Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:Ed Poor

2012-07-20T22:09:10Z

BaileyJ: /* apology. */

Archive:
[[/1|1]]
[[/2|2]]
[[/3|3]]
[[/4|4]]
[[/5|5]]
[[/6|6]]
[[/7|7]]
[[/8|8]]
[[/9|9]]
[[/10|10]]
[[/11|11]]
[[/12|12]]
[[/13|13]]
[[/14|14]]
[[/15|15]]
[[/16|16]]
[[/17|17]]
[[/18|18]]
----

[[Image:Ed poor grinning.jpg|right|thumb|114px|Ed Poor on campus]]



== Writing Plan ==

Hello Mr. Poor,
I would like to submit a writing plan. While I haven't been asked for one, I feel this would best help keep me on task and contribute the most productively. You seem to know an awful lot about this wiki stuff, and I'm still new at it, so if you could help me that would be great.
I think I'd first like to help contribute to the various book articles around the site by adding in examples of the influence of Christianity, as a lot of books have Christian overtones that aren't currently listed. I'm thinking I'd like to start by drawing parallels between the story of Jesus in the Gospels with One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Please let me know if this would be acceptable.--[[User:JeremiahJ|JeremiahJ]] 18:10, 6 January 2011 (EST)

:Probably not. Please email me a draft. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:02, 17 January 2011 (EST)

== Request ==

Hello Mr. Poor, I have submitted a request [[Talk:Atheism#Addition_of_Information_on_Charity_and_External_Links_Request|here]] but it was never attended to. Could you please have a look at it? Thanks, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 23:19, 28 February 2011 (EST)

== Image Upload Request ==

Hello Ed Poor, I hope this message finds you doing well. I was wondering if you could upload [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Young_Galaxy_Accreting_Material.jpg this image] for use in the article I recently created. I look forward to hearing your response. Thanks, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 03:32, 7 March 2011 (EST)
:Hello Ed Poor, could you please add [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] to [[Template:Nb Atheism|this template]]? I really appreciate it! With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 11:14, 7 March 2011 (EST)
::Hello Ed Poor, I need two more images for the article I created which are available [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Independent_assortment_%26_segregation.svg here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:John_Lennox.jpg here]. Recently, [[User:JMR10]] uploaded my previous one, for which I am thankful. Could you ask him to do the same for these two or could you please do these for me? I highly appreciate it. Thanks, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 19:40, 7 March 2011 (EST)

== I seem to have messed up the Ada article ==

My proxy keeps dropping stuff, so the picture at the top is busted. Also, I had to cut down the reference, because the captcha can't make it through. It should have a left bracket, and h,t,t,p, etc., and a right bracket after the "pdf". I wonder if you could please fix it for me. I will contact Andy about getting my IP range restored.

What I was going to put in the talk page (and will do once things get straightened out) is that the two cited articles are very shallow, having only 7 and 3 sentences, respectively. They both refer to a "plan", but that's because the word "program" hadn't been coined in the computer context. She really was the first person to write "code".

I'm sorry about this. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:08, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

:I read her notes, and it doesn't look like a [[computer program]] to me. A charitable view might be that it's a [[specification|spec]], but there's no flowchart and no [[source code]]. Don't be sorry, just get it right. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:21, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

What did you expect this "source code" to look like? The term "source code" implies both a programming language and "machine code" that the source code is assembled or compiled into. Assemblers, compilers, and programming languages wouldn't be invented for another hundred years (by Grace Murray Hopper, John Backus, and others.) The same goes for the other accoutrements of modern software development, like flow charts and specifications. In fact, even the terms "software" and "program" hadn't been invented.

Furthermore, assuming that you accept that she had to write "machine code", what would you expect machine code to look like for a machine that reads its instructions with rods poking through holes in large punched cards running around on a track, and does its arithmetic by counting teeth on turning gears? It wouldn't look much like Intel 586 code.

The fact is, the lines of Ada's written algorithm were intended to be punched into lines of holes in Babbage's cards, once the "analytical engine" was built, which it wasn't.

