Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-01-31T15:28:33Z

Baijan: /* Second swearing in ceremony? */

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 
== Demanding Major Change ==

I'm not well educated on Obama enough to write an article on him, and even if I did I would not know where to start, but come on! Someone step up to the plate and correct this article. We atleast need a rewrite that presents a case for him being a christian. It can include all the Rev. Wright stuff you want, but if Conservapedia wants to become "The trustworthy encyclopedia" it has to convey both sides.

As a conservapedian, I don't like where this site is going. When writing articles, we can have conservative viewpoints, just not conservative crusades.

: It's remarkable how people who spell Christian with a small "c" want to insist that Obama is somehow a Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 5 January 2009 (EST)
::Reminiscent of those who assert the title of catholic with a small c, which in fact means something wholly other than a Catholic (i.e., a Roman Catholic) with a large C. (All Christians are in fact catholic with a small c if I understand it's fairly broad meaning.) --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 23:42, 5 January 2009 (EST)

: I don't think you can "demand" anything here. This is not a place where you can get what you want with the well-worn liberal tactic of stamping your feet and throwing a tantrum.
: If you have proof that Obama is a Christian, then let us see it. As far as I can tell, he is completely uninterested in Christian fellowship of any kind, which to me is very telling.
: It is easy to talk the talk. As the Lord himself said:
: '''Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'''' (Matthew 7:22-23)
: When and if Barack Hussein Obama shows some evidence of having been washed clean in the blood of Christ, then we can talk. I'm not holding my breath. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 08:34, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::DeanS, you have proof, it's been shown to you multiple times. All the people seem to be interested here is raising a conspiracy theory. They are so set in their ways that arguing against them will yield no results. That's the whole thing about conspiracy theorists: it doesn't matter what proof you show or how complete it is, they will find some hole, real or imagined, and fill it in with whatever belief they hold to actually add strength to their theories. A quick review of the page reveals 3 telling conspiracy theories that are held in belief by the people who hold power on this website: 1) That Obama is a Muslim (he isn't) 2) That Obama wasn't born in Hawaii (He was), and 3) That the majority of Obama's campaign contributions came from anonymous donors (they didn't). That's why this page has been locked from editing, because it has become a war zone and is unlikely to change if it was unlocked. The only solution at this point is to try and gleam what facts you can from this article, and do your own independent research for more facts concerning Obama. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 09:14, 6 January 2009 (EST)
::: First of all, I'm David, not Dean. Secondly, Obama certainly doesn't ''act'' like any sort of Christian I care to know: he supports [[abortion]], he is a radical [[socialist]] (possibly a [[Communist]]), and he tells falsehoods. I don't know if he is a Muslim or not, but it seems quite likely, and the page has a lot of evidence showing that he is. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 11:44, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::::First, my apologies on the name. Secondly, I'm not claiming that Obama is a good Christian, just that he most certainly is not Muslim. The evidence on this page, many of which are blatant falsehoods, are hardly conclusive proof of anything. I have no doubt that if I held any user here under the same scrutiny that Obama has, I could gather enough "evidence" to make a case that they are any religion I choose them to be. Thirdly, just because he may not be the type of christian you want to know doesn't make him not christian. There are many Christians that I [[Ku Klux Klan|don't care to know]]. Does that make them not Christian?--[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 12:13, 6 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama's Atheism ==

I know it is a popular view on this site that Obama is a Muslim, but has anyone considered the possibility that his apparent lack of religious devotion indicates instead that he is an atheist? In an article about Obama on mensvogue.com, it is noted that "Though Obama had long been skeptical of organized religion, he gradually came to embrace it "as a choice, not an epiphany."<ref>http://www.mensvogue.com/business/politics/feature/articles/2006/09/11/barack_obama</ref> It is frequently observed on Conservapedia that his claims of religious activity may be self-serving; could they not be an attempt to hide his atheism instead of his Islamic beliefs? After all, Ron Reagan, Jr. once remarked that nobody ever elects atheists.

In addition, Conservapedia has also pointed out on numerous occasions that atheists are strongly inclined to dislike America. Is it also not possible that Obama's pro-Islamic behavior is not a series of Freudian slips, but rather a manifestation of his liberal dislike for America?

Just some interesting points to consider. Perhaps we could open this up for discussion. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 18:30, 6 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama Arab-American ==

This article should, at some point, actually say that Obama is African-American, making him the first black president. If you really want to leave room for speculation about Warren G. Harding's ancestry, you could write "first openly black president" or something. But Obama's blackness is clearly a large part of his personal and political identity, and is probably going to be remembered as one of the most historically significant aspects of this election. An article on Barack Obama should contain a direct statement of this information, period.

The editors should also consider putting that information in the first paragraph. I understand that there is no established rule about the ordering of information in a Conservapedia article. However, an uneducated reader looking at this article would learn how long his campaign was before learning that he is the first black president, which doesn't make much sense to me. [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 16:20, 9 January 2009 (EST)

There is much distortion in the media about Obama being African-American. '''Obama is actually Arab-American''', and I agree that this page should reflect his race.

Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya, his father's family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro). --[[User:Cwcopela|Cwcopela]] 14:11, 19 January 2009 (EST)

:Does it really matter? It's not the technicalities that define what race Americans perceive Obama as - He looks more black, than white and arabic and that's how people will perceive him - They won't perceive him as another rich religious white guy or as an arab because of technicalities like that. --[[User:Atheuz|Atheuz]]

:*So, perceptions matter above facts? That is typical of [[liberal]] thinking, you know. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:06, 19 January 2009 (EST)

== Small comments ==

Hello. Would it be appropriate to create a "family" section in this biography, it seems rather lacking on this point? For the rest it seems very informative, but rather cluttered. Would it be more logical to use a chronological build-up for this biography, such as placing the parts relating to his presidency more to the end of the biography, and his earlier endeavors to the front? Perhaps it would help if the contents table was moved up, at least to end up higher than the first muslim president bit? Let's hope I'm not asking any all-too-stupid questions! ;-) Regards, [[User:AVanbeek|AVanbeek]] 22:51, 12 January 2009 (EST)

: I don't see any of your suggestions as an improvement. Obama's presidential ambition predates the other items you mention, and his personal beliefs are the most significant. Encylopedias, like newspapers, prioritize presentation based on significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 12 January 2009 (EST)

:: Shall I go ahead then, and erase "Family" Sections on George W. Bush and McCain's articles? Their great accomplishments surely predate those insignificant sections. [[User:AMurdoc|AMurdoc]] 13:29, 15 January 2009 (EST)
:::Why not go ahead and make some positive contributions to this encyclopaedia by creating wanted articles, rather than attempting to be satirical? [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 14:18, 15 January 2009 (EST)

== Lincoln's Bible? ==

Fox News is reporting that Obama will use the Lincoln Bible to be sworn in <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/23/obama-sworn-using-lincoln-bible/</ref>. I think it's fairly safe to say that it will not be a koran. I also think it is safe to say that this is exactly the kind of trickery a manchurian muslim would use. Is it worth a mention in the "likely muslim" section?

[[User:CWood|CWood]] 11:01, 15 January 2009 (EST)

: I agree, it is safe to say it will not be a Koran. I think i'ts also safe to say this is exactly the kind of "trickery" a Christian would use. Is it worth a mention in the "likely Christian" section? oh wait... [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 11:59, 15 January 2009 (EST)
: So Obama is damned if he does use a Bible, and damned if he doesn't. Seems a bit unreasonable. None of those other candidates were ever accused of being "Manchurian Muslims" just because they DID use a Bible to get sworn in. Then again, none of those other candidates had brown skin and a funny name, right? [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 12:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)
:::Typical [[liberal]] [[race baiting]]... How about you come up with evidence rather than allegations? [[User:CWood|CWood]] 16:47, 18 January 2009 (EST)
::None of the other candidates hid from questions about their past, it's Obama's own fault. Nobody ever said his name was funny except Obama. The brown skin comment is over the top racist ploy. You know very well that there are more respected, patriotic, qualified 'brown skin' people that are deserving of presidency, Obama isn't one of them. FYI- slanderous allegations are deserving of a permanent block here. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:03, 16 January 2009 (EST)
:::How about slanderous allegations that a man is lying to the country about his religion? Do those count?

