Wealth of Nations'' and widely used today, yet Merriam-Webster fails to recognize it!<ref>This term is absent from the 1994 print edition of the Merriam-Webster dictionary</ref>
|-
|judicial activism
|1947
|First coined in an article in ''Fortune'' magazine by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.,<ref>http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/278089</ref> and repeatedly used in U.S. Supreme Court opinions since 1967,<ref>''United States v. Wade'',
388 U.S. 218 (1967).</ref> yet as of 2009 [[Merriam-Webster]] dictionary still fails to recognize this widely used term.
|-
|junk science
|1962<ref>http://rated.com/dir/Society/Issues/Environment/Opposing_Views/Junk_Science</ref>
|the corruption of the scientific method to advance other goals
|-
|jury nullification
|1700s
|the power of a jury to overrule the law and acquit an ostensibly guilty defendant; first established in colonies in 1735 in the trial of [[John Peter Zenger]]
|-
|[[Essay:Liberal hysteria|hysteria]]
|1801
|From the Latin ''hystericus'', from Greek ''hystera '' meaning ''"womb"''<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hysteria Meriam Webster Dictionary]</ref> (an old notion that hysteria was caused by the [[womb]]).
|-
|[[microeconomics]]
|1947
|the study of the economics of the individual person or business
|-
|[[meritocracy]]
|1958
|
|-
|me-too
|1881
|
|-
|mobocracy
|1754
|rule by a mob, as at Wikipedia
|-
|[[opportunity cost]]
|1911
|
|-
|parenting
|1958
|Children raising
|-
|patriotism
|1726
|
|-
|[[personhood]] <ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/personhood Personhood] Dictionary.com</ref>
|1955
|Inherent rights guaranteed to all human beings from the beginning of their biological development, including the pre-born, partially born. Also, the state or fact of being a person.
|-
|[[phonics]]
|1684
|
|-
|[[politically correct]]
|1983
|This term originated at the [[liberal]] [[University of Madison-Wisconsin]] to enforce liberal orthodoxy, but immediately flipped in usage to become a term of mockery of liberals.<ref>But see 1793 J. WILSON in U.S. Rep. (U.S. Supreme Court) 2 (1798) 462 Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our..language... ‘The United States’, instead of the ‘People of the United States’, is the toast given. This is not *politically correct</ref>
|-
|potential
|1817<ref>Usage here refers to "promise", not "possibility".</ref>
|
|-
|privatize
|1940
|to return a business or enterprise from state to private control; to de-nationalize.
|-
|productive
|1612
|
|-
|[[pro-life]]
|1960
|
|-
|property right
|1853
|
|-
|[[responsibility]]
|1737
|1787 HAMILTON Federalist No. 63 II. 193 Responsibility in order to be reasonable must be limited to objects within the power of the responsible party.
|-
|[[self-defense]]
|1651
|
|-
|[[Discipline|self-discipline]]
|1838
|
|-
|self-indulgence
|1753
|
|-
|self-reliant
|1848
|
|-
|spend-and-tax
|2009<ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/02/morning-bell-the-obama-tax-and-spend-economy-is-here/</ref>
|a variation on "tax-and-spend" (see below), "spend-and-tax" consists of spending the money first and then trying to justify raising taxes based on the deficit created by the spending
|-
|tax-and-spend
|late 1900s
|Not yet recognized by Merriam-Webster, it is included in dictionary.com and it means the liberal policy of raising taxes and increasing government spending
|-
|trademark
|1838
|extends the concept of private property to the marks used by business
|-
|victimization
|1840
|
|-
|wannabee
|1981
|the third most recent entry; a word that criticizes liberal [[status worship]]
|-
|War on Terror
|2001
|no listing at Merriam-Webster, Encyclopedia.com has an anti-American version <ref>[http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O48-waronterrorism.html war on terrorism] Encyclopedia.com</ref> February 2, 2009 Obama ends use of the conservative lexicon. <ref>[http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=17455 Obama administration drops 'war on terror' phrase] Pew Forum, February 2, 2009</ref>
|-
|worldview
|1858
|a comprehensive way of looking at life and the world; sometimes used to criticize a liberal's irrational belief system
|-
|}

== Rate of Generation of Conservative Terms ==

The rate of generation of conservative terms is increasing:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Century
!# New Conservative Terms
|-
|1600s
|5
|-
|1700s
|10
|-
|1800s
|14
|-
|1900s
|30
|-
|2000s
|2
|-
|}

== Conservative Words Not Yet Recognized by the Dictionary ==

A thousand new words are developed in English each year. Here is a growing list of conservative concepts, each of which is not yet defined by a single word or two.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Not Yet Recognized Terms
!Suggestions
!Comments
|-
|Unaffected by, or impervious to, the media
|mediaproof
|cf. bulletproof. ''Once John became aware of the extent of [[liberal deceit]], he set about mediaproofing his mind''.
|-
|easily amused by [[deceit]]
|dolophile
|from Greek/Latin root ''dolo-'' meaning guile, deceit, deception [http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/664]
|-
|the opposite of [[materialism]]
|spiritualism and idealism have been its philosophical opposites, historically
|[[dualism]] has been suggested, but it is not the ''opposite'' of [[materialism]]; "spiritualism" is not a common term and is the "opposite" of materialism
|-
|runaway jury
|
|The term has existed for decades, but Merriam-Webster has not recognized it yet.
|-
|[[Second generation atheist|second-generation atheist]]
|cradle atheist
|
|-
|denial that [[Hell]] exists
|Hell-denier? Antinfernal?
|
|-
|[[deliberate ignorance]]
|
|the term exists; the dictionary does not yet include it
|-
|proven wrong, a refusal to admit it
|mulism; heel-digger?
|cf. mulish. This refusal is what promoted the [[Parable of the Good Samaritan]].
|-
|[[term limits]]
|
|can you believe this is not in the dictionary yet? Merriam-Webster omits it, but dictionary.com includes it with an origin date of 1861[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/term+limit]
|-
|[[Illegal Alien|illegal alien]]
|
|widely used in court decisions and political discourse for years, Merriam-Webster still does not recognize it is as a term.
|-
|strict constructionism
|
|an important term for over 200 years to describe adherence to the text of the Constitution, Merriam-Webster still does not recognize it.
|-
|[[abstinence denial|denier of the effectiveness of abstinence]]
|abstinence-denier?
|-
|anti-family
|tradition opposer, familiopathic
|
|-
|[[militant gays]]
|intimidating homosexual
|
|-
|causing harm by spreading falsehoods
|
|e.g., denying or concealing disease and infertility caused by promiscuity
|-
|[[peer pressure]]
|
|can you believe that isn't recognized by Merriam-Webster?
|-
|modern idolatry
|"media idolatry"; "money idolatry"; "celebrity idolatry"
|idolatry conjures images of golden calves, and a modern version is needed
|-
|dramacast
|tabloid news
|mainstream media presents drama fluff stories as news, e.g. 20/20 - Dateline
|-
|[[schlockumentary]]
|propaganda film
|documentary films based falsehoods and half-truths
|-
|}

== New Liberal Terms ==

New liberal words often have deceptive, or nonsensical, meanings. Here are some new words created by liberals to combat [[conservatism]]:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[Atheism|atheist]]
|1571
|
|-
|"[[Big Bang theory|Big Bang]]"
|1948
|term invented by the leading [[British]] physicist Sir [[Fred Hoyle]] to ''mock'' this suggestion of how the universe was formed
|-
|bilingual education
|1972
|a euphemism describing a costly and hurtful program that hinders the learning of English by foreign-born children in American [[public school]]s, which hurts their future opportunities
|-
|[[carbon footprint]]
|1999<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/carbon%20footprint</ref>
|term indicates an individual human's effect on the environment by production of carbon dioxide
|-
|[[class warfare]]
|
|first entered the political lexicon primarily as an attack by liberals against conservatives. <ref>[http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030115.html The art of "class warfare"], Ben Fritz, Spinsanity.org, January 15, 2003</ref>
|-
|[[communism]]
|1840
|
|-
|compassion fatigue
|1968
|Liberals, driven by materialistic self-interest, are likely to suffer from this.
|-
|[[condescension]]
|1647
|
|-
|[[Dark Ages]]
|1730
|A term coined in the so-called [[enlightenment]] to disparage the period between the fall of the [[Roman Empire]] and c.1000, when the Christian faith, and its learning and culture, spread across Europe.
|-
|[[Dead white males|dead white males]]
|
|a disparaging term used of significant figures from previous generations by those who wish to undermine [[Cultural Literacy|cultural literacy]]
|-
|[[Détente|detente]]
|1970s
|A euphemism referring to pacifist policy re. the Soviet Union
|-
|distributive justice
|
|A term used to redefine socialist abridgment of rights as "just"
|-
|[[enlightenment]]
|1669
|
|-
|[[Environmentalist|environmentalism]]
|1922
|a mixture of [[pseudoscience]] and neo-[[paganism]] used to justify the imposition of [[socialist]]ic controls.
|-
|freethinker
|1692
|the euphemism "free" hides the hostility towards faith, which is not free
|-
|[[fundamentalism]]
|1922
|"a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching"<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalism</ref> From a series of pamphlets called "The Fundamentals" which outlined the movement. Perjorative usage started when the liberal [[Harry Emerson Fosdick]] began using the term in a straw man attack against [[Conservative Christianity]].
|-
|[[feminism]]
|1895
|notionally, "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes"; in reality, the attempt to destroy traditional family, societal and religious values by erasing or undermining natural gender differences.
|-
|[[gay rights]]
|1969
|The movement for civil rights for homosexuals
|-
|glass ceiling
|1984
|the notion that an invisible barrier prevents women and ethnic minorities from reaching high office; an excuse for [[feminist]]s and others to demand [[affirmative action]]
|-
|[[global warming]]
|1969
|The baseless [[environmentalist]] mantra that the earth's temperature is rising, and that human intervention is the cause.
|-
|[[homophobia]]
|1969
|used by Liberals to describe a failure to subscribe 100% to the [[homosexual agenda]].
|-
|[[humanism]]
|1808 <ref>http://newhumanist.org.uk/1740</ref>
|
|-
|[[imperialism]]
|1851
|a clever term later used by liberals to interfere with Christian missionaries and stopping anti-Christian tyranny
|-
|[[isolationism]]
|1922
|a pejorative term that is critical of American politicians putting America first in priorities
|-
|Keynesianism
|1946
|advocacy of 'tax and spend' policies as elaborated by the economist [[John Maynard Keynes]]; a [[euphemism]] for back-door [[Socialism]].
|-
|[[Living Constitution]]
|2000
|a continually evolving Constitution (first used by presidential candidate Al Gore, title of a 1936 book by Howard McBain)
|-
|moderate
|late 1900s
|the original term dates from the French Revolution, but its meaning today is a euphemism for someone who favors abortion and/or supports censorship of Christianity in some ways
|-
|nationalize
|1800
|a euphemism for the government taking over ownership and control of a large company or entire industry, as in socialism
|-
|natural selection
|1857
|a misleading and euphemistic term for the theory that genetic advantages and conflict dictate survival
|-
|[[politically correct]]
|1936
|According to some sources, the term originally comes from Chairman Mao
|-
|[[population control]]
|1968
|the issue of population dates back to Confucius. Liberals promoted the term after the book The Population Bomb by Paul R. Ehrlich
|-
|[[pro-choice]]
|1975
|a euphemism for insisting on taxpayer-funded [[abortion]]; people who claim to be pro-choice typically oppose ''informed'' choice, which makes the "choice" meaningless
|-
|[[progressivism]]
|1892
|the progressive movement was not entirely liberal; it was started by a Republican and shared some goals with conservatives, and still does
|-
|[[quote mining]]
|non-existent
|a term used by [[evolutionists]] to describe taking quotes out of context in order to damage the position of the quoted party.
|-
|[[racism]]
|
|If you don't support Barack Obama, you are guilty of....
|-
|[[Sexual Discrimination|sexism]]
|1968
|That which is practiced by those who do not give total support to [[feminism]].
|-
|situation ethics
|1955
|a euphemism for denying fixed ethical standards
|-
|strict liability
|1869
|court-imposed liability even when there is no evidence of any fault by the defendant
|-
|Swift-Boating
|2004
|Allegations of unfair campaign tactics.
|-
|undocumented immigrant
|2000
|a [[politically correct]] replacement for illegal alien.
|-
|unfair
|1700
|
|-
|union shop
|1904
|
|-
|[[Unitarian]]
|1687
|
|-
|}

== Rate of Generation of Liberal Terms ==

The rate of generation of liberal terms is increasing:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Century
!# New Liberal Terms
|-
|1600s
|4
|-
|1700s
|2
|-
|1800s
|8
|-
|1900s
|20 (6 in the 1960s)
|-
|2000s
|3
|-
|}

== New Terms Difficult to Classify ==

These new terms are difficult to classify:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
|[[twilight zone]]
|1949
|the realm of imagination that seems impossible but is difficult to disprove, and which challenges ordinary views of reality
|-
|}

== Downgraded Conservative Terms ==

These conservative terms are less significant:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
|byzantine
|1794<ref>The usage here -- in sense of complex governmental rules -- probably developed later.</ref>
|
|-
|[[entropy]]
|1868
|
|-
|incandescent
|1794
|bright and radiant, conquering darkness, precursor to the invention of the incandescent lamp (light bulb)
|-
|Luddite
|1811
|one who opposes and even destroys technological advances
|-
|[[filibuster]]
|1851
|
|-
|media
|1923
|
|-
|[[milquetoast]]
|1933
|
|-
|normalcy
|1920
|related to the election of [[Warren G. Harding]] by the largest margin yet in history
|-
|}

== Sources ==

*[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ Merriam-Webster dictionary]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Essays]]

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-03-16T11:05:50Z

ArthurA: /* Affirmative Action is a conservative word? */ new section

The West Wing (TV show)

2009-03-13T18:40:18Z

ArthurA:

'''''The West Wing''''' (1999 - 2006) was a TV show depicting the term of U.S. [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] President Josiah Bartlet (played by [[Martin Sheen]]), and the frequent political realities of a party not holding majorities in [[Congress]], despite holding the [[presidency]].

Although sometimes accused of having a liberal slant (it has been referred to as "The Left Wing" by critics), the show was widely praised by real-life members of both parties, and even benefitted from the involvement of important figures from them, such as [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] press secretary Dee Dee Myers and [[Ronald Reagan|Reagan]] press secretary [[Peggy Noonan]].

The election for Bartlet's successor which ended the show has drawn renewed attention for its similarity to the 2008 presidential election two years later. In both cases, the Democrats nominate a young Senator from a minority ethnic group (Matt Santos on the show, Barack Obama in real life) who picks a Washington insider as his running mate (Leo McGarry, Joe Biden). He runs against an old Republican senator portrayed as a "maverick" (Arnold Vinick, John McCain), who picks a conservative Christian as his running mate (Ray Sullivan, Sarah Palin). In both cases, the Democrat won - though under different circumstances (Santos won after a close contest similar to the 2000 election, Obama won in a landslide).

It is sometimes regarded as one of the best TV dramas of modern times, sharing a pedestal with shows like ''Lost'' and ''The Sopranos''. It was widely hailed by political scientists and was a favorite of critics.{{fact|date=January 2008}}

==External Links==

* [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0200276/ IMDB website]

[[category:Television Shows]]

Josiah Bartlett

2009-03-13T18:39:20Z

ArthurA:

'''Josiah Bartlett''' (November 21, 1729 – May 19, 1795) was a delegate to the [[Constitutional Convention]] from the state of [[New Hampshire]]. A physician and member of the [[Continental Congress]] in 1775, 1776, and 1778, Bartlett was both a signer of the [[Articles of Confederation]] and the second signer of the [[Declaration of Independence]]. <ref>http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=B000206</ref>

President Josiah Bartlet of the television series [[The West Wing]] was a fictional descendant of the historic Bartlett, and named after him. The series never explained why the second "t" was dropped from the family name.

==References==

{{reflist}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Bartlett, Josiah}}
[[Category:Founding Fathers]]

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

2009-03-09T18:05:31Z

ArthurA: /* Reply to the Above */

==Dark Ages==

I have to ask: does this really qualify as a "mystery?" Most people who have actually taken the time to study European history, I would suggest, would say that there's a clear and simple answer: "No, the so-called "Dark Ages" weren't really so backwards." Significant advances were made during the period generally termed the "Dark Ages" in many fields: music, agriculture, metallurgy, and philosophy spring to mind immediately. Historians today generally avoid using the term "Dark Ages" for precisely that reason.

Should it really be termed a "mystery" just because some people continue to hold misconceptions about it? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:11, 28 December 2008 (EST)
: Yes, it's not a mystery at all. Renaissance humanists hated the "dark ages" with a passion. Now we know just how much science and culture were developed during those centuries. Not so much a mystery as a myth, really (liberals love to claim early Christian Europe was fruitless) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 14:14, 28 December 2008 (EST)

::Perhaps a better question would be "Why are the advances of the early Middle Ages frequently overlooked or dismissed?" --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:19, 28 December 2008 (EST)

:::My question is: ''What specific non-warfare scientific/technological advances were made in Christian Western Europe between the fall of Rome and AD1000?'' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:36, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::There were some important scholars, notably Isidore of Seville (6th century Spain), Bede (7th century England) and Alcuin of York (8th century England). But, with these possible exceptions, European scholarship is overshadowed by India, China and the Muslim Caliphate in this period. The first European renaissance started when Christian scholars visited Spain and Sicily to benefit from Arab learning.

::::However, the so-called Dark Ages weren't nearly as obscure are the name suggests. There was significant trade with Byzantium and the Caliphate and the most important monasteries had access to classical Latin texts. There were major building projects, especially of monasteries, particularly from the late 8th century onwards. The standard of craftsmanship was exceptional - you couldn't say it declined at all during the "Dark Ages". Witness the jewelry at Sutton Hoo or the illustrated manuscripts produced by Anglo-Saxon scriptoria. The Anglo-Saxon kings, notably Alfred, Athelstan and Edgar, laid the basis of English government which was formalised by the coronation oath of Henry I.

::::Bear in mind that the setback to civilisation was only in Western Europe. Culture flourished in the Eastern Empire, also in the Arab Caliphate, while the Tang and Song Dynasties represent in many ways the peak of Chinese culture. Also, much of the foundations of mathematics were discovered in India in this period. Universities were first founded in Arab lands (Fez was the first, I think) in the 10th century, before spreading to Spain and thence to Christian Europe. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::The operative words in my question above were ''scientific/technological''. I know of Bede and Alcuin and have had occasion to look into Isadore in the last few months. Yes they were scholars, and they shine like beacons. I am also aware of the "Benedictine reformation" and the wonders done by St. Dunstan. But these are beacons in the gloom. Was it Dunstan who had the Benedictine rules translated into "English" because Latin had been largely forgotten? And I love the jewellery of that age. I have had occasion to read much of the [[Anglo-Saxon Chronicle]] a number of times last year...and it really was a dark and dangerous age. Only Christianity kept western society together (and I know of no historian that denies the good the Church did in those times) but as for science and technological advances, really there was very little, if any at all.
In another context the age is also called ''the great interruption''. Cheers [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::::::Science and technology: almost nothing, I think. The great advances in science during the so-called Dark Ages were in India and the Muslim countries. The West only started to turn the corner in terms of scientific learning when Gerbert (Pope Sylvester II) visited the Muslim universities in Spain, c.1000 (see R.W. Southern, ''The Making of the Middle Ages''). [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 17:59, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:Yes! Now all we have to do is get people to agree to it on [[Essay:Liberal Denials about History]] item (10) under "Specific truths that history books deny".[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)

==Humor==
Perhaps this entry could be clarified: is there a particular form of humor that the author had in mind? There are examples of jokes, riddles, puns, comic figurines/images, anthropoligical notes of humorous conversations, etc. from both pre-Christian times and from post-Christian 'first contacts' with cultures that had had no previous exposure to Christianity.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:37, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:Brossa: Can you provide some? --[[User:AbnerY|AbnerY]] 21:51, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:I'd like to see Brossa's alleged examples also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 8 February 2009 (EST)

::How about Greek and Roman comedy? that way predated Christianity. Andy, what kind of claim are you making here? on what basis would you allege that humor does not predate Christianity? it seems pretty far-fetched. I'd like to see some evidence. --[[User:DaveClark|DaveClark]]

::: You misunderstand what a Greek "comedy" was. It was not a humorous performance as meant by the term today (after the onset of Christianity).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Yes. It was. The intention was to make people laugh. Otherwise, what on earth do you mean by "humor"? Also.. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7536918.stm [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 09:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Aschlafly is right in saying that the term "comedy" did not mean exactly what it does today, but KimSell is right that the works of playwrights such as Aristophanes certainly included humorous elements such as wordplay, farce and grotesque exaggeration (often surprisingly coarse by our standards). I'd also cite the episode where the children mocked Elisha in 2 Kings 2:23-24 as an example, albeit fairly base, of pre-Christian humor.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: As a side-note, in the past there have been bitter disputes where people have taken the polar opposite position to Mr Schlafly, ie that all humor is un-Christian. This is touched on in Umberto Eco's ''The Name of the Rose'', which I recommend.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:21, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: The pre-Christian examples don't withstand scrutiny. Mockery or crude comments are not quality humor, and may not be humor at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::::Sorry Mr. Schlafly. While you may not consider crude comments humorous, it is still defined as humor. you are yet to back up the claim you're making with any specific evidense. even if greek comedy didn't qualify as humor (and it does) there would still be no evidence that the advent of christianity brought the advent of humor.

::::This will be easier if you define precisely what ''you'' mean by 'humor' or 'comedy' so that we can determine if in fact it did or did not exist before Christianity. As the essay stands now, it implies that there was no ''humor'' before Christianity, not that, say, stand-up comedy as practiced in the United States today did not exist in the ancient world. The Greek comedy tradition was well-established by the sixth century BC and contains aspects of sexual farce, parody of 'serious' literary styles, and mockery of specific political and public figures. Comic performers wore characteristic costumes that included fat suits, huge genitalia, and grotesque masks that are still in use in modern comic performances. Greek vases depict these comic characters engaged in antics; I recall in particular a vase depicting two grotesque dwarves helping a third dwarf up a ladder or ramp - Three Stooges level humor.
::::Isaac in the Bible got his name from the laughter of Abraham and Sarah; does this not indicate a sense of humor? Elijah mocks the prophets of Baal, including the suggestion that Baal cannot hear his priests because he is on the toilet.
::::Egyptian papyri show exaggerated caricatures of dishevelled older men engaged in sexual relations with young women, including humorous captions (in heiroglyphics!) detailing the women's commentary on the situation. Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity. A foreign queen is depicted as being so fat that she stands next to an ass with the caption 'the ass needed to carry the queen'.
::::Sumerian scatological humor is recorded (in cuneiform) on a tablet dated to 1900 BC.
::::Many Native American groups had oral traditions that include the 'Trickster' figure, who gets involved in humorous scrapes and mocks authority figures. Many of these stories also include punning wordplay and practical jokes; another dimension of humor.
::::Nineteenth century Australian ethnographers, coming into first contact with an isolated Aboriginal group, noted that the Aboriginals told stories among themselves and laughed during an otherwise stressful time - in this case, a terrible thunderstorm.
::::I'm sure that others could contribute examples from Sanskrit or Asian cultures.
::::So scatological humor, sexual humor, puns, riddles, slapstick, political satire, parody of 'serious' art forms, practical jokes, and others are all documented in pre-Christian or non-Christian cultures.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: To one with an open mind, your vulgar "examples" tend to reinforce the basic observation: (real) humor was lacking before Christianity. Crudeness or vulgarity or mockery is not true humor, and Greek "comedies" were not attempts at humor in today's sense.

::::: If you had evidence of writings about humor itself, or books of humor, or truly comedic performances, or anything remotely similar to quality humor today, then that could help your argument. But the above examples, if they are the best you have, simply underscore the insight in this essay.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:54, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: It would have been simpler for you to have simply started with the statement that no 'true humor' existed before Christianity, so that we would have known what sort of Scotsman we were dealing with in the first place. At any rate, the Japanese had [http://www.conservapedia.com/Noh_theater#What_is_Ky.C5.8Dgen.3F mature forms of theater] designed to "draw rich laughter from the audience" before Christianity was introduced to Japan.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::Have you ever watched an ancient Greek comedy? Because I have, and in parts, they are downright hilarious. As people keep saying, you have not explained what you mean by "humor" and so, this conversation would seem to be pointless. However, Aristotle speaks of the history of Greek comedy, including the fact that it was funny! [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:39, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: May I ask what is the earliest example of true humor that you know of? While I respect the viewpoint that the above examples are not real humor, I don't know of any new form that emerged very soon after the establishment of Christianity.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:30, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::If you are so adament about so called "genuine humor" mr. Schlafly, then please define it for us.

::::::::Clearly there is a distinction to be made between things that are funny and things that are 'humor'. If it was intended to make people laugh, it qualifies as humor, whether it was funny or not. No doubt plenty of movies made by the Zuckers and the Farrelly brothers aren't funny, but they're still comedies. I don't find Groucho Marx very funny but he still counts as a comedian. What you seem to mean is that you don't find pre-Christian humor amusing. That's fine but it hardly counts as one of the 'greatest mysteries of world history'.[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 12:09, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: I agree with Mr Achalfly in that for something to be humorous it needs to have a certain amount of taste and refinement. For example, the article mentions a man getting hit in the crotch by a ball. While some people may find this funny, I daresay there are very few people in the world whi would call this humor. The article also mentions the Jackass movie; again, while a few people may find it amusing, I doubt very many people would define it as humorous. What do these two examples have in common? A lack of taste and refinement. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:26, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::::Surely someone with an open mind would find such taste and refinement in ancient Greco-Roman political satire (e.g. from Aristophanes). Humor undeniably existed before Christianity. Let's just put this behind us as a misunderstanding (or even a disagreement over personal preference). [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 13:41, 9 February 2009 (EST)

For the elucidation of all: "''The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature''" describes Aristophanes as an "Athenian comic poet". Eleven of his plays survive. I know of at least one that has been performed in modern times - "''The Wasps''". I have a CD of it (2 CD set actually) Originally, it was produced in 422 B.C. and is a satirical comedy, poking fun at the Athenian jury system of the time and the state of contemporary politics. It is a comedy of manners, with elements of parody, occasional crudity and slapstick. Sounds like the Restoration writers to me. Or Voltaire. Even Shakespeare indulged in a bit of crudity at times. Modern productions, of course, update some of the scenes.

Aristophanes, who is still read and studied, is only one of many writers of comedies in those times. There was an annual competition for comedy. (''The Wasps'' came 2nd in its year.) Aristophanes' style has been copied by classically trained playwrights since...the Frenchman, Racine, for instance.

The above Oxford Companion devotes over 3 tightly printed pages to ancient Greek and Roman comedy, as well as many mentioned writers getting their own articles. Perhaps we today would not find as funny, but scenes in Shakespeare that had them rolling around in the aisles in 1600 do not quite have that power today. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:remove indent) ETundel, you are confusing "I find it funny" with "it is intended as Humor." I don't find Jackass funny myself, but it is still considered humour. It may be very low comedy, which it is and not everyone will like it, but the fact remains that something does not cease to be "humour" just because X amount of people don't find it funny. [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 16:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

The above discussion is interesting, and I'd like to learn more about "The Wasps." But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary: the "ludicrous" or (more importantly) the "absurdly incongruous."

There are dim-witted people who are amused by compulsive profanity or, as on this site, by mindless vandalism. Parody and sarcasm is also immensely entertaining to the easily amused. But this is not "humor" as defined by the dictionary, and I still haven't seen any compelling examples of pre-Christian humor. A performance like "Trading Places" would qualify, but it didn't exist.

It's interesting how strenuously some people object to the proposition that humor did not predate Christianity. Surely your minds are not so closed as to think the proposition to be automatically impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Here you go Andy, here is the full text of "The Wasps" for you to read at your leisure here[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/wasps.html]. You can judge for yourself if you find it humorous. Honestly, I'm surprised that you're surprised; you throw out a proposition that runs counter to even the most basic understanding of behavior and psychology, basically saying that before Christ nobody knew how to be genuinely funny, and are surprised when people question that? Having an open mind doesn't mean you accept everything to be true. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 18:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::(EC)"But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary"
::Presumably if ANY of the above is humor as defined by the dictionary, then there was humor that pre-dated Christianity. If Aristophanes wrote a political satire ("a satirical comedy, poking fun ... at the state of contemporary politics"), would that not make it a humorous piece of work by any normal definition?[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 18:28, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::: ShawnJ and Sam99foster, please answer my question: are you saying that you believe the proposition to be automatically impossible??? It sure sounds that way from some of the closed-minded postings above. Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:42, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: No Andy, I don't find it automatically impossible, I find it impossible after brief consideration. That means I gave your question thought, and found its position to be ludicrous. The question infers that somehow, before Christ, humans did not have access to the full range of their emotions. You can argue over how humor, like ethics and morality, have changed over the years, but it doesn't stop them from existing. Rejecting the notion that humor didn't exist before Christ is not an example of closed-mindedness any more than rejecting the notion that 2+2=76 is. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 23:22, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Andy, why do you assume that we're automatically dismissing the notion? We are using historical facts and examples which you yourself seem to be dismissing out of hand without giving them any thought. Case in point, your two line rebuttal to a whole list of examples on the grounds that they are all "vulgar." Well, what's vulgar about this? "Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity." Nothing sexual, crude, or otherwise off-color here, just a '''ludicrous''' and '''absurdly incongruous''' situation that could only be intended as humorous, and yet you, without apparently even reading what the user posted, flippantly dismiss it for some reason unbeknownst to the rest of us.

::::: Now, although you are somewhat correct in saying that comedy did not mean the same thing to the ancient Greeks that it does to a modern audience, you blindly overlook two other important points. First, that ancient definition of comedy--or a version of it (Boethian, to be exact)--lasted long past the birth of Christianity. Dante and Shakespeare both wrote their comedies under this ancient definition, which is why something like the The Divine Comedy is called, well, a comedy, despite the fact that the first third of it details brutal torture and punishment without any humor whatsoever, or at least none that I can recall off the top of my head. In essence, to credit Christianity with the rise of modern "comedy" simply because of the history of that word and the genre it represents misses the mark by at least 1500-1600 years.

::::: More importantly, you ignore the fact that Greeks also had a third dramatic form, the satyr play (from which we derive the English word "satire"), which was very close to what we mean by modern comedy. Fewer of these have survived, but the express purpose of these plays was to generate laughter, which is why they were named after satyrs, who were presumed to be pranksters in Greek myth. Very often, these plays simply relied on ludicrous and absurd situations to get the audience laughing. Often these were crude, yes, but not exclusively so.

::::: We aren't automatically dismissing the idea. We're dismissing the idea because it is objectively wrong and every single shred of evidence indicates the exact opposite, even when working within your incredibly limited definition of "humor." --[[User:JakeLa|Jake Lassiter]] 10:10, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Sir, since you say parody is not humor, is [[Essay:Born_Outside_the_U.S.A.!|this]], therefore, not funny?

[[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 19:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Do you often speak in non sequiturs?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:: How is that a non-sequitur? You argue that parody and satire are not humor, so I point you to something that you presumably wrote as a humorous piece. You certainly didn't reject the accolades that termed it funny.

::: You argue, ''"Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition."'' What dictionary are you using? [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humor According to Merriam-Webster's on-line dictionary], this is the definition of humor in the context with which we are concerned (the others definitions concern the dated usage referring to the human body):

* that quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* the mental faculty of discovering, expressing, or appreciating the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing

Parody and satire seem to fit both the first and third. If you disagree, please explain why.

So, what is your definition? You've not provided one yet; you've merely said "humor is not (fill in the blank)".

I view humor as a gift from God. It allows us to get through our most troubling times. The idea that humor only existed after Christ is as alien to me as the idea that romantic love only existed after Christ. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 20:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::: I apologize to Mr. Schlafly in that I charged that he had not provided a definition of humor -- he had, and it was, embarrassingly enough, the same one I cited. This topic has become long, and I missed his definition.

::: However, I still ask this: how do parody and satire '''''not''''' fit that definition?

::: Mr. Schlafly also cites the film ''Trading Places'' as an example of humor. Well, Eddie Murphy was never one of my favorites, since, particularly during the time he made that movie, he was extraordinarily foul-mouthed. But... as I understand it, plot of the movie is two people from different worlds trade lives, and we see how they both handle it, or fail to do so.

::: That strikes me as something that has to be one of the oldest jokes imaginable -- laughing at the "fish out of water" concept. I can easily imagine two Egyptian peasants, toiling down in the Nile Delta, lightening their day by laughing at the thought of the Pharaoh having to do their jobs for a while. "He'd be worried about getting his robes dirty!" "He probably couldn't even fill ten bushels of reeds!" (Of course, "ten bushels of reeds" isn't funny to us, but it might be hilarious to the guy who could pick thirty bushels before a lunch break.)

::: Now, admittedly, I'm speculating, but so is Mr. Schlafly. And I think my speculation is quite reasonable -- ancient people laughing at a concept we still find funny. He, by contrast, apparently imagines humanity consisted of a collection of dour sourpusses and/or vulgarians who couldn't appreciate anything beyond a flatulence joke until somewhere between 1 and 30 AD.

::: He also charges those of us who don't see his viewpoint of being close-minded. Sorry, no -- it is not close-minded to expect extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim. If I said, "perhaps, until Christ was born, the sky was green and the grass was blue", you'd be justified in taking that with a huge grain of salt -- particularly if you presented me with some evidence that, in 200 BC, the sky was blue and the grass was green, and I responded with "well, that's not really ''blue'' and ''green'', that's ''cobalt'' and ''emerald''." [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:47, 10 February 2009 (EST)

I'm new here but I don't understand this one. What has Christianity got to do with humour? In any case, the answer is "yes" - as contributors above suggest, go and read (or even better, watch) Aristophanes. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::Whilst shopping just now I nicked into my local newsagency-cum-bookshop. There were Penguin Classics editions on the shelf of Aristophanes' ''Frogs'', ''The Birds'', ''Lysistrata'' and ''The Clouds''. This not a big shop....so it seems old Aristophanes is alive and kicking, if only as part of a subject at university. (I must admit that I only have the ''Wasps'' CDs because of the wonderful RVW incidental music written for a Cambridge Uni dramatic society performance in 1909, but it shows that he is not completely out of date and that his wit can be applied to modern circumstance.) The word ''wit'' is what I keep coming across regards his plays.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

==="Ancient humor"===
One thing I think many of Mr. Schlafay's detractors are overlooking is the possibility that the works we refer to as "comedies" today might not have been intended as comedies in their own time. The word "[[comedy]]" is English (as are all the other words used to describe Aristophanes' work: [[joke]], [[humor]], etc.), so we are in effect relying on modern translators of Ancient Greek to tell us what the Ancient Greeks thought about their own literary works.