By the way, what I was being "sorry" for was not the content of my edit, but the fact that an extremely buggy proxy messed up the article and wouldn't let me fix it, despite several tries. Andy has been working with me to fix the network problems, and DMorris fixed the broken picture and hyperlink while my access was broken. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 20:39, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

:Then it would be more accurate to say that she described an algorithm. That's not the same as a computer program, even if she was hoping that Babbage's machine might be programmed to carry out the algorithm.

:An encyclopedia should be precise and unbiased, not used to create "factoids" for use in publicity campaigns, such as promoting [[women in science]].

:I don't say she had to write machine code, but rather to be the "first programmer" she would have had to produce a [[computer program]]. If you have seen it, please show it to me. Otherwise, I'm going to make an editorial decision that she produced an algorithm rather than a program. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:18, 7 April 2011 (EDT)

:*Let's say that [[Ada Lovelace]] wrote one of the first comprehensive descriptions of an algorithm to generate [[Bernoulli numbers]]. But until I see the actual sequence of instructions, including [[if-then]] or [[loop control]] statements, I'd hesitate to call it an actual [[computer program]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:17, 17 May 2011 (EDT)

==The anti-Semitism of liberals==
I love how libs reveal their true selves. No matter what we say or do in describing them, they come here just to confirm it all. So when they want to emphasize "Jew" in "karajou", I'll be more then happy to get a gold Magen David to wear around my neck, join my brothers and sisters in the synagogue every week, and show everyone else just how hate-filled and intolerant these liberals really are. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:20, 12 April 2011 (EDT)

== Please help! ==

Hi! I tried to add the information for Edo to the Tokyo article and for some reason,. it stripped a bunch of stuff out when I saved. Now when I try and revert the edit I made, I keep getting a internal server 500 error. Please can you revert for me? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:19, 14 April 2011 (EDT)
:It's ok, I fixed it! [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:30, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

::I'm glad it worked out for you. My Japanese name is "Edo". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:04, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

== Nice speed on reverts ==

You beat me to every one! Nicely done--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 20:05, 24 April 2011 (EDT)

:Thanks. I'll pass that on to my secret bot. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:10, 24 April 2011 (EDT)

== Thanks for noticing me ==

I must be doing something right. Every time I mention alternate viewpoints, and no one sees fit to revert my edits, I get vandalism to my talk page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:48, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

== Jeb Bush ==

I'm trying to reorganize the information, not leave it out. If you notice, I'm working on the article quite a bit. May I please revert your revision? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:05, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

:Sure. I'm frequently too bold and hasty. And that's the wonderful thing about a wiki. Nothing is ever really deleted; it's all in the article history. Go for it! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:09, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

== Technical question ==

I'm lobbying for a separate namespace for the Conservapedia Bible Project. The idea is that each verse gets its own ''article'', which can be used rather as a template. I see a couple of advantages:
*verses can be quoted more easily: instead of copying the whole verse, only a short link (like <nowiki>{{:CBP:John 20:8}}</nowiki> ) is neccessary to get a neat result: {{:CBP:John 20:8}}
*thereby, the use of the CBP is encouraged over other translations.
*if there is a change in the CBP, the afflicted verses don't have to be tracked down manually, but the change is applied automatically throughout the wiki.

To accomplish this, a new namespace has to be created. That shouldn't be too difficult, as there are only a few exemplary pages prefixed with ''CBP:'' at this moment.

But after this, the namespace has to be filled with the existing translated verses. My question: is your bot up to this task?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:53, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

== madonna ==

Hi, please strongly reconsider your desire to create a "kinder article." In stating that madonna is a person who has changed to being more spiritual you are buying to the liberal media's lies. It sounds like a madonna fan attempting to weave their bias in, which of course you are not. I think you may want to do more research, and read my recent additions as she is still, if not more so, a wicked and hateful person who has sucked millions of children into raunchy culture, dated murderers and mocked our Lord Jesus Christ who gave his life for us. Madonna deserves only the truth.[[User:Legolas2186|Legolas2186]] [[User talk:Legolas2186|Talk]] 13:14, 14 July 2011 (EST)

:And I just had a long conversation with some Wikipedians in Central Park last month, about whether CP is more neutral than WP. Now you want "conservative bias" to denounce [[Madonna Ciccone]]? Not even Wikipedia's BLP policy would allow that.