:::I'm not accusing anyone of racism per se. I'm just pointing out that no other presidential candidate has ever had to prove to the country that he is not a Muslim. And let's be honest - that's because all the other presidential candidates have been white guys named George or Bill or Ron or Jimmy, and this one is a black guy named Barack. If people WANT to believe he's a Muslim (the authors of this article clearly do) it's easier to do so. If you can't see the connection between his race/name and the popularity of the belief that he is a Muslim, you're not looking hard enough.

:::Anyway, this is all a moot point. He's not a Muslim. As time goes by after Obama takes office, this page will look increasingly loony. I guess if Obama really turns out to be an Al-Qaeda sleeper agent poised to sabotage the United States in a plot straight out of a Tom Clancy novel, I will be the one looking loony. But I think I'll take that chance.[[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 17:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)

== References ==

Barack Hussein Obama (born in Honolulu,[1][2][3] August 4, 1961) served as a first-term Democratic Senator from Illinois (2004-2008) and then, along with his running mate Senator Joseph Biden, won the presidential election[4] after twenty-three months of campaigning, raising an unprecedented $750 million and spending over $700 million of it,[5]. Post-election, Obama indicated that he would make an unprecedented speech within his first 100 days from a Muslim capital.[6] (7][8]

Obama has espoused the idea of "spreading the wealth,"[10]
in other words raising the tax rates on business and the wealthy in order to redistribute their income to low income individuals, many of whom don't currently pay income taxes.[11] His health care plan requires employers to purchase health care or pay a fine and will require many into a single payer system.[12] To announce his trip to Berlin in July 2008, Obama used posters which show a marked similarity to posters of others.[13] During Obama's youth in Hawaii, he developed a strong, almost Father/Son relationship with Frank Marshall Davis.14]
{{unsigned|Lucyjordan}} 11:00, 17 January 2009

==Picture==
[[Image:AC776AB92D53D08B124F57F6B9B6C2.jpg‎]] Here's a picture of our plotting leader. Too sinister? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 09:41, 19 January 2009 (EST)

: Interesting, Steven. But where did you get it from? The uploads should reflect the source and claim of ability to use it, unless before 1923 (in which everything is public domain).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 19 January 2009 (EST)

::Oh yes. sorry, i got it from the msn.com do i need promission to take photos from there? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 14:03, 19 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama/Muslim Support ==

In the May be a Muslim section, it says that he had an increased support of Muslim voters. How does this prove he is Muslim? While this should be kept, It should be moved to another section.

== I know we lost a week... ==
But we can't stay in some alternate universe where G.W.Bush is still president forever, especially if this article is going to link to the front page. We need to update this article to show that Obama is now president. I would do so, but its locked. As it has been. For quite some time. --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 23:57, 27 January 2009 (EST)

== Low Res Pic ==

Why is the leading picture of Obama such a low resolution version? It looks crappy when stretched [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:20, 28 January 2009 (EST)

: That's the only picture we could get from the White House Web site. It certainly surprises me, because I would have thought that they would have a very high-resolution picture of..."Him." We might try the White House site again to see whether "He" has corrected this—er—oversight.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:26, 28 January 2009 (EST)

::Wikipedia found one (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Official_portrait_of_Barack_Obama.jpg) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:29, 28 January 2009 (EST)

::(I could have sworn i edited this already, did we loose some more from the database?) The orginal high resolution image can be obtained from the change.gov site; http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg . Updating to this version should fix all the scaling artefacts --[[User:SCarter|SCarter]] 22:10, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Second swearing in ceremony? ==

I'm surprised that this isn't even mentioned in the article, but when Obama retook the Oath he DIDN'T USE A BIBLE. In fact, there was no video recording of the session and the picture taken only showed him from the chest up. This is profound evidence of being Unchristian at the very least. Since we can't see his left hand during the ceremony, it could be on anything ... dare I say, the Koran?? (source http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/21/obama-takes-oath-office/) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:40, 28 January 2009 (EST)

: I consider swearing on the Bible to be un-Christian, because of Matthew 5:34-37, where swearing on anything is expressly forbidden by Jesus.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:48, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Additionally, the second swearing-in ceremony was hardly "private." There were a number of reporters present. Even if it were private, the first ceremony is the one that is constitutionally binding. In any case, the allegation in the main article needs a citation. There are plenty out there, so get to it!

== Rejects ID, Pushes Evolution (Over Christianity!?) ==

This really needs to be a section in the mainspace. Someone unlock or please add a section mentioning the following:

''Rejects ID''
From the responses to a Q&A sent out by Nature: Do you believe that evolution by means of natural selection is a sufficient explanation for the variety and complexity of life on Earth? Should intelligent design, or some derivative thereof, be taught in science class in public schools?

Obama: I believe in evolution, and I support the strong consensus of the scientific community that evolution is scientifically validated. I do not believe it is helpful to our students to cloud discussions of science with non-scientific theories like intelligent design that are not subject to experimental scrutiny. <ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/in-obamas-own-words/</ref>

''Pushes Evolution Over Christianity''
Remnick, who at this point could be considered the President of the United States of Magazines, forced Obama to address the topic of religion. "It's not 'faith' if you are absolutely certain," Obama said, noting that he didn't believe his lack of "faith" would hurt him a national election. "Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels." <ref>http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/magazines/barack_obama_i_inhaled_that_was_the_point_46068.asp</ref>

Wow. [[User:CherylE|CherylE]] 10:17, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Allegedly born in Honolulu ==

Why does it still say he was allegedly born in Honolulu? Later on in the page it says the it was proven his birth certificate is genuine. [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:We merely state that FactCheck.org believed the photo of the birth certificate was genuine.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 10:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)
Maybe it should be rewritten then since now it reads more like it states a fact that the birth certificate is indeed genuine. I'm guessing 99% of people never even check the reference.[[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:Additionally, he's already been sworn in as president, so arguing over where he was born is a moot point. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 23:57, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Why no family section? ==

The Obama article has no family section. Neither does Clinton's or Carter's. However, Reagan's, Bush the elder's and W.Bush's articles have them. Why none on the democratic presidents'? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:42, 28 January 2009 (EST)

There's a simple answer: Obama, Clinton, and Carter are Democrats. They belong to an anti-family party, therefore their family is irrelevant to their political existence. Family is central to Republican policy, and so it is impossible to understand President Bush without mentioning his family.
[[User:LatinScholar]] 1:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)

:He has a family though, doesn't he? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 13:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, but a Democrat family, which is something entirely different. [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 2:22, 30 January 2009 (EST)

== Some Changes ==

Why is this locked?
Obama has not been succeded by "incumbent" nor will he be.
Obamas term in office might not go to 2013, it might go further, it might not go that far, unless you are psychic this should be changed. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 11:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:"Incumbent" means he is the current holder of the office. It's simply a term to indicate that he is the most recent. And while it is true that Obama could be elected to a second term and thus serve until 2017, he hasn't. His first term expires on 2013 regardless of what happens between now and then (barring impeachment or death, of course) so it's factual to list that date. Listing a second term when he's only a week and a half in his first one is speculative and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 14:49, 28 January 2009 (EST)
It's the exact same thing we did with [[George W. Bush]] - <s>there's nothing factually wrong about saying whoever replaces obama will be an incumbent.</s> - saying incumbent merely confirms that he is the current president - no one has succeeded him yet.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)