The other day I was looking out my [[window]] and saw two [[squirrel]]s chasing each other up and down a [[tree]] trunk. Suddenly the lead squirrel stopped and turned around so suddenly that the other squirrel bumped into its head and fell off the tree! (It was only six feet or so off the ground, so the squirrel was unharmed.) I laughed at this funny occurrence — but of course the two squirrels weren't ''trying'' to put on a funny show for me; they were just doing what comes naturally to animals. Perhaps when we look into our history books and see the funny things that were done by Aristophanes, we should keep these two squirrels in mind. I think Mr. Schlafay was speaking particularly about the ''conscious'' exercise of humor — the ''intention'' to do funny things, not simply the ''fact'' of having done funny things. Nobody can seriously argue that nothing funny ever happened in antiquity... but ''why'' did it happen? that's the question. --[[User:GarthA|GarthA]] 21:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: That's an excellent point. Some of the ancient vulgarity, for example, was probably not intended to be "funny" any more than compulsive profanity today is intended to be funny. Someone 1000 years from now may look at dialog between two public school students today as being absolutely hilarious, even though the students are not trying to be funny now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:24, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:: The City Dionysia, which is the festival where these plays were preformed had several highly established conventions, including that four plays were to be preformed by each group: three tragedies and then a comedy. Comedies by nature are funny. While vulgar humor was indeed used, they still fit the definition of comedy ("a drama of light and amusing character and typically with a happy ending" according to Merriam-Webster). Whether people find them funny is up to them (I happen to like Scrubs, while my brother despises the show. However, he likes Family Guy, which I dislike). But the original intent of the comedies was to make people laugh, which qualifies it as humor [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:45, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::That's very clever thinking, Garth. Fortunately, we have contemporary reviews of the work of authors like Aristophanes, which described them as being humorous (or in some cases not humorous enough!).
::I suspect that this debate might be in order to get people thinking outside the box while at the same time testing their composure. Of course, humor could have not predated Christianity and of course, that is not the case. But how are you going to react when someone doggedly pursues the contrary? How are you going to react when someone refuses to define their terms or moves the goalpost or shifts ground? Will you calmly research and respond? Or will you resort to liberal deceit and condescend to them. Not only should you survey the responses you see here, you should also be doing research of your own before you form your conclusions.
::If you do your research, you will probably find the evidence for pre-Christian humor that you find compelling. Either way, come back here and attempt to argue your point. Remember to stay calm, approachable and accommodating. I urge you to engage in this exercise and wish you the best. [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 22:53, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::Garth, there were no "''funny things done by Aristophanes''" any more than there were ''funny things done by'' humorous writers of modern times. He wrote plays, in verse, using the formal dramatic restraints of his day. In 5th century Athens there were two distinct forms of stage performances. There were the Tragedies, the most famed writers of which are Euripides and Aeschylus; and the Comedies, represented today by our mate Aristophanes. Never the twain did meet. They probably both developed out of pre-Classical Dionysian ritual, but by Classical times they were distinct from each other. Unlike the tragedians, Aristophanes set out to make people laugh; and to do this he used many of the forms used today - funny or fantastical situations, plays on words, ridicule of people in power, etc., He is supposed to have been very witty. He had a way with words. He was also a serious man who was concerned at perceived faults in the society he lived in, and used humor as a weapon against these things. He is recorded as saying "comedy knows what is right." He brought the powerful down a peg or two. My "Dictionary of Greek Civilisation", a book set for university courses during the 1970s, called him "a comic genius". [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafay: Thank you. ENorman and "Fundie": It sounds like you are resorting to [[appeal to authority]] in this case. Remember that we do not actually have "contemporary reviews" of Aristophanes; what we have are ''modern translations'' of those works. I'm not even sure we would be justified in calling them "reviews", as you did, since I doubt the Ancient Greeks had anything like the modern conception of a film review or book review. "Fundie", I'm glad we agree about the value of exercise. AlanE: If Aristophanes never did anything funny, then in what sense was he a comedian? You describe him as a "serious man" who "ridicule[d] people in power"; this Aristophanes sounds like something of a [[liberal]] [[radical]]! :) --[[User:GarthA|GarthA]] 23:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:Who were the "liberals" - those in power or Aristophanes? Let's not bring today's concepts into describing someone who lived 2500years ago. He was not a comedian any more than Jonathan Swift was when he used ''Gulliver's Travels'' to lampoon the foibles of his age. Have you read him? The use of comedy to prick the inflated egos of the powerful, whether they be politicians, judges, or whatever, has a long and noble history, both for those on the left and on the right. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:49, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:: This is so ignorant it's just adorable:

:: <blockquote>"I'm not even sure we would be justified in calling them "reviews", as you did, since I doubt the Ancient Greeks had anything like the modern conception of a film review or book review."</blockquote>

:: What in the wide wide world of sports do you think Aristotle's ''Poetics'' was? --[[User:JakeLa|Jake Lassiter]] 10:33 12 February 2009

:Remember to do a little research! The first line of Aristophanes' ''[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/frogs.html The Frogs]'':
::<blockquote>XANTHIAS: Shall I crack any of those old jokes, master, At which the audience never fail to laugh?</blockquote>
:I'm almost positive there is some implication of humor somewhere in there! Form your own conclusions! [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 23:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::Well done, Fundie! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:51, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::::Having read this controversy with interest, I am forced to agree with Mr Schalfly. There is a difference between the theatre of cruelty - sarcasm and cruel raillery - that was the hallmark of the pagan Greeks, and true humour, which to be effective needs access to the depths of ones heart and soul, a perspective that only became real through the incarnation and suffering of Christ. Similarly, the coarseness of peasant nonsense such as was available to primitive peoples - the ancient equivalent of gurning through horse collars - has no right to be defined as humour. What Mr Schlafly is attempting to describe (albeit to a deliberately unreceptive audience) is something wiser, something altogether more refined and insightful. I wish him luck in persuading the unpersuadable. [[User:RegalBruin|RegalBruin]] 14:25, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::::Hi and welcome to CP, Regal! I'm interested in your view of my quote from ''The Frogs'' (above) in light of CP's definition of [[Humor]]:

:::::<blockquote>Humor is an act, statement, or other form of communication done to invoke laughter, amusement, or happiness in the audience.</blockquote>

:::::If you agree that Xanthias intended to invoke laughter by cracking jokes and continue to believe that this is not humor, please explain how you would like to see our definition of 'humor' changed. [[User:MattL|MattL]] 14:41, 10 February 2009 (EST)
::::::And G'day from me, Regal. Can you tell us what dictionary you use? All of mine say more or less the same things. What is refined humour,? Wise humour. Insightful humour. Can we have examples? BTW, all the things you find detestable in so-called ''pagan'' humour is found unabated in Chaucer and the ''Decamaron'' and the other medieval story-tellers. Shakespeare used it. Scatalogical humour was the rage through most of the reformation times and later. Mozart wrote scatalogical songs. The bedroom farce has always been popular - we had no senior churchmen refusing to go to ''The Marriage of Figaro''. The Greeks laughed at the dolt and so do we - hence the undying popularity of the Inspector Clouseau type character through history. Nothing changed. No one is denying that much pagan humour was coarse; but what I am saying is that it has never stopped being coarse, and I am also saying that before Christ there was humour of the kind that we find in Wodehouse or Wilde, and the one-liners of Groucho Marx or Dorothy Parker, which are clever because they manage to nail an aspect of the human condition in so few words. Aristophanes could do that.(Unlike I, who go on and on...:))[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:58, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::: It appears that discussing humor with [[atheists]] is a fool's errand because they, like the ancient Greeks, are unable (or refuse) to open their minds to what real humor is. I've defined it several times, as does the dictionary; it is something "ludicrous" or "absurdly incongruous." Vulgarities may amuse the simple-minded to no end, and so may slapstick comedy (which is all the "Frogs" is referencing in its opening line), but it's not humor.

::::::: We've learned something from this discussion. It's not just the pre-Christians who were without humor, but so are [[atheists]] today. It's unfortunate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::::"Ludicrous": amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity; causing laughter because of absurdity; broadly or extravagantly humorous, resembling farce. All of these definitions are fulfilled in the examples that have already been stated in this discussion. For that matter, they are all fulfilled by the image on [http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/gr/r/wine_bowl,_apulia.aspx this vase in the British Museum] from the fourth century BC.
::::::::::If your second paragraph is meant to imply that your whole premise behind claiming that there was no humor before Christianity was to poke fun of atheists - since only atheists are so humorless as to take such a ludicrous proposition seriously - then I am afraid that your Modest Proposal has been found lacking.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 18:48, 10 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Now that we've established that humor is a post-Christian phenomenon, we would do well to explore it's origins within Christianity. Do you have early Christian examples? [[User:MattL|MattL]] 17:03, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: In regards to something ludicrous or absurdly incongruous, from Plutarch's ''The Comparison of Demosthenes and Cicero'':

:::::::::<blockquote>So also we are told that when Cicero, being consul, undertook the defence of Murena against Cato's prosecution, by way of bantering Cato, he made a long series of jokes upon the absurd paradoxes, as they are called, of the Stoic set; so that a loud laughter passing from the crowd to the judges, Cato, with a quiet smile, said to those that sat next him, "My friends, what an amusing consul we have."</blockquote> We can plainly see that this is absurd. Now for the incongruity - A paradox, as defined by MW, is "a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true". Incongruous, as defined by MW, describes "something inconsistent with itself". Could this possibly be an example of humor? [[User:MattL|MattL]] 17:11, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Merriam-Webster also says that humor is "something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing." Doesn't that describe Aristophanes? [[User:BenjaminC|BenjaminC]] 17:38, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:It seems that I go away an hour and suddenly I am "without humour" and an atheist,Andy. Why have you reverted to (a) being personal to someone whose sense of humour you know nothing about and who has based his arguments on basic well-documented scholarly texts in a generally polite manner and (b)decided on a definition of humour that is at odds with every dictionary and encyclopedia I can find? Whether I am a Methodist, atheist, Catholic or calathumpian has nothing to do with the my arguments which, like most of my words in this site, are based on a lifetime of reading the canon of western literature and about it. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:20, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::I don't know why Mr Schlafly should have to defend himself against such an intemperate passive-aggressive assault. And if, as you claim, you are an expert on the entire canon of western culture, I should expect to find you in concordance with his ideas. [[User:RegalBruin|RegalBruin]] 11:50, 11 February 2009 (EST)
::::I didn't say, nor mean to imply, I was "''an expert on the entire canon of western culture''", Regal. What I can say is that that I, especially in this case, is that I am basing my statements on books (you know...those old fashioned things with pages that people used to read and geriatrics like me still do - I own thousands of them and have read untold thousands more.) So if I talk about the humour in Chaucer or Shakespeare, or mention Voltaire, or Beaumarchais (who? he says), Regal, it's because I've been there, mate, and done that, and have the tee shirt. (Even if, half the time now I have forgotten where I've put it!) Now, I assume you are being silly, perhaps "parodical", in your final phrase, but I am not in the mood. Andrew Schafly might be able to turn off severe sciatica with a quick prayer, but I can't; so I want to take it out on people: and seeing its not yet dawn and the rest of the family is still fast asleep, that means you! So do me one favour...go and find one reference - just one - from a reputable reference source, that "humour" started with Christianity. (And while you are at it, try and help Andrew by finding a reference for the Chinese inventing bamboo.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:03, 11 February 2009 (EST)

::The assumption that anyone who disagrees with Mr. S must be an atheist is indeed a pretty flimsy deflecting tactic. The claim being debated is not quite as bizarre as saying that there was no epic poetry before Christ.
::I'll chime in re the claim that the pagans had only farcical, bawdy, dirty type humor. I'm only familiar with 2 Aristophanes plays, ''Lysistrata'' and ''The Clouds''. ''Lysistrata'' does have a bawdy premise - the women of Greece conspire to not go to bed with their husbands until they end their war - but the play's point was political, not sexual, and it spoke on a real contemporary topic (the Peloponessian War) and addressed leading politicians by name. ''Clouds'' is a purely intellectual satire, making fun of the sophists in general and Socrates in particular. (Soc. was not actually a sophist but was apparently identified with them.) There are also a few poop jokes thrown in there, but that's no different from a lot of intellectual comedy today: I think of ''Little Miss Sunshine,'' that had jokes about Proust and Nietzshe, but also jokes about the dirty old grandfather character.
::My favorite thing about ''Clouds'' is that the main butt of the jokes, Socrates, was ''actually there in the audience'' watching it. The intro to my copy says that at the performance, the mask for the Socrates actor was such a good caricature, they had Socrates himself stand up so the audience could applaud the mask maker. [[User:Fishal|Fishal]] 20:36, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::A lot of this boils down to arguing definitions - a fruitless argument that could go on endlessly if we had nothing better to do. What does interest me is the idea of a new form of humor emerging during or after the life of Jesus. Does anyone have any examples of a first- or second-century shift towards more refined types of humor? Perhaps "What is the earliest example of genuine humor" could be added to the list of mysteries?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:47, 11 February 2009 (EST)
::::I don't know if this has been brought up, but it appears that Mr. Schlafly doesn't find the "crude" humour entertaining (nothing wrong with that, it'd not everybody's thing) but what about wordplay and the double negative? I sumbit my favorite passage from Homer's Odyssey: When captured by the Cyclops, Odysseus tells him that his name is "Nobody." Later, after they attack the Cyclops and blind him, he storms around his cave in a rage screaming "Nobody will not get out alive" a double negative, and then calls to his brothers that "Nobody has blinded me, Nobody has blinded me." The Cyclops thinks he is calling for help, but not understanding what he is actually saying, his brothers misunderstand him and stay away... This type of humour leads directly to the modern examples of Abbott and Costello's "Who's on First?" routine, as well as the Chico and Groucho's constant back and forth in their movies "Chico:(looking at a Contract) What'sa this?" "Groucho: That's just the standard Sanity Clause" "Chico:You can't fool me, there ain't no Sanity Claus." [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 12:15, 11 February 2009 (EST)

==Who was right - Catholics or Protestants?==

Can you explain what you mean by this question? It's a bit like asking - who is right, Christians of Buddhists? Do you mean, regarding Transubstantiation? Or do you mean celibacy? Or the infallibility of the Pope? Maybe you could phrase it a little more clearly? Finally, do you think it's helpful to the world to see the world like this? Doesn't every faith believe it's 'right'? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 17:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Surely you don't think that just because different people hold different views that each think are right, truth therefore does not exist. If I told that some cultures believe that 2+2 equals infinity, and are convinced they are right, would that change your view that 2+2=4 and not infinity?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:50, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::Well, yes, I do? Despite my own faith, I cannot in all sincerity tell a Buddhist that their faith is nonsense - I simply don't believe that's a way to get along with the rest of the planet, the pursuit of which is, after all, is our bounden duty here on this Earth. My own faith (Catholicism) has experienced many controversies, and although I hold fast to my faith, I acknowledge that it is not without its flaws and appalling mistakes. Jesus taught us to "love thy neighbour", after all. But to return to the question at hand - "who is right, Catholics or Protestants?". As an Irish Catholic married to an Irish Protestant, I'm sure you'll understand there's a great deal of sensitivity over this issue on our Island. And I'm certainly not about to tell my partner that her beliefs are 'wrong'. But what 'right' are you referring to? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 19:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)

To keep this conversation from devolving into an ideological argument, I thought I might try to clarify the original question: I interpret it as referring to the issues at the heart of the Protestant Reformation, namely the allegations of abuses of power within the Catholic Church, the selling of indulgences, the lack of reliance on Scripture, etc. Some of these are purely theological points, but I think historical discussion can bring light to the issue of whether or not the Protestants were justified in some of their more pragmatic claims. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 19:13, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: In reply to TadghOB, one thing about Jesus is indisputable: He did tell others they were wrong, and was very clear that He was divisive rather than uniting.

: In reply to Economist, there is the issue of how to deal with the problems, and what the subsequent centuries and today illustrate. I'm not yet taking a position on the question, but am pointing out how your list is incomplete.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Why did Islam grow so rapidly? ==

Not sure there's a lot of mystery here. The rise of Islam is well documented in both Arab and Byzantine sources. The "mystery", if there is one, is how Mohammed managed to convert a sizeable number of followers in his lifetime and how they became organised into a small but effective military force. Thereafter, Islam spread for several reasons. Initially, it was confined to Arab soldiers and their families and was something of an elite religion. But the Arabs were generally welcomed by the common people in the Byzantine territories because they imposed lighter taxes, their military levies were less oppressive and they didn't cut people's heads off because they disagreed with the Emperor's theological opinions. The same factors are reflected in the decline of the Byzantine empire, to the benefit of the Arabs in West Asia and North Africa: excessive taxation, too many able-bodied men from wealthy families joining the priesthood to evade military service, and continuous demoralisation of the population through religious disputes. Added to that was the over-centralisation of power in the Byzantine Empire, with the result that when the Emperor was out of action, there were few men with both the authority and the competence to wield power effectively. Such was the situation at the decisive Battle of the Yarmouk, in what is now northern Jordan, when the Emperor Heraclius was ill and unable to take the field, resulting in a decisive victory for the Arabs.

Islam spread in the territories conquered by the Arabs for similar reasons to the spread of Christianity in Europe: local rulers ingratiating themselves with their overlord (the Arab Caliph in this case), the prestige of being part of the official religion, the apparent evidence that God must favour the Muslims because he enabled them to win battles, and lower taxation for Muslims.

It's much harder to understand why the Byzantine Empire lasted as long as it did. Also, why did the Arabs not conquer most of the West? The post-Roman kingdoms in the West seem to have been more organised and effective than historians gave them credit for until recently.

See e.g. John Julius Norwich's history of Byzantium (three volumes but extremely - even addictively - readable). Also 'The Formation of Christendom' by Judith Herrin, the standard modern work on the interplay of Church and State in the Byzantine Empire; she shows that the church wasn't always a negative influence, as Edward Gibbon supposed. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:In addition to Fred's information above, Islam burst out of Arabia at a time when both the Byzantines and the Persians were completely exhausted from fighting each other interminably. There is also talk of a plague epidemic that wasted the so-called civilised powers but had little effect in the sparcely populated Arabian desert. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:52, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Romans ==

''Did the Romans recognize or understand the concept of "truth"?''

What reason do you have to think that they did not? We would surely disagree with any ancient people (not just the Romans) about whether certain ideas are true or false, but that would not mean that the people did not understand the ''concept'' of truth. What meaning do you think the word ''veritas'' had for the Romans?--[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 07:18, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== Literacy in Ancient Greece ==

I don't know what the literacy level is in the USA but let's guess at 98-99%. In ancient Greece, the people who were able to read were free, male city dwellers - and by no means all of them. Perhaps 1% of the population could read. Not sure why this one is on the list of mysteries, because it isn't one. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:11, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Decline and fall of the Roman Empire ==

This is at the other end of the spectrum - i.e. a truly unsolved problem which has been a rich subject for academic research and debate. Many books have been written about this subject so you need some kind of strategy to assemble a decent essay on the subject. I would say it's more accurate to write about the ''transformation'' of the Roman Empire, not its fall. The Eastern half of the Roman Empire as divided by Diocletian became the Eastern Roman Empire, governed from Constantinople. The Western half became a set of independent kingdoms ruled by Germanic tribes. The territory of both the Western and Eastern halves of the Empire on the southern shore of the Mediterranean, plus the Levant, became part of the Arab Caliphate. All these successor states relied heavily on Roman methods of administration and law. Arguably, the ''only'' part of the Empire that actually declined and fell, insofar as the lives of ordinary people were concerned, was England.

Some of the more important causes of the decline (transformation):
* Environmental degradation of farmland.
* The permanent state of civil war for over 50 years in the middle of the 3rd century.
* Over-centralisation of power in the hands of the emperors from the late 3rd century onwards, partly as a reaction to the instability of the 3rd century.
* Outsourcing - i.e. the replacement of Roman manpower in the army by German mercenaries.
* The sapping of the numbers of young men who could serve in the army, especially as officers, because ordination as a priest or even a deacon precluded military service.
* The decline in the tax base, because priests and monks didn't have to pay taxes.
* Population pressure as tribes (e.g. the Huns) were forced westward by the failure of farming in central Asia.
* The Great Plague of c.535, which may have been even more destructive than the Black Death.
* Interminable religious disputes diverted much of the empire's intellectual effort.
* As ever in history, chance. The Emperor Heraclius, possibly the greatest general of all Roman emperors, fell ill at a critical moment. The Arabs, on the other hand, were commanded by their greatest general, Khalid ibn al-Walid, and, against all expectations, won what is now called the Battle of the Yarmouk in 636.
[[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:40, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Did the Hebrews build the pyramids? ==

Almost certainly not. If you mean the Pyramids of Giza, including the Great Pyramid of Khufu, they were built in the 4th Dynasty (c.2500BC), about a millennium before Joseph. I don't know where the Hebrews were at that time, but it wasn't Egypt. The last of the significant pyramids in Egypt was built in the 12th Dynasty, c.1860BC, a good 200 years before Joseph.

According to the Bible, which should be considered semi-historical evidence, Joseph used a chariot but chariots didn't appear in Egypt till c.1650BC.

So: no, and not a mystery. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:52, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== How were the pyramids built? ==

This isn't known for sure but calling it a mystery rather demeans the excellent archaeological research on the subject. [http://www.archaeology.org/0705/etc/pyramid.html Here's a good, accessible article.] [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:00, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Origin of the name Jesus ==

Jesus, pronounced ''Dzheezus'' in English, is the Latin version of his name (pronounced ''Yaysoos''). In turn, that's the Latin spelling of the Greek version of his name (same pronounciation as in Latin). And that's the Hellenised version of the Hebrew name Yehoshua. Which, as it happens, has come into English by a more direct route as Joshua.

The only thing that might seem slightly curious here is the sound shift from ''Y'' to ''J'' at the beginning of the word. This came about because the letters ''I'' and ''J'' were used indiscriminantly by English printers in the late middle ages. By the time the letter J finally entered the English alphabet (early 17th century, I think), Latin words which the Romans spelt with a initial ''I'' (e.g. Iulius Caesar) had come to be spelt with an initial ''J'' in English (hence Julius Caesar). So then they acquired the pronounciation ''J'', as in the very common names James and John.

Again, I don't know why you call this a mystery. This is pretty well known and very easy to look up if you don't know it. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:11, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Reply to the Above ==

Fred, thanks for your attempt to solve the mystery, but I've got news for you: your spelling is atrocious and you're absurdly wrong in claiming that literacy in the U.S. is 98% or 99%. It's nowhere near that high.

The liberals who are running [[public schools]], and whom you likely support, are producing millions of illiterates each year. And it's getting worse thanks to how you likely vote. I know, you don't think it's your fault, but someone is electing these people who are perpetrating illiteracy. Fortunately, some parents are waking up to the problem, even if voters aren't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:44, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

* Spelling: I wrote ''we'' instead of ''were'' at one point in the 'Decline and Fall' section but apart from that, you'll have to tell me what my spelling mistakes are because I don't see them.
* Why does anything I've written make you assume I'm a liberal?
* Your criticism of public schools is a 'straw man' argument. Scotland (where I live) has almost entirely public education and a very high literacy rate. Likewise the Scandinavian countries, Holland, etc. Maybe there's something wrong with public education in the USA but it's too simplistic just to blame any problems on the fact that schools are public ''per se''.
* So you'll have gathered I haven't voted for anyone who's perpetuated illiteracy in the USA.
* Even so, I don't believe literacy in the USA is as low as 1-2%, which is what it was in Ancient Greece.
* Finally, are you always so rude to contributors? I hope you don't behave like that to the schoolkids you tutor. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 07:33, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html The CIA World Factbook concurs] with Mister Ferguson -- 99% literacy (defined as "age 15 and over can read and write"), both male and female, in the United States. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:35, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Don't believe everything the government says, obviously. Illiteracy is rampant in many public schools, and among millions of adults in the U.S.

::::Care to cite a source (like I did)? You merely say "millions of adults" -- well, there's 220 million adults in the United States. If 1% of them cannot read, that's 2.2 million -- in other words, "millions". I'll grant, 99% literacy seems high, especially if you're looking at functional literacy (that is, able to read and write well enough to function in society) versus ability to read and write at all (my five year old niece can read and write a smidge, but certainly not well enough to hold a job!), but you act as if half the population couldn't read anything more than the cutesy graphics on the front page of USA Today. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 10:28, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Fred, I'm surprised you think my reply was "rude", yet seem to have no problem with your own postings. As to spellings, "indiscriminantly"? "Pronounciation"? Please. Also, don't try to fool anyone into thinking you're not a liberal. We are a truthful resource here and we disclose our point of view up-front. Do likewise or find another site to rant on. Wikipedia likes people who hide their point of view. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: * Whoops! Tripped up on two of the trickier words in the English language. Maybe you'd better take a blue pencil to your own contributions - they're not exactly flawless either.
:::: * "Liberal" - please answer my question. What, exactly, is liberal about what I've written above?
:::: * You're very fond of accusing people of ranting, aren't you? I've seen you say that to other people. But stating the facts and arguing logically isn't ranting. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 10:07, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Can we focus on the facts, please? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] has brought up some interesting points - let's discuss those, rather than who is the better speller. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:12, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::This is the Fred Ferguson who claimed his spelling was immaculate, and when his errors were pointed out responded with a blase, "Oh, those are the two most difficult words in the English Language, so it doesn't really count", is it? the Fred Ferguson who thinks that ad homs are an adequate replacement for logical debate? I'm sure his points are very valid indeed! [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 11:07, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::: And your point is...? I don't see the relevance of this to the facts of the discussion. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 11:12, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::I dare say you don't. However, I have grave doubts about whether your 'fact'-mongering is carried out with the intention of helping to build up Conservapedia. Given the nature of these 'facts', and of your attitude, I suspect quite the opposite. [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 12:53, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
: LITERACY: I crunched some numbers. According to the CIA World Fact Book, the population of the US is 303,824,640. 20.1% of that is children 0-14 years,w ho are presumably still working on literacy. Leave them out and that gives 303,824,640*0.799 = 242,755,887 adults. Now if 99% of those are literate, how many are not? 242,755,887*0.01 = 2,427,559. Thus even if 99% of Americans are literate, there are still two and a half million American adults who are illiterate. So we can have BOTH millions of illiterate Americans AND 99% literacy. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:19, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::I found some interesting reading on literacy in the US in [http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf this report]. I have not read it all (I have to get back to teaching and laundry and bread baking), but I think it will prove worthwhile for those interested in seriously discussing this topic. Note that it provides a more complex picture of literacy than just "literate" vs. "illiterate". I would be interested also in reading something about literacy in Ancient Greece. My layman's impression is that women and slaves were generally not taught to read, which, if accurate, would imply that there was significantly less literacy in Ancient Greece than in modern America, even if Mr Schlafly's perspective on US public schools & literacy is accurate. Has anyone found any information to the contrary? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:34, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Info on literacy in ancient Greece:
::: [http://www.historyliteracy.org/scripts/search_display.php?Article_ID=69 Book review of ''Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece'' (suggests literacy as we understand it was confined to "a very small elite")]
::: [http://people.uncw.edu/deagona/ancientnovel/leslie.htm An article on ''Literacy and the Ancient Novel'' (suggests "advanced literacy" of 5%)]
::: Doesn't sound comparable to the modern USA! [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 10:54, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: FredFerguson, have you ever considered that some sources aren't trustworth and that some things (like literacy in Ancient Greece) can't be measured? It's all very well citing a book or article, but then you have to consider where the book writer or article writer got the information from - and in an unfortunately large number of cases it comes from the top of his head. How do they know what literacy levels were in Ancient Greece? As a Greek lay dying, did he say to his son "Now if you remember one thing, remember this, and pass it on to your children....the current literacy rate is 5%. Pass it on to antiquity!"? I doubt it. It is quite likely that the figures quoted in those articles are just plain lies, or taken from other sources which have lied. Just because you read it somewhere doesn't mean it's true. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::I don't think that truth is one of his priorities. [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 12:54, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::Maybe, but it's undeniable that nowadays 'Professor' has become a deceptive title; people are too inclined to trust them and what they say based purely on their title, when in fact they should be subject to greater scrutiny. Too many people see a book or article by a 'Professor' and immediately believe it must be completely true. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:59, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Well, RaviS, who's being ''ad hominem'' now?! And ETrundel, simply because something can't be measured directly doesn't mean it can't be estimated. And the fact that one estimate has been made doesn't mean that that estimate can't be improved. But in general, people who've studied a subject seriously generally have a better idea of the actual facts than people who just dismiss out of hand any factual information they find uncomfortable.
::::::Can we move this discussion forward? Does anyone else have some '''information''' to contribute about any of the topics I've raised on this page? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:10, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
Is it even sensible to talk about the literacy rate in Ancient Greece as a whole? I believe that (for example) Athens and Sparta had very different societies, so could be expected to have different levels of literacy.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:13, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:CPalmer makes a very good point. And to FredFerguson, people are trying to contribute, but you keep arguing and trying to stop them. Also, do you really believe that so-called "Professors" are totally and utterly unfallible? Have you really been brainwashed into thinking that they are totally devoted to the truth and don't have their own agendas to push? Because believe me, many of them do. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:17, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::So books written by academics who are experts in the field don't count as trustworthy anymore? Compilations of population statistics written by a branch of the government aren't somewhat reliable either? Then what sources should we use? WND? Whatever we decide is the truth? And don't give me any of that "open your mind" rubbish - we need adequate sources or we're just making it up.
So can we accept that millions of Americans are illiterate, the literacy rate is 99%, and the literacy rate in Athens was high within a small elite, very low elsewhere? These seem to have been established in the discussion and I don't understand why there's dissent (certainly no contradictory sources have been provided.)[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 13:18, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::Mr Ferguson's claim above that only men could read may be a good starting point. If we can find a reliable source to verify this, then we can say confidently that the literacy rate couldn't have been more than 50%.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:19, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::Given that one of the most famous ancient poets, Sappho, was a woman, Mr F may need to think again! [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 13:23, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::Excellent point! Now we seem to be getting somewhere.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:25, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::On the other hand, reliable historical records place the number of Ancient Greek female poets as being minute, one of the reasons Sappho is famous is because she was a female poet at a time when poets were almost exclusively male. An example can be drawn with medieval Europe where, outside of the nobility, literacy was confined almost exclusively to men such as priests and the wealther merchants, but on rare occasion some women were taught literacy skills.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:33, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::The reliable source you want is ''Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece'', cited above. Note that most poetry in the ancient world was oral, e.g. the epic poems ascribed to Homer may have been recited by bards for 500 years before they were eventually written down c.700BC. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:37, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::I'm not going to respond to the renewed jibes from RaviS and ETrundel. Let's talk about the facts. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:37, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::::...he said, masterfully sidestepping their legitimate objections. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:46, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::::Mr. Ferguson has actually provided citations for his arguments. It is reasonable to dispute the accuracy of his citations, but it needs to be something more than "oh, a professor wrote those; people put far too much faith in that title." In other words, provide citations of your own, not hand-waving dismissal. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 14:05, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

2009-03-09T14:28:03Z

ArthurA: /* Reply to the Above */

==Dark Ages==

I have to ask: does this really qualify as a "mystery?" Most people who have actually taken the time to study European history, I would suggest, would say that there's a clear and simple answer: "No, the so-called "Dark Ages" weren't really so backwards." Significant advances were made during the period generally termed the "Dark Ages" in many fields: music, agriculture, metallurgy, and philosophy spring to mind immediately. Historians today generally avoid using the term "Dark Ages" for precisely that reason.

Should it really be termed a "mystery" just because some people continue to hold misconceptions about it? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:11, 28 December 2008 (EST)
: Yes, it's not a mystery at all. Renaissance humanists hated the "dark ages" with a passion. Now we know just how much science and culture were developed during those centuries. Not so much a mystery as a myth, really (liberals love to claim early Christian Europe was fruitless) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 14:14, 28 December 2008 (EST)

::Perhaps a better question would be "Why are the advances of the early Middle Ages frequently overlooked or dismissed?" --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:19, 28 December 2008 (EST)

:::My question is: ''What specific non-warfare scientific/technological advances were made in Christian Western Europe between the fall of Rome and AD1000?'' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:36, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::There were some important scholars, notably Isidore of Seville (6th century Spain), Bede (7th century England) and Alcuin of York (8th century England). But, with these possible exceptions, European scholarship is overshadowed by India, China and the Muslim Caliphate in this period. The first European renaissance started when Christian scholars visited Spain and Sicily to benefit from Arab learning.

::::However, the so-called Dark Ages weren't nearly as obscure are the name suggests. There was significant trade with Byzantium and the Caliphate and the most important monasteries had access to classical Latin texts. There were major building projects, especially of monasteries, particularly from the late 8th century onwards. The standard of craftsmanship was exceptional - you couldn't say it declined at all during the "Dark Ages". Witness the jewelry at Sutton Hoo or the illustrated manuscripts produced by Anglo-Saxon scriptoria. The Anglo-Saxon kings, notably Alfred, Athelstan and Edgar, laid the basis of English government which was formalised by the coronation oath of Henry I.

::::Bear in mind that the setback to civilisation was only in Western Europe. Culture flourished in the Eastern Empire, also in the Arab Caliphate, while the Tang and Song Dynasties represent in many ways the peak of Chinese culture. Also, much of the foundations of mathematics were discovered in India in this period. Universities were first founded in Arab lands (Fez was the first, I think) in the 10th century, before spreading to Spain and thence to Christian Europe. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::The operative words in my question above were ''scientific/technological''. I know of Bede and Alcuin and have had occasion to look into Isadore in the last few months. Yes they were scholars, and they shine like beacons. I am also aware of the "Benedictine reformation" and the wonders done by St. Dunstan. But these are beacons in the gloom. Was it Dunstan who had the Benedictine rules translated into "English" because Latin had been largely forgotten? And I love the jewellery of that age. I have had occasion to read much of the [[Anglo-Saxon Chronicle]] a number of times last year...and it really was a dark and dangerous age. Only Christianity kept western society together (and I know of no historian that denies the good the Church did in those times) but as for science and technological advances, really there was very little, if any at all.
In another context the age is also called ''the great interruption''. Cheers [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::::::Science and technology: almost nothing, I think. The great advances in science during the so-called Dark Ages were in India and the Muslim countries. The West only started to turn the corner in terms of scientific learning when Gerbert (Pope Sylvester II) visited the Muslim universities in Spain, c.1000 (see R.W. Southern, ''The Making of the Middle Ages''). [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 17:59, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:Yes! Now all we have to do is get people to agree to it on [[Essay:Liberal Denials about History]] item (10) under "Specific truths that history books deny".[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)

==Humor==
Perhaps this entry could be clarified: is there a particular form of humor that the author had in mind? There are examples of jokes, riddles, puns, comic figurines/images, anthropoligical notes of humorous conversations, etc. from both pre-Christian times and from post-Christian 'first contacts' with cultures that had had no previous exposure to Christianity.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:37, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:Brossa: Can you provide some? --[[User:AbnerY|AbnerY]] 21:51, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:I'd like to see Brossa's alleged examples also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 8 February 2009 (EST)

::How about Greek and Roman comedy? that way predated Christianity. Andy, what kind of claim are you making here? on what basis would you allege that humor does not predate Christianity? it seems pretty far-fetched. I'd like to see some evidence. --[[User:DaveClark|DaveClark]]

::: You misunderstand what a Greek "comedy" was. It was not a humorous performance as meant by the term today (after the onset of Christianity).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Yes. It was. The intention was to make people laugh. Otherwise, what on earth do you mean by "humor"? Also.. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7536918.stm [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 09:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Aschlafly is right in saying that the term "comedy" did not mean exactly what it does today, but KimSell is right that the works of playwrights such as Aristophanes certainly included humorous elements such as wordplay, farce and grotesque exaggeration (often surprisingly coarse by our standards). I'd also cite the episode where the children mocked Elisha in 2 Kings 2:23-24 as an example, albeit fairly base, of pre-Christian humor.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: As a side-note, in the past there have been bitter disputes where people have taken the polar opposite position to Mr Schlafly, ie that all humor is un-Christian. This is touched on in Umberto Eco's ''The Name of the Rose'', which I recommend.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:21, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: The pre-Christian examples don't withstand scrutiny. Mockery or crude comments are not quality humor, and may not be humor at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::::Sorry Mr. Schlafly. While you may not consider crude comments humorous, it is still defined as humor. you are yet to back up the claim you're making with any specific evidense. even if greek comedy didn't qualify as humor (and it does) there would still be no evidence that the advent of christianity brought the advent of humor.

::::This will be easier if you define precisely what ''you'' mean by 'humor' or 'comedy' so that we can determine if in fact it did or did not exist before Christianity. As the essay stands now, it implies that there was no ''humor'' before Christianity, not that, say, stand-up comedy as practiced in the United States today did not exist in the ancient world. The Greek comedy tradition was well-established by the sixth century BC and contains aspects of sexual farce, parody of 'serious' literary styles, and mockery of specific political and public figures. Comic performers wore characteristic costumes that included fat suits, huge genitalia, and grotesque masks that are still in use in modern comic performances. Greek vases depict these comic characters engaged in antics; I recall in particular a vase depicting two grotesque dwarves helping a third dwarf up a ladder or ramp - Three Stooges level humor.
::::Isaac in the Bible got his name from the laughter of Abraham and Sarah; does this not indicate a sense of humor? Elijah mocks the prophets of Baal, including the suggestion that Baal cannot hear his priests because he is on the toilet.
::::Egyptian papyri show exaggerated caricatures of dishevelled older men engaged in sexual relations with young women, including humorous captions (in heiroglyphics!) detailing the women's commentary on the situation. Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity. A foreign queen is depicted as being so fat that she stands next to an ass with the caption 'the ass needed to carry the queen'.
::::Sumerian scatological humor is recorded (in cuneiform) on a tablet dated to 1900 BC.
::::Many Native American groups had oral traditions that include the 'Trickster' figure, who gets involved in humorous scrapes and mocks authority figures. Many of these stories also include punning wordplay and practical jokes; another dimension of humor.
::::Nineteenth century Australian ethnographers, coming into first contact with an isolated Aboriginal group, noted that the Aboriginals told stories among themselves and laughed during an otherwise stressful time - in this case, a terrible thunderstorm.
::::I'm sure that others could contribute examples from Sanskrit or Asian cultures.
::::So scatological humor, sexual humor, puns, riddles, slapstick, political satire, parody of 'serious' art forms, practical jokes, and others are all documented in pre-Christian or non-Christian cultures.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: To one with an open mind, your vulgar "examples" tend to reinforce the basic observation: (real) humor was lacking before Christianity. Crudeness or vulgarity or mockery is not true humor, and Greek "comedies" were not attempts at humor in today's sense.