:I wonder whether you are a liberal '''tempting me''' to add bias, just so you can accuse us of being biased. Well, if so, I choose not to cooperate, my dear elf. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:45, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::I think Legolas here might be a parodist. Would you mind looking into him? [[User:NickP|NickP]] 00:12, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

Ed, your compassion sounds a little misplaced to me. Do you also visit the Fred Phelps, Bernie Madoff, Ted Bundy, and Charles Manson pages asking people for some "Christian charity" to tone those down too? Look into me all you want please. I dislike Madonna because she has mocked our lord Jesus Christ. Conservative people have respect for Christ end of story. The reason society has degraded is by giving raunchy people like madonna a free pass and pity. I'm the one who wants to print the ACTUAL history of madonna that the liberal media has left out such her dating the felon Chris Paciello. I only want the truth about her in the article. Why is that so bad? I thought this was the one place that might allow the truth.[[User:Legolas2186|Legolas2186]] [[User talk:Legolas2186|Talk]] 10:34, 17 July 2011 (EST)
:Ed, can you please look into this guy? He is an obvious parodist. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 15:55, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
First of all - Ed is a senior sysop at this site - I don't know why a few of you have taken upon yourself to post on [[User talk:Aschlafly|Andy's talk page]] when Ed is more than capable of dealing with an alleged parodist on his own. Secondly, just because he is posting radical things on a talk page does not make him a parodist. Looking at his contributions, you ''could'' argue that he is edit warring, but since Ed is simultaneously the user in the revert war and an admin, it is up to his judgement as to whether or not a block is deserving. Your collective alarmism has now spread across three talk pages. That's enough.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:00, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
::@NickP, your very.... quick to call somebody else a parodist. Why not leave that to the pro.'s to decide?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 16:06, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Several others have also pointed out the fact that he acts very suspicious. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:13, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Saying he "acts suspicious" and saying he's a 100% no way im wrong about this Parodist is two completely different things.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 16:16, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::I prefer what Wikipedia old-timers used to call "soft security". Just help me fix the articles in question. Everything will sort itself out. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:34, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

==EdBot==
Ed, I left three (actually six) problem Categories that need some sort of merging at [[User_talk:EdBot]]. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:56, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

:Sorry, EdBot did not survive the MediaWiki upgrades. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:21, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
::Does that mean it's all got to be done manually? Moving 200 entries into another Category?

:::Only if they really have to be moved. (Meanwhile, if anyone has an idea how a bot can "log in" with the new MediaWiki software, let me know.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:33, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Creating_a_bot#Logging_in This] should help. Indeed, the whole [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Creating_a_bot page] is quite interesting. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:40, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

== A request concerning recent events ==

Hi Ed,

I'm very sorry to come to you with this, but I honestly don't know where else to turn at this point. You have always struck me as the voice of reason and level-headedness here.

Simply put: the current altercation on Andy's talk page is out of control. I recognize that I have no authority to tell sysops what they should or shouldn't do, but it seems to me that basic common courtesy calls for not filling up Andy's talk page with arguments and accusations. Moreover, the very public nature of the dispute is encouraging other users to join in. Some of them are doubtless sincere; others, I suspect, may in fact be parodists seeking to fan the flames (I notice a LOT of recently created accounts.)

Regardless, the fact remains that Andy's talk page has been turned into a general forum for accusations and arguments. At this point, it's degenerated to the level where people are making absolutely vicious personal attacks against certain of the participants. (Kudos to JamesWilson for promptly reverting the most egregious of these.)

You know the other sysops better than most of us; you talk to them; I would certainly hope they trust and respect your opinion. Is there anything you can do to persuade them to take a step back, cool down, and wait for Andy to respond at this point? Everyone involved has made their positions clear; further acrimony can serve no useful purpose.