==Is he or isn't he President?==
This article has a lot of wildly inaccurate and unsourced information in it. It also can't seem to decide whether BO is President or not - the picture on the right says he is, the text varies from claiming he's won the election, to him being Senator. I'd love to help clean this up, but can't seem to edit the page? Ready to help. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 15:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:Yes, it's pretty weird isn't it. One would have thought that if it was important enough to protect then it would be important enough to update. But the failure to update tells the casual reader what to expect in respect of the general accuracy of the article - so it's probably not a bad thing.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 11:12, 29 January 2009 (EST)
::I notice the article has been updated to make it somewhat more reality-based. Good. However, I would expect - almost to the case of 'demand' - that the article on the current POTUS begin with the short and simple line "Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America". Instead, the first sentence about this, arguably the world's most important person, is overlong, appallingly punctuated, begins immediately with unfounded gossip and wanders off into some other random irrelevant facts and utterly lacks focus. It says a lot about what the reader can expect from the entire article to follow. I wish I could help rewrite this article so as it would be more based on fact and reality - and particularly, better written - but as it's locked, that's impossible. So all we, the casual readers, can do is suggest things which need to be done to improve the article. I would begin by recommending the deletion of the entire monster and a total rewrite from scratch. There's nothing here of substance and nothing that will engender any respect for this supposed 'encyclopedia'. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 13:33, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::It's a shame we can't all be as learned and insightful as you, FNNoonan. However, I dare say all the hard-working editors here will jump up to obey your lofty commands. If you want a 'better' article, why not write one on your userpage/in a sandbox and submit it to the criticism of your peers? Or is this a case of 'those who can't, criticise'? [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 14:19, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::: You must not have read my comment, in which I made a suggestion to improve the article's first sentence. What's yours? You might try contributing something to the debate rather than trying to shoot the messenger. The message is - the article's a disaster. Now, what are you doing about that? [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 16:24, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::::I don't think it a disaster, but a multi-layered and well-argued piece. Looking at the revision history and talk pages, I see that some of the best minds on Consercvapedia think so, too. Therefore I have no need to do anything. You, on the other hand, see faults, but do nothing except indulge yourself in corrosive criticism. [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 17:10, 29 January 2009 (EST)
::::::I would also point out that the article even fails to mention which country he's President of. I would again recommend the inclusion of my suggested opening sentence - "Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America". Thank you for helping to improve this terrible article. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 14:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)

== Real Bible NOT Koran ==

Below is the kind of post I’ve been looking forward to:

“Look, I wrote here and in the article that Obama would swear on the Koran, and now I’ve just got to eat humble pie. See, I was wwoo….wrooggga…woolooo..wopppaaa. wrong. There, I managed to say it, and I feel better for it.”

Yeah, I been waiting for that one, but I’m not holding my breath. But since Obama DID in fact swear on Lincoln’s Bible that means (check this one in archives) you clowns owe me $100. Each. (American notes thank you.) [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 18:31, 28 January 2009 (EST)

: You're clueless, Myles. Obama's real oath was not on the Bible. I don't know if it was on the Koran. Do you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 28 January 2009 (EST)

OP Myles back. Right, let me see if I can sum up the state of play. Obama tries to take the Oath on the Lincoln Bible, which presumably has special powers not available to the usual Gideon’s Hotel edition. Anyways, Chief Justice Roberts manages to bellyflop his role in history. It’s like the guy who needs play only one note on a triangle during the symphony and manages to foul that up. Along with 90% of the world, I thought that Obama was completely blameless for this glitch, and actually quite gracious. His face and bearing said “Hey, you stuffed up, but I forgive you. Let’s try it again.” This was not what the foaming at the mouth crowd saw, and talk here was of how Obama was not properly inaugurated, and that somehow it was all his fault. Then, to satisfy the New Philistines, he takes the oath, again. This time, no one of the Born Again crowd who frequent these occasions thinks to bring a Bible, but it is Obama’s fault once more, because apparently he should have one in his back pocket at all times. He takes the oath again. Hey, that’s good enough for me, but apparently I’m clueless, according to Andy, who, in one of his regular 2 line missives from above believes there’s more to this than meets the eye.

Well, let me see. I suppose Obama could have paid Roberts off in the first instance to screw up the wording, so he would not have to put his hand on the Bible. (Because then he would wince with pain as the Word of God burnt his skin, or something.) This set up the SECOND inauguration at which everyone was paid to make sure no Bible was there, so Obama gets to be Prez while cunningly evading the Bible. You see, it all makes perfect sense, don’t it? Yeah, and I’M the one who’s clueless! Truly, what a man believes, he sees. Look, I’ve got an idea. Instead of hurling everything you got including the kitchen sink at Obama on a second by second basis, every time he so much as scratches his nose, let’s take the fair-minded, objective, dare I say American approach. It’s the customary 100 day honeymoon. Why don’t we all give him those 100 days, and THEN have a look at the plus and minus sheet? Sound like a sensible notion? Of course, that would mean putting your knee in some other crotch for that time, which is asking a hell of a lot I know. But then you would have some REAL grievances at the end instead of the kind of sort of all this relentless muck-raking on the basis of trivia. And just think of the size of the bonfire you could build then.

You know, where I come from conservatives are known as people with a sense of honour, with ethical standards, polite and cultivated, aware of etiquette, educated, and with a keen sense for fair play. You might be using a different dictionary. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)

*Myles, please read the box at the top of this page, and adhere to it. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:55, 29 January 2009 (EST)

:Myles, one can tell you're a liberal just by observing how many words it takes you to say nothing. Your non-American spelling of "honor" is also a giveaway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 29 January 2009 (EST)

::Somebody decides to spell 'honour' the way that it is spelt correctly in '''English''' (the mother-tongue of '''England''') and you decide to try and be insulting about it. Classy.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::Despite Myles' tone, his post does have some merit: It's time to let go of this "swearing in on the Koran" business because it is purely insulting speculation.
::And I have to ask... why is using non-American spelling a liberal trait? Our Prime Minister up here in Canada is as conservative as they come... [[User:SJames|SJames]] 13:37, 30 January 2009 (EST)

== Incumbent ==

In the box to the right of the page it says that Obama will be succeeded by [[incumbent]]? Doesn't this imply that he will have two terms? I'm a bit confused. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 11:19, 29 January 2009 (EST)

:I can understand the confusion, but all it implies is that he is the current President. It would probably be better if the whole line was removed until we actually know who he would be succeeded by. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 13:09, 29 January 2009 (EST)

::Well, I tried to fix it up, I really did. But it was hard what with the lock down. I tried dabbing liquid paper on my monitor but that didn’t work very well either. Normally, “Not known” or “To be announced” or “To be determined” are the accepted forms, but hey, what about "Sarah Palin"? Let’s be positive and proactive about this. That lady is gonna wipe the floor with this Obama ring in. I’m marching in her parade right now. “Palin ain’t for failin’ “
::Whoo hooo!!” [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 21:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)

:::I fixed all this....what's the problem now, Myles? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:46, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Stylistic matter ==
Technically, it is proper to simply list the day of Obama's inauguration followed by a dash, as, God forbid, he might be reelected in 2012. So we can't say until the election when his last day in office will be... --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 09:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)

*I believe you are not correct. ''Technically'' he was elected to a four year term. The text for the info box says term of office, no? That would be four years from his inauguration, 20 January, 2009. One doesn't typically take into account the possibility of death, resignation or re-election. Perhaps you are saying what is "typical" for Wikipedia? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 12:52, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::This[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&oldid=598707] seems like a reasonable template "typical" for Conservapedia. The Bush entry was changed from "present" to January 20, 2009 less than three weeks before the date that he was definitively leaving office.[[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 14:51, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::What he was elected to and his actual term in office can be different things. William Henry Harrison was elected for a four year term but his actual term was one month. As I recall Bushes article said 'present' until several days after his term was over. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:11, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Actually, that's almost universal. We don't know when his term will end. He could be re-elected in four years, or shot tomorrow. We can't say when his term will ''actually'' end. Wikipedia, by the way, doesn't even have a dash- just "assumed office," "incumbent" and "January 20, 2009." If accuracy is our goal, it's best to simply put a dash, or a dash followed by "present" or "incumbent." --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 15:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)