::::: If you had evidence of writings about humor itself, or books of humor, or truly comedic performances, or anything remotely similar to quality humor today, then that could help your argument. But the above examples, if they are the best you have, simply underscore the insight in this essay.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:54, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: It would have been simpler for you to have simply started with the statement that no 'true humor' existed before Christianity, so that we would have known what sort of Scotsman we were dealing with in the first place. At any rate, the Japanese had [http://www.conservapedia.com/Noh_theater#What_is_Ky.C5.8Dgen.3F mature forms of theater] designed to "draw rich laughter from the audience" before Christianity was introduced to Japan.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::Have you ever watched an ancient Greek comedy? Because I have, and in parts, they are downright hilarious. As people keep saying, you have not explained what you mean by "humor" and so, this conversation would seem to be pointless. However, Aristotle speaks of the history of Greek comedy, including the fact that it was funny! [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:39, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: May I ask what is the earliest example of true humor that you know of? While I respect the viewpoint that the above examples are not real humor, I don't know of any new form that emerged very soon after the establishment of Christianity.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:30, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::If you are so adament about so called "genuine humor" mr. Schlafly, then please define it for us.

::::::::Clearly there is a distinction to be made between things that are funny and things that are 'humor'. If it was intended to make people laugh, it qualifies as humor, whether it was funny or not. No doubt plenty of movies made by the Zuckers and the Farrelly brothers aren't funny, but they're still comedies. I don't find Groucho Marx very funny but he still counts as a comedian. What you seem to mean is that you don't find pre-Christian humor amusing. That's fine but it hardly counts as one of the 'greatest mysteries of world history'.[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 12:09, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: I agree with Mr Achalfly in that for something to be humorous it needs to have a certain amount of taste and refinement. For example, the article mentions a man getting hit in the crotch by a ball. While some people may find this funny, I daresay there are very few people in the world whi would call this humor. The article also mentions the Jackass movie; again, while a few people may find it amusing, I doubt very many people would define it as humorous. What do these two examples have in common? A lack of taste and refinement. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:26, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::::Surely someone with an open mind would find such taste and refinement in ancient Greco-Roman political satire (e.g. from Aristophanes). Humor undeniably existed before Christianity. Let's just put this behind us as a misunderstanding (or even a disagreement over personal preference). [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 13:41, 9 February 2009 (EST)

For the elucidation of all: "''The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature''" describes Aristophanes as an "Athenian comic poet". Eleven of his plays survive. I know of at least one that has been performed in modern times - "''The Wasps''". I have a CD of it (2 CD set actually) Originally, it was produced in 422 B.C. and is a satirical comedy, poking fun at the Athenian jury system of the time and the state of contemporary politics. It is a comedy of manners, with elements of parody, occasional crudity and slapstick. Sounds like the Restoration writers to me. Or Voltaire. Even Shakespeare indulged in a bit of crudity at times. Modern productions, of course, update some of the scenes.

Aristophanes, who is still read and studied, is only one of many writers of comedies in those times. There was an annual competition for comedy. (''The Wasps'' came 2nd in its year.) Aristophanes' style has been copied by classically trained playwrights since...the Frenchman, Racine, for instance.

The above Oxford Companion devotes over 3 tightly printed pages to ancient Greek and Roman comedy, as well as many mentioned writers getting their own articles. Perhaps we today would not find as funny, but scenes in Shakespeare that had them rolling around in the aisles in 1600 do not quite have that power today. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:remove indent) ETundel, you are confusing "I find it funny" with "it is intended as Humor." I don't find Jackass funny myself, but it is still considered humour. It may be very low comedy, which it is and not everyone will like it, but the fact remains that something does not cease to be "humour" just because X amount of people don't find it funny. [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 16:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

The above discussion is interesting, and I'd like to learn more about "The Wasps." But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary: the "ludicrous" or (more importantly) the "absurdly incongruous."

There are dim-witted people who are amused by compulsive profanity or, as on this site, by mindless vandalism. Parody and sarcasm is also immensely entertaining to the easily amused. But this is not "humor" as defined by the dictionary, and I still haven't seen any compelling examples of pre-Christian humor. A performance like "Trading Places" would qualify, but it didn't exist.

It's interesting how strenuously some people object to the proposition that humor did not predate Christianity. Surely your minds are not so closed as to think the proposition to be automatically impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Here you go Andy, here is the full text of "The Wasps" for you to read at your leisure here[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/wasps.html]. You can judge for yourself if you find it humorous. Honestly, I'm surprised that you're surprised; you throw out a proposition that runs counter to even the most basic understanding of behavior and psychology, basically saying that before Christ nobody knew how to be genuinely funny, and are surprised when people question that? Having an open mind doesn't mean you accept everything to be true. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 18:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::(EC)"But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary"
::Presumably if ANY of the above is humor as defined by the dictionary, then there was humor that pre-dated Christianity. If Aristophanes wrote a political satire ("a satirical comedy, poking fun ... at the state of contemporary politics"), would that not make it a humorous piece of work by any normal definition?[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 18:28, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::: ShawnJ and Sam99foster, please answer my question: are you saying that you believe the proposition to be automatically impossible??? It sure sounds that way from some of the closed-minded postings above. Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:42, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: No Andy, I don't find it automatically impossible, I find it impossible after brief consideration. That means I gave your question thought, and found its position to be ludicrous. The question infers that somehow, before Christ, humans did not have access to the full range of their emotions. You can argue over how humor, like ethics and morality, have changed over the years, but it doesn't stop them from existing. Rejecting the notion that humor didn't exist before Christ is not an example of closed-mindedness any more than rejecting the notion that 2+2=76 is. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 23:22, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Andy, why do you assume that we're automatically dismissing the notion? We are using historical facts and examples which you yourself seem to be dismissing out of hand without giving them any thought. Case in point, your two line rebuttal to a whole list of examples on the grounds that they are all "vulgar." Well, what's vulgar about this? "Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity." Nothing sexual, crude, or otherwise off-color here, just a '''ludicrous''' and '''absurdly incongruous''' situation that could only be intended as humorous, and yet you, without apparently even reading what the user posted, flippantly dismiss it for some reason unbeknownst to the rest of us.

::::: Now, although you are somewhat correct in saying that comedy did not mean the same thing to the ancient Greeks that it does to a modern audience, you blindly overlook two other important points. First, that ancient definition of comedy--or a version of it (Boethian, to be exact)--lasted long past the birth of Christianity. Dante and Shakespeare both wrote their comedies under this ancient definition, which is why something like the The Divine Comedy is called, well, a comedy, despite the fact that the first third of it details brutal torture and punishment without any humor whatsoever, or at least none that I can recall off the top of my head. In essence, to credit Christianity with the rise of modern "comedy" simply because of the history of that word and the genre it represents misses the mark by at least 1500-1600 years.

::::: More importantly, you ignore the fact that Greeks also had a third dramatic form, the satyr play (from which we derive the English word "satire"), which was very close to what we mean by modern comedy. Fewer of these have survived, but the express purpose of these plays was to generate laughter, which is why they were named after satyrs, who were presumed to be pranksters in Greek myth. Very often, these plays simply relied on ludicrous and absurd situations to get the audience laughing. Often these were crude, yes, but not exclusively so.

::::: We aren't automatically dismissing the idea. We're dismissing the idea because it is objectively wrong and every single shred of evidence indicates the exact opposite, even when working within your incredibly limited definition of "humor." --[[User:JakeLa|Jake Lassiter]] 10:10, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Sir, since you say parody is not humor, is [[Essay:Born_Outside_the_U.S.A.!|this]], therefore, not funny?

[[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 19:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Do you often speak in non sequiturs?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:: How is that a non-sequitur? You argue that parody and satire are not humor, so I point you to something that you presumably wrote as a humorous piece. You certainly didn't reject the accolades that termed it funny.

::: You argue, ''"Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition."'' What dictionary are you using? [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humor According to Merriam-Webster's on-line dictionary], this is the definition of humor in the context with which we are concerned (the others definitions concern the dated usage referring to the human body):

* that quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* the mental faculty of discovering, expressing, or appreciating the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing

Parody and satire seem to fit both the first and third. If you disagree, please explain why.

So, what is your definition? You've not provided one yet; you've merely said "humor is not (fill in the blank)".

I view humor as a gift from God. It allows us to get through our most troubling times. The idea that humor only existed after Christ is as alien to me as the idea that romantic love only existed after Christ. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 20:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::: I apologize to Mr. Schlafly in that I charged that he had not provided a definition of humor -- he had, and it was, embarrassingly enough, the same one I cited. This topic has become long, and I missed his definition.

::: However, I still ask this: how do parody and satire '''''not''''' fit that definition?

::: Mr. Schlafly also cites the film ''Trading Places'' as an example of humor. Well, Eddie Murphy was never one of my favorites, since, particularly during the time he made that movie, he was extraordinarily foul-mouthed. But... as I understand it, plot of the movie is two people from different worlds trade lives, and we see how they both handle it, or fail to do so.

::: That strikes me as something that has to be one of the oldest jokes imaginable -- laughing at the "fish out of water" concept. I can easily imagine two Egyptian peasants, toiling down in the Nile Delta, lightening their day by laughing at the thought of the Pharaoh having to do their jobs for a while. "He'd be worried about getting his robes dirty!" "He probably couldn't even fill ten bushels of reeds!" (Of course, "ten bushels of reeds" isn't funny to us, but it might be hilarious to the guy who could pick thirty bushels before a lunch break.)

::: Now, admittedly, I'm speculating, but so is Mr. Schlafly. And I think my speculation is quite reasonable -- ancient people laughing at a concept we still find funny. He, by contrast, apparently imagines humanity consisted of a collection of dour sourpusses and/or vulgarians who couldn't appreciate anything beyond a flatulence joke until somewhere between 1 and 30 AD.

::: He also charges those of us who don't see his viewpoint of being close-minded. Sorry, no -- it is not close-minded to expect extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim. If I said, "perhaps, until Christ was born, the sky was green and the grass was blue", you'd be justified in taking that with a huge grain of salt -- particularly if you presented me with some evidence that, in 200 BC, the sky was blue and the grass was green, and I responded with "well, that's not really ''blue'' and ''green'', that's ''cobalt'' and ''emerald''." [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:47, 10 February 2009 (EST)

I'm new here but I don't understand this one. What has Christianity got to do with humour? In any case, the answer is "yes" - as contributors above suggest, go and read (or even better, watch) Aristophanes. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::Whilst shopping just now I nicked into my local newsagency-cum-bookshop. There were Penguin Classics editions on the shelf of Aristophanes' ''Frogs'', ''The Birds'', ''Lysistrata'' and ''The Clouds''. This not a big shop....so it seems old Aristophanes is alive and kicking, if only as part of a subject at university. (I must admit that I only have the ''Wasps'' CDs because of the wonderful RVW incidental music written for a Cambridge Uni dramatic society performance in 1909, but it shows that he is not completely out of date and that his wit can be applied to modern circumstance.) The word ''wit'' is what I keep coming across regards his plays.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

==="Ancient humor"===
One thing I think many of Mr. Schlafay's detractors are overlooking is the possibility that the works we refer to as "comedies" today might not have been intended as comedies in their own time. The word "[[comedy]]" is English (as are all the other words used to describe Aristophanes' work: [[joke]], [[humor]], etc.), so we are in effect relying on modern translators of Ancient Greek to tell us what the Ancient Greeks thought about their own literary works.

The other day I was looking out my [[window]] and saw two [[squirrel]]s chasing each other up and down a [[tree]] trunk. Suddenly the lead squirrel stopped and turned around so suddenly that the other squirrel bumped into its head and fell off the tree! (It was only six feet or so off the ground, so the squirrel was unharmed.) I laughed at this funny occurrence — but of course the two squirrels weren't ''trying'' to put on a funny show for me; they were just doing what comes naturally to animals. Perhaps when we look into our history books and see the funny things that were done by Aristophanes, we should keep these two squirrels in mind. I think Mr. Schlafay was speaking particularly about the ''conscious'' exercise of humor — the ''intention'' to do funny things, not simply the ''fact'' of having done funny things. Nobody can seriously argue that nothing funny ever happened in antiquity... but ''why'' did it happen? that's the question. --[[User:GarthA|GarthA]] 21:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: That's an excellent point. Some of the ancient vulgarity, for example, was probably not intended to be "funny" any more than compulsive profanity today is intended to be funny. Someone 1000 years from now may look at dialog between two public school students today as being absolutely hilarious, even though the students are not trying to be funny now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:24, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:: The City Dionysia, which is the festival where these plays were preformed had several highly established conventions, including that four plays were to be preformed by each group: three tragedies and then a comedy. Comedies by nature are funny. While vulgar humor was indeed used, they still fit the definition of comedy ("a drama of light and amusing character and typically with a happy ending" according to Merriam-Webster). Whether people find them funny is up to them (I happen to like Scrubs, while my brother despises the show. However, he likes Family Guy, which I dislike). But the original intent of the comedies was to make people laugh, which qualifies it as humor [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:45, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::That's very clever thinking, Garth. Fortunately, we have contemporary reviews of the work of authors like Aristophanes, which described them as being humorous (or in some cases not humorous enough!).
::I suspect that this debate might be in order to get people thinking outside the box while at the same time testing their composure. Of course, humor could have not predated Christianity and of course, that is not the case. But how are you going to react when someone doggedly pursues the contrary? How are you going to react when someone refuses to define their terms or moves the goalpost or shifts ground? Will you calmly research and respond? Or will you resort to liberal deceit and condescend to them. Not only should you survey the responses you see here, you should also be doing research of your own before you form your conclusions.
::If you do your research, you will probably find the evidence for pre-Christian humor that you find compelling. Either way, come back here and attempt to argue your point. Remember to stay calm, approachable and accommodating. I urge you to engage in this exercise and wish you the best. [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 22:53, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::Garth, there were no "''funny things done by Aristophanes''" any more than there were ''funny things done by'' humorous writers of modern times. He wrote plays, in verse, using the formal dramatic restraints of his day. In 5th century Athens there were two distinct forms of stage performances. There were the Tragedies, the most famed writers of which are Euripides and Aeschylus; and the Comedies, represented today by our mate Aristophanes. Never the twain did meet. They probably both developed out of pre-Classical Dionysian ritual, but by Classical times they were distinct from each other. Unlike the tragedians, Aristophanes set out to make people laugh; and to do this he used many of the forms used today - funny or fantastical situations, plays on words, ridicule of people in power, etc., He is supposed to have been very witty. He had a way with words. He was also a serious man who was concerned at perceived faults in the society he lived in, and used humor as a weapon against these things. He is recorded as saying "comedy knows what is right." He brought the powerful down a peg or two. My "Dictionary of Greek Civilisation", a book set for university courses during the 1970s, called him "a comic genius". [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafay: Thank you. ENorman and "Fundie": It sounds like you are resorting to [[appeal to authority]] in this case. Remember that we do not actually have "contemporary reviews" of Aristophanes; what we have are ''modern translations'' of those works. I'm not even sure we would be justified in calling them "reviews", as you did, since I doubt the Ancient Greeks had anything like the modern conception of a film review or book review. "Fundie", I'm glad we agree about the value of exercise. AlanE: If Aristophanes never did anything funny, then in what sense was he a comedian? You describe him as a "serious man" who "ridicule[d] people in power"; this Aristophanes sounds like something of a [[liberal]] [[radical]]! :) --[[User:GarthA|GarthA]] 23:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:Who were the "liberals" - those in power or Aristophanes? Let's not bring today's concepts into describing someone who lived 2500years ago. He was not a comedian any more than Jonathan Swift was when he used ''Gulliver's Travels'' to lampoon the foibles of his age. Have you read him? The use of comedy to prick the inflated egos of the powerful, whether they be politicians, judges, or whatever, has a long and noble history, both for those on the left and on the right. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:49, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:: This is so ignorant it's just adorable:

:: <blockquote>"I'm not even sure we would be justified in calling them "reviews", as you did, since I doubt the Ancient Greeks had anything like the modern conception of a film review or book review."</blockquote>

:: What in the wide wide world of sports do you think Aristotle's ''Poetics'' was? --[[User:JakeLa|Jake Lassiter]] 10:33 12 February 2009

:Remember to do a little research! The first line of Aristophanes' ''[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/frogs.html The Frogs]'':
::<blockquote>XANTHIAS: Shall I crack any of those old jokes, master, At which the audience never fail to laugh?</blockquote>
:I'm almost positive there is some implication of humor somewhere in there! Form your own conclusions! [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 23:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::Well done, Fundie! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:51, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::::Having read this controversy with interest, I am forced to agree with Mr Schalfly. There is a difference between the theatre of cruelty - sarcasm and cruel raillery - that was the hallmark of the pagan Greeks, and true humour, which to be effective needs access to the depths of ones heart and soul, a perspective that only became real through the incarnation and suffering of Christ. Similarly, the coarseness of peasant nonsense such as was available to primitive peoples - the ancient equivalent of gurning through horse collars - has no right to be defined as humour. What Mr Schlafly is attempting to describe (albeit to a deliberately unreceptive audience) is something wiser, something altogether more refined and insightful. I wish him luck in persuading the unpersuadable. [[User:RegalBruin|RegalBruin]] 14:25, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::::Hi and welcome to CP, Regal! I'm interested in your view of my quote from ''The Frogs'' (above) in light of CP's definition of [[Humor]]:

:::::<blockquote>Humor is an act, statement, or other form of communication done to invoke laughter, amusement, or happiness in the audience.</blockquote>

:::::If you agree that Xanthias intended to invoke laughter by cracking jokes and continue to believe that this is not humor, please explain how you would like to see our definition of 'humor' changed. [[User:MattL|MattL]] 14:41, 10 February 2009 (EST)
::::::And G'day from me, Regal. Can you tell us what dictionary you use? All of mine say more or less the same things. What is refined humour,? Wise humour. Insightful humour. Can we have examples? BTW, all the things you find detestable in so-called ''pagan'' humour is found unabated in Chaucer and the ''Decamaron'' and the other medieval story-tellers. Shakespeare used it. Scatalogical humour was the rage through most of the reformation times and later. Mozart wrote scatalogical songs. The bedroom farce has always been popular - we had no senior churchmen refusing to go to ''The Marriage of Figaro''. The Greeks laughed at the dolt and so do we - hence the undying popularity of the Inspector Clouseau type character through history. Nothing changed. No one is denying that much pagan humour was coarse; but what I am saying is that it has never stopped being coarse, and I am also saying that before Christ there was humour of the kind that we find in Wodehouse or Wilde, and the one-liners of Groucho Marx or Dorothy Parker, which are clever because they manage to nail an aspect of the human condition in so few words. Aristophanes could do that.(Unlike I, who go on and on...:))[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:58, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::: It appears that discussing humor with [[atheists]] is a fool's errand because they, like the ancient Greeks, are unable (or refuse) to open their minds to what real humor is. I've defined it several times, as does the dictionary; it is something "ludicrous" or "absurdly incongruous." Vulgarities may amuse the simple-minded to no end, and so may slapstick comedy (which is all the "Frogs" is referencing in its opening line), but it's not humor.

::::::: We've learned something from this discussion. It's not just the pre-Christians who were without humor, but so are [[atheists]] today. It's unfortunate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::::"Ludicrous": amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity; causing laughter because of absurdity; broadly or extravagantly humorous, resembling farce. All of these definitions are fulfilled in the examples that have already been stated in this discussion. For that matter, they are all fulfilled by the image on [http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/gr/r/wine_bowl,_apulia.aspx this vase in the British Museum] from the fourth century BC.
::::::::::If your second paragraph is meant to imply that your whole premise behind claiming that there was no humor before Christianity was to poke fun of atheists - since only atheists are so humorless as to take such a ludicrous proposition seriously - then I am afraid that your Modest Proposal has been found lacking.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 18:48, 10 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Now that we've established that humor is a post-Christian phenomenon, we would do well to explore it's origins within Christianity. Do you have early Christian examples? [[User:MattL|MattL]] 17:03, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: In regards to something ludicrous or absurdly incongruous, from Plutarch's ''The Comparison of Demosthenes and Cicero'':

:::::::::<blockquote>So also we are told that when Cicero, being consul, undertook the defence of Murena against Cato's prosecution, by way of bantering Cato, he made a long series of jokes upon the absurd paradoxes, as they are called, of the Stoic set; so that a loud laughter passing from the crowd to the judges, Cato, with a quiet smile, said to those that sat next him, "My friends, what an amusing consul we have."</blockquote> We can plainly see that this is absurd. Now for the incongruity - A paradox, as defined by MW, is "a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true". Incongruous, as defined by MW, describes "something inconsistent with itself". Could this possibly be an example of humor? [[User:MattL|MattL]] 17:11, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Merriam-Webster also says that humor is "something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing." Doesn't that describe Aristophanes? [[User:BenjaminC|BenjaminC]] 17:38, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:It seems that I go away an hour and suddenly I am "without humour" and an atheist,Andy. Why have you reverted to (a) being personal to someone whose sense of humour you know nothing about and who has based his arguments on basic well-documented scholarly texts in a generally polite manner and (b)decided on a definition of humour that is at odds with every dictionary and encyclopedia I can find? Whether I am a Methodist, atheist, Catholic or calathumpian has nothing to do with the my arguments which, like most of my words in this site, are based on a lifetime of reading the canon of western literature and about it. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:20, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::I don't know why Mr Schlafly should have to defend himself against such an intemperate passive-aggressive assault. And if, as you claim, you are an expert on the entire canon of western culture, I should expect to find you in concordance with his ideas. [[User:RegalBruin|RegalBruin]] 11:50, 11 February 2009 (EST)
::::I didn't say, nor mean to imply, I was "''an expert on the entire canon of western culture''", Regal. What I can say is that that I, especially in this case, is that I am basing my statements on books (you know...those old fashioned things with pages that people used to read and geriatrics like me still do - I own thousands of them and have read untold thousands more.) So if I talk about the humour in Chaucer or Shakespeare, or mention Voltaire, or Beaumarchais (who? he says), Regal, it's because I've been there, mate, and done that, and have the tee shirt. (Even if, half the time now I have forgotten where I've put it!) Now, I assume you are being silly, perhaps "parodical", in your final phrase, but I am not in the mood. Andrew Schafly might be able to turn off severe sciatica with a quick prayer, but I can't; so I want to take it out on people: and seeing its not yet dawn and the rest of the family is still fast asleep, that means you! So do me one favour...go and find one reference - just one - from a reputable reference source, that "humour" started with Christianity. (And while you are at it, try and help Andrew by finding a reference for the Chinese inventing bamboo.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:03, 11 February 2009 (EST)

::The assumption that anyone who disagrees with Mr. S must be an atheist is indeed a pretty flimsy deflecting tactic. The claim being debated is not quite as bizarre as saying that there was no epic poetry before Christ.
::I'll chime in re the claim that the pagans had only farcical, bawdy, dirty type humor. I'm only familiar with 2 Aristophanes plays, ''Lysistrata'' and ''The Clouds''. ''Lysistrata'' does have a bawdy premise - the women of Greece conspire to not go to bed with their husbands until they end their war - but the play's point was political, not sexual, and it spoke on a real contemporary topic (the Peloponessian War) and addressed leading politicians by name. ''Clouds'' is a purely intellectual satire, making fun of the sophists in general and Socrates in particular. (Soc. was not actually a sophist but was apparently identified with them.) There are also a few poop jokes thrown in there, but that's no different from a lot of intellectual comedy today: I think of ''Little Miss Sunshine,'' that had jokes about Proust and Nietzshe, but also jokes about the dirty old grandfather character.
::My favorite thing about ''Clouds'' is that the main butt of the jokes, Socrates, was ''actually there in the audience'' watching it. The intro to my copy says that at the performance, the mask for the Socrates actor was such a good caricature, they had Socrates himself stand up so the audience could applaud the mask maker. [[User:Fishal|Fishal]] 20:36, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::A lot of this boils down to arguing definitions - a fruitless argument that could go on endlessly if we had nothing better to do. What does interest me is the idea of a new form of humor emerging during or after the life of Jesus. Does anyone have any examples of a first- or second-century shift towards more refined types of humor? Perhaps "What is the earliest example of genuine humor" could be added to the list of mysteries?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:47, 11 February 2009 (EST)
::::I don't know if this has been brought up, but it appears that Mr. Schlafly doesn't find the "crude" humour entertaining (nothing wrong with that, it'd not everybody's thing) but what about wordplay and the double negative? I sumbit my favorite passage from Homer's Odyssey: When captured by the Cyclops, Odysseus tells him that his name is "Nobody." Later, after they attack the Cyclops and blind him, he storms around his cave in a rage screaming "Nobody will not get out alive" a double negative, and then calls to his brothers that "Nobody has blinded me, Nobody has blinded me." The Cyclops thinks he is calling for help, but not understanding what he is actually saying, his brothers misunderstand him and stay away... This type of humour leads directly to the modern examples of Abbott and Costello's "Who's on First?" routine, as well as the Chico and Groucho's constant back and forth in their movies "Chico:(looking at a Contract) What'sa this?" "Groucho: That's just the standard Sanity Clause" "Chico:You can't fool me, there ain't no Sanity Claus." [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 12:15, 11 February 2009 (EST)

==Who was right - Catholics or Protestants?==

Can you explain what you mean by this question? It's a bit like asking - who is right, Christians of Buddhists? Do you mean, regarding Transubstantiation? Or do you mean celibacy? Or the infallibility of the Pope? Maybe you could phrase it a little more clearly? Finally, do you think it's helpful to the world to see the world like this? Doesn't every faith believe it's 'right'? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 17:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Surely you don't think that just because different people hold different views that each think are right, truth therefore does not exist. If I told that some cultures believe that 2+2 equals infinity, and are convinced they are right, would that change your view that 2+2=4 and not infinity?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:50, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::Well, yes, I do? Despite my own faith, I cannot in all sincerity tell a Buddhist that their faith is nonsense - I simply don't believe that's a way to get along with the rest of the planet, the pursuit of which is, after all, is our bounden duty here on this Earth. My own faith (Catholicism) has experienced many controversies, and although I hold fast to my faith, I acknowledge that it is not without its flaws and appalling mistakes. Jesus taught us to "love thy neighbour", after all. But to return to the question at hand - "who is right, Catholics or Protestants?". As an Irish Catholic married to an Irish Protestant, I'm sure you'll understand there's a great deal of sensitivity over this issue on our Island. And I'm certainly not about to tell my partner that her beliefs are 'wrong'. But what 'right' are you referring to? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 19:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)

To keep this conversation from devolving into an ideological argument, I thought I might try to clarify the original question: I interpret it as referring to the issues at the heart of the Protestant Reformation, namely the allegations of abuses of power within the Catholic Church, the selling of indulgences, the lack of reliance on Scripture, etc. Some of these are purely theological points, but I think historical discussion can bring light to the issue of whether or not the Protestants were justified in some of their more pragmatic claims. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 19:13, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: In reply to TadghOB, one thing about Jesus is indisputable: He did tell others they were wrong, and was very clear that He was divisive rather than uniting.

: In reply to Economist, there is the issue of how to deal with the problems, and what the subsequent centuries and today illustrate. I'm not yet taking a position on the question, but am pointing out how your list is incomplete.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Why did Islam grow so rapidly? ==

Not sure there's a lot of mystery here. The rise of Islam is well documented in both Arab and Byzantine sources. The "mystery", if there is one, is how Mohammed managed to convert a sizeable number of followers in his lifetime and how they became organised into a small but effective military force. Thereafter, Islam spread for several reasons. Initially, it was confined to Arab soldiers and their families and was something of an elite religion. But the Arabs were generally welcomed by the common people in the Byzantine territories because they imposed lighter taxes, their military levies were less oppressive and they didn't cut people's heads off because they disagreed with the Emperor's theological opinions. The same factors are reflected in the decline of the Byzantine empire, to the benefit of the Arabs in West Asia and North Africa: excessive taxation, too many able-bodied men from wealthy families joining the priesthood to evade military service, and continuous demoralisation of the population through religious disputes. Added to that was the over-centralisation of power in the Byzantine Empire, with the result that when the Emperor was out of action, there were few men with both the authority and the competence to wield power effectively. Such was the situation at the decisive Battle of the Yarmouk, in what is now northern Jordan, when the Emperor Heraclius was ill and unable to take the field, resulting in a decisive victory for the Arabs.

Islam spread in the territories conquered by the Arabs for similar reasons to the spread of Christianity in Europe: local rulers ingratiating themselves with their overlord (the Arab Caliph in this case), the prestige of being part of the official religion, the apparent evidence that God must favour the Muslims because he enabled them to win battles, and lower taxation for Muslims.

It's much harder to understand why the Byzantine Empire lasted as long as it did. Also, why did the Arabs not conquer most of the West? The post-Roman kingdoms in the West seem to have been more organised and effective than historians gave them credit for until recently.

See e.g. John Julius Norwich's history of Byzantium (three volumes but extremely - even addictively - readable). Also 'The Formation of Christendom' by Judith Herrin, the standard modern work on the interplay of Church and State in the Byzantine Empire; she shows that the church wasn't always a negative influence, as Edward Gibbon supposed. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:In addition to Fred's information above, Islam burst out of Arabia at a time when both the Byzantines and the Persians were completely exhausted from fighting each other interminably. There is also talk of a plague epidemic that wasted the so-called civilised powers but had little effect in the sparcely populated Arabian desert. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:52, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Romans ==

''Did the Romans recognize or understand the concept of "truth"?''

What reason do you have to think that they did not? We would surely disagree with any ancient people (not just the Romans) about whether certain ideas are true or false, but that would not mean that the people did not understand the ''concept'' of truth. What meaning do you think the word ''veritas'' had for the Romans?--[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 07:18, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== Literacy in Ancient Greece ==

I don't know what the literacy level is in the USA but let's guess at 98-99%. In ancient Greece, the people who were able to read were free, male city dwellers - and by no means all of them. Perhaps 1% of the population could read. Not sure why this one is on the list of mysteries, because it isn't one. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:11, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Decline and fall of the Roman Empire ==

This is at the other end of the spectrum - i.e. a truly unsolved problem which has been a rich subject for academic research and debate. Many books have been written about this subject so you need some kind of strategy to assemble a decent essay on the subject. I would say it's more accurate to write about the ''transformation'' of the Roman Empire, not its fall. The Eastern half of the Roman Empire as divided by Diocletian became the Eastern Roman Empire, governed from Constantinople. The Western half became a set of independent kingdoms ruled by Germanic tribes. The territory of both the Western and Eastern halves of the Empire on the southern shore of the Mediterranean, plus the Levant, became part of the Arab Caliphate. All these successor states relied heavily on Roman methods of administration and law. Arguably, the ''only'' part of the Empire that actually declined and fell, insofar as the lives of ordinary people were concerned, was England.

Some of the more important causes of the decline (transformation):
* Environmental degradation of farmland.
* The permanent state of civil war for over 50 years in the middle of the 3rd century.
* Over-centralisation of power in the hands of the emperors from the late 3rd century onwards, partly as a reaction to the instability of the 3rd century.
* Outsourcing - i.e. the replacement of Roman manpower in the army by German mercenaries.
* The sapping of the numbers of young men who could serve in the army, especially as officers, because ordination as a priest or even a deacon precluded military service.
* The decline in the tax base, because priests and monks didn't have to pay taxes.
* Population pressure as tribes (e.g. the Huns) were forced westward by the failure of farming in central Asia.
* The Great Plague of c.535, which may have been even more destructive than the Black Death.
* Interminable religious disputes diverted much of the empire's intellectual effort.
* As ever in history, chance. The Emperor Heraclius, possibly the greatest general of all Roman emperors, fell ill at a critical moment. The Arabs, on the other hand, were commanded by their greatest general, Khalid ibn al-Walid, and, against all expectations, won what is now called the Battle of the Yarmouk in 636.
[[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:40, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Did the Hebrews build the pyramids? ==

Almost certainly not. If you mean the Pyramids of Giza, including the Great Pyramid of Khufu, they were built in the 4th Dynasty (c.2500BC), about a millennium before Joseph. I don't know where the Hebrews were at that time, but it wasn't Egypt. The last of the significant pyramids in Egypt was built in the 12th Dynasty, c.1860BC, a good 200 years before Joseph.

According to the Bible, which should be considered semi-historical evidence, Joseph used a chariot but chariots didn't appear in Egypt till c.1650BC.

So: no, and not a mystery. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:52, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== How were the pyramids built? ==

This isn't known for sure but calling it a mystery rather demeans the excellent archaeological research on the subject. [http://www.archaeology.org/0705/etc/pyramid.html Here's a good, accessible article.] [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:00, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Origin of the name Jesus ==

Jesus, pronounced ''Dzheezus'' in English, is the Latin version of his name (pronounced ''Yaysoos''). In turn, that's the Latin spelling of the Greek version of his name (same pronounciation as in Latin). And that's the Hellenised version of the Hebrew name Yehoshua. Which, as it happens, has come into English by a more direct route as Joshua.

The only thing that might seem slightly curious here is the sound shift from ''Y'' to ''J'' at the beginning of the word. This came about because the letters ''I'' and ''J'' were used indiscriminantly by English printers in the late middle ages. By the time the letter J finally entered the English alphabet (early 17th century, I think), Latin words which the Romans spelt with a initial ''I'' (e.g. Iulius Caesar) had come to be spelt with an initial ''J'' in English (hence Julius Caesar). So then they acquired the pronounciation ''J'', as in the very common names James and John.

Again, I don't know why you call this a mystery. This is pretty well known and very easy to look up if you don't know it. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:11, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Reply to the Above ==

Fred, thanks for your attempt to solve the mystery, but I've got news for you: your spelling is atrocious and you're absurdly wrong in claiming that literacy in the U.S. is 98% or 99%. It's nowhere near that high.

The liberals who are running [[public schools]], and whom you likely support, are producing millions of illiterates each year. And it's getting worse thanks to how you likely vote. I know, you don't think it's your fault, but someone is electing these people who are perpetrating illiteracy. Fortunately, some parents are waking up to the problem, even if voters aren't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:44, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

* Spelling: I wrote ''we'' instead of ''were'' at one point in the 'Decline and Fall' section but apart from that, you'll have to tell me what my spelling mistakes are because I don't see them.
* Why does anything I've written make you assume I'm a liberal?
* Your criticism of public schools is a 'straw man' argument. Scotland (where I live) has almost entirely public education and a very high literacy rate. Likewise the Scandinavian countries, Holland, etc. Maybe there's something wrong with public education in the USA but it's too simplistic just to blame any problems on the fact that schools are public ''per se''.
* So you'll have gathered I haven't voted for anyone who's perpetuated illiteracy in the USA.
* Even so, I don't believe literacy in the USA is as low as 1-2%, which is what it was in Ancient Greece.
* Finally, are you always so rude to contributors? I hope you don't behave like that to the schoolkids you tutor. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 07:33, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html The CIA World Factbook concurs] with Mister Ferguson -- 99% literacy (defined as "age 15 and over can read and write"), both male and female, in the United States. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:35, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Don't believe everything the government says, obviously. Illiteracy is rampant in many public schools, and among millions of adults in the U.S.

::::Care to cite a source (like I did)? You merely say "millions of adults" -- well, there's 220 million adults in the United States. If 1% of them cannot read, that's 2.2 million -- in other words, "millions". I'll grant, 99% literacy seems high, especially if you're looking at functional literacy (that is, able to read and write well enough to function in society) versus ability to read and write at all (my five year old niece can read and write a smidge, but certainly not well enough to hold a job!), but you act as if half the population couldn't read anything more than the cutesy graphics on the front page of USA Today. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 10:28, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Fred, I'm surprised you think my reply was "rude", yet seem to have no problem with your own postings. As to spellings, "indiscriminantly"? "Pronounciation"? Please. Also, don't try to fool anyone into thinking you're not a liberal. We are a truthful resource here and we disclose our point of view up-front. Do likewise or find another site to rant on. Wikipedia likes people who hide their point of view. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: * Whoops! Tripped up on two of the trickier words in the English language. Maybe you'd better take a blue pencil to your own contributions - they're not exactly flawless either.
:::: * "Liberal" - please answer my question. What, exactly, is liberal about what I've written above?
:::: * You're very fond of accusing people of ranting, aren't you? I've seen you say that to other people. But stating the facts and arguing logically isn't ranting. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 10:07, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Can we focus on the facts, please? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] has brought up some interesting points - let's discuss those, rather than who is the better speller. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:12, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
: LITERACY: I crunched some numbers. According to the CIA World Fact Book, the population of the US is 303,824,640. 20.1% of that is children 0-14 years,w ho are presumably still working on literacy. Leave them out and that gives 303,824,640*0.799 = 242,755,887 adults. Now if 99% of those are literate, how many are not? 242,755,887*0.01 = 2,427,559. Thus even if 99% of Americans are literate, there are still two and a half million American adults who are illiterate. So we can have BOTH millions of illiterate Americans AND 99% literacy. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:19, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

2009-03-09T12:35:45Z

ArthurA: /* Reply to the Above */

Talk:Fred Phelps

2009-02-27T16:09:06Z

ArthurA: /* Not liberal */

==No linking to Phelps's web sites==

They are not family appropriate, and Conservapedia is not a repository of hate speech. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
: Would it be reasonable to add the prohibition of making and linking to hate speech one of the commandments? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I think that's an excellent idea. I suggest bringing it up either on Aschlafly's Talk Page or Talk:Conservapedia Commandments. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
: I did not know that I shouldn't have linked to his websites. However, could you please put into the opening paragraph that Fred Phelps' mission is against homosexuality? As it is, this important fact is not mentioned until halfway down the page. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 19:33, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:Will do. In fact, I'm going to unprotect this. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:55, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Surely the main authority on Phelps's teachings in Phelps himself? His sites should be linked to. I suggest doing so as plain text, not a clickable link, and alongside a warning notice.