I'm sorry to trouble you with this, but I really feel that this is both inconsiderate to Andy and deleterious to the Conservapedia project as a whole.

Respectfully,

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:05, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:Thanks for the vote of confidence, but shouldn't I check with Andy before barging in? It may be that he prefers to let everyone air their opinions. It is not just his courage but his wisdom and compassion that attracted me to this project. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:59, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

==[[User:MRellek]]==
Ed, per the site owner, Administrators [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=892763 "instructions...are to be followed"] is no longer operable. I have emailed you a copy of Mr. Schlafly's approval. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:32, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

:Oh, sorry. I was hasty. Feel free to unban MRellek, if you feel I was out of line. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:32, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
::Thank you, Ed. I'm trying to get the other sysops to do more warnings & shorter blocks; let's get a sense of community here. After all, we've known many of these editors (the RW neighbors) for several years now. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:37, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

== Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel ==

Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel. I invited someone to edit Conservapedia and they were blocked and they should not have been. I got the block overturned. So I think there is room for improvement in Conservapedia's blocking policy. You can sign up [[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. I invited active Syops/Admins plus people with blocking rights who might wish to be Sysops. If I left anyone out, please let them know about the panel. The people with blocking rights can sign up [[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. The panel will probably convene when Iduan is back from his summer vacation or fairly soon afterwards. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:47, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

:I think I got signed up somehow, after jumping into a discussion.

:Can we have non-sysops on the panel? I'd like to invite a friend from Wikipedia to join it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:00, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

== If I understand correctly, you are the local math expert. ==

If so, maybe you can take a look at [[Relativistic mass|this]] and some of that editor's other contributions. They seem pretty obscure/specialized for the general reader, to me, at least. Thanks! [[User:MrMorganH|MrMorganH]] 10:15, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

:Not an expert, but I know a lot about high school math. Andy's brother knows much more than I do. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:55, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

== Revert ==

Good morning (afternoon?) Ed, why was my comment reverted? I can't see why it should be? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:54, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

:Gosh, you're quick on the trigger. See your talk page for my response. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:58, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::I am indeed quick on the trigger, I like Westerns you see..:-) I have responded to you on my talk-page and re asked the question in a more cordial manner. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:59, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

== The Conservapedia Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings have begun ==

The panel proceeding have begun here: [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings]] You can start making your edits to the page should you wish to do so. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:59, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Farewell ==

Ed, in all sincerity you are by far the most interesting person I have met at Conservapedia. I regret that we couldn't get along better, though we did manage to improve a number of things. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:12, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

:We'd have gotten along better if we more goals in common. Building a trustworthy encyclopedia apparently was not one of them.

:In [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=893745 this drive by attack] you dodged my request for specific instances of the problem you complained of. (Note: saying "all of them" is a a typical liberal dodge. That's like global warming alarmists saying, "Just look at the temperature record; the evidence is all there."

:For those listening in to this fascinating drama, the difference between real science and liberal junk science is that real scientists provide examples of what they're talking about, so that anyone can check it out and see for themselves. Liberals and other pseudoscientists '''pretend''' that they've already made the point.

:It reminds me of Japan, which always (1) says that it "already apologized" for the [[comfort women]] episode while steadfastly (2) refusing ever to admit that it did anything wrong. They are hoping we'll all be too polite to mention that #1 contradicts #2.

:Nice try on the parting shot, but your pretense of trying oh so hard fools no one. You're always welcome to come back if you '''ever''' choose to help this project instead of undermining it with trickery. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:41, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

==Pontiac==
Hi Ed, thanks for your help archiving my page. I know you are very experienced with Wikis, but I was wondering why you removed what I wrote about the government shut down of Pontiac destroying American history. A lot of people were really upset about Pontiac's closure and there are lots of websites and articles proving this, why can't it be in the article? I will differ to your judgement because you are so experienced, but just want to understand your reasoning. --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 22:46, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

:It can't be in the article until you find a way to make it trustworthy. Use references. You can't just write stuff off the top of your head, because you are not an established author. You are in fact an anonymous person, and we don't even know whether Craig is your real name.