== Article Naming ==

As the article for [[Barack Hussein Obama]] includes his full name, [[John McCain]] should redirect to [[John Sidney McCain III]], [[Joe Biden]] to [[Joseph Robinette "Joe" Biden, Jr.]], etc. - [[User:LafinJack|LafinJack]] 17:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)

*No. But you just keep on LafinJack. ;-) -- --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::Can we ask why we will have the inconsistency TK? --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 18:15, 30 January 2009 (EST)

I fail to understand what LafinJack or WillB are complaining about. What inconsistency? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 7:08, 30 January 2009
::They are referring to the fact that only Barack Obama's middle name is included in the article name, while the others are not. They are wondering why that is.
::The obvious answer: Hussein is a Muslim name. It helps when trying to portray the slant that President Obama is lying about being a Christian. "Sidney" and "Robinette" are regular Western middle names and serve no significant purpose. A similar line of reasoning can also explain why the Table of Contents is oddly out of view in President Obama's article. [[User:AdamSchaley|AdamSchaley]] 19:21, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Leave it to a liberal to reduce this discussion to nonsense, innuendo, and pointless name-calling. What's the use of even trying to have this discussion when you won't discuss things rationally? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 19:42, 01/09

::I should remind you that this is a Conservative Christian encyclopedia with an ADMITTED BIAS. The goal is obvious: To show readers that Obama is a Muslim, however this is in line with the principals of the encyclopedia, so there isn't anything really to complain about. Conservatives want everyone to understand Obama is a Muslim. There is no NPOV, get over it (my $.02) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 21:56, 30 January 2009 (EST)

== Change of wording? ==

I think "Obama will likely be the first Muslim President" would be better written as "Obama is likely the first Muslim President" ... just a thought [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 22:08, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Firefly (TV series)

2008-10-12T14:36:45Z

Baijan: /* Family viewing */

'''''Firefly''''' was an American [[science-fiction]] [[television]] program created by Joss Whedon. It was introduced as a mid-season replacement on the [[Fox Network|Fox]] channel in 2002. Fox cancelled the program after airing 11 of the 14 produced episodes. However, the show captured a small but extremely devoted fan following, and high DVD sales led to the production of a follow-up feature film directed by Whedon, ''Serenity'', in 2005.

The show is set 500 years in the future, after humanity has fled [[earth]] and terraformed the planets and moons of a neighboring [[solar system]]. The story follows the crew of the Firefly-class spaceship Serenity, whose captain and first mate are former members of the Independants, a recently defeated military movement against the system's centralized government, known as the Alliance. The war for Indpendence in the ''Firefly'' universe has strong parallels to the [[American Civil War]], and indeed despite its space-opera setting ''Firefly'''s locations and characters are strongly reminiscent of American westerns. The show often had funny dialogue.

The show is notable for its total lack of [[aliens]] and its use of muted sounds in space, both of which are unusual in space opera.

==Family viewing==

Firefly was rated TV14 in the [[United States]] and as such, parental discretion is advised for young viewers. The series contains many strong themes which may not be appropriate for children:
* Killing is commonplace in the series, but when the main characters kill, it is almost always for self-defense.
* The character Inara Serra is a "companion," a euphemism for [[prostitute]] who manages her own business and is subject to strict governmental & [[guild]] regulation.
* Sexual content is occationally shown.
* In one episode, another character River Tam rips pages out of Shepherd Book's [[Bible]] in a misguided attempt to "fix it." Shepard stops her and tries to explain why you cannnot change the bible. River apoligizes and gives him back the pages she tore out.

== Religion in the show ==

The show featured some form of christianity, and sacred rituals related to the companions. The show had no biases about religion and often used as part of the plot. The captain of Serenity is an athiest who comes into conflict with Shepard on the issue of religion. For example in the first episode Shepard asks to say a prayer before the crew eats. The captain agrees but begins eating in the middle of the prayer. The show occasionally had jokes around religion.

==External Links==
*http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0303461/
*http://www.scifi.com/firefly/

[[Category:Television Shows]]

Firefly (TV series)

2008-10-12T13:20:29Z

Baijan: /* Family viewing */

'''''Firefly''''' was an American [[science-fiction]] [[television]] program created by Joss Whedon. It was introduced as a mid-season replacement on the [[Fox Network|Fox]] channel in 2002. Fox cancelled the program after airing 11 of the 14 produced episodes. However, the show captured a small but extremely devoted fan following, and high DVD sales led to the production of a follow-up feature film directed by Whedon, ''Serenity'', in 2005.

The show is set 500 years in the future, after humanity has fled [[earth]] and terraformed the planets and moons of a neighboring [[solar system]]. The story follows the crew of the Firefly-class spaceship Serenity, whose captain and first mate are former members of the Independants, a recently defeated military movement against the system's centralized government, known as the Alliance. The war for Indpendence in the ''Firefly'' universe has strong parallels to the [[American Civil War]], and indeed despite its space-opera setting ''Firefly'''s locations and characters are strongly reminiscent of American westerns. The show often had funny dialogue.

The show is notable for its total lack of [[aliens]] and its use of muted sounds in space, both of which are unusual in space opera.

==Family viewing==

Firefly was rated TV14 in the [[United States]] and as such, parental discretion is advised for young viewers. The series contains many strong themes which may not be appropriate for children:
* [[Murder]] is commonplace in the series.
* The character Inara Serra is a "companion," a euphemism for [[prostitute]] who manages her own business and is subject to strict governmental & [[guild]] regulation.
* Sexual content is occationally shown.
* In one episode, another character River Tam rips pages out of Shepherd Book's [[Bible]] in a misguided attempt to "fix it." Shepard stops her and tries to explain why you cannnot change the bible. River apoligizes and gives him back the pages she tore out.

== Religion in the show ==

The show featured some form of christianity, and sacred rituals related to the companions. The show had no biases about religion and often used as part of the plot. The captain of Serenity is an athiest who comes into conflict with Shepard on the issue of religion. For example in the first episode Shepard asks to say a prayer before the crew eats. The captain agrees but begins eating in the middle of the prayer. The show occasionally had jokes around religion.

==External Links==
*http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0303461/
*http://www.scifi.com/firefly/

[[Category:Television Shows]]

School vouchers

2008-10-11T14:31:34Z

Baijan: Added argument against school vouchers.

'''Education vouchers''', as used in Cleveland and other U.S. cities, permit parents of [[public school]] children to choose any public or private school for their children they wish. The presumption is that they will make a wiser choice about which school will help their children learn, then local or state bureaucrats. School voucher programs are most popular among inner-city blacks, and opposed most by the Democrats and teachers' unions. The main argument against vouchers (and other such programs, like schools-of-choice) is that they take money away from a given school, which makes it more difficult for the teachers to provide quality education for the remaining students. While the result of a voucher program is good for the students who are able to take advantage of it, it severely disadvantages the remaining students, staff, and faculty.

[[Category:Educational Reform]]

Music

2008-10-11T14:21:15Z

Baijan: Nine muses, rather than three.

[[Image:Music..jpg|right|240px]]
{{etymology|From Middle English ''musik'', from Anglo-French ''musike'', from [[Latin]] ''musica'', from [[Greek]] μουσικη ''mousike''}}
[[Music]] as an [[art]], is a form consisting entirely of organized [[sound]] interspersed with periods of silence.<ref>[http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=Music Music] defined in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.</ref> It takes its name from nine [[Greek mythology|Greek]] goddesses known as the ''[[Muses]]'', who specialized in stimulation of an artist's or poet's mind.