*Posts not signed are ignored. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

==Discussion of subject==

I'm going to tentatively leave this in place, although it was intended to make Christians look bad by the original creator, he is a major news figure because of his funeral protests, and his actions have prompted major legislation regarding these (and he is also a major embarrassment to my home state, as well as a DEMOCRAT who actually campaigned for Al Gore in 1988 before he went on his anti-homosexual crusade).

Also, I drove by his "church" once and I got a physical chill once I got within two blocks of it. I felt like I was in a place of true evil. Interestingly, the ZIP codes in Topeka, where he lives, all start with 666. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Evidently his views changed, judging by his protest of the funeral of Al Gore's father. [[User:RandomishName11|RandomishName11]] 00:42, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

I just moved it because it was under "Fred phelps," and the lack of proper capitalization was bothering me. I like to copy edit. :-p [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

If you looked at the original article as it was written, it contained some crude language. But thanks for working on the capitalization. It bothers me as well when articles are started like that. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:30, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with you completely. I didn't want to bother with the article at the time, and I'm glad someone else did. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

On a more humorous note, [http://www.barzelay.net/files/images/other/phelps.jpg this] was taken outside of Vandy when Phelps came to visit. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I saw that picture for sale in a liberal store downtown once. It's so funny.
One of Phelps's lackeys told my friend that his hair was too long once. (I live about 25 miles from Topeka, so we get a lot of him.) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:But everyone knows, Jesus doesn't like long hair... [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::::This man makes me question the First Amendment, he is just that much of a evil being.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I know. His speech is beyond reasonable and just disgusting. I would guess that a majority of Kansans would support his execution.
And Colin, you may be thinking of Paul :) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I know the feeling. I'm a huge believer in the importance of the First Amendment, especially free speech, but what he says is just so ridiculous it's hard to believe it's technically allowed. And MD, I was mostly referring to the fact that most men of Jesus' time had "longer" hair. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 04:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

That's what I thought. I don't like to judge other Christians' salvation, but I have to make an exception here for old Freddie. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 04:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: OK, I saw you reverted the article back after I added content about the extent of his hate speach. There needs away for this to be stated, especially if you are going to allow the b.s. about militant homosexuals on the page. Otherwise this article makes him come across as less insane than he is.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 18:04, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::I agree. I just don't think that the word "fag" is appropriate for an article on this site. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The hate crimes against Fred Phelps section is uncited b.s. and I think it should be deleted unless someone can give any evidence beyond Phelps' own paranoia and delusional rantings. I'm doing you a favor--Fred Phelps is not your friend. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 11:02, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I'm also taking out the Al Gore contributions part since that isn't cited either. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 11:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Edits by Jack ==

please push your liberal views in an article about yourself. This article is about Fred Phelps views, not yours. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Ummmm, liberal views? You say that as if it was a bad thing. One of the commandments here is that claims need to be properly sourced. This article is certainly making a lot of excuses regarding one of the most abhorrant men in America today. He goes to military funerals with signs that say "God Hates F*gs". That is an objective, well documented fact. However, the sysops delete it from the main page. However, completely unsubstantiated claims by Phelps that HE is the victim of hate crimes is allowed to be left up. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 22:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::The subject of an article and their public statements are reliable sources for an article. Phelps is preaching the literal statements of the Bible. In fact, he is at the most extreme end of the spectrum with the limits of free speech I have ever seen. The article is about his views and him. And he is certainly notable. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 22:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::RightWolf2, please stop editing the article to claim that Phelps is "literally following the Bible", and please stop attacking Jack. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::1. Not an attack, but a statement of my views. 2. When admins and their buddies start forming cabals to reinforce each other, free editing goes out the window. 3. I am over 60 years old, I am a competent attorney, and I am not here to rain on anyones parade. Just to add God's word. 4. Your views of Phelps are "your views". Articles about subjects as controversial as phelps should enshrine "his views", not everyone elses opinions. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 11:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Landover Baptist==

Is Fred Phelps' church the inspiration for the Landover Baptist Church website that mocks Christian Extremism?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==?==

"Phelps, although outspoken and outlandish, is far less of a hypocrite than other Christian organizations who claim to be able to determine which verses from the Bible are literal from those that are allegorical."

Wow. QED. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

With all respect to the fact that it shouldn't be stated on an encyclopedia, Phelps probably is going to Hell. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 00:42, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

==Phelps is PRO-FAMILY, not anti-homosexual==

There's a reason Dr. Dobson called his institution "Focus on the Family" and not "We Hate Gays". There's a reason that it's called the "Family Research Council". The people who oppose the homosexual agenda are PRO-FAMILY, not anti-anything. Even the mainstream media generally recognizes this fact and ignore the moonbats (just like they ignore the moonbats when the moonbats try to label "PRO-lifers" as "ANTI-choicers"). Even the mainstream media (which has been proven to be overwhelmingly liberal, remember) doesn't call Dr. Dobson a bigot or a homophobe. So why shouldn't Conservapedia, which was created to espouse the CONSERVATIVE point of view, reflect what even liberals acknowledge?--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Phelps isn't a true conservative. He says Bush is going to burn in hell. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:39, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Jeeze, conservatives aren't brainless clones who can't disagree! I strongly disagree with Phelps on this matter, but that doesn't make him a non-conservative! Besides, the issue isn't whether or not he's conservative, the issue is his PRO-FAMILY "bias"!--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

*My reading of scripture, perhaps not as advanced as some, tells me if we keep judging, which God has said is his alone to do, we will all be burning. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:I agree with Terry, but as I've learned from much debating with christians, the argument doesn't work. They've chosen to ignore one thing the bible says in order to use another thing the bible says to achieve their goals or to justify their hate.[[User:Nsmyth|NSmyth]] 04:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
*Well, really, in the Grand Scheme of things, it isn't important. All of us, eventually, will face the harshest, yet most loving Judge in the Universe. Justifications, and legal arguments won't be allowed, lol. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:You can be anti homosexual without being pro-family. The cult Phelps has developed targets and belittles families, he is truely a Bad person in every sense of the word, if he has gotten anything right it has been by way of accident [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 01:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Being anti-homosexual is not being pro-family. It is being pro-YOUR-idea-of-family, and forcing that idea on the rest of the world. There's a big difference.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Phelps is not pro-family, he's pro-hate. There's a difference. His websites are not family-friendly, his sermons are not, nor are his "hymns", and neither are his images. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

What does Phelps stand for, _besides_ hating gays? That seems to be his one schtick. And by all accounts, he psychologically and physically abused his OWN family, which doesn't sound too 'pro-family' to me. [http://blank.org/addict/] (Court evidence--not for the weak of stomach.) --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 07:56, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

If what you say is true, then "pro-family" must oppose homosexuals becasue they asume that homosexuals are "anti-family". That is not true, it's not the desire of homosexual people to wreck family, they just want personal freedom to have the kind of living arangement they choose. The only reason they have gathered together is because it's their common cause to get that freedom for themselves. I'm pretty certain that if they had those rights, they would leave everyone else alone.
Homosexuals don't suggest that everyone should be homosexual, that would be stupid, they just want the right to live their lives as they want to, not bothering anyone, and not being bothered by anyone. If God (if he exists) dislikes it it's solely up to him to judge, none of us are entitled to do that. --[[User:Atkins|Atkins]] 23:45, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

It seems that whoever said that in the first place was being a parodist. We definitely don't stand for Phelps's hate here in Kansas, or here at Conservapedia. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:50, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

== What the #$@% ==

This page mention nothing about the sick twisted and evil nature of Fred Phelps and his family cult. I don't know how this site can call itself conservative and not utterly denounce someone who celebrates the deaths of our fighting men and women and taunts the families of our brave departed soldiers. I am disgusted that he gets off with one line of criticism. [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 01:41, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Opcn, I believe the principle at work here is "The Enemy Of My Enemy Is My Friend." Which is a very long way from "Love thine enemies" but that was just some liberal claptrap from about 33 AD or so. [[User:Teresita|Banned User Teresita]] 01:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Phelps and Religion ==

"It's hard to be religious when certain people aren't incinerated by bolts of lightning." -- Calvin.
--[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 07:46, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== disgusting liberal bias ==

this article is terribly condemning of this man. this is the same kind of p.c. bias crap that made me sick of wikipedia. mr. phelps believes in the same things we all do, so why is this article against hihm? he only believes in the things that jesus taught1!1[[User:Manifestdestiny|Manifestdestiny]] 18:42, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
:Wrong. At no time did Jesus ever condemn a soldier, unlike this man. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:49, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
::but jesus did condemn homosexuals. [[User:Cryingeagles39|Cryingeagles39]] 12:51, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Jesus told everyone in plain terms that if they continued to sin, they would not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. His message in the Gospels was that everyone should repent. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:06, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
Exactly. Jesus never specifically mentioned homosexuality in the gospels, but he did do what Karajou mentioned, which would encompass all types of sin, including homosexuality. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:20, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

*I do know Jesus commanded that we not judge, or we would be. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:12, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

== God Hates Canada ==

Didn't Phelps also light a flag on fire in the middle of an airport, thus causing his arrest? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 18:44, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

I haven't heard about this! Do you have a link? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:44, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

[http://www.holysmoke.org/hs02/phelps3.htm] is the best I can find. I was wrong, I guess. Seems he didn't actually get around to torching the flag. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 19:03, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

:Nevermind... "When WBC members did in fact actually burn the Canadian flag in religious protest to Canada's approval of same-sex marriage, the so-called Christians of Canada were the loudest in denouncing WBC and "widely reviling" her Gospel message." That's from his God Hates Canada page. Appears I was mistaken about the airport thing, though. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 19:09, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

== Phelps And The Democratic Party ==

Can someone please get rid of this header at the bottom of the page? Seems a bit of a stretch to me. --[[User:Ouzo|Ouzo]] 14:35, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
:I think we've addressed your concerns. [http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={91058469-F6DE-4615-8B2A-73CDF3E8FCAC} The "God Hates Fags" Left]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:06, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

==Liberal Activist!???==
Last time I checked liberals support gay people and are secular. Calling Fred Phelps a liberal would be akin to calling Osama bin Laden a pacifist. Someone should change this --[[User:AllahuAkbarJihad|AllahuAkbarJihad]] 21:50, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Phelps is not a leftist, he is on the extreme fringes of the religious right, he's an embarrasment to conservatives so he is called a "liberal". I can't believe how biased this website is --[[User:AllahuAkbarJihad|AllahuAkbarJihad]] 21:53, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

<blockquote>
Phelps celebrated the 9/11 attacks and the more recent al-Qaeda strikes in London as the just recompense of Western decadence. He supported Saddam Hussein and has been appreciative to Fidel Castro. Phelps is probably more appropriately described in psychiatric than political terms. '''But his political roots are in the Democratic Party, having run for office in Kansas five times, and actively supported Al Gore in 1988 and 1992, whose campaign used Phelps’ family office space. Son Fred Phelps Jr., who had hosted a fund raiser for Gore, attended the 1993 Clinton-Gore inaugural.'''

More careful media coverage acknowledges that Phelps’ ostensibly Baptist church is "unaffiliated" and comprised of only his family members, whose compound of houses is assembled around the church and its swimming pool used for baptisms.

Phelps, now age 76, has demonstrated outside the Bush Ranch in Crawford, Texas. He has demonstrated against conservative religious activists James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson. He has demonstrated against the Southern Baptist Convention.
</blockquote>
--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 08:41, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Even if Phelps did support the Democrats at one time, that doesn't make him a liberal. Guiliani is a Republican and he is certainly not a Conservative (pro gay marriage, pro abortion). I'd argue that Phelps is delusional rather than liberal or conservative but I think it is terribly biased and incorrect to state that he is a leftist and a liberal. Liberals tend to be secular and pro gay marriage, Phelps does not embrace liberal values --[[User:Fredphelpsisamoron|Fredphelpsisamoron]] 16:17, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

I would argue that Phelps is actually a conservative. He is against gay marriage and is very religious, these are two traits of conservatives. --[[User:MichaelM|MichaelM]] 16:44, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't buy it sounds more like an anti liberal rant, and is the sort of statement which will atract vandals to this site. Liberals didn't support Saddam, I mean some might of, they just didn't support the war in Iraq, ! [[User:Tubesock|Tubesock]] 17:35, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

:There is more to conservatism than ONE ISSUE. Economics, etc.

Also, there are religious liberals out there. Ever heard of Jimmy Carter? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:45, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

True, but Jimmy Carter is only moderatly oppposed to homosexuality and believes in evolution, he is not the same hate filled bigot that Phelps is. Maybe Phelps isn't conservative, but he certainly isn't liberal either. I think saying Phelps is a leftist is POV pushing. It should be taken out. --[[User:MichaelM|MichaelM]] 16:47, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

::Wait, wait, wait. What does evolution have to do with it? We've had a lot of liberals tell us that we should not be politicizing science. I actually agree with that. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:51, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Phelps doesn't believe in evolution and he believes in creationism. Creationism, particularly YEC is associated with conservatism. I agree that science shouldn't be politicized but creationists, especially YEC, tend to be conservative while evolutionists tend to be moderate or liberal. --[[User:MichaelM|MichaelM]] 16:53, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
:::OK. So we have evidence liberals may be open minded and tolerant of other views. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:14, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
::*There is no such thing, outside of perhaps Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi as 100% Liberals. Guiliani, I might chime in, isn't taking a "liberal" stance on some issues, but a old line conservative POV, pre-neoconservative, more Libertarian stance. Many of Phelps' idealogical pronouncements most certainly do fit more within the secular-progressive tent than the conservative one. And one must note there wasn't any repudiation on the part of Citizen Gore when he was happily taking Phelps & Company money and office space, was there? End of argument there. Point is, Phelps is almost certainly a Demon from Hell. He certainly isn't worthy of anyone's defense, or the attention he is getting. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:47, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

I don't think any of Phelps stances fit liberalism at all. The use of liberal and leftist is misleading and biased --[[User:JimmyR|JimmyR]] 20:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Just because he opposes Bush and conservatives doesn't mean that he isn't one of them. Conservatives, like Liberals can have disagreements among one another and are not one monolithic block. Besides Ronald Reagan supported Saddam in the 80s, does that make him a liberal? I think you should take out "leftist" and "liberal activist" it is terribly biased and misleading and just makes Conservapedia look bad --[[User:BillCasey|BillCasey]] 10:19, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
:I agree. Phelps is no more a liberal activist than the KKK is a conservative action group. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 11:54, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Exactly, Phelps has been criticized across the political spectrum from leftist gay rights groups to conservative Christians, he is neither liberal or conservative, he is just plain nuts --[[User:BillCasey|BillCasey]] 17:55, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
:ok, we know the 'ol "he's a bad guy so he must be a religious conservative" argument is the basis of many Wikipedia articles, and thousands of other websites. But this is CP, we're basically (1) concerned with facts.

:So, Phelps, a creationist, is an example of a broadminded [[leftist]]. What's wrong with that? Although some of his views are extraordinarily repugnant, Al & Tipper, in keeping with thier one time advocacy of censoring [[music]] content and being pro-[[big tabacco]], once courted a constituency there. Gore only dropped these views when the Clintons put him on the ticket. Perhaps the [[Nobel Prize]] Committee made the award to the wrong guy. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:15, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Al Gore is not really a leftist. More a flip-flop, his views swing from liberal to conservative depending on how the political wind blows. Besides supporting Gore doesn't automatically make Phelps a liberal. I'm not saying you should say he is a conservative. But liberals/conservatives calling those who are repugnant to both groups the group they disagree with is wrong and biased. Both liberals and conservatives oppose Phelps so he should be called neither. --[[User:BillCasey|BillCasey]] 18:22, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
:hmmm, so Phelps is [[mainstream]] or [[centrist]]? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:28, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

No, he's just an extremist. Like the KKK. --[[User:BillCasey|BillCasey]] 18:34, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

:Very interesting; on [[political spectrum theory]] I once postulated that the theory was useless, and meaningless. Perhaps Phelps is an example. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:00, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

If that is the case then I think the word leftist should be taken out, it is misleading and besides Phelps is usually considered part of the Religious Right, whether that is true or not --[[User:DanielJamesRideout|DanielJamesRideout]] 12:26, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:So, because the so-called "Religious Right" is unfairly defamed, we should pile on in support of liberal fascist objectives. ''Wiederlich.'' [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:48, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

The conservatives call him liberal and the liberals call him conservative. He is clearly insane. Liberalism and insanity often go together but here insanity crowds everything else out. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 12:54, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Liberalism and insanity go together, thats a pretty harsh insult for people who you merely have a political disagreement with? Why so much hate? --[[User:NathanRodgers|NathanRodgers]] 12:57, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:If it was not for the '''fact''' of Phelps [[political]] [[activism]], in support of [[political]] candidates, or the [[fact]] Phelps ran for [[political]] office on the ticket of a major [[political party]], we would not be having this discusssion. But given the [[political]] realities, we can only use Phelps own stated [[political]] affilliations. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:48, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes it is true that Phelps was associated with the Democrats but remember that at one time the Democrats were the "Conservative" party. The Democrats are now supportive or at least tolerant of homosexuals and Phelps has referred to his former friend Al Gore as a "Fag-enabler". There aren't too many differences between Republicans and Democrats anyways. I think that leftist and liberal activist should be taken out, other than that the article is fine. --[[User:NathanRodgers|NathanRodgers]] 14:48, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
:You say "was associated." We have no basis for that. It was Al Gore who shifted, not Phelps. And we have no reason to believe Gore publicly shifted other than [[career opportunism]], not any personal, inner, [[moral]] change in his fundamental beliefs. Further, we have ample evidence Gore has both consistently, and persistently, been less then ingenuous in his own personal, inner convictions since pursuing a path of personal career opportunism. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:42, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:::I think anyone with a natural mind can see that Phelps openly supports an agenda that is complicated. However, as Rob eloquently sated above, he ran as a [[Democrat]]. This fact is undeniable. Now, if anyone else wants to take issue with that, that's fine, but I would advise that this is a waste of everyone's time and ought to be a bannable offense. The "but but but" crowd needs to grow up and acept that this guy is one of their own. [[User:Mathers|ItMathers]] 17:56, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
[[Image:Lj105.jpg|thumb|250px|right|According to liberal authors, Fred Phelps "self-identifies as a Democrat." ]]
::::I'm not sure it's quite as simple as that, Mathers. As I understand it, membership of either the Republican or Democrat Party in the States requires no specific ideology and often is simply a matter of publically stating your preference. As Stephen Colbert demonstrated recently, it's even possible to be a member of both! It's a bit of a stretch then to say that Democrats en masse (or liberals, for that matter) consider him 'one of their own'. It might be more accurate to say that Phelps "self-identifies as a Democrat", and elsewhere in the article that "Phelps has been criticized by conservatives and liberals alike". Is there any way we can modify the page to reflect this? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:23, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:::::Very funny. Seriously though guys, could an admin modify the text? I imagine it'd save a lot of bickering on this Talk page. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:23, 11 November 2007 (EST)

*Very well said, Mathers! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:33, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
:*I don't understand why libs have trouble with the idea that libs hate; seems to be an everyday occurance. I've experienced it daily for 40 years. Look at Ann Coulter. Libs cannot restrain spewing their hatred toward her. Or Rush. Or O'Reilly, Falwell, Bush, the list is endless. Why is it such a shock to libs that liberals spew hate? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:39, 11 November 2007 (EST)

==Democrat (or at least ex-Democrat), sure. But liberal?==
Describing Phelps as a Democrat is justifiable, since he did run as a Democrat, but the first sentence dexcribes him as a "leftist", which I believe is the same as "liberal". This seems flawed. Not all Democrats are liberal and vice versa (anyone remember Zell Miller? Reagan and Thurmond were both Democrats once too). Looking at Conservapedia's own definition of [[liberal]] we have the following specific views how many of them apply to Phelps?
#denial of inherent gender differences, leading to things such as allowing men and women to have the same jobs in the military (while quietly holding them to different standards)
#:No evidence that he feels this way
#taxpayer-funded abortion
#:Certainly not
#same-sex marriage
#:HA!
#support of affirmative action
#:No evidence of this
#support of political correctness
#:Not at all
#censorship of prayer in classrooms
#:No
#compelled taxpayer funding of government schools for nearly all ages
#:Hard to say, but publicly funded schools are hardly a liberal issue; there is widespread support for them. Most people do not want to completely privatize education.
#government-controlled medical care
#:No evidence of this
#labor unions
#:no evidence of this
#elimination of abstinence-only program funding
#:Given his religious views, this seems unlikely
#income redistribution, usually through progressive taxation
#:No evidence of this
#a "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written
#:No idea. He'd probably support a "living constitution" if interpretations of the document would harm the homosexual agenda, but against it if it would promote it.
#support for gun control
#:No evidnce for this (seems unlikely)
#government programs to rehabilitate criminals
#:No idea
#environmentalism
#:No evidence for this
#disarmament treaties
#:No evidence (this guy seems not to be much of a foreign policy wonk, except when it comes to praising anti-gay foreign leaders)
#globalism
#:No evidence of this (except for global condemnation of homosexuality)
#opposition to a strong American foreign policy
#:No evidence
#support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right
#:Seems unlikely
#opposition to full private property rights
#:No evidence of this
#limit conservative talk radio by reinstating the Fairness Doctrine
#:Seems unlikely that he'd want to do anything to aid the pro-gay liberal media
So he basically has no discernable liberal traits. This does not make him a conservative, but it really seems he's not a leftist. The only things that point to his leftism are running as a Democrat (who can say why he picked one party over the other? He didn't have much suport from either, it seems) and his support for Gore (dropped when it turned out Gore's views on homosexuality were more liberal than the previously appered). Since Democrat is not the same as liberal, I'm not sure how the latter applies to him. Can anyone justify the inclusion of the term leftist? If someone can point out statements he's made supporting strong environmentalism, opposition to gun rights, disarmament treaties, property rights opposition, or such a case could certainly be made, but right now I'm not seeing any real leftism here. [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 10:51, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
:The "leftist" portion is cited. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:14, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

::I'm sorry, but I don't see it. I see citations for the Democrat part, which isn't the issue. Can point out the specific citation to me? [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 14:47, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

:::[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={91058469-F6DE-4615-8B2A-73CDF3E8FCAC}] Perhaps we need [[CP:Common knowledge]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:12, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

::::Sorry, but that doesn't clear anything up. Nowhere does that piece call Phelps "liberal" or "leftist" (even if it did, it would be the opinion of a journalist). We've established his conection to the Democratic Party, but where's his liberalism? This site has 21 examples of liberal traits, which does he meet? His anti-gay agenda shapes his opinions on all other matters. If supporting Castro makes him a liberal, what about condemning Sweden (The most socialist state in Europe)? I think everyone can agree that hating gays is not a trait that makes one liberal, and that is about the only trait he has. I think the guy defies all aspects of the traditional left/right spectrum, and I don't see the point of trying to pigeonhole him into one group. By all means this article should disassociate him from the Christian wing of the conservative movement, but that doesn't by definition make him liberal. Is there a source that shows how he meets even ''one'' of the 21 examples bove (and he'd need to meet more than one to be classified as a liberal)? [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 15:42, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::So, were back to the definition "a liberal is a leftist," and "a leftist is a liberal." We were attacked by cyberterrorists for months trying to put that stuff in.
:::::Liberals don't hate? Please....And nowhere in the text does it say Phelps is a liberal. He is in Cat:Liberal activists, and a strong case can be made that he belongs there. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:07, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
::::::I know nothing about cyberterrorists and such, but I was sort of under the impression that liberal and leftist were sort of interchangable. This site's own article says that leftist is associated with "social democracy, liberalism, or the several strains of socialism and communism. It may also be applied to those who oppose conservative politics. The word 'liberal' is often used in the US to mean 'leftist'. But this is inconsistent with the original meaning of the word liberal." I see nothing socialist or communist about Phelps (support for Castro is based solely on his anti-gay stance, not his economics), nor any real connection with social democracy. In this country it ''is'' basically interchangable with "liberal" (classical liberalism is out of the scope of this issue), so calling him a leftist is much the same as calling him a liberal. And note that I never said liberals don't hate, I said that hating gays is not a liberal trait. Are you trying to argue that it is? I think that would be an uphill battle, but feel free to try. And by the way, calling him a liberal activist ''is'' calling him a liberal (just like saying someone is a Mexican footballer is saying he is Mexican, and a footballer). So if he isn't a liberal but is a leftist, what is it that makes him a leftist (and how is that different from the standard definition of liberal that the 21 points illustrate)? [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 16:28, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::::"calling him a leftist is much the same as calling him a liberal,"
:::::::Where in the text does it say this? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:37, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Okay, if the two are not synonymous (or nearly so), then explain the difference. I think I'm not alone in thinking the two terms are so close as to be basically interchangable. The [[leftist]] article here is pretty unclear on just about all aspects of the term, and does not draw any real distinctions between liberal and leftist. The article even states "The word 'liberal' is often used in the US to mean 'leftist'", and since this is an American encyclopedia, aimed at the layman, it seems that if you're going to use the term in different way than it is often used you should make that distinctly clear. If the article means to say he is a leftist but not a liberal then the difference between the two should be explicitly stated, and how he fits into the category "leftist" should also be made clear. Furthermore, if he isn't a liberal he should be removed from the liberal activists category, and his entry should be removed from the [[liberal hate speech]] article. [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 00:40, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::*''I think I'm not alone in thinking the two terms are so close as to be basically interchangable.''
:::::::::*Congratulations, and ''good for you.'' Unfortuneatly, like the [[theory of evolution]], you can not impose your [[moral]]ity on me, and ''force'' me to accept the [[political spectrum theory]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:47, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

[unindenting] Well, this very site says the two terms are often used interchangably, and I have no idea what evolution and imposition of morality have to do with anything, so we'll let that bit rest. So I'll ask the questions I'd like to see addressed, and I'll number them to make it easy:
:1. What is the difference between a leftist and a liberal, as used in this case?
:2. How is Phelps a leftist? What specific opinions does he hold that make him such?
:3. If he is not a liberal, why is he in the liberal activist category, and used as an example of liberal hate speech?
I'll wait for a reply. [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 00:57, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

*Here it is, Troll:

* BillyFranco (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 04:57, 23 October 2007) (Earliest: 14:51, 22 October 2007) [6]
* Briantrust (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 20:35, 20 October 2007) (Earliest: 15:54, 19 October 2007) [3]
* AuH2O (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 16:34, 20 October 2007) (Earliest: 14:59, 20 October 2007) [3]
IP: 24.29.72.31 Schenectady, NY,United States

Here is yet another shining example of liberal [[deceit]]. They cannot even argue honestly. They need socks to hide their dishonesty.

Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:47, 23 October 2007 (EDT) 
:<RobS high fives TK>; By thier fruits ye shall know them. Defenders & apologists is usually a dead give away. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:24, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

==Liberal Activist? (Edit Break)==

I despise Liberals but I have to agree with this loonie leftie this time, Phelps is definetly not a liberal even though he was (or possibly still is) a member of the Democratic Party. Besides what's wrong with protesting homosexuality anyways? I just think he carries it too far thats all --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 16:22, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

ahaha, typical liberal behaviour lol. Still though, I don't think Phelps is a liberal. He certainly isn't conservative either but calling him a liberal when he clearly isn't just makes Conservapedia look bad.--[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 17:59, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

*Did you at all read the material RobS provided? --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:13, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Not yet, I'll take a look at it and make my decision on Phelps' political views then --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 18:25, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

I've taken a look at some of the things Rob has said, Phelps is or was a democrat but he is liberal only in name. His views are not liberal at all. I don't care what he says about homosexuality, it is a sin after all, Phelps just goes a little too nutty over it. My issue with him is the disrespect of American soldiers and his criticism of Bush. Bush is in no way a "fag-enabler" and is quite critical of homosexuality. Phelps is not firing on all cylinders though, thats for sure. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 18:40, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

::I agree with Konserva... the guy above me, Phelps doesn't really qualify as a leftist/liberal. I mean, if he joined the Republican party, would we even be discussing this? There are probably quite a few rogues if we look hard enough into each party's details. maybe Charles Manson believed in a weak federal government and strong gun ownership rights. Does that alone make him a Conservative? At the end of the day, I think the blush is off his liberal democrat rose. [[User:Mathers|ItMathers]] 18:49, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

*It is pretty easy, as RobS says, to get people to reveal themselves! --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:23, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
:::Well, I will say I'm happy he's on their side. ;) [[User:Mathers|ItMathers]] 19:36, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
::::We should probably give credit to the watchdog organizations that single out and trash Phleps, it gives them credibility and balance, shows they are capable of broadminded thinking, and not mindless partisan trolls. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:54, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

If these watchdog groups are liberal, they will likely just throw Phelps in with conservatives. While I don't think Phelps is a liberal, his anti-war activities and support of Castro make him exempt from being classified as a conservative. I don't think Phelps falls neatly into either category and both liberals and conservatives are accusing him of being in the other camp because nobody wants him --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 00:05, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
*''If these watchdog groups are liberal, they will likely just throw Phelps in with conservatives.''
:*They've obviously done that. This is why CP exists, this is closely related to one of our core missions, to counter these slanders of conservatives & conservative views by leftist ideological slander factories. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:09, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

I agree, the media has a terrible liberal bias along with these watchdog groups. Phelps is delusional, he is neither liberal or conservative. I still think we should leave political labels out of the description (other than his support for Al Gore which is documented fact), it will just make Conservapedia look bad and give those whiney liberals something else to complain about --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 00:12, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
:Where does the media get thier impressions and opinion about Phelps? From these watchdog organizations -- you never would have heard of Phelps otherwise. Then the media & watchdog organizations also are actively engaged in an agenda, pushing [[gay rights]] and the [[homosexual agenda]], for example. Where does the opposition to this agenda come from? Church people. Who is Phelps & what is his organization? He's a preacher & preaches at a church. ''Voila!'' We have more right-wing, neofascist, hate-mongering Christain Coalition homophobic bigots that need to be exterminated.

:Sorry, his views are Democrat, on the left, and quite in the tradition of stupid, pointless, [[liberal activism]] designed for no other reason than to get people angry, and draw publicity. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:22, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Just because someone is democrat doesn't mean that they are liberal. Bob Novak was a democrat --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 18:31, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

*Bob Novak is and was pretty liberal on many things, so a poor example. ;-) -- --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:45, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Bob Novak liberal? I don't find him that liberal. He is pro-Iraq war and anti-socialized-medicine. Perhaps he is not as conservative as most Republicans but he is certainly more conservative than the vast majority of democrats and some Republicans too. Also Al and Tipper Gore weren't always as liberal as they claim they are today. They were both in favour of censoring violent and explicit lyrics of rappers and Al Gore was anti-homosexual at one point. They only distanced themselves from Phelps when it became politically expedient. They didn't mind his money though. Still the point is as much as a nut as Phelps is, he isn't really a liberal and it is misleading to label him that. He is opposed to the homosexual agenda, is antiabortion, antievolution, and is religious. While he may share the anti-war sentiment of the left, his reasons for doing so are completely different. I think it is misleading to label him a leftist and we don't want to be guilty of bias like Wikipedia is --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 13:42, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

*Maybe I need to teach a class or something, helping liberals do parody of conservatives. :S --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:42, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

You think Phelps is actually a liberal pretending to hate homosexuals to make conservatives look bad? I don't think he's intelligent enough to think of such a scheme. Liberals are usually pretty stupid. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 16:25, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

*Phelps is a Demon, not a Human. Important difference. --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:45, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
==Fred Phelps is NOT left-wing==
The "Fred Phelps a closet liberal" source is merely a discussion in relation to an article, it is not a valid source and should be removed. The left support gays and anti-homosexuality adovocates clearly belong on the right whether they are democrat or republican. --[[User:ChavezFan|ChavezFan]] 16:41, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
:Do all left-wingers [[fascism|goosestep]] to the [[gay agenda]]? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:14, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
::They Pretty much do, liberalism and homosexuality go hand in hand, stupid liberals. Talk about Groupthink hahahaha --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 19:45, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
:::I thought liberalism was the [[big tent]]? You mean everyone has to tow the party line, and there is no tolerance for [[diversity]]? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:29, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
::::Liberals are very intolerant of conservative viewpoints. While they are tolerant of nearly all religions (except Christianity) they are very intolerant of anyone who criticizes homosexuality or political correctness. Liberals are highly ideological. Trust me, I come from a country full of these pinkos --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 21:33, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

== Does it really matter? ==

Trying to associating Fred Phelps with the right or the left is ridiculous. Neither of them like him. The whole political spectrum wouldn't mind a meteorite taking out the Westboro Baptist Church compound (preferably with the whole congregation/family inside) It's deceptive and ridiculous to try to associate him with anyone as a means of discrediting them: Democrats hate him, Baptists hate him, Christian fundamentalists hate him, the ACLU hates him. Gays hate him, US soldiers hate him, Mary Cheney hates him, Swedes hate him, Al Gore hates him, 9/11 victims hate him. Who knows, '''maybe God Hates Fred Phelps'''. So please, have some '''common sense''' and remove the deceptive references to leftist, liberal, and the anti-war movement. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 23:13, 8 November 2007 (EST)

P.S. One of the blog links is broken.
:Rob, your [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Fred_Phelps&diff=330569&oldid=330497 removal] of my remarks against Fred Phelps was totally uncalled for and not remotely related to policy. {{tl|Remove personal remark}} is for attacks on fellow editors, not going after the subject of an article. From what I've seen on Conservapedia, going after a [[Hillary Rodham Clinton|subject]] is acceptable anywhere. No personal attacks itself isn't even well enforced, for that matter. For example, you told someone to "get a chiropractor to help get your foot out of your mouth" on [[Talk:Al Gore]]
::Oops, forgot my sig yesterday [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 22:41, 15 November 2007 (EST)

''Trying to associating Fred Phelps with the right or the left is ridiculous.''
Seconded - ''(the following is reposted, since it seems to have escaped the sysops' attention. Apologies.)''
As I understand it, membership of either the Republican or Democrat Party in the States requires no specific ideology and often is simply a matter of publically stating your preference. As Stephen Colbert demonstrated recently, it's even possible to be a member of both! It's a bit of a stretch then to say that Democrats en masse (or liberals, for that matter) consider him 'one of their own'. It might be more accurate to say that Phelps "self-identifies as a Democrat", and elsewhere in the article that "Phelps has been criticized by conservatives and liberals alike". Is there any way we can modify the page to reflect this? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:14, 15 November 2007 (EST)

=="Fred Phelps is a leftist anti-homosexual behavior activist and liberal Democrat"==

Original post by [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] on the [[Talk:Main Page|Main Page Talk]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:45, 14 December 2007 (EST)

''Since the article is locked, and several people have appealed for it to be changed on the talk page but ignored, I thought it best to put it here in order to garner some sort of consensus. Is Fred Phelps a Liberal? Picketing funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq because their country supposedly supports the 'homosexual agenda' is markedly illiberal. It needs change. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 16:54, 14 December 2007 (EST)''

Here, also, is the ensuing discussion on the main page. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:57, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:''As a veteran, I find Fred Phelps' actions to be reprehensible and despicable. The very freedom that allowed him and his ilk to protest in that manner was provided by the life of the soldier he's protesting. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:58, 15 December 2007 (EST)''

::''Nobody likes [[Fred Phelps]], we know that. But that doesn't mean he can be branded a [[liberal]] just for being despicable - does it? Apparently he has some history with the [[Democratic Party]], but his actual views don't seem very "liberal Democrat" to me. Perhaps he doesn't really fit into any political category? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 11:12, 15 December 2007 (EST)
:::''Even if he was a staunch Republican and conservative, there is absolutely no call for his actions. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:28, 15 December 2007 (EST)''
::''Agreed (though I hope it didn't seem that I was trying to imply he was!) [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:30, 15 December 2007 (EST)''
''In light of Andy's recent comments about non-linear political alignment, I would recommend that the "liberal" statement be redacted, and something to the effect of "Fred Phelps' political alignment seems to fall outside of any political category". --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 16:07, 15 December 2007 (EST)''
''Given that advancing the homosexual agenda is a defining characteristic of Democrats and Liberals, it's hard to see how being so opposed to homosexuals would make him a Democrat or a Liberal. I looked over the article on him, and it said he did run to be the democrat nominee but didn't win. Maybe there are races where he did win the nomination, but just running doesn't mean the democrats support him. I mean, I would never call Ron Paul a republican but here he is running as one.[[User:TRipp|TRipp]] 16:28, 15 December 2007 (EST)''''

:Another example why any moralistic person should avoid this site like a plague. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:55, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== The word "leftist" should be removed from the first sentence ==

It is fine to characterize him as democrat, since this is documented, but characterizing him as a "leftist" is far from documented, or universally accepted. If there are people that feel that is the case, then it is worth a section in the article, however placing a controversial and undocumented piece of information in the first sentence, discredits the article as a whole.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 23:21, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:I wholeheartedly agree, and I think there's a clear consensus on this point. I will request the page to be unlocked so that we can edit it. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 11:40, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== Phelps and the Bible ==

The article has a lot of condemnatory language about him from a secular standpoint, but it should also say what's wrong with him from a Biblical standpoint, citing chapter and verse. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 10:37, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

:I agree. How about starting with 1 Corinthians 6:9-11? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:44, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

== Am I the only one? ==

Anyone else thinks Fred Phelps looks like the Reverand Kane from the Poltergiest movies? {{unsigned|Jedisqrl}}
: Or does Reverend Kane look like Fred Phelps (deliberately)? (I don't know what either looks like, so I'm offering no opinion). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:08, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
::You're definitely [http://msunderestimated.com/PhelpsKane.jpg not alone]! [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:48, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

::: I doubt the Poltergeist movies were influenced by Phelps, considering they well pre-date his rise to prominence. I suppose its possible, that Phelps intentionally tries to look like him, if the idea that he's actually running some sort of performance art piece and/or massive parody of Christian fundamentalism is true, but I doubt that's the case. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 13:07, 26 February 2009 (EST)

== "First class nut" ==

I have heard and seen this before, but I have been unable to find a source attributing this particular quote. Anyone care to help me out? [[User:EelisA|EelisA]] 16:46, 14 December 2008 (EST)

==Not liberal==

He's not a liberal, if he opposes homosexuality. But I don't think of him as a conservative: more of a radical fundamentalist. He's the [[gay rights movement]]'s poster boy for [[intolerance]], a potent justification for using the label "[[homophobia]]" to describe all the opposition.