:If there's a lot of proof for your assertion, be sure to provide references, like:
:*The New York Times reported that after GM was taken over by the government, brands like Saturn and Pontiac were sold or eliminated (link and/or date)

:If you need help formatting references, lots of people here can help. But '''you''' must supply them. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:43, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
==Pictures==
Hi Ed, how do I add pictures? --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 16:08, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

:You can't add pictures, until you've made enough useful contributions to earn upload rights. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:34, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

::In addition, Craig, you can use [[Conservapedia:Image upload requests]] until you earn uploading privileges. A Sysop will do it for you.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:59, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Ok, I'll work even harder to earn my rights! I also wanted to apologize for being so familiar, my mom pointed out that I should be calling you Mr. Poor. I always call adults by their last names in real life, but on the internet I usually forget. Also thanks Mr. Wilson for your advice about upload requests. --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 13:24, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
::::No worries. I wouldn't mind if you called me James or Jim, but I'm glad your mother has taught you well. Also, you will need a lot more work to earn uploading privileges, just so you know. Happy editing in the meantime!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 14:21, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

== Edit conflict ==

Just got edit conflicted by you on the Morse code page - what are the odds we'd both be working on it! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:19, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

:One thought leads to another ... not such long odds. Sorry about stepping on your work. Feel free to revert, and I'll recover later. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:22, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
::Its all OK, I added my work to your version. Great minds think alike, more like an average mind in my case but you catch my drift...:-) [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:24, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

== signature ==

I hope you don't mind, but I borrowed the format of your signature to use for my own. It's simple and to the point, but looks nice as well, so I thought I would use it as well. Thank you! [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 16:02, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:I copied mine from someone else, so "[[Pay It Forward]]." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:27, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
::Oh, ok. Thanks for letting me know! [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 09:23, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

== like wikipedia? ==

i looked up [[milk]] and [[butter]] how is this conserivtive? is it like wikipedia at all what can i add? ty. --[[User:Rainbowboiz|Rainbowboiz]] 00:35, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:Not unless your spelling improves. And we are not so much "conservative" as [[trustworthy]]. Unlike Wikipedia, we really do try to avoid political bias. Add anything that is correct and useful. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:17, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

== Meat Loaf ==

I know his stage name is much better known (I'm writing the article on him, obviously), but wouldn't you think using the subject's real name is more appropriate for an encyclopedia? If you think the article should be titled under his stage name, you're the boss, but I thought I might want to point that out. Thanks!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 11:14, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

== Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage ==

Please help me as I am fairly new to this wiki. I have attempted to propose a discussion for deletion on this particular page. Before disccussing this, I have followed the instructions on templates via the help index [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Articles_for_deletion]] to add it to a discussion for deletion but this does not seem to work so I have not proceded further - with hindsight I should have guessed there was something wrong by the lack of entries on this page.
My reason for wishing to commence this discussion is that I suspect the article (created by a user who does not appear to have an active talk page) seems to me to be parody and trolling to debase the credibility of this project. In my opinion, most of the logic followed in nearly every assertion is spurious and often uses blatant synthesis that a ten year old could question. It is to such an extent that I don't think an "improved" version would be posible. Of course, others may have different oppinions which is why I am trying to be fair and open it for rational discussion. What is the correct procedure? Thank you in advance - answer to my talk page [[User:DavidMilton|DavidMilton]] 19:54, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

:I'm not sure what the correct procedure is. Maybe you could post on the talk page, showing a few examples of "spurious" assertions. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:46, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

::Ok I can do this, but I'm surprised that hte Help feature supplies a redundant page on discoussing articles for deletion. I was also under the impression that you had Sysop/Admin powers and would be familiar with such policies as it is a feature on other wikis. [[User:DavidMilton|DavidMilton]] 13:31, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Actually I know policy fairly well and do have Sysop/Admin powers. Either provide the requested examples, or drop the matter. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:47, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

== Sid 3050 ==

Sid 3050 was blocked for three month for ''trolling''. The only edit he made during the day before his block seems to be to answer to your question in a section above (''So, will it go away if you ignore it?'') - see his [[Special:Contributions/Sid 3050|list of contributions]]. You had personally addressed this comment (''But I'll take a look at Sid's material below now, just to be a good sport.''), so you should be able to judge whether such a comment is ''trolling''. Could you please review Sid's block? In a timely fashion? Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:17, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

:Sid was trolling. Whether this justifies a three month block is up to the admin in question.