Music is known for its ability to stir human emotion, and its effects on the human brain are believed to be more profound than those produced by other art forms. <ref>Oliver Sacks, ''Musicophilia''</ref>. This ability of music to affect one's mental state has allowed it to be used as a form of therapy for patients with mental illnesses such as [[schizophrenia]]. Music is also considered to be humankind's oldest art form, and is common to almost all known human cultures.

== What is music? ==
[[Image:Opera Rossini.jpg|thumb|300px|Opera by Rossini.]]
Music is difficult to define, as it is difficult to extricate a clinical definition of the word from the inherent value judgments that accompany it. In everyday usage, the word "music" is understood to be sounds which are organized to enthrall and move the listener, in contrast to "noise" which is unorganized sound producing no particular effect. Inevitably, some music (particularly some types of modern music) is described as "noise" or "not music" by listeners who do not enjoy or understand it. What appears as music to one person may be interpreted as noise to another, and vice versa, as interpretation of sounds, whether organised or disorganised, dissonant or harmonious, may arouse different sorts of feelings in a listener.

Common definitions therefore include "organized sound" or "art in the medium of sound". But even these do not encompass some avant-garde works, such as John Cage's ''4'33'''', which contains no notes and instead comprises whatever background sounds happen to occur during a performance.

Note that music is ''not'' limited to such sounds that a human being might produce by fashioning an instrument for the making of a simplified or otherwise organized sound and then "playing" said instrument. The chirping of birds and certain insects may properly be called music, especially if the sound produced is particularly pleasant to the listener. Furthermore, some of the most sophisticated music attempts to imitate the sounds made by birds, insects, and other animals.

== Basic music theory ==
: ''Main Article: [[Music theory]]''
Classically, music consists of ''tones'', ''melodies'', ''counterpoint'', ''harmony'' and ''rhythm''. A ''tone'' is the purest form of sound, having a single [[frequency]]. However, pure tones do not occur in music. In practice, tones present themselves to the human ear together with ''overtones'', which typically are small-[[integer]] multiples of the basic frequency (the ''fundamental tone''). These overtones are what give each instrument (or, in the case of voices, each vowel) its characteristic sound. A trumpet and a violin playing the same pitch will be clearly distinguished because the relative strengths of their overtones are different. In human speech and singing, the long vowels U (oo), O (oh) and A (aw) have stronger low overtones, while the vowels E (ee) and I (eye) have stronger higher overtones. You can hear this for yourself by pronouncing an "ooh" vowel and very slowly shifting to an "ee" vowel while carefully listening to the sound produced.

=== Notes, intervals, and scales ===
[[Image:Musicalnotes.jpg|right]]
Two tones played together form an ''interval''. The simplest of all intervals is the ''[[octave]]'', formed by two tones, one of whose frequencies is the exact double of the other. The full collection of tones that one can play between the two notes of an octave is called a ''[[musical scale|scale]].'' In Western music, most scales are ''semi-tonal'', with twelve tones between the octave notes. (The high end of the octave is considered a repetition of the low end, but at twice the frequency.) [[Oriental]] music commonly has ''quarter-tonal'' scales, with twenty-four separate tones within an octave. Quarter tones are often difficult to distinguish for a Western listener, and such music, as a result, tends to suggest the sinuous movement of a snake.

The [[Greece|Greeks]] recognized early that fundamental tones in music have a simple and strict [[mathematics|mathematical]] relationship. As mentioned, the octave consists of two notes, one at double the frequency of the other. At ''triple'' the frequency, one hears a low fundamental tone, and a higher tone that is past the octave but roughly midway toward the second octave. If one then divides the high-tone frequency by two, one creates the interval called the ''perfect fifth'' or ''dominant'' interval, one of the most common intervals used in Western music. One can test this relationship by striking a note on a [[piano]] while holding down another key that is one octave higher than the perfect fifth. The second note will sound in sympathy with the first—because it is resonating with the overtone from the first note.

=== Melody and counterpoint ===
''Melody'' is the series of notes that most closely captures the attention of the listener: the 'tune' one hums along with.

''Counterpoint'' is a specific technique for creating secondary melodies that intertwine with and complement the main melody. In most music since the 17th century, including modern popular music, the bass line is written in counterpoint with the most prominent melody. Another example from the popular tradition would be dueling guitar leads. The best representation of counterpoint in classical music is considered to be the [[fugue]], a very strict form which is best exemplified by [[Johann Sebastien Bach]].

===Harmony===
When two or more notes sound at the same time, it is called a chord, and the distance between the notes is the interval. In the western 12-note scale common usage, an interval is often expressed in relative terms, using the eight notes that make up an octave and prefixing 'major' or 'minor' to account for the interstitial notes. For instance, the interval between 'C' and 'E' is a 3rd because 'E' is the 3rd note in the major scale of C. One-half step below that is a minor 3rd, although this exact same note could also be called an augmented 2nd.

[[Harmony]] is the study of notes which occur together or which are perceived as being together. This usually means notes which are played simultaneously, as in a chord, but can also apply to notes within a melody which outline a chord. The harmony that results from the combination of any two or more notes depends on the interval present between those notes. A system of Roman numerals is the most common means used to analyse harmony.
[[Image:In concert Jean Claude Gaugy.jpg|left|220px]]
Many of the feelings and emotions that music can evoke are a result of the tension between the consonant (pleasant) sound of some intervals, and the dissonant sound of others. During the development of western music, certain rules were established for proper harmony, and these rules specified how intervals ([[chords]]) could change over time in the music.

For example, the interval of the 3rd is one of the most common and consonant in classical (and popular) music. But in the medieval music, 3rd were deemed to be dissonant. While they still occurred, particularly in English music more than continental European music, they would 'resolve' to a 5th, which was considered a purer interval. In classical music, the open 5th is considered to sound too bare and exposed. Until the sixteenth century, chords containing certain intervals, like 7ths, were required to resolve to the more harmonious octave, while other intervals, like diminished 5ths, were deemed ugly and even considered evil, and banned from use in liturgic music. In fact, the diminished fifth (or augmented fourth) was referred to as the ''diabolus in musica'' (literally, 'the devil in music'), as was believed to represent Satan. Today, in writing counterpoint, students are taught not to write lines which leap between or outline the diminished fifth, although this is now for musical rather than superstitious reasons.

Throughout the classical and romantic eras, the harmonic language used by composers was gradually expanded, becoming increasingly complex and free. By the time of the early twentieth century, certain composers like Arnold Schoenberg broke away from traditional tonality entirely, and pioneered the use of atonal harmony.

=== Rhythm ===
''Rhythm'' consists of all aspects of music that suggest ''forward movement.'' Most music contains a regularly repeating sequence of ''beats'', or strong elements, that typically lead with a ''down beat'' followed by any of a small number of slightly weaker beats. A down beat and its weaker beats form a ''measure.'' Usually, all measures in a piece of music have the same number of beats.

A note in music is described not only by pitch, or frequency, but also by duration. Notes in Western music have names that typically describe how long they would sound in a typical measure. ''Whole notes'' are so called because normally they would sound for the full measure. ''Half notes'' would sound for half the measure, ''quarter notes'' for a fourth of the measure, and so on. A note may also carry a ''dot'' to the right of it, that indicates that the note is to sound for one and one-half times its usual duration.

Any one of these notes may carry a beat, and a measure may have any number of beats. Thus every piece of music commonly carries at least one ''time signature'' describing how many beats a measure has, and which type of note carries one beat. The most common time is "four-quarter time" (four beats per measure, with the beat given to the quarter note), which is therefore called "common time." Other commonly used time signature include three-quarter, six-eighth, nine-eighth, or rarely, two-half (called ''Alla breve'' or "cut time"). Even rarer are the time signatures with prime numbers of beats (other than three-quarter), including five-quarter or even eleven-eighth.