I think it would help our cause to distance ourselves from him. In particular the motto, "God hates fags" is not a conservative idea. Recall, "[[God hates sin but loves the sinner]]". Our heavenly Father has a [[parental heart]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:00, 26 February 2009 (EST)

: I would argue that Phelps is actually insane, in the clinical sense of the word. Its unfair to attempt to attach any mainstream political label to him -- people all across the political spectrum reject him. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 13:03, 26 February 2009 (EST)

::^This. To be honest, this also goes for people like Hitler; people who are so left-wing they go off the edge and appear on the right, people who are neither left nor right but up or down. There's some people you can't classify other than 'insane'. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:24, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Careful, now. Whenever an online discussion starts to mention Hitler, that's like touching the third rail in the subway. The power of his shocking works overwhelm us, and we stop thinking clearly.

Phelps is only wrong in his idea that God "punishes" and "hates" homosexuals. This is not to say that he's wrong about homosexuality being a sin. A lot of support for Communism is based on a high ethical idea that no one should monopolize the nation's wealth at the expense of the poor. They only go wrong in the way they want to solve the [[unequal distribution]] problem: i.e., "kill the capitalists and steal their loot!" [http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:JwqaZFQvOtMJ:www.cusd.chico.k12.ca.us/~bsilva/projects/russia/Radzinsky%2520Stalin.doc+bolsheviks+steal+loot&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us&client=firefox-a]

We need to solve economic problems that Capitalism and Communism have not been able to eliminate. Ethical means, however, must be used. Likewise, we need to solve the problem of [[immorality]] (and not only [[homosexuality]: there's a lot of heterosexual sin, such as [[adultery]]); yet an attitude of hatred and hostility towards people is not likely to solve the [[free love]] problem. It could make it worse. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:40, 26 February 2009 (EST)

:I'd say he's wrong about considerably more than just his idea that God hates homosexuals, Ed. Remember that Phelps and his flock are virulently anti-American and celebrate the deaths of American soldiers and Americans in general. A number of his faithful recently turned up in Buffalo to picket memorial services for those who died on Flight 3407; his daughter claimed in an interview that the plane crashed as punishment for not giving more credit to God for the Miracle on the Hudson. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:47, 26 February 2009 (EST)

::Well, one cannot diagnose "insanity" without a medical degree, you know. I never supported or endorsed Al Gore for President. I never donated any of my personal property for a Gore campaign headquarters. I wonder who is the liberal then, me, or Fred Phelps who actually is a Gore supporter? It's not exactly rocket science, but I do see lots of liberals squirming and parsing words, and making up all kinds of caveats to somehow spin it Phelps isn't one! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:14, 26 February 2009 (EST)

:::And Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat. Prominent conservative activist David Horowitz was a gen-yoo-wine Marxist during the Sixties. Lots of people change their views throughout their lives. But I don't think he calls himself a Democrat now, and I doubt anyone in the party welcome him if he tried to become active again. You can't eternally classify someone by the views they once held. And yes, at one time, Phelps labeled himself as a Democrat, and was involved in the party.
::: And yes, I am not formerly qualified to diagnose Phelps as insane (and even someone who does have the qualification would have to spend time interviewing him.) However, from what I've read about Phelps, he apparently had a severe problem with amphetamines at one time (back in the days when they were "diet pills". The children that are estranged from the family report he beat them with the handle of a mattock (very close to an axe handle, or, to put it more simply, a really thick piece of wood.) He believes that ''only'' the members of his church are saved. I think that all points to some serious mental illness. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:49, 27 February 2009 (EST)

:::He may be a liberal, an insane one who carves his own niche in the political spectrum but a liberal all the same, but I dont think he's a Gore supporter any more. He was back when he believed Gore had a more anti-homosexual agenda, but now he strongly opposes Gore, and other Democratic figureheads like the Clintons. Any chance he'd be considered a populist or totalitarian? [[User:TPerry|TPerry]] 19:42, 26 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Populist? Not at all. He argues that only members of his church are saved, and every other human being is going to Hell. That's not populist in any way; its about as elitist as could be imagined. Totalitarian? Hard to say, considering outside of his obsessions with homosexuals and how the government should treat them, I don't think he comments much on how a government should be structured. I wouldn't be surprised to learn he'd support a form of totalitarian theocracy, though, with himself as a priest-king. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 11:09, 27 February 2009 (EST)

::::I consider him an enemy of America, personally. That's about all the label he requires, in my book.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:57, 26 February 2009 (EST)

The problem is with terminology and definitions. "Liberal" and "conservative" are terms that encompass a whole bag of issues and views, including political, economic, and religious. There are many people who are "liberal" in some areas and "conservative" in other areas (even though, in some cases, their views may appear to be or may actually be contradictory). Although I'd agree that someone who opposed homosexuality is likely to be a conservative, that is not the sole factor defining a conservative. If they are mostly but not completely one way or the other, they might be called a "moderate" liberal or conservative. But some, like Phelps from what I can gather, fit neatly in neither. But this is only a problem if one believes that "liberal" and "conservative" between them cover all possibilities. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Talk:Fred Phelps

2009-02-27T13:49:06Z

ArthurA: /* Not liberal */

==No linking to Phelps's web sites==

They are not family appropriate, and Conservapedia is not a repository of hate speech. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
: Would it be reasonable to add the prohibition of making and linking to hate speech one of the commandments? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I think that's an excellent idea. I suggest bringing it up either on Aschlafly's Talk Page or Talk:Conservapedia Commandments. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
: I did not know that I shouldn't have linked to his websites. However, could you please put into the opening paragraph that Fred Phelps' mission is against homosexuality? As it is, this important fact is not mentioned until halfway down the page. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 19:33, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:Will do. In fact, I'm going to unprotect this. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:55, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Surely the main authority on Phelps's teachings in Phelps himself? His sites should be linked to. I suggest doing so as plain text, not a clickable link, and alongside a warning notice.

*Posts not signed are ignored. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

==Discussion of subject==

I'm going to tentatively leave this in place, although it was intended to make Christians look bad by the original creator, he is a major news figure because of his funeral protests, and his actions have prompted major legislation regarding these (and he is also a major embarrassment to my home state, as well as a DEMOCRAT who actually campaigned for Al Gore in 1988 before he went on his anti-homosexual crusade).

Also, I drove by his "church" once and I got a physical chill once I got within two blocks of it. I felt like I was in a place of true evil. Interestingly, the ZIP codes in Topeka, where he lives, all start with 666. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Evidently his views changed, judging by his protest of the funeral of Al Gore's father. [[User:RandomishName11|RandomishName11]] 00:42, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

I just moved it because it was under "Fred phelps," and the lack of proper capitalization was bothering me. I like to copy edit. :-p [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

If you looked at the original article as it was written, it contained some crude language. But thanks for working on the capitalization. It bothers me as well when articles are started like that. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:30, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with you completely. I didn't want to bother with the article at the time, and I'm glad someone else did. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

On a more humorous note, [http://www.barzelay.net/files/images/other/phelps.jpg this] was taken outside of Vandy when Phelps came to visit. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I saw that picture for sale in a liberal store downtown once. It's so funny.
One of Phelps's lackeys told my friend that his hair was too long once. (I live about 25 miles from Topeka, so we get a lot of him.) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:But everyone knows, Jesus doesn't like long hair... [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::::This man makes me question the First Amendment, he is just that much of a evil being.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I know. His speech is beyond reasonable and just disgusting. I would guess that a majority of Kansans would support his execution.
And Colin, you may be thinking of Paul :) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I know the feeling. I'm a huge believer in the importance of the First Amendment, especially free speech, but what he says is just so ridiculous it's hard to believe it's technically allowed. And MD, I was mostly referring to the fact that most men of Jesus' time had "longer" hair. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 04:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

That's what I thought. I don't like to judge other Christians' salvation, but I have to make an exception here for old Freddie. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 04:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: OK, I saw you reverted the article back after I added content about the extent of his hate speach. There needs away for this to be stated, especially if you are going to allow the b.s. about militant homosexuals on the page. Otherwise this article makes him come across as less insane than he is.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 18:04, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::I agree. I just don't think that the word "fag" is appropriate for an article on this site. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The hate crimes against Fred Phelps section is uncited b.s. and I think it should be deleted unless someone can give any evidence beyond Phelps' own paranoia and delusional rantings. I'm doing you a favor--Fred Phelps is not your friend. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 11:02, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I'm also taking out the Al Gore contributions part since that isn't cited either. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 11:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Edits by Jack ==

please push your liberal views in an article about yourself. This article is about Fred Phelps views, not yours. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Ummmm, liberal views? You say that as if it was a bad thing. One of the commandments here is that claims need to be properly sourced. This article is certainly making a lot of excuses regarding one of the most abhorrant men in America today. He goes to military funerals with signs that say "God Hates F*gs". That is an objective, well documented fact. However, the sysops delete it from the main page. However, completely unsubstantiated claims by Phelps that HE is the victim of hate crimes is allowed to be left up. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 22:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::The subject of an article and their public statements are reliable sources for an article. Phelps is preaching the literal statements of the Bible. In fact, he is at the most extreme end of the spectrum with the limits of free speech I have ever seen. The article is about his views and him. And he is certainly notable. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 22:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::RightWolf2, please stop editing the article to claim that Phelps is "literally following the Bible", and please stop attacking Jack. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::1. Not an attack, but a statement of my views. 2. When admins and their buddies start forming cabals to reinforce each other, free editing goes out the window. 3. I am over 60 years old, I am a competent attorney, and I am not here to rain on anyones parade. Just to add God's word. 4. Your views of Phelps are "your views". Articles about subjects as controversial as phelps should enshrine "his views", not everyone elses opinions. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 11:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Landover Baptist==

Is Fred Phelps' church the inspiration for the Landover Baptist Church website that mocks Christian Extremism?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==?==

"Phelps, although outspoken and outlandish, is far less of a hypocrite than other Christian organizations who claim to be able to determine which verses from the Bible are literal from those that are allegorical."

Wow. QED. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

With all respect to the fact that it shouldn't be stated on an encyclopedia, Phelps probably is going to Hell. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 00:42, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

==Phelps is PRO-FAMILY, not anti-homosexual==

There's a reason Dr. Dobson called his institution "Focus on the Family" and not "We Hate Gays". There's a reason that it's called the "Family Research Council". The people who oppose the homosexual agenda are PRO-FAMILY, not anti-anything. Even the mainstream media generally recognizes this fact and ignore the moonbats (just like they ignore the moonbats when the moonbats try to label "PRO-lifers" as "ANTI-choicers"). Even the mainstream media (which has been proven to be overwhelmingly liberal, remember) doesn't call Dr. Dobson a bigot or a homophobe. So why shouldn't Conservapedia, which was created to espouse the CONSERVATIVE point of view, reflect what even liberals acknowledge?--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Phelps isn't a true conservative. He says Bush is going to burn in hell. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:39, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Jeeze, conservatives aren't brainless clones who can't disagree! I strongly disagree with Phelps on this matter, but that doesn't make him a non-conservative! Besides, the issue isn't whether or not he's conservative, the issue is his PRO-FAMILY "bias"!--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

*My reading of scripture, perhaps not as advanced as some, tells me if we keep judging, which God has said is his alone to do, we will all be burning. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:I agree with Terry, but as I've learned from much debating with christians, the argument doesn't work. They've chosen to ignore one thing the bible says in order to use another thing the bible says to achieve their goals or to justify their hate.[[User:Nsmyth|NSmyth]] 04:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
*Well, really, in the Grand Scheme of things, it isn't important. All of us, eventually, will face the harshest, yet most loving Judge in the Universe. Justifications, and legal arguments won't be allowed, lol. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:You can be anti homosexual without being pro-family. The cult Phelps has developed targets and belittles families, he is truely a Bad person in every sense of the word, if he has gotten anything right it has been by way of accident [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 01:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Being anti-homosexual is not being pro-family. It is being pro-YOUR-idea-of-family, and forcing that idea on the rest of the world. There's a big difference.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Phelps is not pro-family, he's pro-hate. There's a difference. His websites are not family-friendly, his sermons are not, nor are his "hymns", and neither are his images. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

What does Phelps stand for, _besides_ hating gays? That seems to be his one schtick. And by all accounts, he psychologically and physically abused his OWN family, which doesn't sound too 'pro-family' to me. [http://blank.org/addict/] (Court evidence--not for the weak of stomach.) --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 07:56, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

If what you say is true, then "pro-family" must oppose homosexuals becasue they asume that homosexuals are "anti-family". That is not true, it's not the desire of homosexual people to wreck family, they just want personal freedom to have the kind of living arangement they choose. The only reason they have gathered together is because it's their common cause to get that freedom for themselves. I'm pretty certain that if they had those rights, they would leave everyone else alone.
Homosexuals don't suggest that everyone should be homosexual, that would be stupid, they just want the right to live their lives as they want to, not bothering anyone, and not being bothered by anyone. If God (if he exists) dislikes it it's solely up to him to judge, none of us are entitled to do that. --[[User:Atkins|Atkins]] 23:45, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

It seems that whoever said that in the first place was being a parodist. We definitely don't stand for Phelps's hate here in Kansas, or here at Conservapedia. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:50, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

== What the #$@% ==

This page mention nothing about the sick twisted and evil nature of Fred Phelps and his family cult. I don't know how this site can call itself conservative and not utterly denounce someone who celebrates the deaths of our fighting men and women and taunts the families of our brave departed soldiers. I am disgusted that he gets off with one line of criticism. [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 01:41, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Opcn, I believe the principle at work here is "The Enemy Of My Enemy Is My Friend." Which is a very long way from "Love thine enemies" but that was just some liberal claptrap from about 33 AD or so. [[User:Teresita|Banned User Teresita]] 01:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Phelps and Religion ==

"It's hard to be religious when certain people aren't incinerated by bolts of lightning." -- Calvin.
--[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 07:46, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== disgusting liberal bias ==

this article is terribly condemning of this man. this is the same kind of p.c. bias crap that made me sick of wikipedia. mr. phelps believes in the same things we all do, so why is this article against hihm? he only believes in the things that jesus taught1!1[[User:Manifestdestiny|Manifestdestiny]] 18:42, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
:Wrong. At no time did Jesus ever condemn a soldier, unlike this man. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:49, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
::but jesus did condemn homosexuals. [[User:Cryingeagles39|Cryingeagles39]] 12:51, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Jesus told everyone in plain terms that if they continued to sin, they would not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. His message in the Gospels was that everyone should repent. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:06, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
Exactly. Jesus never specifically mentioned homosexuality in the gospels, but he did do what Karajou mentioned, which would encompass all types of sin, including homosexuality. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:20, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

*I do know Jesus commanded that we not judge, or we would be. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:12, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

== God Hates Canada ==

Didn't Phelps also light a flag on fire in the middle of an airport, thus causing his arrest? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 18:44, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

I haven't heard about this! Do you have a link? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:44, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

[http://www.holysmoke.org/hs02/phelps3.htm] is the best I can find. I was wrong, I guess. Seems he didn't actually get around to torching the flag. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 19:03, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

:Nevermind... "When WBC members did in fact actually burn the Canadian flag in religious protest to Canada's approval of same-sex marriage, the so-called Christians of Canada were the loudest in denouncing WBC and "widely reviling" her Gospel message." That's from his God Hates Canada page. Appears I was mistaken about the airport thing, though. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 19:09, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

== Phelps And The Democratic Party ==

Can someone please get rid of this header at the bottom of the page? Seems a bit of a stretch to me. --[[User:Ouzo|Ouzo]] 14:35, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
:I think we've addressed your concerns. [http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={91058469-F6DE-4615-8B2A-73CDF3E8FCAC} The "God Hates Fags" Left]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:06, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

==Liberal Activist!???==
Last time I checked liberals support gay people and are secular. Calling Fred Phelps a liberal would be akin to calling Osama bin Laden a pacifist. Someone should change this --[[User:AllahuAkbarJihad|AllahuAkbarJihad]] 21:50, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Phelps is not a leftist, he is on the extreme fringes of the religious right, he's an embarrasment to conservatives so he is called a "liberal". I can't believe how biased this website is --[[User:AllahuAkbarJihad|AllahuAkbarJihad]] 21:53, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

<blockquote>
Phelps celebrated the 9/11 attacks and the more recent al-Qaeda strikes in London as the just recompense of Western decadence. He supported Saddam Hussein and has been appreciative to Fidel Castro. Phelps is probably more appropriately described in psychiatric than political terms. '''But his political roots are in the Democratic Party, having run for office in Kansas five times, and actively supported Al Gore in 1988 and 1992, whose campaign used Phelps’ family office space. Son Fred Phelps Jr., who had hosted a fund raiser for Gore, attended the 1993 Clinton-Gore inaugural.'''

More careful media coverage acknowledges that Phelps’ ostensibly Baptist church is "unaffiliated" and comprised of only his family members, whose compound of houses is assembled around the church and its swimming pool used for baptisms.

Phelps, now age 76, has demonstrated outside the Bush Ranch in Crawford, Texas. He has demonstrated against conservative religious activists James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson. He has demonstrated against the Southern Baptist Convention.
</blockquote>
--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 08:41, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Even if Phelps did support the Democrats at one time, that doesn't make him a liberal. Guiliani is a Republican and he is certainly not a Conservative (pro gay marriage, pro abortion). I'd argue that Phelps is delusional rather than liberal or conservative but I think it is terribly biased and incorrect to state that he is a leftist and a liberal. Liberals tend to be secular and pro gay marriage, Phelps does not embrace liberal values --[[User:Fredphelpsisamoron|Fredphelpsisamoron]] 16:17, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

I would argue that Phelps is actually a conservative. He is against gay marriage and is very religious, these are two traits of conservatives. --[[User:MichaelM|MichaelM]] 16:44, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't buy it sounds more like an anti liberal rant, and is the sort of statement which will atract vandals to this site. Liberals didn't support Saddam, I mean some might of, they just didn't support the war in Iraq, ! [[User:Tubesock|Tubesock]] 17:35, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

:There is more to conservatism than ONE ISSUE. Economics, etc.

Also, there are religious liberals out there. Ever heard of Jimmy Carter? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:45, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

True, but Jimmy Carter is only moderatly oppposed to homosexuality and believes in evolution, he is not the same hate filled bigot that Phelps is. Maybe Phelps isn't conservative, but he certainly isn't liberal either. I think saying Phelps is a leftist is POV pushing. It should be taken out. --[[User:MichaelM|MichaelM]] 16:47, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

::Wait, wait, wait. What does evolution have to do with it? We've had a lot of liberals tell us that we should not be politicizing science. I actually agree with that. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:51, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Phelps doesn't believe in evolution and he believes in creationism. Creationism, particularly YEC is associated with conservatism. I agree that science shouldn't be politicized but creationists, especially YEC, tend to be conservative while evolutionists tend to be moderate or liberal. --[[User:MichaelM|MichaelM]] 16:53, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
:::OK. So we have evidence liberals may be open minded and tolerant of other views. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:14, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
::*There is no such thing, outside of perhaps Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi as 100% Liberals. Guiliani, I might chime in, isn't taking a "liberal" stance on some issues, but a old line conservative POV, pre-neoconservative, more Libertarian stance. Many of Phelps' idealogical pronouncements most certainly do fit more within the secular-progressive tent than the conservative one. And one must note there wasn't any repudiation on the part of Citizen Gore when he was happily taking Phelps & Company money and office space, was there? End of argument there. Point is, Phelps is almost certainly a Demon from Hell. He certainly isn't worthy of anyone's defense, or the attention he is getting. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:47, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

I don't think any of Phelps stances fit liberalism at all. The use of liberal and leftist is misleading and biased --[[User:JimmyR|JimmyR]] 20:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Just because he opposes Bush and conservatives doesn't mean that he isn't one of them. Conservatives, like Liberals can have disagreements among one another and are not one monolithic block. Besides Ronald Reagan supported Saddam in the 80s, does that make him a liberal? I think you should take out "leftist" and "liberal activist" it is terribly biased and misleading and just makes Conservapedia look bad --[[User:BillCasey|BillCasey]] 10:19, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
:I agree. Phelps is no more a liberal activist than the KKK is a conservative action group. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 11:54, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Exactly, Phelps has been criticized across the political spectrum from leftist gay rights groups to conservative Christians, he is neither liberal or conservative, he is just plain nuts --[[User:BillCasey|BillCasey]] 17:55, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
:ok, we know the 'ol "he's a bad guy so he must be a religious conservative" argument is the basis of many Wikipedia articles, and thousands of other websites. But this is CP, we're basically (1) concerned with facts.

:So, Phelps, a creationist, is an example of a broadminded [[leftist]]. What's wrong with that? Although some of his views are extraordinarily repugnant, Al & Tipper, in keeping with thier one time advocacy of censoring [[music]] content and being pro-[[big tabacco]], once courted a constituency there. Gore only dropped these views when the Clintons put him on the ticket. Perhaps the [[Nobel Prize]] Committee made the award to the wrong guy. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:15, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Al Gore is not really a leftist. More a flip-flop, his views swing from liberal to conservative depending on how the political wind blows. Besides supporting Gore doesn't automatically make Phelps a liberal. I'm not saying you should say he is a conservative. But liberals/conservatives calling those who are repugnant to both groups the group they disagree with is wrong and biased. Both liberals and conservatives oppose Phelps so he should be called neither. --[[User:BillCasey|BillCasey]] 18:22, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
:hmmm, so Phelps is [[mainstream]] or [[centrist]]? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:28, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

No, he's just an extremist. Like the KKK. --[[User:BillCasey|BillCasey]] 18:34, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

:Very interesting; on [[political spectrum theory]] I once postulated that the theory was useless, and meaningless. Perhaps Phelps is an example. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:00, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

If that is the case then I think the word leftist should be taken out, it is misleading and besides Phelps is usually considered part of the Religious Right, whether that is true or not --[[User:DanielJamesRideout|DanielJamesRideout]] 12:26, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:So, because the so-called "Religious Right" is unfairly defamed, we should pile on in support of liberal fascist objectives. ''Wiederlich.'' [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:48, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

The conservatives call him liberal and the liberals call him conservative. He is clearly insane. Liberalism and insanity often go together but here insanity crowds everything else out. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 12:54, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Liberalism and insanity go together, thats a pretty harsh insult for people who you merely have a political disagreement with? Why so much hate? --[[User:NathanRodgers|NathanRodgers]] 12:57, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:If it was not for the '''fact''' of Phelps [[political]] [[activism]], in support of [[political]] candidates, or the [[fact]] Phelps ran for [[political]] office on the ticket of a major [[political party]], we would not be having this discusssion. But given the [[political]] realities, we can only use Phelps own stated [[political]] affilliations. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:48, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes it is true that Phelps was associated with the Democrats but remember that at one time the Democrats were the "Conservative" party. The Democrats are now supportive or at least tolerant of homosexuals and Phelps has referred to his former friend Al Gore as a "Fag-enabler". There aren't too many differences between Republicans and Democrats anyways. I think that leftist and liberal activist should be taken out, other than that the article is fine. --[[User:NathanRodgers|NathanRodgers]] 14:48, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
:You say "was associated." We have no basis for that. It was Al Gore who shifted, not Phelps. And we have no reason to believe Gore publicly shifted other than [[career opportunism]], not any personal, inner, [[moral]] change in his fundamental beliefs. Further, we have ample evidence Gore has both consistently, and persistently, been less then ingenuous in his own personal, inner convictions since pursuing a path of personal career opportunism. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:42, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:::I think anyone with a natural mind can see that Phelps openly supports an agenda that is complicated. However, as Rob eloquently sated above, he ran as a [[Democrat]]. This fact is undeniable. Now, if anyone else wants to take issue with that, that's fine, but I would advise that this is a waste of everyone's time and ought to be a bannable offense. The "but but but" crowd needs to grow up and acept that this guy is one of their own. [[User:Mathers|ItMathers]] 17:56, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
[[Image:Lj105.jpg|thumb|250px|right|According to liberal authors, Fred Phelps "self-identifies as a Democrat." ]]
::::I'm not sure it's quite as simple as that, Mathers. As I understand it, membership of either the Republican or Democrat Party in the States requires no specific ideology and often is simply a matter of publically stating your preference. As Stephen Colbert demonstrated recently, it's even possible to be a member of both! It's a bit of a stretch then to say that Democrats en masse (or liberals, for that matter) consider him 'one of their own'. It might be more accurate to say that Phelps "self-identifies as a Democrat", and elsewhere in the article that "Phelps has been criticized by conservatives and liberals alike". Is there any way we can modify the page to reflect this? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:23, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:::::Very funny. Seriously though guys, could an admin modify the text? I imagine it'd save a lot of bickering on this Talk page. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:23, 11 November 2007 (EST)

*Very well said, Mathers! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:33, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
:*I don't understand why libs have trouble with the idea that libs hate; seems to be an everyday occurance. I've experienced it daily for 40 years. Look at Ann Coulter. Libs cannot restrain spewing their hatred toward her. Or Rush. Or O'Reilly, Falwell, Bush, the list is endless. Why is it such a shock to libs that liberals spew hate? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:39, 11 November 2007 (EST)

==Democrat (or at least ex-Democrat), sure. But liberal?==
Describing Phelps as a Democrat is justifiable, since he did run as a Democrat, but the first sentence dexcribes him as a "leftist", which I believe is the same as "liberal". This seems flawed. Not all Democrats are liberal and vice versa (anyone remember Zell Miller? Reagan and Thurmond were both Democrats once too). Looking at Conservapedia's own definition of [[liberal]] we have the following specific views how many of them apply to Phelps?
#denial of inherent gender differences, leading to things such as allowing men and women to have the same jobs in the military (while quietly holding them to different standards)
#:No evidence that he feels this way
#taxpayer-funded abortion
#:Certainly not
#same-sex marriage
#:HA!
#support of affirmative action
#:No evidence of this
#support of political correctness
#:Not at all
#censorship of prayer in classrooms
#:No
#compelled taxpayer funding of government schools for nearly all ages
#:Hard to say, but publicly funded schools are hardly a liberal issue; there is widespread support for them. Most people do not want to completely privatize education.
#government-controlled medical care
#:No evidence of this
#labor unions
#:no evidence of this
#elimination of abstinence-only program funding
#:Given his religious views, this seems unlikely
#income redistribution, usually through progressive taxation
#:No evidence of this
#a "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written
#:No idea. He'd probably support a "living constitution" if interpretations of the document would harm the homosexual agenda, but against it if it would promote it.
#support for gun control
#:No evidnce for this (seems unlikely)
#government programs to rehabilitate criminals
#:No idea
#environmentalism
#:No evidence for this
#disarmament treaties
#:No evidence (this guy seems not to be much of a foreign policy wonk, except when it comes to praising anti-gay foreign leaders)
#globalism
#:No evidence of this (except for global condemnation of homosexuality)
#opposition to a strong American foreign policy
#:No evidence
#support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right
#:Seems unlikely
#opposition to full private property rights
#:No evidence of this
#limit conservative talk radio by reinstating the Fairness Doctrine
#:Seems unlikely that he'd want to do anything to aid the pro-gay liberal media
So he basically has no discernable liberal traits. This does not make him a conservative, but it really seems he's not a leftist. The only things that point to his leftism are running as a Democrat (who can say why he picked one party over the other? He didn't have much suport from either, it seems) and his support for Gore (dropped when it turned out Gore's views on homosexuality were more liberal than the previously appered). Since Democrat is not the same as liberal, I'm not sure how the latter applies to him. Can anyone justify the inclusion of the term leftist? If someone can point out statements he's made supporting strong environmentalism, opposition to gun rights, disarmament treaties, property rights opposition, or such a case could certainly be made, but right now I'm not seeing any real leftism here. [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 10:51, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
:The "leftist" portion is cited. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:14, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

::I'm sorry, but I don't see it. I see citations for the Democrat part, which isn't the issue. Can point out the specific citation to me? [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 14:47, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

:::[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={91058469-F6DE-4615-8B2A-73CDF3E8FCAC}] Perhaps we need [[CP:Common knowledge]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:12, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

::::Sorry, but that doesn't clear anything up. Nowhere does that piece call Phelps "liberal" or "leftist" (even if it did, it would be the opinion of a journalist). We've established his conection to the Democratic Party, but where's his liberalism? This site has 21 examples of liberal traits, which does he meet? His anti-gay agenda shapes his opinions on all other matters. If supporting Castro makes him a liberal, what about condemning Sweden (The most socialist state in Europe)? I think everyone can agree that hating gays is not a trait that makes one liberal, and that is about the only trait he has. I think the guy defies all aspects of the traditional left/right spectrum, and I don't see the point of trying to pigeonhole him into one group. By all means this article should disassociate him from the Christian wing of the conservative movement, but that doesn't by definition make him liberal. Is there a source that shows how he meets even ''one'' of the 21 examples bove (and he'd need to meet more than one to be classified as a liberal)? [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 15:42, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::So, were back to the definition "a liberal is a leftist," and "a leftist is a liberal." We were attacked by cyberterrorists for months trying to put that stuff in.
:::::Liberals don't hate? Please....And nowhere in the text does it say Phelps is a liberal. He is in Cat:Liberal activists, and a strong case can be made that he belongs there. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:07, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
::::::I know nothing about cyberterrorists and such, but I was sort of under the impression that liberal and leftist were sort of interchangable. This site's own article says that leftist is associated with "social democracy, liberalism, or the several strains of socialism and communism. It may also be applied to those who oppose conservative politics. The word 'liberal' is often used in the US to mean 'leftist'. But this is inconsistent with the original meaning of the word liberal." I see nothing socialist or communist about Phelps (support for Castro is based solely on his anti-gay stance, not his economics), nor any real connection with social democracy. In this country it ''is'' basically interchangable with "liberal" (classical liberalism is out of the scope of this issue), so calling him a leftist is much the same as calling him a liberal. And note that I never said liberals don't hate, I said that hating gays is not a liberal trait. Are you trying to argue that it is? I think that would be an uphill battle, but feel free to try. And by the way, calling him a liberal activist ''is'' calling him a liberal (just like saying someone is a Mexican footballer is saying he is Mexican, and a footballer). So if he isn't a liberal but is a leftist, what is it that makes him a leftist (and how is that different from the standard definition of liberal that the 21 points illustrate)? [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 16:28, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::::"calling him a leftist is much the same as calling him a liberal,"
:::::::Where in the text does it say this? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:37, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Okay, if the two are not synonymous (or nearly so), then explain the difference. I think I'm not alone in thinking the two terms are so close as to be basically interchangable. The [[leftist]] article here is pretty unclear on just about all aspects of the term, and does not draw any real distinctions between liberal and leftist. The article even states "The word 'liberal' is often used in the US to mean 'leftist'", and since this is an American encyclopedia, aimed at the layman, it seems that if you're going to use the term in different way than it is often used you should make that distinctly clear. If the article means to say he is a leftist but not a liberal then the difference between the two should be explicitly stated, and how he fits into the category "leftist" should also be made clear. Furthermore, if he isn't a liberal he should be removed from the liberal activists category, and his entry should be removed from the [[liberal hate speech]] article. [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 00:40, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::*''I think I'm not alone in thinking the two terms are so close as to be basically interchangable.''
:::::::::*Congratulations, and ''good for you.'' Unfortuneatly, like the [[theory of evolution]], you can not impose your [[moral]]ity on me, and ''force'' me to accept the [[political spectrum theory]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:47, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

[unindenting] Well, this very site says the two terms are often used interchangably, and I have no idea what evolution and imposition of morality have to do with anything, so we'll let that bit rest. So I'll ask the questions I'd like to see addressed, and I'll number them to make it easy:
:1. What is the difference between a leftist and a liberal, as used in this case?
:2. How is Phelps a leftist? What specific opinions does he hold that make him such?
:3. If he is not a liberal, why is he in the liberal activist category, and used as an example of liberal hate speech?
I'll wait for a reply. [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 00:57, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

*Here it is, Troll:

* BillyFranco (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 04:57, 23 October 2007) (Earliest: 14:51, 22 October 2007) [6]
* Briantrust (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 20:35, 20 October 2007) (Earliest: 15:54, 19 October 2007) [3]
* AuH2O (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 16:34, 20 October 2007) (Earliest: 14:59, 20 October 2007) [3]
IP: 24.29.72.31 Schenectady, NY,United States

Here is yet another shining example of liberal [[deceit]]. They cannot even argue honestly. They need socks to hide their dishonesty.

Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:47, 23 October 2007 (EDT) 
:<RobS high fives TK>; By thier fruits ye shall know them. Defenders & apologists is usually a dead give away. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:24, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

==Liberal Activist? (Edit Break)==

I despise Liberals but I have to agree with this loonie leftie this time, Phelps is definetly not a liberal even though he was (or possibly still is) a member of the Democratic Party. Besides what's wrong with protesting homosexuality anyways? I just think he carries it too far thats all --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 16:22, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

ahaha, typical liberal behaviour lol. Still though, I don't think Phelps is a liberal. He certainly isn't conservative either but calling him a liberal when he clearly isn't just makes Conservapedia look bad.--[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 17:59, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

*Did you at all read the material RobS provided? --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:13, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Not yet, I'll take a look at it and make my decision on Phelps' political views then --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 18:25, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

I've taken a look at some of the things Rob has said, Phelps is or was a democrat but he is liberal only in name. His views are not liberal at all. I don't care what he says about homosexuality, it is a sin after all, Phelps just goes a little too nutty over it. My issue with him is the disrespect of American soldiers and his criticism of Bush. Bush is in no way a "fag-enabler" and is quite critical of homosexuality. Phelps is not firing on all cylinders though, thats for sure. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 18:40, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

::I agree with Konserva... the guy above me, Phelps doesn't really qualify as a leftist/liberal. I mean, if he joined the Republican party, would we even be discussing this? There are probably quite a few rogues if we look hard enough into each party's details. maybe Charles Manson believed in a weak federal government and strong gun ownership rights. Does that alone make him a Conservative? At the end of the day, I think the blush is off his liberal democrat rose. [[User:Mathers|ItMathers]] 18:49, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

*It is pretty easy, as RobS says, to get people to reveal themselves! --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:23, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
:::Well, I will say I'm happy he's on their side. ;) [[User:Mathers|ItMathers]] 19:36, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
::::We should probably give credit to the watchdog organizations that single out and trash Phleps, it gives them credibility and balance, shows they are capable of broadminded thinking, and not mindless partisan trolls. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:54, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

If these watchdog groups are liberal, they will likely just throw Phelps in with conservatives. While I don't think Phelps is a liberal, his anti-war activities and support of Castro make him exempt from being classified as a conservative. I don't think Phelps falls neatly into either category and both liberals and conservatives are accusing him of being in the other camp because nobody wants him --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 00:05, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
*''If these watchdog groups are liberal, they will likely just throw Phelps in with conservatives.''
:*They've obviously done that. This is why CP exists, this is closely related to one of our core missions, to counter these slanders of conservatives & conservative views by leftist ideological slander factories. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:09, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

I agree, the media has a terrible liberal bias along with these watchdog groups. Phelps is delusional, he is neither liberal or conservative. I still think we should leave political labels out of the description (other than his support for Al Gore which is documented fact), it will just make Conservapedia look bad and give those whiney liberals something else to complain about --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 00:12, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
:Where does the media get thier impressions and opinion about Phelps? From these watchdog organizations -- you never would have heard of Phelps otherwise. Then the media & watchdog organizations also are actively engaged in an agenda, pushing [[gay rights]] and the [[homosexual agenda]], for example. Where does the opposition to this agenda come from? Church people. Who is Phelps & what is his organization? He's a preacher & preaches at a church. ''Voila!'' We have more right-wing, neofascist, hate-mongering Christain Coalition homophobic bigots that need to be exterminated.