:I'm always open to suggestions for making Conservapedia more trustworthy. If you have anything specific in mind, please speak up.

:Of particular interest to me would be any material relating to the contrast between conservative and liberal viewpoints on American political issues, as well as philosophy, religion and science. To my regret, repeated invitations to include users who are ideological opponents of this project have not met with an enthusiastic response. It's almost as if they wish to conceal their ideological differences; ironically, this could be seen as self-censorship.

:If anyone wants to describe liberal POV here they may, provided only that it is clearly labeled as such - not presented as gospel. This should not be an onerous requirement: it's the same as Wikipedia's NPOV policy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:42, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

== Vandalism ==

Help! A user called CortA is currently vandalising articles. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:15, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

:OK, Andy blocked him. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:17, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

== Misled by RonLar ==

I was quite astonished by your last actions. I slept over it and want to clarify my earlier remark.

*I'd appreciate if you would be less generous with your slight innuendos (''"thanks for nothing!"'', ''"misled by RonLar"''): these make it difficult to assume ''good faith'' on your side. And they have the annoying tendency to backfire...

*my statement ''"Where is the right place to propose an alternative viewpoint? Surely not in the article itself, but on its talk-page. This is a simple necessity for all protected articles, but a good idea for most of those articles some sysops feel strongly about."'' is hardly misleading - even though it is not written by a native speaker! In fact, it is echoing the sentiments of Conservapedia's [[Conservapedia:Editing etiquette|editing etiquettes]]:

:::* '''You should discuss changes made by an Administrator before reverting their edits. Administrators are charged with seeing that article content is in line with Conservapedia guidelines. [[Edit war]]ring with an Administrator usually results in a temporary block.'''
:::* '''You should not alter the editorial content of an article away from a [[conservative]], or [[Christian]], or [[family friendly]] "tone" without discussing proposed changes on the talk page.'''
:::*'''Never make substantial edits to an article without discussing your changes first on the talk page. If you have a reasonable expectation that other editors will accept your change(s), the changes are just formatting / copy editing, you should proceed.'''

*Inserting an alternative viewpoint is most certainly a ''substantial edit'' - and the etiquettes advise you to discuss such an edit at first on the talk-page.

*So, I made a true statement, in accordance with Conservapedia's policy on editing, and you '''misread''' it. To reiterate: You weren't '''misled''', you simply '''misread''' it. And this misunderstanding (of your part) you took as a reason to erase the whole section and seemingly not to read the rest of my comment? Deleting a section on censorship is always a little bit ironic...

*BTW: whether the article is protected or not is not of any interest for the discussion of censorship! A library does not only censor the books it throws from it shelves, but the books it doesn't allow into it shelves in the first place!

*I put the whole section up [[User:RonLar|here]], so you can read it carefully again. Take your time, but nevertheless, react timely - you said that would be important....

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 12:05, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:At this point, I think it's become abundantly clear that complaining about censorship will get you nowhere. I realize users will come up and be frustrated by certain site traditions, but that's just the way Conservapedia is run, RonLar.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 13:41, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

::Sorry, I thought you were saying the article was protected.

::Also, I'm astonished to think that you consider adding alternative viewpoints to be something that has to be '''cleared''' with a sysop first. My understanding of project policy is that all contributors are free to describe non-conservative, non-Christian views ... especially on an article describing a controversy between the two sides.