''Tempo'' ([[Italian]] for "time") describes how frequently the beats occur. The typical tempo signature is a drawing of the note that has the beat, followed by the number of beats per minute.

Notes may be ''accented'' at any time. In fact, often the accent will fall on the weak beat and make the beats seem to sound out-of-sequence. The result is ''syncopated'' rhythm.

Some sub-genres of [[rock and roll]] feature a ''backbeat.''<ref>[http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/12/07/RockRules Normative Backbeat] at Tbray.org</ref> These are the second and fourth beats, in four-quarter time, unstressed in classical usage, which become stressed even more strongly than the down beat. An especially prominent backbeat is a defining feature of reggae and ska music.

== Types of instruments ==
: ''Main Article: [[Musical instruments]]''

== History ==
[[Image:Musica Cassell.jpg|right]]
Evidence of musical activity is present in all known human cultures. The earliest known complete piece of music is the ''Epitaph of Seikilos'', carved in stone in Greece some time around the first century AD. Thereafter, the most complete historical record of musical development is European sacred music. Plainchant, or [[Gregorian]] chant, was first codified in the sixth century - although it had existed for many years prior to that - and from the 11th century onwards plainchant formed the basis for the earliest known use of harmony.

The Greeks, when [[Alexander the Great]] accepted the surrender of [[Jerusalem]] in his wars of conquest, introduced their own brand of music to the region—which the Jews largely resisted. But music was highly prominent throughout the Greek world—and later in the [[Rome|Roman]] world following Rome's conquest of Greece. The Greeks' contributions to music theory influenced artists for centuries to come, and still have a strong influence today, especially on composers who prefer to adhere to the classical traditions of music.

The earliest Greek music was associated with Greek [[theater]]. Beginning with the fall of Rome, however, music became largely liturgical. The primary influence remained the [[Roman Catholic Church]] until the twin movements of the Renaissance and the Reformation, each of which introduced a countervailing tradition.

From that time forward, most scholars divide music into "classical" music (composed primarily to achieve a high art) and "popular" music (composed for the masses and tending to achieve wide, but ephemeral, appeal).<ref>[http://www.thefreedictionary.com/popular%20music Popular music] defined at the Free Dictionary</ref>

"Classical music" tends to rely more on written notation, as a piece of classical music is generally held to transcend any particular interpretation of it. In current practice, such music is performed in concerts where the audience is expected to remain respectfully silent and the performers dress formally; however, in the past such music was often performed at salons and other informal private gatherings. In addition, the increasing importance of the written transmission of such music has reduced the role of improvisation, which was extremely important through the beginning of the "Romantic" era. Classical music also displays great musical complexity through the use of varied rhythms, chord progressions, counterpoint, and other compositional techniques, while maintaining a deep emotional content.

"Popular music" on the other hand, tends to be more accessible to the general public through the use of simpler forms and relatively simple compositional techniques. Much popular music is the product of modern business enterprise, as opposed to folk music (created by ordinary people for their own enjoyment) or classical music (which was originally written for religious practice or for the entertainment of the nobility).

These two genres; however, are not necessarily distinct, as composers such as [[Johann Sebastian Bach|Bach]] and [[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart|Mozart]] would often incorporate themes from "popular music" of their time into their works. Other classical composers like [[Maurice Ravel|Ravel]] and [[George Gershwin|Gershwin]] were well-known for their use of jazz idiom in works like the Concerto in F for Piano and Orchestra and [[Rhapsody in Blue]]. On the other hand, popular music has borrowed many themes from classical works (one notable example is "A Whiter Shade of Pale" by [[Procol Harum]]). In addition, "popular music" is not necessarily simpler than classical, as forms like jazz and progressive rock make use of complex time signatures that do not often occur in classical works, and some popular musicians like [[Frank Zappa]] are considered serious composers in their own right.

== Music in the Bible ==

The [[Bible]] suggests that music actually began in [[heaven]]. It credits [[Satan|Lucifer]] as being the first musician, and [[Jubal]], son of [[Lamech the Murderer]] by his wife [[Adah]], with introducing music to mankind.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=5|verses=19-21|version=KJV}}</ref>

King [[David]], at the height of his reign, is said to have had a ''four-thousand-voice choir'' to assist in the worship of [[God]]. The Book of [[Psalms]] is a collection of lyrics composed by David for some of the first worship songs in Israelite tradition. The [[Song of Solomon]] may also have been intended to be sung.

Mentions of "singing to the Lord" abound in the [[Old Testament]]. The most specific testimony to the power of music over human emotions is surely contained in the story of King [[Saul]] and how he came to recruit the young [[David]] as his armorbearer and personal musician.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=I_Samuel|chap=16|verses=14-23|version=KJV}}</ref> It has also been theorised that the original meaning of the verb "to prophecy" was "to make music".

== Classical and popular music ==

The division of music into "classical" and "popular" is, like the definition of music itself, a source of controversy. To group music into one category or the other is problematic, as there is an implied value judgment between the two. [[Jazz]], for example, began as a fusion of marching band music (which is close to the classical tradition), folk music, such as the Blues (which is closer to popular music), and ragtime (which was popular music at the time but which is now more often grouped with the classics). Jazz music itself was firmly grouped in the popular tradition until World War Two, but offshoots of it have since become much closer in style to contemporary classical music.

Common criteria used to distinguish between classical and contemporary music are often unreliable, as both can be used for entertainment, for worship, to accompany other art forms such as theatre, for dancing, to relax or motivate people, and for the purpose of making money.

Both forms of music can be used as propaganda, as in some of the works of [[Dmitri Shostakovich]] (although this is debated; see the article on Shostakovich for a more complete discussion).

Many types of music have been used to accompany dancing. This was as true in the past as it is today, all over the world, whether in the discos of American nightclubs or the salsa bars of Latin America. Today, people may [[dance]] to Maddonna (the female recording artist), while a generation ago people were dancing to the works of Duke Ellington and Sammy Nestico. Before that, the waltzes of Strauss were popular, while in the Baroque era (1650-1750), the dance suite was a popular compositional form. Dancing to music, whether melodic or rhythmic in nature, often plays a ritualistic role in societies across the world. Music and dance have been central to the rites of many religions and can be found in some Christian religious traditions as well.

== The power of music over human emotion ==
[[Image:Owana Salazar Classic Music.jpeg|right|240px]]
Music has a very powerful effect on the emotions of the listener. Music relies on [[sound]], and if "faith comes through hearing," then so does emotion. Music can instantly bring joy or sorrow, ecstasy or despair, and far more quickly than can any other form of art. Many musical composers insist that their music merely expresses emotions. This does not do music justice. Music does more than express emotions; it induces them.<ref>[http://www.musica.uci.edu/mrn/V3I1S96.html MuSICA Notes III(1), Spring 1996]</ref>

The amateur botanist Dorothy L. Retallack, in 1973, claimed to have found that music can have an effect on plants. "Positive" music (that produces joy or contentment) supposedly made plants flourish and even "reach" for, or grow toward, such music. Negative music (that produces frustration, restlessness, or especially anger and rage) supposedly caused plants to "recoil" (grow away) from the music, and prolonged or repeated exposure debilitates and eventually killed plants, or so she said.<ref>Retallack, Dorothy L. ''The Sound of Music and Plants''. Devorss and Company, June 1973, 96 pp., paperback. ISBN 0875161707</ref><ref>[http://www.dovesong.com/positive_music/ About Positive and Negative Music] from the Dovesong Foundation</ref>