:Sorry, his views are Democrat, on the left, and quite in the tradition of stupid, pointless, [[liberal activism]] designed for no other reason than to get people angry, and draw publicity. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:22, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Just because someone is democrat doesn't mean that they are liberal. Bob Novak was a democrat --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 18:31, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

*Bob Novak is and was pretty liberal on many things, so a poor example. ;-) -- --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:45, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Bob Novak liberal? I don't find him that liberal. He is pro-Iraq war and anti-socialized-medicine. Perhaps he is not as conservative as most Republicans but he is certainly more conservative than the vast majority of democrats and some Republicans too. Also Al and Tipper Gore weren't always as liberal as they claim they are today. They were both in favour of censoring violent and explicit lyrics of rappers and Al Gore was anti-homosexual at one point. They only distanced themselves from Phelps when it became politically expedient. They didn't mind his money though. Still the point is as much as a nut as Phelps is, he isn't really a liberal and it is misleading to label him that. He is opposed to the homosexual agenda, is antiabortion, antievolution, and is religious. While he may share the anti-war sentiment of the left, his reasons for doing so are completely different. I think it is misleading to label him a leftist and we don't want to be guilty of bias like Wikipedia is --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 13:42, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

*Maybe I need to teach a class or something, helping liberals do parody of conservatives. :S --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:42, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

You think Phelps is actually a liberal pretending to hate homosexuals to make conservatives look bad? I don't think he's intelligent enough to think of such a scheme. Liberals are usually pretty stupid. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 16:25, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

*Phelps is a Demon, not a Human. Important difference. --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:45, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
==Fred Phelps is NOT left-wing==
The "Fred Phelps a closet liberal" source is merely a discussion in relation to an article, it is not a valid source and should be removed. The left support gays and anti-homosexuality adovocates clearly belong on the right whether they are democrat or republican. --[[User:ChavezFan|ChavezFan]] 16:41, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
:Do all left-wingers [[fascism|goosestep]] to the [[gay agenda]]? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:14, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
::They Pretty much do, liberalism and homosexuality go hand in hand, stupid liberals. Talk about Groupthink hahahaha --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 19:45, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
:::I thought liberalism was the [[big tent]]? You mean everyone has to tow the party line, and there is no tolerance for [[diversity]]? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:29, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
::::Liberals are very intolerant of conservative viewpoints. While they are tolerant of nearly all religions (except Christianity) they are very intolerant of anyone who criticizes homosexuality or political correctness. Liberals are highly ideological. Trust me, I come from a country full of these pinkos --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 21:33, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

== Does it really matter? ==

Trying to associating Fred Phelps with the right or the left is ridiculous. Neither of them like him. The whole political spectrum wouldn't mind a meteorite taking out the Westboro Baptist Church compound (preferably with the whole congregation/family inside) It's deceptive and ridiculous to try to associate him with anyone as a means of discrediting them: Democrats hate him, Baptists hate him, Christian fundamentalists hate him, the ACLU hates him. Gays hate him, US soldiers hate him, Mary Cheney hates him, Swedes hate him, Al Gore hates him, 9/11 victims hate him. Who knows, '''maybe God Hates Fred Phelps'''. So please, have some '''common sense''' and remove the deceptive references to leftist, liberal, and the anti-war movement. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 23:13, 8 November 2007 (EST)

P.S. One of the blog links is broken.
:Rob, your [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Fred_Phelps&diff=330569&oldid=330497 removal] of my remarks against Fred Phelps was totally uncalled for and not remotely related to policy. {{tl|Remove personal remark}} is for attacks on fellow editors, not going after the subject of an article. From what I've seen on Conservapedia, going after a [[Hillary Rodham Clinton|subject]] is acceptable anywhere. No personal attacks itself isn't even well enforced, for that matter. For example, you told someone to "get a chiropractor to help get your foot out of your mouth" on [[Talk:Al Gore]]
::Oops, forgot my sig yesterday [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 22:41, 15 November 2007 (EST)

''Trying to associating Fred Phelps with the right or the left is ridiculous.''
Seconded - ''(the following is reposted, since it seems to have escaped the sysops' attention. Apologies.)''
As I understand it, membership of either the Republican or Democrat Party in the States requires no specific ideology and often is simply a matter of publically stating your preference. As Stephen Colbert demonstrated recently, it's even possible to be a member of both! It's a bit of a stretch then to say that Democrats en masse (or liberals, for that matter) consider him 'one of their own'. It might be more accurate to say that Phelps "self-identifies as a Democrat", and elsewhere in the article that "Phelps has been criticized by conservatives and liberals alike". Is there any way we can modify the page to reflect this? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:14, 15 November 2007 (EST)

=="Fred Phelps is a leftist anti-homosexual behavior activist and liberal Democrat"==

Original post by [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] on the [[Talk:Main Page|Main Page Talk]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:45, 14 December 2007 (EST)

''Since the article is locked, and several people have appealed for it to be changed on the talk page but ignored, I thought it best to put it here in order to garner some sort of consensus. Is Fred Phelps a Liberal? Picketing funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq because their country supposedly supports the 'homosexual agenda' is markedly illiberal. It needs change. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 16:54, 14 December 2007 (EST)''

Here, also, is the ensuing discussion on the main page. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:57, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:''As a veteran, I find Fred Phelps' actions to be reprehensible and despicable. The very freedom that allowed him and his ilk to protest in that manner was provided by the life of the soldier he's protesting. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:58, 15 December 2007 (EST)''

::''Nobody likes [[Fred Phelps]], we know that. But that doesn't mean he can be branded a [[liberal]] just for being despicable - does it? Apparently he has some history with the [[Democratic Party]], but his actual views don't seem very "liberal Democrat" to me. Perhaps he doesn't really fit into any political category? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 11:12, 15 December 2007 (EST)
:::''Even if he was a staunch Republican and conservative, there is absolutely no call for his actions. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:28, 15 December 2007 (EST)''
::''Agreed (though I hope it didn't seem that I was trying to imply he was!) [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:30, 15 December 2007 (EST)''
''In light of Andy's recent comments about non-linear political alignment, I would recommend that the "liberal" statement be redacted, and something to the effect of "Fred Phelps' political alignment seems to fall outside of any political category". --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 16:07, 15 December 2007 (EST)''
''Given that advancing the homosexual agenda is a defining characteristic of Democrats and Liberals, it's hard to see how being so opposed to homosexuals would make him a Democrat or a Liberal. I looked over the article on him, and it said he did run to be the democrat nominee but didn't win. Maybe there are races where he did win the nomination, but just running doesn't mean the democrats support him. I mean, I would never call Ron Paul a republican but here he is running as one.[[User:TRipp|TRipp]] 16:28, 15 December 2007 (EST)''''

:Another example why any moralistic person should avoid this site like a plague. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:55, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== The word "leftist" should be removed from the first sentence ==

It is fine to characterize him as democrat, since this is documented, but characterizing him as a "leftist" is far from documented, or universally accepted. If there are people that feel that is the case, then it is worth a section in the article, however placing a controversial and undocumented piece of information in the first sentence, discredits the article as a whole.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 23:21, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:I wholeheartedly agree, and I think there's a clear consensus on this point. I will request the page to be unlocked so that we can edit it. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 11:40, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== Phelps and the Bible ==

The article has a lot of condemnatory language about him from a secular standpoint, but it should also say what's wrong with him from a Biblical standpoint, citing chapter and verse. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 10:37, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

:I agree. How about starting with 1 Corinthians 6:9-11? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:44, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

== Am I the only one? ==

Anyone else thinks Fred Phelps looks like the Reverand Kane from the Poltergiest movies? {{unsigned|Jedisqrl}}
: Or does Reverend Kane look like Fred Phelps (deliberately)? (I don't know what either looks like, so I'm offering no opinion). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:08, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
::You're definitely [http://msunderestimated.com/PhelpsKane.jpg not alone]! [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:48, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

::: I doubt the Poltergeist movies were influenced by Phelps, considering they well pre-date his rise to prominence. I suppose its possible, that Phelps intentionally tries to look like him, if the idea that he's actually running some sort of performance art piece and/or massive parody of Christian fundamentalism is true, but I doubt that's the case. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 13:07, 26 February 2009 (EST)

== "First class nut" ==

I have heard and seen this before, but I have been unable to find a source attributing this particular quote. Anyone care to help me out? [[User:EelisA|EelisA]] 16:46, 14 December 2008 (EST)

==Not liberal==

He's not a liberal, if he opposes homosexuality. But I don't think of him as a conservative: more of a radical fundamentalist. He's the [[gay rights movement]]'s poster boy for [[intolerance]], a potent justification for using the label "[[homophobia]]" to describe all the opposition.

I think it would help our cause to distance ourselves from him. In particular the motto, "God hates fags" is not a conservative idea. Recall, "[[God hates sin but loves the sinner]]". Our heavenly Father has a [[parental heart]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:00, 26 February 2009 (EST)

: I would argue that Phelps is actually insane, in the clinical sense of the word. Its unfair to attempt to attach any mainstream political label to him -- people all across the political spectrum reject him. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 13:03, 26 February 2009 (EST)

::^This. To be honest, this also goes for people like Hitler; people who are so left-wing they go off the edge and appear on the right, people who are neither left nor right but up or down. There's some people you can't classify other than 'insane'. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:24, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Careful, now. Whenever an online discussion starts to mention Hitler, that's like touching the third rail in the subway. The power of his shocking works overwhelm us, and we stop thinking clearly.

Phelps is only wrong in his idea that God "punishes" and "hates" homosexuals. This is not to say that he's wrong about homosexuality being a sin. A lot of support for Communism is based on a high ethical idea that no one should monopolize the nation's wealth at the expense of the poor. They only go wrong in the way they want to solve the [[unequal distribution]] problem: i.e., "kill the capitalists and steal their loot!" [http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:JwqaZFQvOtMJ:www.cusd.chico.k12.ca.us/~bsilva/projects/russia/Radzinsky%2520Stalin.doc+bolsheviks+steal+loot&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us&client=firefox-a]

We need to solve economic problems that Capitalism and Communism have not been able to eliminate. Ethical means, however, must be used. Likewise, we need to solve the problem of [[immorality]] (and not only [[homosexuality]: there's a lot of heterosexual sin, such as [[adultery]]); yet an attitude of hatred and hostility towards people is not likely to solve the [[free love]] problem. It could make it worse. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:40, 26 February 2009 (EST)

:I'd say he's wrong about considerably more than just his idea that God hates homosexuals, Ed. Remember that Phelps and his flock are virulently anti-American and celebrate the deaths of American soldiers and Americans in general. A number of his faithful recently turned up in Buffalo to picket memorial services for those who died on Flight 3407; his daughter claimed in an interview that the plane crashed as punishment for not giving more credit to God for the Miracle on the Hudson. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:47, 26 February 2009 (EST)

::Well, one cannot diagnose "insanity" without a medical degree, you know. I never supported or endorsed Al Gore for President. I never donated any of my personal property for a Gore campaign headquarters. I wonder who is the liberal then, me, or Fred Phelps who actually is a Gore supporter? It's not exactly rocket science, but I do see lots of liberals squirming and parsing words, and making up all kinds of caveats to somehow spin it Phelps isn't one! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:14, 26 February 2009 (EST)

:::And Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat. Prominent conservative activist David Horowitz was a gen-yoo-wine Marxist during the Sixties. Lots of people change their views throughout their lives. But I don't think he calls himself a Democrat now, and I doubt anyone in the party welcome him if he tried to become active again. You can't eternally classify someone by the views they once held. And yes, at one time, Phelps labeled himself as a Democrat, and was involved in the party.
::: And yes, I am not formerly qualified to diagnose Phelps as insane (and even someone who does have the qualification would have to spend time interviewing him.) However, from what I've read about Phelps, he apparently had a severe problem with amphetamines at one time (back in the days when they were "diet pills". The children that are estranged from the family report he beat them with the handle of a mattock (very close to an axe handle, or, to put it more simply, a really thick piece of wood.) He believes that ''only'' the members of his church are saved. I think that all points to some serious mental illness. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:49, 27 February 2009 (EST)

:::He may be a liberal, an insane one who carves his own niche in the political spectrum but a liberal all the same, but I dont think he's a Gore supporter any more. He was back when he believed Gore had a more anti-homosexual agenda, but now he strongly opposes Gore, and other Democratic figureheads like the Clintons. Any chance he'd be considered a populist or totalitarian? [[User:TPerry|TPerry]] 19:42, 26 February 2009 (EST)

::::I consider him an enemy of America, personally. That's about all the label he requires, in my book.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:57, 26 February 2009 (EST)

The problem is with terminology and definitions. "Liberal" and "conservative" are terms that encompass a whole bag of issues and views, including political, economic, and religious. There are many people who are "liberal" in some areas and "conservative" in other areas (even though, in some cases, their views may appear to be or may actually be contradictory). Although I'd agree that someone who opposed homosexuality is likely to be a conservative, that is not the sole factor defining a conservative. If they are mostly but not completely one way or the other, they might be called a "moderate" liberal or conservative. But some, like Phelps from what I can gather, fit neatly in neither. But this is only a problem if one believes that "liberal" and "conservative" between them cover all possibilities. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Talk:Fred Phelps

2009-02-26T18:07:20Z

ArthurA: /* Am I the only one? */

Talk:Fred Phelps

2009-02-26T18:03:56Z

ArthurA: /* Not liberal */

==No linking to Phelps's web sites==

They are not family appropriate, and Conservapedia is not a repository of hate speech. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
: Would it be reasonable to add the prohibition of making and linking to hate speech one of the commandments? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I think that's an excellent idea. I suggest bringing it up either on Aschlafly's Talk Page or Talk:Conservapedia Commandments. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
: I did not know that I shouldn't have linked to his websites. However, could you please put into the opening paragraph that Fred Phelps' mission is against homosexuality? As it is, this important fact is not mentioned until halfway down the page. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 19:33, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:Will do. In fact, I'm going to unprotect this. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:55, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Surely the main authority on Phelps's teachings in Phelps himself? His sites should be linked to. I suggest doing so as plain text, not a clickable link, and alongside a warning notice.

*Posts not signed are ignored. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

==Discussion of subject==

I'm going to tentatively leave this in place, although it was intended to make Christians look bad by the original creator, he is a major news figure because of his funeral protests, and his actions have prompted major legislation regarding these (and he is also a major embarrassment to my home state, as well as a DEMOCRAT who actually campaigned for Al Gore in 1988 before he went on his anti-homosexual crusade).

Also, I drove by his "church" once and I got a physical chill once I got within two blocks of it. I felt like I was in a place of true evil. Interestingly, the ZIP codes in Topeka, where he lives, all start with 666. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Evidently his views changed, judging by his protest of the funeral of Al Gore's father. [[User:RandomishName11|RandomishName11]] 00:42, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

I just moved it because it was under "Fred phelps," and the lack of proper capitalization was bothering me. I like to copy edit. :-p [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

If you looked at the original article as it was written, it contained some crude language. But thanks for working on the capitalization. It bothers me as well when articles are started like that. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:30, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with you completely. I didn't want to bother with the article at the time, and I'm glad someone else did. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

On a more humorous note, [http://www.barzelay.net/files/images/other/phelps.jpg this] was taken outside of Vandy when Phelps came to visit. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I saw that picture for sale in a liberal store downtown once. It's so funny.
One of Phelps's lackeys told my friend that his hair was too long once. (I live about 25 miles from Topeka, so we get a lot of him.) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:But everyone knows, Jesus doesn't like long hair... [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::::This man makes me question the First Amendment, he is just that much of a evil being.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I know. His speech is beyond reasonable and just disgusting. I would guess that a majority of Kansans would support his execution.
And Colin, you may be thinking of Paul :) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I know the feeling. I'm a huge believer in the importance of the First Amendment, especially free speech, but what he says is just so ridiculous it's hard to believe it's technically allowed. And MD, I was mostly referring to the fact that most men of Jesus' time had "longer" hair. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 04:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

That's what I thought. I don't like to judge other Christians' salvation, but I have to make an exception here for old Freddie. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 04:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: OK, I saw you reverted the article back after I added content about the extent of his hate speach. There needs away for this to be stated, especially if you are going to allow the b.s. about militant homosexuals on the page. Otherwise this article makes him come across as less insane than he is.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 18:04, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::I agree. I just don't think that the word "fag" is appropriate for an article on this site. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The hate crimes against Fred Phelps section is uncited b.s. and I think it should be deleted unless someone can give any evidence beyond Phelps' own paranoia and delusional rantings. I'm doing you a favor--Fred Phelps is not your friend. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 11:02, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I'm also taking out the Al Gore contributions part since that isn't cited either. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 11:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Edits by Jack ==

please push your liberal views in an article about yourself. This article is about Fred Phelps views, not yours. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Ummmm, liberal views? You say that as if it was a bad thing. One of the commandments here is that claims need to be properly sourced. This article is certainly making a lot of excuses regarding one of the most abhorrant men in America today. He goes to military funerals with signs that say "God Hates F*gs". That is an objective, well documented fact. However, the sysops delete it from the main page. However, completely unsubstantiated claims by Phelps that HE is the victim of hate crimes is allowed to be left up. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 22:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::The subject of an article and their public statements are reliable sources for an article. Phelps is preaching the literal statements of the Bible. In fact, he is at the most extreme end of the spectrum with the limits of free speech I have ever seen. The article is about his views and him. And he is certainly notable. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 22:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::RightWolf2, please stop editing the article to claim that Phelps is "literally following the Bible", and please stop attacking Jack. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::1. Not an attack, but a statement of my views. 2. When admins and their buddies start forming cabals to reinforce each other, free editing goes out the window. 3. I am over 60 years old, I am a competent attorney, and I am not here to rain on anyones parade. Just to add God's word. 4. Your views of Phelps are "your views". Articles about subjects as controversial as phelps should enshrine "his views", not everyone elses opinions. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 11:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Landover Baptist==

Is Fred Phelps' church the inspiration for the Landover Baptist Church website that mocks Christian Extremism?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==?==

"Phelps, although outspoken and outlandish, is far less of a hypocrite than other Christian organizations who claim to be able to determine which verses from the Bible are literal from those that are allegorical."

Wow. QED. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

With all respect to the fact that it shouldn't be stated on an encyclopedia, Phelps probably is going to Hell. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 00:42, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

==Phelps is PRO-FAMILY, not anti-homosexual==

There's a reason Dr. Dobson called his institution "Focus on the Family" and not "We Hate Gays". There's a reason that it's called the "Family Research Council". The people who oppose the homosexual agenda are PRO-FAMILY, not anti-anything. Even the mainstream media generally recognizes this fact and ignore the moonbats (just like they ignore the moonbats when the moonbats try to label "PRO-lifers" as "ANTI-choicers"). Even the mainstream media (which has been proven to be overwhelmingly liberal, remember) doesn't call Dr. Dobson a bigot or a homophobe. So why shouldn't Conservapedia, which was created to espouse the CONSERVATIVE point of view, reflect what even liberals acknowledge?--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Phelps isn't a true conservative. He says Bush is going to burn in hell. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:39, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Jeeze, conservatives aren't brainless clones who can't disagree! I strongly disagree with Phelps on this matter, but that doesn't make him a non-conservative! Besides, the issue isn't whether or not he's conservative, the issue is his PRO-FAMILY "bias"!--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

*My reading of scripture, perhaps not as advanced as some, tells me if we keep judging, which God has said is his alone to do, we will all be burning. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:I agree with Terry, but as I've learned from much debating with christians, the argument doesn't work. They've chosen to ignore one thing the bible says in order to use another thing the bible says to achieve their goals or to justify their hate.[[User:Nsmyth|NSmyth]] 04:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
*Well, really, in the Grand Scheme of things, it isn't important. All of us, eventually, will face the harshest, yet most loving Judge in the Universe. Justifications, and legal arguments won't be allowed, lol. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:You can be anti homosexual without being pro-family. The cult Phelps has developed targets and belittles families, he is truely a Bad person in every sense of the word, if he has gotten anything right it has been by way of accident [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 01:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Being anti-homosexual is not being pro-family. It is being pro-YOUR-idea-of-family, and forcing that idea on the rest of the world. There's a big difference.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Phelps is not pro-family, he's pro-hate. There's a difference. His websites are not family-friendly, his sermons are not, nor are his "hymns", and neither are his images. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

What does Phelps stand for, _besides_ hating gays? That seems to be his one schtick. And by all accounts, he psychologically and physically abused his OWN family, which doesn't sound too 'pro-family' to me. [http://blank.org/addict/] (Court evidence--not for the weak of stomach.) --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 07:56, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

If what you say is true, then "pro-family" must oppose homosexuals becasue they asume that homosexuals are "anti-family". That is not true, it's not the desire of homosexual people to wreck family, they just want personal freedom to have the kind of living arangement they choose. The only reason they have gathered together is because it's their common cause to get that freedom for themselves. I'm pretty certain that if they had those rights, they would leave everyone else alone.
Homosexuals don't suggest that everyone should be homosexual, that would be stupid, they just want the right to live their lives as they want to, not bothering anyone, and not being bothered by anyone. If God (if he exists) dislikes it it's solely up to him to judge, none of us are entitled to do that. --[[User:Atkins|Atkins]] 23:45, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

It seems that whoever said that in the first place was being a parodist. We definitely don't stand for Phelps's hate here in Kansas, or here at Conservapedia. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:50, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

== What the #$@% ==

This page mention nothing about the sick twisted and evil nature of Fred Phelps and his family cult. I don't know how this site can call itself conservative and not utterly denounce someone who celebrates the deaths of our fighting men and women and taunts the families of our brave departed soldiers. I am disgusted that he gets off with one line of criticism. [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 01:41, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Opcn, I believe the principle at work here is "The Enemy Of My Enemy Is My Friend." Which is a very long way from "Love thine enemies" but that was just some liberal claptrap from about 33 AD or so. [[User:Teresita|Banned User Teresita]] 01:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Phelps and Religion ==

"It's hard to be religious when certain people aren't incinerated by bolts of lightning." -- Calvin.
--[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 07:46, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== disgusting liberal bias ==

this article is terribly condemning of this man. this is the same kind of p.c. bias crap that made me sick of wikipedia. mr. phelps believes in the same things we all do, so why is this article against hihm? he only believes in the things that jesus taught1!1[[User:Manifestdestiny|Manifestdestiny]] 18:42, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
:Wrong. At no time did Jesus ever condemn a soldier, unlike this man. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:49, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
::but jesus did condemn homosexuals. [[User:Cryingeagles39|Cryingeagles39]] 12:51, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Jesus told everyone in plain terms that if they continued to sin, they would not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. His message in the Gospels was that everyone should repent. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:06, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
Exactly. Jesus never specifically mentioned homosexuality in the gospels, but he did do what Karajou mentioned, which would encompass all types of sin, including homosexuality. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:20, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

*I do know Jesus commanded that we not judge, or we would be. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:12, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

== God Hates Canada ==

Didn't Phelps also light a flag on fire in the middle of an airport, thus causing his arrest? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 18:44, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

I haven't heard about this! Do you have a link? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:44, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

[http://www.holysmoke.org/hs02/phelps3.htm] is the best I can find. I was wrong, I guess. Seems he didn't actually get around to torching the flag. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 19:03, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

:Nevermind... "When WBC members did in fact actually burn the Canadian flag in religious protest to Canada's approval of same-sex marriage, the so-called Christians of Canada were the loudest in denouncing WBC and "widely reviling" her Gospel message." That's from his God Hates Canada page. Appears I was mistaken about the airport thing, though. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 19:09, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

== Phelps And The Democratic Party ==

Can someone please get rid of this header at the bottom of the page? Seems a bit of a stretch to me. --[[User:Ouzo|Ouzo]] 14:35, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
:I think we've addressed your concerns. [http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={91058469-F6DE-4615-8B2A-73CDF3E8FCAC} The "God Hates Fags" Left]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:06, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

==Liberal Activist!???==
Last time I checked liberals support gay people and are secular. Calling Fred Phelps a liberal would be akin to calling Osama bin Laden a pacifist. Someone should change this --[[User:AllahuAkbarJihad|AllahuAkbarJihad]] 21:50, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Phelps is not a leftist, he is on the extreme fringes of the religious right, he's an embarrasment to conservatives so he is called a "liberal". I can't believe how biased this website is --[[User:AllahuAkbarJihad|AllahuAkbarJihad]] 21:53, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

<blockquote>
Phelps celebrated the 9/11 attacks and the more recent al-Qaeda strikes in London as the just recompense of Western decadence. He supported Saddam Hussein and has been appreciative to Fidel Castro. Phelps is probably more appropriately described in psychiatric than political terms. '''But his political roots are in the Democratic Party, having run for office in Kansas five times, and actively supported Al Gore in 1988 and 1992, whose campaign used Phelps’ family office space. Son Fred Phelps Jr., who had hosted a fund raiser for Gore, attended the 1993 Clinton-Gore inaugural.'''

More careful media coverage acknowledges that Phelps’ ostensibly Baptist church is "unaffiliated" and comprised of only his family members, whose compound of houses is assembled around the church and its swimming pool used for baptisms.

Phelps, now age 76, has demonstrated outside the Bush Ranch in Crawford, Texas. He has demonstrated against conservative religious activists James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson. He has demonstrated against the Southern Baptist Convention.
</blockquote>
--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 08:41, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Even if Phelps did support the Democrats at one time, that doesn't make him a liberal. Guiliani is a Republican and he is certainly not a Conservative (pro gay marriage, pro abortion). I'd argue that Phelps is delusional rather than liberal or conservative but I think it is terribly biased and incorrect to state that he is a leftist and a liberal. Liberals tend to be secular and pro gay marriage, Phelps does not embrace liberal values --[[User:Fredphelpsisamoron|Fredphelpsisamoron]] 16:17, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

I would argue that Phelps is actually a conservative. He is against gay marriage and is very religious, these are two traits of conservatives. --[[User:MichaelM|MichaelM]] 16:44, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't buy it sounds more like an anti liberal rant, and is the sort of statement which will atract vandals to this site. Liberals didn't support Saddam, I mean some might of, they just didn't support the war in Iraq, ! [[User:Tubesock|Tubesock]] 17:35, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

:There is more to conservatism than ONE ISSUE. Economics, etc.

Also, there are religious liberals out there. Ever heard of Jimmy Carter? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:45, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

True, but Jimmy Carter is only moderatly oppposed to homosexuality and believes in evolution, he is not the same hate filled bigot that Phelps is. Maybe Phelps isn't conservative, but he certainly isn't liberal either. I think saying Phelps is a leftist is POV pushing. It should be taken out. --[[User:MichaelM|MichaelM]] 16:47, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

::Wait, wait, wait. What does evolution have to do with it? We've had a lot of liberals tell us that we should not be politicizing science. I actually agree with that. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:51, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Phelps doesn't believe in evolution and he believes in creationism. Creationism, particularly YEC is associated with conservatism. I agree that science shouldn't be politicized but creationists, especially YEC, tend to be conservative while evolutionists tend to be moderate or liberal. --[[User:MichaelM|MichaelM]] 16:53, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
:::OK. So we have evidence liberals may be open minded and tolerant of other views. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:14, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
::*There is no such thing, outside of perhaps Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi as 100% Liberals. Guiliani, I might chime in, isn't taking a "liberal" stance on some issues, but a old line conservative POV, pre-neoconservative, more Libertarian stance. Many of Phelps' idealogical pronouncements most certainly do fit more within the secular-progressive tent than the conservative one. And one must note there wasn't any repudiation on the part of Citizen Gore when he was happily taking Phelps & Company money and office space, was there? End of argument there. Point is, Phelps is almost certainly a Demon from Hell. He certainly isn't worthy of anyone's defense, or the attention he is getting. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:47, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

I don't think any of Phelps stances fit liberalism at all. The use of liberal and leftist is misleading and biased --[[User:JimmyR|JimmyR]] 20:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Just because he opposes Bush and conservatives doesn't mean that he isn't one of them. Conservatives, like Liberals can have disagreements among one another and are not one monolithic block. Besides Ronald Reagan supported Saddam in the 80s, does that make him a liberal? I think you should take out "leftist" and "liberal activist" it is terribly biased and misleading and just makes Conservapedia look bad --[[User:BillCasey|BillCasey]] 10:19, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
:I agree. Phelps is no more a liberal activist than the KKK is a conservative action group. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 11:54, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Exactly, Phelps has been criticized across the political spectrum from leftist gay rights groups to conservative Christians, he is neither liberal or conservative, he is just plain nuts --[[User:BillCasey|BillCasey]] 17:55, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
:ok, we know the 'ol "he's a bad guy so he must be a religious conservative" argument is the basis of many Wikipedia articles, and thousands of other websites. But this is CP, we're basically (1) concerned with facts.

:So, Phelps, a creationist, is an example of a broadminded [[leftist]]. What's wrong with that? Although some of his views are extraordinarily repugnant, Al & Tipper, in keeping with thier one time advocacy of censoring [[music]] content and being pro-[[big tabacco]], once courted a constituency there. Gore only dropped these views when the Clintons put him on the ticket. Perhaps the [[Nobel Prize]] Committee made the award to the wrong guy. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:15, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Al Gore is not really a leftist. More a flip-flop, his views swing from liberal to conservative depending on how the political wind blows. Besides supporting Gore doesn't automatically make Phelps a liberal. I'm not saying you should say he is a conservative. But liberals/conservatives calling those who are repugnant to both groups the group they disagree with is wrong and biased. Both liberals and conservatives oppose Phelps so he should be called neither. --[[User:BillCasey|BillCasey]] 18:22, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
:hmmm, so Phelps is [[mainstream]] or [[centrist]]? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:28, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

No, he's just an extremist. Like the KKK. --[[User:BillCasey|BillCasey]] 18:34, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

:Very interesting; on [[political spectrum theory]] I once postulated that the theory was useless, and meaningless. Perhaps Phelps is an example. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:00, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

If that is the case then I think the word leftist should be taken out, it is misleading and besides Phelps is usually considered part of the Religious Right, whether that is true or not --[[User:DanielJamesRideout|DanielJamesRideout]] 12:26, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:So, because the so-called "Religious Right" is unfairly defamed, we should pile on in support of liberal fascist objectives. ''Wiederlich.'' [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:48, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

The conservatives call him liberal and the liberals call him conservative. He is clearly insane. Liberalism and insanity often go together but here insanity crowds everything else out. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 12:54, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Liberalism and insanity go together, thats a pretty harsh insult for people who you merely have a political disagreement with? Why so much hate? --[[User:NathanRodgers|NathanRodgers]] 12:57, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:If it was not for the '''fact''' of Phelps [[political]] [[activism]], in support of [[political]] candidates, or the [[fact]] Phelps ran for [[political]] office on the ticket of a major [[political party]], we would not be having this discusssion. But given the [[political]] realities, we can only use Phelps own stated [[political]] affilliations. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:48, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes it is true that Phelps was associated with the Democrats but remember that at one time the Democrats were the "Conservative" party. The Democrats are now supportive or at least tolerant of homosexuals and Phelps has referred to his former friend Al Gore as a "Fag-enabler". There aren't too many differences between Republicans and Democrats anyways. I think that leftist and liberal activist should be taken out, other than that the article is fine. --[[User:NathanRodgers|NathanRodgers]] 14:48, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
:You say "was associated." We have no basis for that. It was Al Gore who shifted, not Phelps. And we have no reason to believe Gore publicly shifted other than [[career opportunism]], not any personal, inner, [[moral]] change in his fundamental beliefs. Further, we have ample evidence Gore has both consistently, and persistently, been less then ingenuous in his own personal, inner convictions since pursuing a path of personal career opportunism. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:42, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:::I think anyone with a natural mind can see that Phelps openly supports an agenda that is complicated. However, as Rob eloquently sated above, he ran as a [[Democrat]]. This fact is undeniable. Now, if anyone else wants to take issue with that, that's fine, but I would advise that this is a waste of everyone's time and ought to be a bannable offense. The "but but but" crowd needs to grow up and acept that this guy is one of their own. [[User:Mathers|ItMathers]] 17:56, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
[[Image:Lj105.jpg|thumb|250px|right|According to liberal authors, Fred Phelps "self-identifies as a Democrat." ]]
::::I'm not sure it's quite as simple as that, Mathers. As I understand it, membership of either the Republican or Democrat Party in the States requires no specific ideology and often is simply a matter of publically stating your preference. As Stephen Colbert demonstrated recently, it's even possible to be a member of both! It's a bit of a stretch then to say that Democrats en masse (or liberals, for that matter) consider him 'one of their own'. It might be more accurate to say that Phelps "self-identifies as a Democrat", and elsewhere in the article that "Phelps has been criticized by conservatives and liberals alike". Is there any way we can modify the page to reflect this? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:23, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:::::Very funny. Seriously though guys, could an admin modify the text? I imagine it'd save a lot of bickering on this Talk page. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:23, 11 November 2007 (EST)

*Very well said, Mathers! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:33, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
:*I don't understand why libs have trouble with the idea that libs hate; seems to be an everyday occurance. I've experienced it daily for 40 years. Look at Ann Coulter. Libs cannot restrain spewing their hatred toward her. Or Rush. Or O'Reilly, Falwell, Bush, the list is endless. Why is it such a shock to libs that liberals spew hate? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:39, 11 November 2007 (EST)

==Democrat (or at least ex-Democrat), sure. But liberal?==
Describing Phelps as a Democrat is justifiable, since he did run as a Democrat, but the first sentence dexcribes him as a "leftist", which I believe is the same as "liberal". This seems flawed. Not all Democrats are liberal and vice versa (anyone remember Zell Miller? Reagan and Thurmond were both Democrats once too). Looking at Conservapedia's own definition of [[liberal]] we have the following specific views how many of them apply to Phelps?
#denial of inherent gender differences, leading to things such as allowing men and women to have the same jobs in the military (while quietly holding them to different standards)
#:No evidence that he feels this way
#taxpayer-funded abortion
#:Certainly not
#same-sex marriage
#:HA!
#support of affirmative action
#:No evidence of this
#support of political correctness
#:Not at all
#censorship of prayer in classrooms
#:No
#compelled taxpayer funding of government schools for nearly all ages
#:Hard to say, but publicly funded schools are hardly a liberal issue; there is widespread support for them. Most people do not want to completely privatize education.
#government-controlled medical care
#:No evidence of this
#labor unions
#:no evidence of this
#elimination of abstinence-only program funding
#:Given his religious views, this seems unlikely
#income redistribution, usually through progressive taxation
#:No evidence of this
#a "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written
#:No idea. He'd probably support a "living constitution" if interpretations of the document would harm the homosexual agenda, but against it if it would promote it.
#support for gun control
#:No evidnce for this (seems unlikely)
#government programs to rehabilitate criminals
#:No idea
#environmentalism
#:No evidence for this
#disarmament treaties
#:No evidence (this guy seems not to be much of a foreign policy wonk, except when it comes to praising anti-gay foreign leaders)
#globalism
#:No evidence of this (except for global condemnation of homosexuality)
#opposition to a strong American foreign policy
#:No evidence
#support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right
#:Seems unlikely
#opposition to full private property rights
#:No evidence of this
#limit conservative talk radio by reinstating the Fairness Doctrine
#:Seems unlikely that he'd want to do anything to aid the pro-gay liberal media
So he basically has no discernable liberal traits. This does not make him a conservative, but it really seems he's not a leftist. The only things that point to his leftism are running as a Democrat (who can say why he picked one party over the other? He didn't have much suport from either, it seems) and his support for Gore (dropped when it turned out Gore's views on homosexuality were more liberal than the previously appered). Since Democrat is not the same as liberal, I'm not sure how the latter applies to him. Can anyone justify the inclusion of the term leftist? If someone can point out statements he's made supporting strong environmentalism, opposition to gun rights, disarmament treaties, property rights opposition, or such a case could certainly be made, but right now I'm not seeing any real leftism here. [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 10:51, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
:The "leftist" portion is cited. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:14, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

::I'm sorry, but I don't see it. I see citations for the Democrat part, which isn't the issue. Can point out the specific citation to me? [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 14:47, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

:::[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={91058469-F6DE-4615-8B2A-73CDF3E8FCAC}] Perhaps we need [[CP:Common knowledge]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:12, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

::::Sorry, but that doesn't clear anything up. Nowhere does that piece call Phelps "liberal" or "leftist" (even if it did, it would be the opinion of a journalist). We've established his conection to the Democratic Party, but where's his liberalism? This site has 21 examples of liberal traits, which does he meet? His anti-gay agenda shapes his opinions on all other matters. If supporting Castro makes him a liberal, what about condemning Sweden (The most socialist state in Europe)? I think everyone can agree that hating gays is not a trait that makes one liberal, and that is about the only trait he has. I think the guy defies all aspects of the traditional left/right spectrum, and I don't see the point of trying to pigeonhole him into one group. By all means this article should disassociate him from the Christian wing of the conservative movement, but that doesn't by definition make him liberal. Is there a source that shows how he meets even ''one'' of the 21 examples bove (and he'd need to meet more than one to be classified as a liberal)? [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 15:42, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::So, were back to the definition "a liberal is a leftist," and "a leftist is a liberal." We were attacked by cyberterrorists for months trying to put that stuff in.
:::::Liberals don't hate? Please....And nowhere in the text does it say Phelps is a liberal. He is in Cat:Liberal activists, and a strong case can be made that he belongs there. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:07, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
::::::I know nothing about cyberterrorists and such, but I was sort of under the impression that liberal and leftist were sort of interchangable. This site's own article says that leftist is associated with "social democracy, liberalism, or the several strains of socialism and communism. It may also be applied to those who oppose conservative politics. The word 'liberal' is often used in the US to mean 'leftist'. But this is inconsistent with the original meaning of the word liberal." I see nothing socialist or communist about Phelps (support for Castro is based solely on his anti-gay stance, not his economics), nor any real connection with social democracy. In this country it ''is'' basically interchangable with "liberal" (classical liberalism is out of the scope of this issue), so calling him a leftist is much the same as calling him a liberal. And note that I never said liberals don't hate, I said that hating gays is not a liberal trait. Are you trying to argue that it is? I think that would be an uphill battle, but feel free to try. And by the way, calling him a liberal activist ''is'' calling him a liberal (just like saying someone is a Mexican footballer is saying he is Mexican, and a footballer). So if he isn't a liberal but is a leftist, what is it that makes him a leftist (and how is that different from the standard definition of liberal that the 21 points illustrate)? [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 16:28, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::::"calling him a leftist is much the same as calling him a liberal,"
:::::::Where in the text does it say this? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:37, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Okay, if the two are not synonymous (or nearly so), then explain the difference. I think I'm not alone in thinking the two terms are so close as to be basically interchangable. The [[leftist]] article here is pretty unclear on just about all aspects of the term, and does not draw any real distinctions between liberal and leftist. The article even states "The word 'liberal' is often used in the US to mean 'leftist'", and since this is an American encyclopedia, aimed at the layman, it seems that if you're going to use the term in different way than it is often used you should make that distinctly clear. If the article means to say he is a leftist but not a liberal then the difference between the two should be explicitly stated, and how he fits into the category "leftist" should also be made clear. Furthermore, if he isn't a liberal he should be removed from the liberal activists category, and his entry should be removed from the [[liberal hate speech]] article. [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 00:40, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::*''I think I'm not alone in thinking the two terms are so close as to be basically interchangable.''
:::::::::*Congratulations, and ''good for you.'' Unfortuneatly, like the [[theory of evolution]], you can not impose your [[moral]]ity on me, and ''force'' me to accept the [[political spectrum theory]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:47, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

[unindenting] Well, this very site says the two terms are often used interchangably, and I have no idea what evolution and imposition of morality have to do with anything, so we'll let that bit rest. So I'll ask the questions I'd like to see addressed, and I'll number them to make it easy:
:1. What is the difference between a leftist and a liberal, as used in this case?
:2. How is Phelps a leftist? What specific opinions does he hold that make him such?
:3. If he is not a liberal, why is he in the liberal activist category, and used as an example of liberal hate speech?
I'll wait for a reply. [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 00:57, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

*Here it is, Troll:

* BillyFranco (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 04:57, 23 October 2007) (Earliest: 14:51, 22 October 2007) [6]
* Briantrust (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 20:35, 20 October 2007) (Earliest: 15:54, 19 October 2007) [3]
* AuH2O (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 16:34, 20 October 2007) (Earliest: 14:59, 20 October 2007) [3]
IP: 24.29.72.31 Schenectady, NY,United States

Here is yet another shining example of liberal [[deceit]]. They cannot even argue honestly. They need socks to hide their dishonesty.

Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:47, 23 October 2007 (EDT) 
:<RobS high fives TK>; By thier fruits ye shall know them. Defenders & apologists is usually a dead give away. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:24, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

==Liberal Activist? (Edit Break)==

I despise Liberals but I have to agree with this loonie leftie this time, Phelps is definetly not a liberal even though he was (or possibly still is) a member of the Democratic Party. Besides what's wrong with protesting homosexuality anyways? I just think he carries it too far thats all --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 16:22, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

ahaha, typical liberal behaviour lol. Still though, I don't think Phelps is a liberal. He certainly isn't conservative either but calling him a liberal when he clearly isn't just makes Conservapedia look bad.--[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 17:59, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

*Did you at all read the material RobS provided? --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:13, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Not yet, I'll take a look at it and make my decision on Phelps' political views then --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 18:25, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

I've taken a look at some of the things Rob has said, Phelps is or was a democrat but he is liberal only in name. His views are not liberal at all. I don't care what he says about homosexuality, it is a sin after all, Phelps just goes a little too nutty over it. My issue with him is the disrespect of American soldiers and his criticism of Bush. Bush is in no way a "fag-enabler" and is quite critical of homosexuality. Phelps is not firing on all cylinders though, thats for sure. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 18:40, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

::I agree with Konserva... the guy above me, Phelps doesn't really qualify as a leftist/liberal. I mean, if he joined the Republican party, would we even be discussing this? There are probably quite a few rogues if we look hard enough into each party's details. maybe Charles Manson believed in a weak federal government and strong gun ownership rights. Does that alone make him a Conservative? At the end of the day, I think the blush is off his liberal democrat rose. [[User:Mathers|ItMathers]] 18:49, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

*It is pretty easy, as RobS says, to get people to reveal themselves! --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:23, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
:::Well, I will say I'm happy he's on their side. ;) [[User:Mathers|ItMathers]] 19:36, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
::::We should probably give credit to the watchdog organizations that single out and trash Phleps, it gives them credibility and balance, shows they are capable of broadminded thinking, and not mindless partisan trolls. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:54, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

If these watchdog groups are liberal, they will likely just throw Phelps in with conservatives. While I don't think Phelps is a liberal, his anti-war activities and support of Castro make him exempt from being classified as a conservative. I don't think Phelps falls neatly into either category and both liberals and conservatives are accusing him of being in the other camp because nobody wants him --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 00:05, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
*''If these watchdog groups are liberal, they will likely just throw Phelps in with conservatives.''
:*They've obviously done that. This is why CP exists, this is closely related to one of our core missions, to counter these slanders of conservatives & conservative views by leftist ideological slander factories. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:09, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

I agree, the media has a terrible liberal bias along with these watchdog groups. Phelps is delusional, he is neither liberal or conservative. I still think we should leave political labels out of the description (other than his support for Al Gore which is documented fact), it will just make Conservapedia look bad and give those whiney liberals something else to complain about --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 00:12, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
:Where does the media get thier impressions and opinion about Phelps? From these watchdog organizations -- you never would have heard of Phelps otherwise. Then the media & watchdog organizations also are actively engaged in an agenda, pushing [[gay rights]] and the [[homosexual agenda]], for example. Where does the opposition to this agenda come from? Church people. Who is Phelps & what is his organization? He's a preacher & preaches at a church. ''Voila!'' We have more right-wing, neofascist, hate-mongering Christain Coalition homophobic bigots that need to be exterminated.

:Sorry, his views are Democrat, on the left, and quite in the tradition of stupid, pointless, [[liberal activism]] designed for no other reason than to get people angry, and draw publicity. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:22, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Just because someone is democrat doesn't mean that they are liberal. Bob Novak was a democrat --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 18:31, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

*Bob Novak is and was pretty liberal on many things, so a poor example. ;-) -- --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:45, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Bob Novak liberal? I don't find him that liberal. He is pro-Iraq war and anti-socialized-medicine. Perhaps he is not as conservative as most Republicans but he is certainly more conservative than the vast majority of democrats and some Republicans too. Also Al and Tipper Gore weren't always as liberal as they claim they are today. They were both in favour of censoring violent and explicit lyrics of rappers and Al Gore was anti-homosexual at one point. They only distanced themselves from Phelps when it became politically expedient. They didn't mind his money though. Still the point is as much as a nut as Phelps is, he isn't really a liberal and it is misleading to label him that. He is opposed to the homosexual agenda, is antiabortion, antievolution, and is religious. While he may share the anti-war sentiment of the left, his reasons for doing so are completely different. I think it is misleading to label him a leftist and we don't want to be guilty of bias like Wikipedia is --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 13:42, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

*Maybe I need to teach a class or something, helping liberals do parody of conservatives. :S --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:42, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

You think Phelps is actually a liberal pretending to hate homosexuals to make conservatives look bad? I don't think he's intelligent enough to think of such a scheme. Liberals are usually pretty stupid. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 16:25, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

*Phelps is a Demon, not a Human. Important difference. --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:45, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
==Fred Phelps is NOT left-wing==
The "Fred Phelps a closet liberal" source is merely a discussion in relation to an article, it is not a valid source and should be removed. The left support gays and anti-homosexuality adovocates clearly belong on the right whether they are democrat or republican. --[[User:ChavezFan|ChavezFan]] 16:41, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
:Do all left-wingers [[fascism|goosestep]] to the [[gay agenda]]? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:14, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
::They Pretty much do, liberalism and homosexuality go hand in hand, stupid liberals. Talk about Groupthink hahahaha --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 19:45, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
:::I thought liberalism was the [[big tent]]? You mean everyone has to tow the party line, and there is no tolerance for [[diversity]]? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:29, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
::::Liberals are very intolerant of conservative viewpoints. While they are tolerant of nearly all religions (except Christianity) they are very intolerant of anyone who criticizes homosexuality or political correctness. Liberals are highly ideological. Trust me, I come from a country full of these pinkos --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 21:33, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

== Does it really matter? ==

Trying to associating Fred Phelps with the right or the left is ridiculous. Neither of them like him. The whole political spectrum wouldn't mind a meteorite taking out the Westboro Baptist Church compound (preferably with the whole congregation/family inside) It's deceptive and ridiculous to try to associate him with anyone as a means of discrediting them: Democrats hate him, Baptists hate him, Christian fundamentalists hate him, the ACLU hates him. Gays hate him, US soldiers hate him, Mary Cheney hates him, Swedes hate him, Al Gore hates him, 9/11 victims hate him. Who knows, '''maybe God Hates Fred Phelps'''. So please, have some '''common sense''' and remove the deceptive references to leftist, liberal, and the anti-war movement. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 23:13, 8 November 2007 (EST)

P.S. One of the blog links is broken.
:Rob, your [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Fred_Phelps&diff=330569&oldid=330497 removal] of my remarks against Fred Phelps was totally uncalled for and not remotely related to policy. {{tl|Remove personal remark}} is for attacks on fellow editors, not going after the subject of an article. From what I've seen on Conservapedia, going after a [[Hillary Rodham Clinton|subject]] is acceptable anywhere. No personal attacks itself isn't even well enforced, for that matter. For example, you told someone to "get a chiropractor to help get your foot out of your mouth" on [[Talk:Al Gore]]
::Oops, forgot my sig yesterday [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 22:41, 15 November 2007 (EST)

''Trying to associating Fred Phelps with the right or the left is ridiculous.''
Seconded - ''(the following is reposted, since it seems to have escaped the sysops' attention. Apologies.)''
As I understand it, membership of either the Republican or Democrat Party in the States requires no specific ideology and often is simply a matter of publically stating your preference. As Stephen Colbert demonstrated recently, it's even possible to be a member of both! It's a bit of a stretch then to say that Democrats en masse (or liberals, for that matter) consider him 'one of their own'. It might be more accurate to say that Phelps "self-identifies as a Democrat", and elsewhere in the article that "Phelps has been criticized by conservatives and liberals alike". Is there any way we can modify the page to reflect this? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:14, 15 November 2007 (EST)

=="Fred Phelps is a leftist anti-homosexual behavior activist and liberal Democrat"==

Original post by [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] on the [[Talk:Main Page|Main Page Talk]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:45, 14 December 2007 (EST)

''Since the article is locked, and several people have appealed for it to be changed on the talk page but ignored, I thought it best to put it here in order to garner some sort of consensus. Is Fred Phelps a Liberal? Picketing funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq because their country supposedly supports the 'homosexual agenda' is markedly illiberal. It needs change. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 16:54, 14 December 2007 (EST)''

Here, also, is the ensuing discussion on the main page. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:57, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:''As a veteran, I find Fred Phelps' actions to be reprehensible and despicable. The very freedom that allowed him and his ilk to protest in that manner was provided by the life of the soldier he's protesting. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:58, 15 December 2007 (EST)''

::''Nobody likes [[Fred Phelps]], we know that. But that doesn't mean he can be branded a [[liberal]] just for being despicable - does it? Apparently he has some history with the [[Democratic Party]], but his actual views don't seem very "liberal Democrat" to me. Perhaps he doesn't really fit into any political category? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 11:12, 15 December 2007 (EST)
:::''Even if he was a staunch Republican and conservative, there is absolutely no call for his actions. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:28, 15 December 2007 (EST)''
::''Agreed (though I hope it didn't seem that I was trying to imply he was!) [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:30, 15 December 2007 (EST)''
''In light of Andy's recent comments about non-linear political alignment, I would recommend that the "liberal" statement be redacted, and something to the effect of "Fred Phelps' political alignment seems to fall outside of any political category". --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 16:07, 15 December 2007 (EST)''
''Given that advancing the homosexual agenda is a defining characteristic of Democrats and Liberals, it's hard to see how being so opposed to homosexuals would make him a Democrat or a Liberal. I looked over the article on him, and it said he did run to be the democrat nominee but didn't win. Maybe there are races where he did win the nomination, but just running doesn't mean the democrats support him. I mean, I would never call Ron Paul a republican but here he is running as one.[[User:TRipp|TRipp]] 16:28, 15 December 2007 (EST)''''

:Another example why any moralistic person should avoid this site like a plague. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:55, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== The word "leftist" should be removed from the first sentence ==

It is fine to characterize him as democrat, since this is documented, but characterizing him as a "leftist" is far from documented, or universally accepted. If there are people that feel that is the case, then it is worth a section in the article, however placing a controversial and undocumented piece of information in the first sentence, discredits the article as a whole.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 23:21, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:I wholeheartedly agree, and I think there's a clear consensus on this point. I will request the page to be unlocked so that we can edit it. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 11:40, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== Phelps and the Bible ==

The article has a lot of condemnatory language about him from a secular standpoint, but it should also say what's wrong with him from a Biblical standpoint, citing chapter and verse. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 10:37, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

:I agree. How about starting with 1 Corinthians 6:9-11? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:44, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

== Am I the only one? ==

Anyone else thinks Fred Phelps looks like the Reverand Kane from the Poltergiest movies? {{unsigned|Jedisqrl}}
: Or does Reverend Kane look like Fred Phelps (deliberately)? (I don't know what either looks like, so I'm offering no opinion). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:08, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
::You're definitely [http://msunderestimated.com/PhelpsKane.jpg not alone]! [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:48, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

== "First class nut" ==

I have heard and seen this before, but I have been unable to find a source attributing this particular quote. Anyone care to help me out? [[User:EelisA|EelisA]] 16:46, 14 December 2008 (EST)

==Not liberal==

He's not a liberal, if he opposes homosexuality. But I don't think of him as a conservative: more of a radical fundamentalist. He's the [[gay rights movement]]'s poster boy for [[intolerance]], a potent justification for using the label "[[homophobia]]" to describe all the opposition.

I think it would help our cause to distance ourselves from him. In particular the motto, "God hates fags" is not a conservative idea. Recall, "[[God hates sin but loves the sinner]]". Our heavenly Father has a [[parental heart]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:00, 26 February 2009 (EST)

: I would argue that Phelps is actually insane, in the clinical sense of the word. Its unfair to attempt to attach any mainstream political label to him -- people all across the political spectrum reject him. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 13:03, 26 February 2009 (EST)

The Christian Century

2009-02-20T14:24:58Z

ArthurA:

'''''The Christian Century''''' is a [[magazine]] closely associated with the [[Ecumenical Movement]]. It was founded in 1884 and is still published today. It has long been known for advocating very [[liberal]] views of [[theology]] and the [[Bible]], such as [[higher criticism]] and the [[social gospel]]. As such it was frequently criticized by [[fundamentalist]] and [[evangelical]] [[Christian]]s, and the magazine ''[[Christianity Today]]'' was founded by evangelicals in 1956 as a response to counter the influence of ''The Christian Century''.

In ''American Protestantism and a Jewish State'' (1973) an Israeli government official [[Hertzel Fishman]] analyzed several years worth of ''Christian Century'' and concluded that the magazine is [[Anti-Semitism|Anti-Semitic]], stating "[[Liberal Christianity|Liberal Protestanism]] consistently and historically opposed a Jewish State in Palestine, obstructed immigration of Jewish refugees, minimized the Holocaust, tried to reduce Israel's boundaries and supported Arab 'rights'."<ref name=Rausch>''[http://books.google.com/books?id=-BPjHQAACAAJ Zionism Within Early American Fundamentalism 1878-1918: A Convergence of Two Traditions]'', [[David A. Rausch]], Edwin Mellen Press, 1979, ISBN 9-88946-875-3, ISBN 0-88946-976-8, page 1,2, 27 </ref>

The magazine also has a history of anti-Catholic bigotry as evidence by its bizarre tirades against the appointment of the Roman Catholic Industrial magnate [[Myron Charles Taylor]] as a diplomatic envoy to the Vatican<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,789695,00.html Time Magazine Article "Good Friends" Monday, Mar. 11, 1940]</ref>

{{reflist}}
==External Links==

http://www.christiancentury.org/

{{DEFAULTSORT:Christian Century, The}}
[[Category: Magazines]]
[[Category:Christianity]]

Robert Heinlein

2009-02-20T14:23:44Z

ArthurA:

Metropolitan Community Church

2009-02-16T03:59:19Z

ArthurA:

The '''Metropolitan Community Church'''<ref>http://mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home</ref> (MCC) is a nominally [[Christian]] [[church]] that openly accepts [[homosexual|homosexuals]].

While some [[liberal]] churches have accepted homosexuals to various degrees, the MCC is unique in that it was founded by Reverend Troy Perry, a minister forced to leave his [[Church of God]] position for homosexuality, expressly to cater to homosexuals.

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[category:Churches]][[category:Homosexuality]][[Category:Christian Denominations]]

Jesus Christ

2009-02-13T17:03:51Z

ArthurA: Undo revision 623333 by SpeakerOfTruth (Talk) reverting vandalism

[[Image:Alphaomega.jpg|thumb|200px|''"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."'' —Jesus (Rev. 22:13)]]
'''Jesus Christ''' is the only Son of [[God]] and prophesied [[Messiah]] who, at the appointed time, was sent by His [[God the Father|Father]] and became a man to be the payment for the penalty of sin that separated us from [[God]] and to reveal to us the loving nature of God through his human person (1 John 4:10; 2 Corinthians 5:19). Although He was sinless, he bore the penalty for sin upon Himself for us.

Speaking to his disciples, Jesus says,
{{cquote|'''John 14:1-15''' Believers will be in his Father's house Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. “In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. “If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also. “And you know the way where I am going.” Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?” Jesus himself is the only way people can access his Father and his Father's house Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. If you know Jesus, you know his Father “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.” Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? “Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. “Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves. “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father. “Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. “If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it. “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.}}

By the power of the [[Holy Spirit]], Jesus was conceived in the [[womb]] of the virgin [[Virgin Mary|Mary]], and became man in an event known as the [[Incarnation]], as referred to in Isaiah 7:14. Indeed, the calendar itself reflects this truth, with the traditional calculation of Jesus’ birth marking the first century A.D., that is, "''in the year of Our Lord…''." The [[John the Apostle|apostle John]] wrote in his gospel the following regarding Jesus Christ: "''For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life''" (John 3:16).
{{trinity}}
When he was about thirty, Jesus was baptized by [[John the Baptist]], inaugurating his ministry. Jesus of [[Nazareth]] is the Christ or Messiah, prophesied in the [[Old Testament]] (Greek: Χριστός; [[Aramaic]]: 'משיחא'). Jesus proclaimed that “[t]he time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent, and believe in the Gospel.”<ref>Mark 1:14-15.</ref> As signs of these truths, Jesus performed various miracles.

However, not all who heard the Lord believed in him, and, because he “was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God”, some sought to put him to death.<ref>John 5:18.</ref> Jesus was handed over to the Roman governor [[Pontius Pilate]] and crucified. But it was through his redemptive death, as the [[Holy Scripture|scriptures]] had foretold, that Jesus reconciled mankind with God.<ref>Romans 5:10.</ref> And so, on the third day, in a truly historical event, Jesus physically rose from the dead, making possible salvation and eternal life for those who believe in him. Indeed, his very name, ''Yeshua'' (Hebrew 'יהושע') means "[[Salvation]]" and is the concatenated form of ''Yahoshua'', ‘[[YHWH]] is salvation’. After appearing to his disciples on various occasions, Jesus ascended to Heaven, where he acts as our mediator, assuring, by his constant intercession, the permanent outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

== Jesus' Life ==
===The Pre-existance of Jesus before His incarnation===
Though it is commonly thought that Jesus had his beginning with His birth or with His conception in the womb of Mary, and that personality begins with birth and develops with age, the Person of Jesus on earth was one and the same Person as was the Son of God in the presence of the Father before the incarnation. That is why the transition of His becoming a man on earth is considered such a great act of humility and self forgetfulness - to have left it all, for us, for which He will always be honored and extolled.

Though he was in the form of God , He did not cling to this equality with God, but empried himself to assume the condition of a slave, and became as men are, and being found as a man, he was even humbler yet, even to accepting death, even on a cross. But God raised him high, and gave him the name which is above all other names, so that all beings, in the heavens, and on the earth, and in the underworld, should bend the knee at the name of Jesus, and that every tongue should acclaim, Jesus Christ as Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:5-11

===Incarnation of the Son of God===

The Son of God, who was always with the Father before all creation, took upon himself flesh, that is, become a human being, taking the flesh of manhood from his mother Mary but without her being impregnated by any man. He was born of Mary through the power of the Holy Spirit. The Gospel of John begins,<blockquote>"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God... and the Word become flesh and dwelt among us"</blockquote>. There are two understandings of this. Though both hold that the Son of God, Divinity Himself, became a man, they understand differently the beginning of the Gospel of John.

The first understanding sees in the Son of God being the Word ("logos" in Greek) that He is the communication of the Father and thus in some sense the purpose of His coming was to mediate the knowledge of God to man among whom He would dwell and be one with them. But as mediator He is in no way inferior to the God He communicates because He Himself is God. The Trinity is emphasized though by implication (the word "Trinity" is of later usage to describe the phenomenon as presented by the New Testament). This understanding rests upon the use of "logos" in Philo and elsewhere meaning "reason", "word", "rationale"

The second interpretation, while in no way negating His coming to be the communication of the Father to man necessitating the incarnation and explicating the Trinity, rather says that we need to look not to Philo and the "logos" philosophy but to the Aramaic Jewish thought of the time. Doing so, we can see that the Gospel of John intends to rip away a veil, and in doing so, will show us that it was God Himself and no mediator, that leaped down to take the form of a human being, and that this is to be spoken of boldly.

Here is how this second understanding is developed:

The Hebrew text is very clear in visualizing the God of Israel in physical terms, even if meant to be understood metaphorically. But the Aramaic Jewish translations of the Hebrew Scriptures will not allow it to be so presented, but will rather speak around it (paraphrase) or use an intermediary word between the physical description and God. In [[Genesis]] 32, [[Jacob]] is wrestling with "a man" but after the bout, Jacob says, in the original Hebrew text, "I have seen God face to face and my life has been saved". In the Aramaic translation, however, Jacob is made to say, " I have seen the ''angel of God'' face to face and my life has been saved". At times, the intermediary word is the word "Word" - in Aramaic, Memra (the root is Aleph, Mem, Resh as in the Hebrew word 'Omer). Whereas the Hebrew text (Gen. 3:8) has it, "They ([[Adam]] and [[Eve]]) heard the sound of the LORD God walking about in the garden", the Aramaic has it, "they heard the sound of ''the Memra'' of the LORD God walking about in the garden" Apparently, walking about in the garden conjured up too much of rustling of leaves and bushes to take figuratively, and so it was the "Memra" that was heard and not the LORD God. This is the pattern in other places in Genesis. Prof. David Flusser of the Hebrew University notes that it is to this mindset that we owe our understanding of John 1:1 and not to Philo and the Alexandrian "logos" philosophy. "In the beginning was the Word (Memra) and the Word (Memra) was with God.. and the Word (Memra) was God. John 1:1 is meant to rip away the distinction between God and the Memra, so assiduously held to by contemporary Judaism, and so declare that they, the Memra and God, are in reality one, ...and this One has, indeed, come down and has become flesh of our flesh and bone of our bone. John, in his epistle would later say in wonderment, " Whom we have handled, we have touched and held Him."

=== Infancy ===
The [[Gospels]] tell us that Jesus was born in [[Bethlehem]] of [[Judea]] to a young virgin named [[Virgin Mary|Mary]], by the [[Holy Spirit]].<ref>http://objectiveministries.org/babyj/</ref> [[Gospel of Luke|Luke's account]] of the gospel relates that the angel [[Gabriel]] visited Mary in order to announce that she had been chosen to bear the Son of God (Luke 1:26–38). A survey of the [[Roman Empire]] was ordered by [[Augustus|Caesar Augustus]], which caused Mary and [[Joseph (father of Jesus)|Joseph]] to leave Nazareth and go to the home of Joseph's forebears - to the house of [[David|King David]]. After Jesus' birth, they were forced to use a [[manger]] for a crib because the town's inn was full. According to Luke 2:8–20, an [[angel]] spread word of Jesus' birth to several shepherds who came to visit the newborn. Matthew also tells of the "Magi" ([[Zoroastrianism|Zoroastrian]] priests) who brought many gifts to the infant Jesus (among which were [[gold]], [[frankincense]], and [[myrrh]])<ref>Note: This has led to the incorrect assumption that there were only three Magi, whereas the actual number is not given.</ref> after following a star which they believed was an indication that the [[Messiah]], or King of the Jews, had been born.

Jesus' early home was the town of [[Nazareth]] in [[Galilee]], and except for an escape to [[Egypt]] in early childhood to avoid [[Herod the Great|Herod's]] massacre of the other male infants, all other events in the Gospels take place in ancient Israel.

====The Infancy and the Massacre of the Innocents====

Within sight of the southern suburbs of Modern Jerusalem,towards the eastern desert, is a conical hill, Herodium, made conical by the work of Herod the King. Herodium served as his fortress in the time of war and as royal residence for himself and visiting dignitaries in the time of peace. Mazada by the dead sea served him in the same way. From this bastion were sent by him his soldiers to slay all the children under the age of two of Bethlehem, in full view of Herodium looking south. This was in hopes that in the slaughter of all, he would also slay the child, indicated by the star and the Magi, as his rival to the throne and power. And so, escaping, Joseph and Mary took the child Jesus to Egypt until it was time, at the death of Herod, for him to make exodus back into the Holy Land and Nazareth. "Out of Egypt have I called My Son" The fury and the hatred for one child, thus saw the slaying of so many of the innocents of Bethlehem whose only guilt was that they were under 2. And so, we know now the Massacre of the Innocents

Beyond this slaughter of so many and hatred for the One who had come, the Book of the Revelation, Chapter 12 would see another and ancient hatred, whether understood or not, one that works behind all other slaying, behind the slaying of all infants, within and without the womb - hatred for the very Son of God, and hatred for all his seed that bear His image, hatred for the Image of God borne by the Son of God, and hatred for God Himself.

=== At Twelve Years Old ===
The account of Jesus' parents finding him in the temple impressing the "teachers" with his knowledge of the [[Old Testament|scripture]] is the only detailed event between Jesus' infancy and adult life that is known.
{{cquote|'''Luke 2:41–51''' Now His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover. And when He became twelve, they went up there according to the custom of the Feast; and as they were returning, after spending the full number of days, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. But His parents were unaware of it, but supposed Him to be in the caravan, and went a day’s journey; and they began looking for Him among their relatives and acquaintances. When they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem looking for Him. Then, after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard Him were amazed at His understanding and His answers. When they saw Him, they were astonished; and His mother said to Him, “Son, why have You treated us this way? Behold, Your father and I have been anxiously looking for You.” And He said to them, “Why is it that you were looking for Me? Did you not know that I had to be in My Father’s house?” But they did not understand the statement which He had made to them. And He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and He continued in subjection to them; and His mother treasured all these things in her heart.}}

At this early age of twelve years old, there is clearly shown an inner positional or relational commitment of Jesus. Nor is there any indication that this had not been present prior to His twelfth year. His deepest belonging, that against which all other belongings were to be judged, confirmed, rejected, etc. was to the Father, the Father's House, the Father's concerns. This commitment would reverberate at later times, severing ultimate claims on Him of his closest - mother, brothers, sisters, etc. In the presence of these and to their hearing, He would ask, "Who are my mother, and brothers, and sisters? He that does the will of my Father in Heaven is ..." This, in His own life, was the moral authority to demand the same of all others, "You cannot serve two masters..." The memory of what had happened in the Temple when He was twelve, pondering it in her heart, would stand Mary in good stead, when she would see her son hanging on the cross. She also would be found with the disciples in the upper room, praying, and waiting for the coming of the Spirit which He had promised.

====From Heaven's View====
But seen from heaven, a spark had entered into the Temple's precints..

and around that the time, there was to evolve the extra biblical ceremony and practice of Judaism, which woud try to make sense of the need to be anchored into the ancient tradition of God, with the need to make new for every generation the relevance of it for each Jewish youth. And so developed the Bar Mitzvah, the "Son of the Law" ceremony and concept. At the age of 13, a Jewish boy, so it developed, would read or sing out in the synagogue, the Shabbat of his birthday, the prophetic portion (the Haftorah) for that Sabbath assigned to the Torah portion (from the 5 books of Moses, read consecutively), raining down upon him from the Women's Section (Ezrat Nashim) - the Help of Women) above or to the side, hard sweet candy signifying the hope of sweetness set before him. For at that time, the Jewish boy becomes a Jewish man, taking upon himself, the obligations for fulfilling the Law of Moses, and is no longer absolved from this responsibility by the mediation of his father's fullfilment of the Law of Moses for him.

At this time, seen from Heaven, a spark entered in, another way, sometimes seen in other young boys and girls, but in a dim way, an intense concentration on the Father above all things and people, looking and judging all surrounding him from the viewpoint of Him flooding the soul, listening, speaking, believing.
So Jesus reasoned with the rabbis, never being encompassed by them, in the house of His Father. Was it told to us showing what He was and what we could be, or at least, learn to follow in His steps, or was it shown to us to allow us to view another step in His being made perfect, growing in favor with God and Man, totally consumed with the doing of His Father's will, and thus, "being made perfect", to take our place upon the Cross, for our sakes and for our salvation?

=== Ministry ===
==== Baptism ====
[[Image:Jesus' Baptism.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Jesus' Baptism]]
The [[gospel of Mark]] begins with the [[baptism]] of Jesus by [[John the Baptist]], which appears to be the beginning of Jesus' public ministry. Jesus came to the [[Jordan River|River Jordan]], where John was preaching and baptizing people in the crowd. After Jesus had been baptized, and had risen up out of the water, Mark states Jesus 'saw the heavens torn apart and the Holy Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from [[heaven]], 'You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased' (Mark 1:10–11). Luke adds the chronological anchor that John the Baptist had begun preaching in the fifteenth year of [[Tiberius]] Caesar, approximately in 28 AD (Luke 3:1) and that Jesus was thirty years old when he was baptized (Luke 3:23).

'''The meaning of Baptism for Jesus:'''

Jesus insisted over the protests of John that He be baptized at the hands of John. John's protests are natural enough as John's baptism was for those who were sinners, and implied in baptism was the understanding that the baptizer was somehow greater than the one baptized. John believed that he needed to be baptized by Jesus and not the other way around. But Jesus' understanding of His being baptized was two-fold:"Baptism" meant suffering unto death, and it implied that His impending mission was to be in behalf and in place of the real sinners, the humanity for whom He would die. Jesus would later use "baptism" in the first sense when he said to disciples, "Can you be baptized with the baptism which I will undergo?" The Spirit coming down on the Son in the form of a Dove (Yonah = "Jonah" in Hebrew), and the voice of the Father, "This is My Beloved Son" was the Divine empowerment, and authorization for Jesus' mission to come entailing His sacrificial death, three days, not in the belly of the fish, but in the bowels of the earth, and after that, resurrection. As Baptism for Jesus meant, looking forward, His joining sinful humanity to the point of bearing their sins to the death of the cross, so the later New Testament understands, looking backward, that sinners believing in Jesus are also to join Him in His death through the waters of baptism "in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" - according to the command of the Risen Christ. See [[Christianity]] for Jesus' self consciousness.

==== Temptation ====
After this baptism, according to Matthew, Jesus was brought into the desert by God where he fasted for forty days nights. During this period, the [[Satan]] appeared before him and tried three times to tempted Jesus into demonstrating his supernatural powers as a proof of his divine status; each temptation was refused by Jesus, with a scriptural quote from the Book of [[Deuteronomy]].

Jesus then began to preach. [[Gospel of John|John]] describes three different [[passover]] feasts that Jesus attended, thus implying that his ministry lasted three years.

'''The reason behind the Temptation:'''

The Temptation occurred just as told in the Gospels. But behind the happening, another message lies revealing the identity of Jesus to a people who would understand it. At the foothill of Mt. Hermon, in between the servile Roman infatuated people of Tiberius to the south west of the Sea of Galilee, and the rabidly nationalistic, anti- Roman Zealots of Gamla to the north east, Jesus asked His disciples who He was. The Messiah, the Son of the Living God, was the answer. And Jesus explained who He was and why he had come in terms that fit their experience - not to rule and throw out the Romans, nor to uphold their ways and laws but rather something on a different plane all together - to give His life settling it on the cross.

To a later believing people, those who were not Jewish, who He was would be understood in terms fitting to who they were - He had come the Second Adam, to give His life and to provide new life to those who were not Jewish, but also including the Jews, to all the lost and wandering children of Adam.

In the Temptation, it is the those who knew the Old Testament, the physical children of Abraham primarily, who could see in the long range, and not primarily dictated to by the political passions of the moment, and who could wonder who they were and where they had gone wrong, and wonder also who would be the One to take them out. It is they, Israel, who had been in the wilderness for 40 years, and they that had succumbed to the temptations of selling out for food and drink, though they were a "Son" whom God with a strong arm and outstretched hand had taken out of the bondage of Egypt, they had turned traitor, driven by their own lust and pride. And here now, in Jesus, was One who resisted the devil in the wilderness, also "for forty", preferring the will of God as His food rather than all the world could offer, Who was He? He was Israel! The only true one left, the faithful remnant spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, the servant true to the end. As the letter to the Hebrews saw, "Though He were a Son yet learned He obedience by the things He suffered, and being made perfect, He become the author of Eternal life...". This is the understanding of the Gospel of Matthew, in interpreting a passage from Hosea which was manifestly speaking of Israel the people and applying it to Jesus who also came out of Egypt with His parents at the death of Herod, " Out of Egypt have I called my Son". Who was Jesus? He was Israel who had ''not'' failed come to redeem Israel who had, and also out of all the peoples of the world.

==== Disciples and Apostles ====
[[Image:Jesus5.jpg‎|thumb|left|100px|Jesus Christ (Artist's impression)]]
The larger part of this was directed towards his closest followers, the [[apostles]], although all of his followers were considered [[disciples of Jesus|disciples]]. At the highest point of his ministry, Jesus attracted disciples and audiences numbering in the thousands; in particular in the area of Galilee. Many of Jesus' most well-known teachings were given during the [[Sermon on the Mount]], such as the [[Beatitudes]] and the [[Lord's Prayer]]. Jesus often used parables in his rhetorical technique, such as the [[Parable of the Good Samaritan]] and [[the parable of the sheep and the goats|the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats]]; these teachings encouraged unconditional self-sacrificing [[Shema|love for God]] and [[Agape|for all people]]. During these sermons, he also discussed service and humility, forgiveness of sins, how faith should be applied, the [[Golden Rule]], and the necessity of following the spirit of the law as well as its wording.

'''Their choosing and their purpose:''' Among the many who came to Jesus, from afar and from the surrounding villages of the north shore of the Sea of Galilee, were those moved by his insight into the nature of life, or touched deeply by His seemingly knowing them from the inside, by His intimacy with the God and Father they had only known "about", or impressed by the miracles done before their very eyes, and many, by His deep compassion for the people, so evident in all that He did. Jesus would sprinkle His words upon them as seed in a path, some to take root, and some to be blown away by the wind. But to those who heard and wanted more, they would get that more, receiving explanation, and move closer to His association. Those that would not, would receive only that which was commensurate to not wanting - more parables, silence. Never the revealing of the "Secrets of the Kingdom". Yet, there was no prohibition and no limit for getting closer to Jesus. Those that did, became His "learners" - the disciples, understanding the meanings of His word by the demonstration of His life and putting them into practice. Among these were another group, some that had been with Him from early on, possibly some from the time of His baptism at the hands of John. These He would hold in His mind for an additional and different reason.