::Has someone told you you can't describe the liberal or secular viewpoint on some topic? (Or did you try to sneak in such a viewpoint without proper attribution)? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]]
[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:38, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

:::*Apology accepted. Perhaps you could revert your reaction to this misunderstanding by reintroducing the section which you erased from your talk-page?
:::*Please read [[User:RonLar#Again, the previous example of ideological censorship, in detail]] - all of it, not only the first sentence. This should answer some of your questions.
:::*Please address the incident which I mentioned there.
:::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 16:56, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Eh? I thought you wanted help. Please answer my question: Has someone told you you can't describe the liberal or secular viewpoint on some topic? (Or did you try to sneak in such a viewpoint without proper attribution)? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:39, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::How is it a sensible use of my time to answer new questions when you seem to ignore my answers to your old ones? Please remember your statements:
:::::{{Cquote|
:::::''Unless you can show at least one diff, where a senior editor censored something ... merely because it disagreed with some conservative shibboleth ... than you ought to stop saying this. I address this not so much to you, as to those who follow you or travel alongside you.'' }}
:::::and
:::::{{Cquote|
:::::''I asked for an instance of ideological censorship.''}}
:::::Well, you find it here: [[User:RonLar#Again.2C_the_previous_example_of_ideological_censorship.2C_in_detail]] Of course I am willing to answer any question concerning this specific example of censorship, especially those which indicate that you read the whole comment.

:::::Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 02:41, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Nearly two weeks later: Did you take a look? Or even better, did you read the whole thing? [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 18:17, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

== Anti-Clancy cracks? ==

In general I'm a Clancy fan but I think some of the criticism you removed was valid. For example by the time he wrote "The Bear and the Dragon" his standards of research had perceptibly dropped (The AH-64 has a 20mm gun? Really?) and "Red Rabbit" and "The Teeth of the Tiger" were frankly rubbish. Maybe some of the criticisms should stay? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:09, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

:Anything can stay if properly sourced: X said Y about Z. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:10, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

::What would be an acceptable source? I have all Clancy's books; would they be acceptable sources for pointing out declining standards of technical accuracy? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:20, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

:::LOL, '''your''' interpretation of Clancy's writings would be (what is called at Wikipedia) original research. If you don't know what I meant by 'properly sourced', then you're unqualified to contribute anything further to this project. If you do know, you're just toying with me. Godspeed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:23, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough. What I'd do is reference both Clancy's books and technical sources that contradict them, such as the fact that the AH-64 does NOT have a 20mm gun. Like I said I'm generally a Clancy fan - "Without Remorse" may just be the best thriller ever written - but his last few books have been a bit disappointing and his research has definitely slipped. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:28, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

::::What I would propose is to remove the comments about "The sum of all fears" - a nuclear weapon could be built with a table saw and a small lathe, never mind optical milling equipment - but keep and expand on the comment about the declining level of technical accuracy. The divergence of the Ryanverse from reality isn't important because it IS fiction, but the declining level of research and tendency towards unrealistic assessments of real-world capabilities IS important. For example "The Bear and the Dragon" is utterly unrealistic even in the Ryanverse. If China invaded Russia they'd get about ten feet over the border before being annihilated. The fortifitions on the Sino-Russian border make the Maginot line look like a sand castle on the beach, and they were actually designed by strategic thinkers. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:44, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

On second thought, maybe I'm being too hard on you. I recently started tutoring schoolchildren, and I'm learning to be more patient with their quaint notions. After all, making wrong guesses and getting them corrected is often the best way to learn. Shall I not condescend to grant you the same grace? ;-)

I've read all Tom Clancy's [[Jack Ryan]] and [[John Clark]] novels. I always assumed that any discrepancies were inserted on purpose; Clancy certainly would have no reason to put correct information on how to make a suitcase-sized nuclear bomb in his books: what conservative would want to inspire a copycat crime?