No botanist has ever reproduced Retallack's claimed results. But the effects on animals and humans are far better documented and much more profound than any effect on plants that Retallack ever claimed. That animals, and especially [[dog]]s and [[cat]]s, recoil in horror from the sound of a poorly trained voice, is proverbial (and in fact the animals might be reacting to a sound that is not merely grating but acutely and physically painful to their ears). The Dovesong Foundation has found evidence for musical preferences by cattle<ref>[http://www.dovesong.com/positive_music/archives/basement/Cows%20and%20Classical%20Music.asp Cows Prefer Classical Music]</ref> and cetaceans.<ref>[http://www.dovesong.com/positive_music/archives/basement/Steinhart_Dolphins.asp Dolphins Don't Like Rock] (The article refers to the classic [[dolphin]] (family [[Cetacea]]), aka "porpoise," not the fish of that name.)</ref>

Music has also had a profound and well-documented effect in human history. The history of warfare includes a rich history of martial music. More recently, music has now found a use in the healing of negative emotional states and even as an aid to the healing of physical disabilities.<ref>[http://www.musictherapy.org/ The American Music Therapy Association]</ref>

Commercial enterprises always attempt, at great expense of time, money, and effort, to find and deploy forms of music that will enhance worker productivity or cause prospective customers to behave in a manner calculated to make them purchase their goods and/or services. The pop selections played in supermarkets are a prime example.
Music played over [[public address]] systems is also used to dissuade [[youth]]s from loitering around [[shopping center]]s and [[railway station]]s.

Music has always been an adjunct to [[theater]]. This is especially true of the performing arts called ''[[opera]]'' and ''[[ballet]]'', but applies also to the use of music as an adjunct to a theatrical production, whether on the stage, as a [[motion picture]], or as a [[television]] show.

Music also has an obvious use in [[propaganda]], in which the propagandist seeks to manipulate people's emotions and stir them typically to rage and hostility against certain groups.

Finally, music can strengthen in the listener a curiosity about, or even a desire for, an act of sexual or other [[sin]].<ref>[http://cranach.worldmagblog.com/cranach/archives/2006/08/draft_linking_s.html Linking Sexual Music and Teen Behavior] by Gene Edward Veith at the [http://www.worldmagblog.com World Magazine Blog]</ref><ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51496 Face the music, parents] at [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ WorldNetDaily] 12 August 2006</ref> Sadly, this use of music is probably as old as "the oldest profession." Cultural critics observe, pointedly, that permissive cultures have permissive music, and non-permissive cultures avoid such music.

Yet for all this, music is still important in worship. If it were not, then it would not have received the favorable attention that the [[Bible]] clearly gives to it. As powerful a force for evil as it might be, music can be an equally powerful force to encourage the listener to worship, appreciate, and above all obey God and keep His laws--at least, as best as any human being is able.

:::::: ''Music washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life.'' Berthold Auerbach.

=== Is music neutral? ===
For a detailed answer, see [[Essay:Music is not neutral]].

== Traditions and principles for liturgical music ==
[[Saint Paul]] specifically exhorts his readers to employ music, and specifically "psalms, hymns, and spiritual odes," to bring them closer to God.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Ephesians|chap=5|verses=19|version=KJV}}</ref> <ref>{{Bible ref|book=Colossians|chap=3|verses=16|version=KJV}}</ref> In this context, a ''psalm'' is not necessarily a chapter out of the Book of [[Psalms]]; it can be any song that primarily quotes any part of Scripture. ''Hymns'' are songs primarily of praise and magnification of [[God]]; they do not, however, directly quote Scripture in most of their lyrics, as "psalms" do. ''Spiritual odes'' are primarily personal testimonies, either of salvation or of one's own perception of God. ''[[Amazing Grace]]'', by [[John Newton]], is a prime example. ''It Is Well With My Soul'', by [[Horatio Spafford]], is one song that has features of a hymn ''and'' a spiritual ode.

[[John Wesley]] too sought spirituality through music and wrote in his Directions for Singing that "Above all, sing spiritually. Have an eye to God in every word you sing. Aim at pleasing Him more than yourself, or any other creature. In order to do this, attend strictly to the sense of what you sing, and see that your heart is not carried away with the sound, but offered to God continually." <ref>http://users.mstar2.net/brucewrites/rules.htm</ref>

The Rev. Alan B. Brown, MDiv, ThM, has studied liturgical music extensively. In his view.<ref>Brown, Alan B.: telephone interview conducted on 1 March 2007 with user [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]</ref> liturgical music ought to satisfy three prime tests:

# Are the lyrics ''accurate'', either when they quote Scripture or reflect [[Christian]] principles?
# Can you properly ''associate'' the lyrics and/or the notes with Godly things, as opposed to worldly things?
# Are the lyrics and/or the notes ''appropriate'' for worship in general, and in the setting of a particular celebration?

The actual notes to the tunes that, say, King David's choir might have sung, or his royal orchestra might have produced, are lost to us today. But the titles of many of the Psalms contain specific instructions, originally to the music director at King David's court, as to the type of tune and the types of instruments required. Archaeologists have recovered coins and other artifacts depicting musical instruments and musicians from various digs in [[Israel]]. The detail has often enabled inventors to reconstruct the instruments likely used by the court orchestras of Kings David and [[Solomon]].<ref name=Rubin>Rubin, Norman A. "[http://www.bibarch.com/Music/Music%20and%20the%20Bible.htm Musical Instruments in Biblical Israel]." ''[http://www.bibarch.com/ Biblical Archaeology]''. Accessed June 2, 2008</ref>

Hymnists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries often set the Psalms and other portions of Scripture to music, often with very good effect. The best-known example is the ''Doxology'' (literally, "study in glory") that is a paraphrase of Psalm 100; the tune is called "Old Hundredth" and remains popular today.

== Controversies surrounding music today ==
[[Image:Harrison-Rucker-Barefoot-Recital.jpg|left|200px]]
Music perhaps has always been controversial, but the controversies surrounding music today rage with particular vehemence. The question of what is, and what is not, music is relatively tame. Different composers have always experimented with different music conventions, and always will. (And perhaps they must.) Many such experiments fail, in that the works produced draw only small audiences, and ultimately no one will play them, because no one will pay to listen to them or to have them played for other people. However, whether or not the 'success' of a musical venture can be ascertained based on the size of the audience it draws is somewhat tenuous, as music subject to much critical acclaim can often be shunned by the wider public in favour of more heavily promoted music.

Rather, the most raging controversy concerns certain genres of popular music that have provoked adverse political comment precisely because of the emotions they incite and the themes they sound, both in lyrics and in notes. Parents of adolescent and pre-adolescent children object to music that explicitly (mainly through its lyrics) exhorts its listeners to sexual sin. Members of various political interest groups object to music that they believe provokes its listeners to show ''disrespect'' for members of those groups.

Some listeners and music critics attempt to defend music as "amoral," that is, morally neutral. They maintain that music exists only for people to enjoy, not to make a political point. For some, indeed, music is an escape. To them, one who tries to infer a serious purpose in a given piece of music ought to abandon the attempt and simply enjoy it for what it is. This attitude recalls [[Mark Twain|Mark Twain's]] famous introduction to [[The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn]]:<blockquote>PERSONS attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot. BY ORDER OF THE AUTHOR, Per G.G., Chief of Ordnance.</blockquote>

The reaction of so many interested parties to various types of popular music today would seem to militate against that stance. Indeed, history is replete with examples of various pieces of music from earlier eras inciting their listeners to violence; [[Maurice Ravel|Maurice Ravel's]] signature work ''Bolero'', for example, was known to incite riots<ref>[http://www.kalvos.org/bazzr086.html Essay 86: Bolero v. Gliere, Round 1] by David Gunn, at Kalvos & Damian's New Music Bazaar</ref>, as was [[Igor Stravinsky|Igor Stravinsky's]] work ''The Rite of Spring''.<ref>[http://www.nottinghamphilharmonic.co.uk/notes/SRS.html The Rite of Spring] by the Nottingham Philharmonic Orchestra</ref>