Then one night, he ascended a hill praying about them, and came down knowing who they were to be. 12 in number, chosen not because of their virtue, or even what He would do in them in the future, but rather solely chosen by His Father to be deputized, delegated, or commissioned by Jesus to be sent out for a mission. He gave them the name "Shaliach" (meaning all that), which was translated into Greek as "apostolos" and so our Apostles.

The mission of the Apostles (see "Example 5." of [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]) was to do all that they saw Jesus was doing, healing the sick, raising the dead, and with all this, to tell about the fast coming Kingdom of Heaven, the rule of His Father, and urge people to repent and get ready for it. He gave them His power and authority to do all this. But it was to be 12 in number, not more and not less, that number surviving even the suicide of one of them, Judas from the village of Kyriot, requiring an "election" to bring back the number from 11 to 12. And that was because the special additional reason for their appointment was to sit on the 12 thrones of the 12 tribes of Israel (the sons of Jacob) and lead them by whatever it takes - that is the meaning of the biblical term "Judge" (Shofet)*. For the community of the "little ones"., was to be, in some sense, an Israel within Israel, or a new Israel, a sort of beachhead for the onslaught of the Kingdom of God in its invasion (or sometimes, infiltration into) into and onto the Kingdom of the unjust occupier and enemy of all Goodness, the Devil, to overthrow him and all his works. This truer and newer Israel, He called His "Called Out ones" (Eklessia=Church) against whose onslaught the Fortified city of Hell with its defensive bars to its massive gates, would not prevail. Many captives would be released. The Church, then, was the community counterpart to what was known as the "Synagogue" (Greek), meaning "gathered together ones" (Beit Knesset - house of the gathering, Hebrew). It was the Synagogue of Jesus the King and Messiah, and aligned with and the focal point of the Prophetically promised and hoped-for Kingdom of God and the rule of Heaven on Earth. And the disciples and apostles of Jesus all had their place in the unfolding of it all.

*Note: For the significance of sitting on the seat and judging, see Example 2. of [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]].

==== Social Outcasts ====
Jesus also often conversed with social outcasts, such as the publican ([[Rome|Roman]] tax collectors who were unpopular for their practice of extorting money).

Jesus showed no partiality toward outcasts, and neither did He do so to those who were in society. But being an outcast was a category beyond the reach of all others which were in society. Jesus was not for the male over against the female, the Jew over against the non Jew, townsman over against the man of the field. He was impartial and penetrating in His love for all. But all of these had a certain standing in Society, they were part of it, though all being in it, could vie for more of it as their share. But all were united, and could work in concert against what they were not - the outcast. The love of Jesus and the love of His Father through Him, could not rest lightly on any one of them, until it would reach and rest on the one beyond the fringes, the outer edges, and down below - the outcast. This demonstrated in the life of Jesus what the Cross would later show and the Apostles preach - all were outcast to the Holiness of God, and all could be loved by Him and, indeed, were.

==== Miracles ====
Throughout his ministry, Jesus performed many miracles including healing the sick and possessed, feeding 5000, and even raising from the dead.

Miracles were an intrusion of the ordinary, but the ordinary of a different and far-superior Kingdom, into the sordid and sin sick kingdoms of this world. They showed what life was really like there in that Kingdom which was coming and how weak, unstable, subject and cringing were the powers of this corrupted world, "bent" under the heel of God. That a widow should have her dead son restored to her alive, that outcasts such as lepers should be restored to the community, and as a result of their being healed, that darkness should give way to light and sight, that a woman deserving stoning find solace and forgiveness, all of these are the way things are and ought to be in the Kingdom of God because of the way He is. They were, at one and the same time, signs of the Kingdom which was coming and great works of compassion done here below which will never by surpassed or forgotten. And Jesus the Messiah was bringing them in!

Note: See Example 5 of [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]] for the assault and infiltration of God's Kingdom on and into the Kingdom of Satan.

==== His Preaching was Offensive to the Established Authority ====
As He preached, Jesus ran afoul of the [[Sanhedrin]], the recognized Jewish religious authorities, who were allowed to have considerable religious, political and monetary influence under Roman rule. Jesus chastised them, accusing them of making laws for the people to follow that were the laws of men, not God. The Sanhedrin tried to set traps for Jesus by asking Him questions to either discredit Him with the people or get Him in trouble with the Roman authorities, but all of their efforts failed and they gave up. They lacked the means to stop Jesus until [[Judas Iscariot]] came to them and offered to betray Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. He would tell them where Jesus would be that night so they could seize Him.

Notable among Jewish established authorities were the Pharasees, the Saduccees, and the Herodians.

The Pharisees, believing that at the time God had given to Moses the "written Torah" (Torah shebikhtav), He had also given to Moses an "Oral Torah" (Torah shebe'al peh) which would apply the written Torah to all situations and times, and that that Oral Torah had been handed down from generation to generation, finally, it itself written down, making, in the days of Jesus, the beginning of the Talmud. Thus it was necessary to be able to "fill in the rabbis" from whom the teaching came (see [[Judaism]]) - "Rabbi Tarfon says in the name of Rabbi..." But this man Jesus, goes straight to Moses, and straight to Heaven! ''"You have heard it said...but I say unto you..."'' and himself speaks as the ''Mouth of God!''

The Saduccees, not believing in an Oral Torah, and believing much of the written Torah to be irrelevant and impractical in the modern times that they lived, believed that the "blanks" and how the Torah was to be applied in these days, must be decided by the Kingdoms of the World, namely, Roman law and requirement. But this man Jesus speaks of another Kingdom and another King, and not of Rome!

The Herodians saw clearly who their enemy was and who their Savior was and wherein their safety lie - Herod the King of the Jews and all the aura and the might that he possessed. And their enemy was anyone who would claim, or live in the claim of others, that it was he that was the King of the Jews and not Herod (and the royalty after Herod) - such as was doing the man Jesus of Nazareth

Note: Judaism does not have a "unified" theory of Inspiration or practical authority of Scripture. That is, The most authoritative, and capable of being regulatory to life as "law" is the five books of Moses. After that, the Prophets. And after that, the "Writings." The Scripture of the Saduccees was just the Five books of Moses, and since there is little if anything about the resurrection from the dead and the after life in the the Five Books of Moses, they believed in neither. The Pharisees, believing in the on-going of revelation extending, though with lesser authority, to the Prophets (such as Daniel) and the Writings, believed in both.

=== Last Days of Jesus' Life ===
==== Lord's Supper ====
'''God and man at table are sat down:'''

It happened before - "Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu. and seventy elders of Israel. They saw the God of Israel...they gazed on God. They ate and they drank." Exodus 24: 9-11

It would happen after - "Now while He was with them at table, He took the bread and said the blessing, then He broke it and handed it to them. And their eyes were opened and recognized Him. But He had vanished from their sight. Then they said to each other, Did not our hearts burn within us as He talked to us on the road, and explained the Scriptures to us?"Luke 24: 30-32

Eating before the Lord or with the Lord, would be used as the highest form of friendship - Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If any one hears My voice and opens the door I will come in to him and share my meal with him, side by side.". Rev. 3:20.

At the [[Passover Seder]], the last meal the Lord would eat with His followers, His presence so permeated the atmosphere, and what He said and did at that special time, and especially they having received His command to do just what He was doing before them at this time, whenever they would meet together, the Apostles of the Lord and the Gospels after them could not speak of bountiful and miraculous times of the Lord's gracious giving of food feeding the multitudes, without mentioning that which otherwise would not have been mentioned - ''He took the bread, looked up to heaven blessing the bread, He broke the bread, and He gave it to them.'' That is what the Lord did before them, and that is what Hie commanded them to do after Him, and thus provided for them, and for the Church after them, the one of two universal services - the [[Lord's Supper]], or [[Eucharist]], or [[Holy Communion]].

But in addition, He gave His own particular understanding to the unleavened bread of the Passover and ceremonial cup of wine, the 3rd and "Thanksgiving cup" of wine drunk immediately after the Passover meal was eaten. In slightly varying words, the Gospels and the Church after would perpetuate that understanding by repeating what the Lord Himself said at that Last Supper - "This is My Body which is given for you... This is My blood, the blood of the New Covenant which is shed for you, and for the many, for the forgiveness of sins. Do this as my own Remembrance". And so He signified to His followers that His life would be given in sacrifice for them and for their benefit. How this benefit would be effected, would be explained by Jesus by other sayings, "Do not think that I have come in order to be served. I have not come to be served but rather to serve, and to give my life as a ransom for many."

But His presence remained with them at the continual celebration of this new Christian [[Passover]] of the Communion. Though He had vanished from their eyes as He would return to the Father, yet through the Spirit which He had promised to be in His stead, He was there with them to remain- "Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I!"..." Even so, Come Lord Jesus!"

Note 1: The word Maranatha, comes from the Greek word which is translating the Aramaic which comes in two forms according to the accent given. Marana tha - "O our Lord, come!", and Maran atha - "Our Lord has come". This appears in the earliest liturgies of the Eucharist, and was used either as an invocation for the Lord to come, a sort of invite, or as an exclamation that the Lord has indeed come, just as He said He would. In either case, it was a witness to the belief that the Lord was indeed with them when they participated in the Remembrance which He had commanded.

Note 2; What the Lord said, "This is my body... This is my blood...Do this!" (the "Words of Institution", His instituting the Holy Communion until His coming again), is absent in the Gospel of John when recounting the last time of the Lord with His disciples. This is not an oversight, as the Gospel of John, from all contextual indications, has already spoken of the matter in the 6th chapter.

==== Garden of Gethsemane ====
[[Image:Jesus in Gethsemane.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Jesus in Gethsamane]]
Jesus knew that His time was short and that He was about to be betrayed into the hands of sinners. He had His last supper with his disciples and went with them to the [[Garden of Gethsemane]] and prayed vehemently knowing what was about to come.

Decision, certainty, from a distance is clearer and easier than when the time approaches for decision's implementation. That is because the here and now, leaves no room for imagining a rescue from all that is around us and in us. Leaving us confused or uncertain, needing assurance, or a once again revelation, of what it was that brought us to decision in the first place. John knowing from the beginning that his cousin Jesus was the promised Messiah, when years later, found himself in prison, and things not going the way he had expected, understood or hoped, required assurance that Jesus was really the One he had thought Him to be. Jesus responded forcefully and completely to that so human request - Tell John what you see, the dead are raised, the sick healed, and the poor are being told of the good news of the Kingdom of God. And it was enough.

Jesus, knowing why He had come, and that He was to mount the cross, to bear the sins of the world, knowing also what that must mean, He who had never "known" sin, now to know it in a way, that man could never know, man who all the time was in it, inured to it, accustomed to it, Jesus prayed. There was a movement in His prayer, taking on anew, the certainty and decision of old, feeling the enormity of it at close hand, and in the garden, he prayed three times, each time agonizing* dripping great drops of sweat, each time making movement in the direction from ''If there be another way, The Father knows and will show, but He would do whatever the Father wills'', towards ''being the Father's will, He would do it. There really is no other way''. And then it was done, He had settled it within Him anew, having prayed, and having received the deep silent Amen of the Father within His soul. It was enough. He was ready.

*note: "Agonize" of the text is from the Greek word "to struggle".

==== Tried before Jewish Authorities ====
Jesus was betrayed by Judas into the hands of the Jewish religious authorities who took Him away and secretly put Him on trial during the night, trying to find justification for their desire to have Him killed. Finally, they convicted Him of blasphemy. For the location of the Jewish trial, see Example 6 of [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]

==== Tried before Roman Authorities ====
As they did not have the authority to put a man to death, they took him to [[Pontius Pilate]], the Roman governor of Palestine, with their charges and demanded his execution. Pilate avoided the issue by sending him to [[Herod Antipas|King Herod]] since Jesus was a Galilean, but Herod sent him back to Pilate. Pilate at first tried to release Jesus with a flogging, and then gave the crowd a choice to either spare Jesus or a criminal called [[Barabbas]] as part of the passover tradition. The crowd chose to free Barabbas [Aramaic: "Son of a (the) Father") and Pilate washed his hands to signify that he bore no responsibility for Jesus' death before ultimately condemning Him to [[crucifixion]].<ref>Matthew 27: 15-44</ref>

==== Scourging ====
The penalty of crucifixion was always preceded by scourging (flogging) with the Roman ''flagellum''. a short ox-hide whip knotted with pieces of zinc, lead, and bone which removed swaths of the victims' skin with every stroke. Although the Bible mentions the scourging of Jesus only very briefly, it must have been particularly brutal from the relatively short amount of time Jesus lingered on the cross after the punishment. Victims who suffered less blood loss from the scourging were known to remain alive on the cross for two or three days.

==== Death on a Cross ====
[[Image:David Christ on the Cross.jpg|right|thumb|Christ on the Cross by [[Jacques Louis David]].]]
Jesus died after suffering and giving up his spirit.

Behind the Cross was the sum total of all the maladies of mankind, that the Old Testament unveiled : Pesh'a - conscious and "high handed" rebellion, for which , under the Old Covenant, there was no forgiveness provided, Khet - an unintended "missing of the mark", as in the deviation from the bull's eye of the bowman, Shigi'a - the mistakes, some causing great harm to others, which come about by plain ignorance, and 'Avon "iniquity" or distortion - the inner twistedness, that causes failure and suffering, seemingly from the very structure of our persons regardless of our intent. These were the sins Godwards as well as towards man, and these are all, Scripture revealed, repugnant to the nature and standard of a Holy God.

On the Cross, in a way which is unfathomable to man, but nonetheless believable, the repugnance fell upon Jesus, the Son of God, and again in a way not fully understandable to us, but believable nonetheless, God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not considering us the sinners but rather His own dear Son who had no taint upon Himself. A great transaction had taken place by the imposition of Himself of Christ in our place, absorbing, as if He were a blotter, all the reaction of a Holy God upon Himself, in our place, that we might go free. Unfair to Him, Mercy to us. Yet Jesus was not forced to do it. He did it both in His great love for us and in His obedience to the way that the Father had decided. "No one takes my life from me. I have power to take it and I have power to lay it down...I lay down my life for the sheep". Peter would say, "The Just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God." Paul would say, "He was made to be sin, He who did not "know" sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him". That was Friday.

On Saturday, when all were at Sabbath's rest, Jesus was not. His body dead, He passed in spirit to those that had died before, those in the period of Noah, and proclaimed, as Peter taught, what He had done. On Sunday, the first day of the week, He would rise from the dead.

The Cross of Christ, and the atonement He accomplished on it, is the very grounds that anyone who will be saved can be saved. The shedding of His blood brings salvation, to anyone who will respond, according to the ability that they have, that is given them. That brings forgiveness and acceptance, even welcome, to the murderer such as Paul, the adulteress such as the "woman taken in adultery", the tax-collecting extortionist, a seeker in the night turned believer, as hopefully Nicodemus proved to be, people that just know that they are sinners without any "grave sin" to specify, and also the "fetus" whose life was cut off in the womb as a "thing", and the severely retarded child banging his head in the institution he finds himself. All, according to the light given them, and repentance and turning to God given to them, will one day know just what was the basis for their salvation - the Cross of Christ. Those who reject, will also one day know the basis by which they could have been saved if they had not rejected - the Cross of Christ

=== Resurrection ===
:''See main article: [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ]]''
On the third day after his death, Jesus [[resurrection of Jesus Christ|rose bodily from the dead]].

Jesus' resurrection from the dead was no mere reassembling the molecules of His dead and disintegrating body, but it was a new union of His Spirit and body, in a way that could only be called by the Apostle Paul, in reference to ourselves, when we, in turn, following His pattern, a ''spiritual body''. Having risen from the dead, He was physical enough to eat and drink with His disciples, and we can assume to digest, as well as ingest, and to be touched and felt, having Thomas' hand thrust into His spear riven side, and yet, strangely not held by the physical laws of before, passing through the door to the room where the disciples were assembled, "Peace be upon you!", and to physically ascend, in the sight of all, from a location on the Mount of Olives into the presence of the Father In some way, even the disciples on the Road to Emmaeus, could not recognize Him, perhaps an aspect of the changed body, perhaps the power of the will of Jesus himself blinding them to the fact that It was He, until the breaking of the bread.
Jesus had risen, the stone unrolled, not to let Him out, but to let others in - to have the basis for their testimony, that He is risen indeed!
By the regaining of His life in the resurrection from the dead (Scripture asserts that it was by the power of the Holy Spirit that this took place) Jesus was "certified" to the Church, and to all that would come after, that He was indeed the Son of God, that the verdict of death to Him given by men, was not so much overturned, but used in a far superior way by the Father to accomplish His will for redemption, and has given Him, at the last, ''vindication''.

And for mankind, its individuals in the millions through the centuries who had believed in Him, there came the certainty, that death was also not to be their end, that they too will arise with Jesus, that death, the annihilation of all, or a future only to be dreaded, was not to be their end, that the Presence of Jesus who had gone before them, was a welcoming one, that He had found a way, and now they would be with Him forever and ever, and with good hope for the sight of loved ones again. Death had been conquered and fear could be too.

In recent history, Dr. [[Gary Habermas]] is considered the foremost [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] for defending the [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ|resurrection of Jesus]]. Other notable defenders of the resurrection include: [[William Lane Craig]], [[Ben Witherington]], [[Lee Strobel]], [[Josh McDowell]], [[Edwin M. Yamauchi]], [[N.T. Wright]], and [[Michael Horner]].<ref>
* http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html
* http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html
* http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html
* http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Early_Traditions.htm
* http://www.michaelhorner.com/articles/resurrection/index.html</ref> In addition, much has been written defending the resurrection of Christ in the field of [[Christian Legal Apologetics|Christian legal apologetics]].

=== Ascension into Heaven ===
He was lifted up while they looked on, and a cloud took him form their sight. They were still staring into the sky when suddenly two men in white were standing near them and they said, "why are you men from Galilee standing here looking into the sky. Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven, this same Jesus will come back in the same way as you have seen Him go there." Acts 1:9-11

Scripture posits two purposes related to man for the ascension of Jesus: 1. it was to the right hand of the Father (showing favorable disposition of the Father to the Son to hear His requests) from which position Jesus intercedes to the Father on our behalf, and 2. Having ascended to the Father, He received from the Father the Spirit. The Father pours out the Spirit "through the Son" upon the Church. The "first Pentecost"

=== Return of Jesus from heaven to earth===
I gazed into the visions of the night and I saw coming on the clouds of heaven, One like a son of man. He came to the One of Great Age and was led into His presence. On Him was conferred sovereignty, glory and kingship. And men of all peoples, nations, and languages became His servants. His sovereignty is an eternal sovereignty which shall never pass away. Nor will His empire ever be destroyed. Daniel 7:13-14

The Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout and with the voice of the Archangel and with the Horn of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are still alive remaining here will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so will we ever be with the Lord. 1 Thess. 4: 16,17

You were converted to God and became servants of the real, living God; and how you are now waiting for Jesus, His Son, whom He raised from the dead, to come from heaven to save us from the retribution which is coming. 1 Thess, 1:9,10

==Jesus' Self Consciousness==

Jesus, conceived of the Holy Spirit, presented a disturbing surprise to his earthly father, Joseph, knowing he had not impregnated his fiancee, Mary. She would ponder the meaning of this miracle all the days Jesus would grow and finally she would behold her son expire on the cross. But Joseph, told by the Lord who his son really was, and how he had come about, and being warned by the Lord to flee the murderous Herod, took his family to Egypt - until the death of Herod made it safe ("Out of Egypt have I called My Son") to return to Israel. The family settled in Nazareth on the elevated rim of the Jezre'el Valley where he grew well and observably no different from the other youth. But when he was about 12 years old, he was taken to the Temple in Jerusalem, and displayed his consciousness that His real Father was God rather than Joseph ("Didn't you know that I must be here about the matters of My Father?".

They returned to Nazereth in Galilee and it wasn't until 28 years later that He began to publicly show His consciousness as to who he was. This was at his baptism at the Jordan River by John, when the voice came, to him, to John, and to the people privileged to be around, "This is my Son, the Beloved, Listen (Shma'a) to Him!" Here and now, against even the desire of John the Baptizer, Jesus, knowing that sin was not in him, chose to identify with sinful mankind in this baptism of John for repentance of sin, knowing that at the end of his time on earth, he would then be giving this sinless life of his on the cross, bearing the sins of the world upon himself.
[[Image:Carpaccio Christus in Emmaus.jpg|thumb|Christus in Emmaus by [[Vittore Carpaccio]]]]
Back, now, in Galilee, he would begin to do works of mercy, miracles of compassion, healings of deliverance, and overthrowing the devastations of Satan upon the people of God's compassion - in short, bringing in the Kingdom of Heaven and of God and supplanting the Kingdom of Darkness. He began to gather around him his followers, simple fishing folk and others, spending most of his time in the area around the north shore of the Kinneret (Sea of Galilee). among the Jews of this Jewish area. He was bringing in the Messianic Kingdom to those who would understand it best, the Jews. But all the time, there was burning within him the knowledge that the blessings of Abraham would be extended, according to the promise, to all the peoples of the earth, the Gentiles, and there would be a new Kingdom, a new nation, transcending both Jews and Gentiles, the Kingdom of the people of God the Heavenly Father. He began his forays then into gentile areas, Phoenecia, the Decapolis, and other locales, and finding faith there such as he had not found "even in Israel".

A crossroads occurred, then, in the choice of Jesus, and consequently in the options of his disciples. It occurred in the Tetrarchy of Philip, at the foothills of Mt. Hermon, at the town of Caesarea Philipi. He knowing who he was, would force the question upon others - "Who do people say Me to be?". From the lips of Shim'on, whom he would call Peter, as leader of the others, He would hear - "You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God!" It was enough. Jesus would then begin imparting to them what the nature of His mission to be - not to expel the Romans from the Holy Land, but to go to Jerusalem, to be betrayed, to be spurned and rejected by the High Priests and the Elders of the People, to be hung on a Roman cross at the hands of the Gentiles, to die. Casesarea Philipi was in between, on one hand, Gentile pervaded Roman Tiberius to the southwest of the Sea, and on the other hand, anti-Roman nationalistic and zealotic Gamla to the north east of the Sea. (This latter would end their rebellion against Rome by suicide on Matzada in 73 A.D). Those two polarities were present in the minds of the disciples and Jesus began, on one hand, to divest from their minds the one, the warrior role of the Messiah against the Romans, and the other, to renew their thinking and their commitment to Him as the self sacrificing Lamb of God, the Prince of Peace and the true Messiah of Israel, on the other hand.

This took place on the long 3 or 4 day journey by foot from Galilee to Jerusalem, along the [[Jordan River]] valley, coming to Jericho, ascending to Jerusalem from the east. It was in Jerusalem that he prepared and settled the matter for the perpetuation of the Church at the Lord's last supper of the Passover, to be made palpable later by the descent of the Holy Spirit. It was in Jerusalem, in the Garden of the Oil Press, that what He had been lead to believe about his mission and the meaning and manner of his death was fully embraced and accepted with no reservation or turning back. "Your will be done, Father, if there is no other way", and "There is no other way, Your will be done Father!" It was a perfect decision and commitment, perfecting his life to be a perfect sacrifice. And it was to the west just outside Jerusalem that His teachings came to a concretization and realization on the cross. And just outside of Jerusalem that His Father would vindicate him by raising him from the dead.

"No man takes my life from me. I have power to take it and I have power to lay it down... I lay down my life for the sheep." <ref>Bible, Gospel of John, 10:18,15 http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvJohn.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=10&division=div1</ref>

"Though He was in the form of God, He did not think equality with God something to grasp onto. But He emptied Himself and took to Himself the form of a servant and was made man, And being found in the form of a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross. For this reason, God has exalted Him..."<ref>Bible, Philippians 2:6-9a, http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvPhil.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=2&division=div1 </ref>

==Following Jesus, believing in Him==
It is sometimes said that there are two faiths in the New Testament. That of Jesus and that of Paul. Paul's religion is that of believing in Christ as Lord and Savior, and as the divine Son of God, and that of Jesus is of following Him in the sense of living and doing as He has taught. But in reality, there is only one faith and the two not in contradiction. For the Jesus of the Gospels, besides setting forth the life that He himself lived, as a pattern for all His followers, also said, "No one knows the Son, except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son choses to reveal Him", and "I and the Father are One", and "If you see Me, you see God". .And Paul, aside, from saying that "if you believe in the Lord Jesus you shall be saved", and "therefore, being justified by Faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ", also said "work out your salvation with fear and trembling", and "Owe no man anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law."

Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved. And he who does not believe, shall be condemned", Jesus said. It is belief in Jesus which brings a person to the waters of baptism, and it is through the waters of baptism, that one enters into the fellowship of the Church, the people of God who are being brought, day be day, one with the other, to the life that Jesus taught about. And so his new belief and his being and living and doing are all unified under the direction of Christ and His under-shephards. And if one will not believe, of course, then it goes without saying, he will not be baptized.

== Historical Analysis ==
=== Dating Jesus' Birth ===
Modern historians generally place the actual date of Jesus' birth between 7 and 4 B.C., due to problems reconciling the Roman and Jewish calendars with the [[Gregorian Calendar]] which is in use today throughout the industrialized world.

=== Historicity of Jesus ===
Occasionally, non-historians deny the [[historicity of Jesus]] (Having to do with the question of whether Jesus was in fact a real person who had a real life on earth), but few scholars take this seriously. [[Tacitus]], a Roman historian, wrote about Jesus in A.D. 115,<ref>http://www.digisys.net/users/ddalton/evidence_of_jesus_outside_the_bible.htm</ref> and [[Josephus]], a Jewish historian who did not believe in Jesus' divinity, wrote about him.<ref>http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html</ref> Dr. [[Gary Habermas]] wrote an extensive analysis of the historicity of Jesus in his work ''The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ'', which discusses many historical sources that mention Jesus.

[[Lee Strobel]]'s book ''[[The Case for Christ]]'' contains a number of interviews with experts on the historical Jesus and a defense of Jesus's resurrection, and is a good resource on this subject.

== Jesus' Name ==
=== ''Jesus'' ===
The bible doesn't tell us much about the meaning of the name ''Jesus'', but does tell us who gave the name, when the name was given, and a reason the name was given. Luke 2:21 tells us that his name was given (1) "by the angel," (2) and it was given "before He was conceived in the womb." The reason for naming him Jesus seems to be given in Matthew 1:21, which says, "...you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."

==== Hebrew Origin ====
The Greeks derived the name from the late Hebrew or Aramaic name Yoshua, today’s version of which is “Joshua”. The earlier Aramaic form was Jehoshua (Y’hoshua) or Joshua., deriving from Hebrew Yah, short for Yahweh, and Aramaic y’shuoh meaning “salvation”. The name thus meant “Jah is salvation”. Both Joshua and Jehoshua were common names in the time of Jesus.

=== ''Christ'' ===
Athough it appears that "Jesus Christ" is composed of a first and last name, and indeed, the New Testament at times considers the names together as a first and second name, in origin, and through much of the New Testament, "Christ" is used as a title. It is the Greek translation for "Mashiach" (Hebrew), and Meshicha (Aramaic) - meaning "Annointed". Thus He was called, "Jesus, the Annointed One". Kings priests, and prophets were often annointed with oil to consecrate them for their task, and so was Jesus for His task by the descent of the Spirit when He was baptized by John. The Spirit descended on Him and dwelt within Him. This was in fulfillment of Isaiah 61 - "The Spirit of the LORD is upon me for He has annointed (Mashach) Me; He has sent Me to bring good news to the meek, to console the broken hearted, to call out Freedom to the captives, and to prisoners Release." When Jesus ascended into the presence of the Father, the Father sent the Spirit of Jesus, the Holy Spirit, through the Son, upon the believers and they too, as their Master, were "annointed" for their living and their task.

Note: The change from a title to a name is much more authentic and understandable in Aramaic language than in English. There is no inner connection from "Jesus the Christ" to "Jesus Christ" in English but in Aramaic the connecting bridge is the vocative "O Christ" (O, Annointed One)! "O Christ" and "The Christ" is the same in Aramaic - Meshicha.

== Teachings of Jesus ==
Jesus' special method of teaching was very different from what we know as "class room" teaching, and different from "teaching from definition". Though His students sometimes sat around Him and listened, He often taught them through the actual every day events of life, by parable and much more - as they traveled, as they ate, as they met people. All of life was His text book. He took them from what they understood to what they ''were to understand'', and brought them to understanding of what He meant, by how they saw it enacted and displayed in His own life. His life was the commentary to what they heard from His lips. That is why, besides that He was the Savior of the World, the believers in Him need be followers as well - to learn of His ways by intimate association. They would remember the words of the Savior later on and understand even more once His Spirit would be given them. His Spirit would then be their Guide, just as Jesus had done for them when He was on earth.

The Teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ are found in the four [[Gospels]] and other holy documents.

[http://www.lifeofchrist.com/teachings/sermons/mount/default.asp '''Sermon on the Mount'''] This is the greatest sermon Jesus ever preached. It contains the Lord's prayer, the beatitudes, the golden rule, and practical advice for Christian living.

'''The Lord's Prayer'''

Our Father who art in heaven,

Hallowed be Your name.

Your kingdom come.

Your will be done,

On earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.

And forgive us our debts,

as we also have forgiven our debtors.

And do not lead us into temptation,

but deliver us from evil.

For Yours is the kingdom

and the power

and the glory forever.

[[Amen]].

See [[The Lord's Prayer]] for the Greek and the interlineal transliterated Aramaic and Hebrew versions.

'''The golden rule:'''

"Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you!"

'''Prayer To Receive Him Now '''

''"Jesus, I believe You are the Son of God and the Savior of the world. Thank you for coming to Earth and dying so that I could have eternal life. Please forgive all my sins. I am going to follow You with my life now. Please fill me with Your Holy Spirit and direct my steps. In Jesus' name, [[Amen]]."'' <ref> [http://www.jesus2020.com/jesus.html Prayer To Receive Him Now]</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Andrew the Apostle]]
*[[Atonement]]
*[[Byzantine Empire]]
*[[Christianity]]
*[[Eucharist]]
*[[Lazarus (brother of Mary)]]
*[[Lazarus (Parable)]]
*[[Judaism]]
*[[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]
*[[Passover Seder]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

== External links ==
* [http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/lifescan/default.asp Summary of the Life of Jesus]
* [http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/lifescan/teachings.asp Teachings of Jesus]
* [http://www.lifeofchrist.com/teachings/sermons/ Sermons of Jesus Christ]
* [http://www.ccci.org/wij/ Who is Jesus? Is Jesus Christ God?]
* [http://www.bible-history.com/links.php?cat=19&sub=302&cat_name=Jesus&subcat_name=Background Jesus Background] Bible History on line.
* [http://www.lewissociety.org/ C. S. Lewis Society of California].
* [http://www.lewissociety.org/bodily.php The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, by William Lane Craig].
* [http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Historical_Problem.htm Christian Origins and the Resurrection of Jesus: The Resurrection of Jesus as a Historical Problem, by N. T. Wright].
* [http://www.lewissociety.org/resurrection.php Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, by William Lane Craig].
* [http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Justice_Jesus.htm Doing Justice to Jesus: A Response to J.D. Crossan: "What Victory? What God?", by N. T. Wright].
* [http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Historical_Jesus.htm The Historical Jesus and Christian Theology, by N. T. Wright].
* [http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=37 The Wright Quest for the Historical Jesus, by Ben Witherington, III].

[[Category:Jesus]]
[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Christian History]]
[[Category:Biblical Persons]]
[[Category:Divine Beings]]

Open source (software)

2009-02-11T18:02:47Z

ArthurA:

[[Image:Opensource.svg.png|right|100px|thumb|OSI logo]]
'''Open Source''' is a software development model being promoted by the non-profit '''Open Source Initiative (OSI)''' corporation and other organizations.
==Open Source==
Open Source refers to software where the [[source code]] is available for anyone to modify. There are many different licenses under which open source software is available<ref>http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical</ref>, all varying slightly to the degree on the conditions under which the software can be modified and redistributed.

Although the development model for open source software may seem counterintuitive, for many projects it has been shown to be very successful. Generally, open source software is distributed with the underlying source code available for anyone to freely modify and redistribute. This development model is very similar to university research, where discoveries and research is published in [[peer review|peer reviewed]] journals, which is then built upon by other researchers spawning further ideas and discoveries.

There is a common misconception that open source software must be given away for free, but this is incorrect.<ref>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowDownloadFee</ref> Although most open source software is indeed available for free, with the authors usually charging for consulting and other services, there is no obligation for them to do so.

Open source software is also known as "free software". However, its advocates acknowledge that name is misleading in that it sounds, at first hearing, as if the software costs nothing. "Free", in this context, means users are free to modify the software for their own purposes. As its advocates like to say, it means "free speech, not free beer".

==Examples==
Examples of well known open source software:
*[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki] - Wiki software used for sites such as Conservapedia and Wikipedia.
*[http://httpd.apache.org/ Apache] - Apache web server, the most popular web server in the world.<ref>http://news.netcraft.com/</ref>
*[http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/ Firefox] - [[Firefox]] web browser developed by the [http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/ Mozilla Foundation].
*[http://www.php.net/ PHP] - PHP: Hypertext Preprocessor, a scripting language used to create dynamic web sites such as Conservapedia.
*[[Linux]] - Operating system kernel used to create distributions such as the one running the server on which Conservapedia runs on.<ref>http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://www.conservapedia.com</ref>

==External links==
*[http://www.opensource.org/ Open Source Initiative]

==References==
<references />
[[category: information technology]]

Appeal to authority

2009-02-11T13:38:10Z

ArthurA:

An '''appeal to authority''' is an informal [[Logical_fallacy#Proof_by_authority|logical fallacy]]. It can be defined as the attempt to justify one's argument by referring to an "authoritative source" who holds the same belief as the arguer. These sources often include (but are not limited to) political figures, [[scientists]], [[philosophers]], and texts. It is rarely seen in academic debate, as editors and peer reviewers of journal articles routinely vet for such errors. However, in discussions of public policy issues as well as everyday human [[discourse]], the appeal to authority is one of the most common rhetorical tricks.

More specifically, it refers to citing a recognized authority for something in which they have no special expertise, using the fact that they are knowledgeable about one field to create the impression they are knowledgeable about all fields. For instance, citing [[Robert Bork]] on Constitutional Law is perfectly reasonable. However, citing Robert Bork on the best way to repair a broken automobile is a logical fallacy, because Bork presumably knows no more about car engines than the average American.

[[Liberal|Liberals]] regularly use this fallacy by, for instance, citing [[Albert Gore]], who has no scientific training, as an expert on [[global warming]] and ignore the fact that the founder of the Weather Channel doubts its existence.

[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]

Appeal to authority

2009-02-11T13:37:50Z

ArthurA:

An '''appeal to authority''' is an informal [[Logical_fallacy#Proof_by_authority|logical fallacy]]. It can be defined as the attempt to justify one's argument by referring to an "authoritative source" who holds the same belief as the arguer. These sources often include (but are not limited to) political figures, [[scientists]], [[philosophers]], and texts. It is rarely seen in academic debate, as editors and peer reviewers of journal articles routinely vet for such errors. However, in discussions of public policy issues as well as everyday human [[discourse]], the appeal to authority is one of the most common rhetorical tricks.

More specifically, it refers to citing a recognized authority for something in which they have no special expertise, using the fact that they are knowledgeable about one field to create the impression they are knowledgeable about all fields. For instance, citing Robert Bork on Constitutional Law is perfectly reasonable. However, citing [[Robert Bork]] on the best way to repair a broken automobile is a logical fallacy, because Bork presumably knows no more about car engines than the average American.

[[Liberal|Liberals]] regularly use this fallacy by, for instance, citing [[Albert Gore]], who has no scientific training, as an expert on [[global warming]] and ignore the fact that the founder of the Weather Channel doubts its existence.

[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]

Appeal to authority

2009-02-11T12:09:28Z

ArthurA:

An '''appeal to authority''' is an informal [[Logical_fallacy#Proof_by_authority|logical fallacy]]. It can be defined as the attempt to justify one's argument by referring to an "authoritative source" who holds the same belief as the arguer. These sources often include (but are not limited to) political figures, [[scientists]], [[philosophers]], and texts. It is rarely seen in academic debate, as editors and peer reviewers of journal articles routinely vet for such errors. However, in discussions of public policy issues as well as everyday human [[discourse]], the appeal to authority is one of the most common rhetorical tricks.

More specifically, it refers to citing a recognized authority for something in which they have no special expertise, using the fact that they are knowledgeable about one field to create the impression they are knowledgeable about all fields. For instance, citing Robert Bork on Constitutional Law is perfectly reasonable. However, citing Robert Bork on the best way to repair a broken automobile is a logical fallacy, because Bork presumably knows no more about car engines than the average American.

[[Liberal|Liberals]] regularly use this fallacy by, for instance, citing [[Albert Gore]], who has no scientific training, as an expert on [[global warming]] and ignore the fact that the founder of the Weather Channel doubts its existence.

[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

2009-02-10T13:48:48Z

ArthurA: /* Humor */ properly indenting my post