Riots have also broken out at many rock-and-roll concerts, and often the responding law-enforcement authorities have been at a loss to determine the ultimate causes of those riots. The ''proximate'' cause typically is a one-on-one fight in which other concert attendees joined in—but what put the original combatants into a fighting mood, or causes others to join a fight that was, strictly speaking, not theirs, is far more difficult to explain. Perhaps too many of the listeners are worshiping the performers as if they were [[pagan]] [[idol]]s—a circumstance that, some say, composers like [[Franz Liszt]] and [[Nicolo Paganini]] had to contend with or even chose to exploit. Perhaps the causes have as much to do with the subculture of which rock-and-roll music is a part, as with the music itself. Then, too, no [[physician]] has ever investigated the chronic, or long-standing, effects of a steady aural diet of different genres of music—beyond expressing concern that many listeners are listening to their music too loud and damaging their hearing with the sheer physical stress of the loud sounds. The only signs that anyone can study, if they are signs of anything at all, are the statistics concerning psychological stress affecting, and substance abuse by, performers of various types of music. (Riots do not routinely break out at classical performances—at least, not since the ''Rite of Spring'' riot mentioned above. This might simply be due to wild behavior not being normative on the part of those who routinely patronize such music.)

== See also ==

*[[Classical music]]
*[[Joaquín Rodrigo]]

== External link ==

*[http://www.essortment.com/in/Music.History/index.htm History of Musical Styles and Time Periods]
*[http://library.thinkquest.org/15413/history/music-history.htm Music history]

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

[[Category:Art]]
[[Category:Culture]]
[[Category:Music]]

Rick Benjamin

2008-10-11T14:14:05Z

Baijan: Corrected spelling of "tubist".

'''Rick Benjamin''' is the director and founder of the world renowned The [[Paragon Ragtime Orchestra]]. He has an active career as a pianist and tubist as well as an arranger.

Benjamin was greatly encouraged in his musical career by his grandfather, [[J. Edward Smith]], who played violin, clarinet and piano, among other instruments, throughout his life, and was a musician with the [[Monmouth Symphony Orchestra]], in [[Monmouth County]], [[New Jersey]], for many years until his death. He and his Orchestra continue to perform regularly in Monmouth County venues, where both grandfather and grandson lived.

Benjamin has produced his own CDs and travels around the world as the leader of his orchestra.

Public school culture

2008-10-11T13:42:16Z

Baijan: Undo revision 534018 by Aschlafly (Talk)

'''Public school culture''' is a [[culture]] fostered in [[public school]],<ref>Public schools are the government-controlled schools in the United States. In other countries different terms are used to describe the government schools.</ref> which is characterized by:

*complete [[censorship]] of any [[classroom prayer]]
*a lack of commitment to respect the [[Religion|religious]] [[Civil Rights Movement|civil rights]] of [[student]]s has resulted in "religion-free zones." <ref>[http://www.catholicleague.org/rer.php?topic=Education&id=88 Religious Liberty and the Public Schools], [[Robert P. George]], ''[[Catholic League]]'', October 1999</ref>
*[[sex education]], [[Homosexuality in Schools|homosexual curriculum]] and sexual abuse by school personnel has been referred to as a "red-light district" for students <ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59602 Public schools: The new red-light district?], [[Olivia St. John]], ''[[World Net Daily]]'', January 09, 2008</ref>
*a culture of incompetence <ref>[http://www.maa.org/features/083104pointcallforaction.html POINT: A Call for Action], [[Rick Norwood]], ''[[Mathematical Association of America|The Mathematical Association of America]]'', Accessed May 4, 2008</ref><ref name="Mixed Results">John Merrow, [http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/education/july-dec08/nolaupdate_07-24.html Mixed Results for School Reform Efforts in New Orleans]. ''The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer''. PBS: July 24, 2008</ref>
* fashion that includes black ([[Goth (subculture)|Goth]]) clothing
* facial piercings and rings, [[tattoo]]s, and male earrings
* [[depressed]] demeanors (a so-called "emo" culture amongst some teens)
* an absence of objective [[morality]]; instead, a principal will say someone "made the wrong choice"
* a sense of hopelessness
* a lack of [[critical thinking]] about [[liberal]] [[Indoctrinate|indoctrination]]
* [[compulsive profanity]]
* general inability to look someone in the eye
* extreme [[anxiety]]
* feeling that it is funny to be dumb
* being so accustomed to [[censorship]] of ideas that there is genuine surprise when someone actually says something unfamiliar or [[politically incorrect]]
* lack of awareness that [[prayer]] is censored in [[public schools]] and that teachers' [[Labor union|unions]] are very [[liberal]]
* [[alcohol]] and [[drug abuse]]
* disrespect for teachers
* [[bullying]]
* [[gang]] activity <ref>[http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20080427/NEWS01/899830802/0/biz Gangs recruiting at middle schools], [[Diana Hefley]] and [[Kaitlin Manry]], ''[[Daily Herald]]'', April 27, 2008</ref>
* lack of proper etiquette and manners

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

[[Category:Culture]]

Public school culture

2008-10-11T12:48:09Z

Baijan: Undo revision 533667 by NathanG (Talk)

Public school culture

2008-10-10T22:10:17Z

Baijan:

Public school culture

2008-10-10T22:09:47Z

Baijan:

'''Public school culture''' is a [[culture]] fostered in [[public school]],<ref>Public schools are the government-controlled schools in the United States. In other countries different terms are used to describe the government schools.</ref> which is characterized by:

*complete [[censorship]] of any [[classroom prayer]]
*a lack of commitment to respect the [[Religion|religious]] [[Civil Rights Movement|civil rights]] of [[student]]s has resulted in "religion-free zones." <ref>[http://www.catholicleague.org/rer.php?topic=Education&id=88 Religious Liberty and the Public Schools], [[Robert P. George]], ''[[Catholic League]]'', October 1999</ref>
*[[sex education]], [[Homosexuality in Schools|homosexual curriculum]] and sexual abuse by school personnel has been referred to as a "red-light district" for students <ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59602 Public schools: The new red-light district?], [[Olivia St. John]], ''[[World Net Daily]]'', January 09, 2008</ref>
*a culture of incompetence <ref>[http://www.maa.org/features/083104pointcallforaction.html POINT: A Call for Action], [[Rick Norwood]], ''[[Mathematical Association of America|The Mathematical Association of America]]'', Accessed May 4, 2008</ref><ref name="Mixed Results">John Merrow, [http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/education/july-dec08/nolaupdate_07-24.html Mixed Results for School Reform Efforts in New Orleans]. ''The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer''. PBS: July 24, 2008</ref>
* fashion that includes black ([[Goth (subculture)|Goth]]) clothing
* facial piercings and rings, [[tattoo]]s, and male earrings
* [[depressed]] demeanors (a so-called "emo" culture amongst some teens)
* an absence of objective [[morality]]; instead, a principal will say someone "made the wrong choice"
* a sense of hopelessness
* a lack of [[critical thinking]] about [[liberal]] [[Indoctrinate|indoctrination]]
* [[compulsive profanity]]
* general inability to look someone in the eye
* extreme [[anxiety]]
* feeling that it is funny to be dumb
* being so accustomed to [[censorship]] of ideas that there is genuine surprise when someone actually says something unfamiliar or [[politically incorrect]]
* lack of awareness that [[prayer]] is censored in [[public schools]] and that teachers' [[Labor union|unions]] are very [[liberal]]
* [[alcohol]] and [[drug abuse]]
* disrespect for teachers
* [[bullying]]
* [[gang]] activity <ref>[http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20080427/NEWS01/899830802/0/biz Gangs recruiting at middle schools], [[Diana Hefley]] and [[Kaitlin Manry]], ''[[Daily Herald]]'', April 27, 2008</ref>
* prostitution{{fact}}
* lack of proper etiquette and manners

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

[[Category:Culture]]