If you want to include "criticism" by some published author who says an attack helicopter does or does not have a certain sized gun, go ahead. He's also not very accurate about the software used in the stock market, although it was a key plot element in ''[[Debt of Honor]]''. (Come to think of it, if a man knew everything and wanted to make money betting on horse races, he would know not to put all his winnings on the next race ("[[John Doe]]" TV series pilot). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:56, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

== Language ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Big_Bang_theory Language like this] makes me extremely uncomfortable: "when grownups talk", "woman's logic is strange, don't you think", etc. (especially this in his earlier statements: "and being educated briefly by my grandpa in matters "of faith", mostly about "Catholic errors", and the absolute need to be trufhful, my concern was that the Catholics are wrong on one more point since the Big Bang was proven wrong in 1985")

First, I am not a woman. My identity is very well known and I am quite easy to find. Ottava means eight, and Ottava Rima means Eight Rhyme, a type of rhyming pattern used in Italian epic poetry. Second, his language is condescending, misogynistic, religiously bigoted, etc. Third, his claims about the Big Bang Theory are rather strange, conspiratorial, and nothing I have ever heard by any legitimate scientist. I cannot honestly believe that he is a real conservative but I believe he is a plant just like many of the people who vandalize. His job is to produce some of the most absurd stuff to try and make conservatives look awful. If I am wrong, I am wrong, but his language does not seem like something that is appropriate. I talked to Geoff Plourde about this quite a bit tonight because it bothered me a lot. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 22:44, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== Um ==

[[Atheism and obesity]] - is this a joke? It seems to be just a list of fat atheists. It even has random tidbits like "Chuck Norris endorses the Total Gym exercise system.[59]" I know many priests who are overweight, and many religious people who are. I know many atheists who are ultra thing and anorexic.

"Christian and Library of Congress researcher's explanations of reports of UFOs " How would that even deal with atheism and obesity? Yet it is in there.

The page looks like it was created to make Conservapedia and conservatism look really bad. Sigh. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 22:58, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

:User:Conservative is good at attracting readership to this website. The [[Atheism and obesity]] seems to me a bit of payback for the liberals who call Rush Limbaugh a big, fat idiot. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:57, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

::And in his payback, he demeans everyone who is overweight, including myself. I've dealt with mean-spirited behavior from people about weight the majority of my life - there is no acceptable reason for being hostile about the issue. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:53, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

== You were looking for ideological censorship? ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bestiality&curid=88619&diff=920267&oldid=920266 easy to find] --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 23:52, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

:Not as easy as you say. See [[Talk:Bestiality]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:44, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

== Senior Admin assistance ==

Hi Ed, I would like to bring something to your attention as a senior administrator. I have been in private communication with User:SamCoulter over the last few weeks. There is nothing in his attitude and comments to me in private and his behaviour here on Conservapedia to suggest this user is anything but sincere. He was recently blocked for the edit [http://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/SamCoulter here] (the last edit he made - I will not link directly to it because the topics are extremely offensive and not family friendly). For this effort he was blocked for three months. His edit was a) relevant b) correct according to the article linked and c) was a link which was on the front page already. It seems that some users wanted to quote the article without implying the articles conclusions as they were at loggerheads with a users personal opinion. I don't think the user should have been blocked but now he is I won't remove it but I do believe that 3 months is extremely heavy-handed. I don't want to create controversy so I will not chnage the block myself but I am bringing this up with you and User:Karajou also (I am unable to contact the blocking sysop). Thank you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:11, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Keep him blocked. He vandalized twice. In fact, I am going to increase the time blocked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:02, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Do you have evidence of this vandalism? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:04, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::If you want to defend those recent contributions be my guest. If you want to wrangle with me about them, it is not going to happen. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:09, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::I tell you now '''there was no vandalism''' you are blocking a user for adding sourced and factual material. You are blocking him for no reason! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:09, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

Sorry, but it's actually very easy to avoid a block. I suggest you start coaching new users about courtesy, project goals, etc.

I myself disagree with the project goals of RW, but they haven't given me any long blocks. Why? Because I follow their rules in their house.

Adolescents often have trouble figuring out what the rules are, or trouble realizing the benefits of following them. (In the long run, civil disobedience campaigns against beneficial institutions such as Democracy and Free Markets simply backfire.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:52, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

:I respectfully disagree with you. It's incredibly ''easy'' to get blocked on this site, because honestly, it appears to depend on the whim of the blocking editor (doesn't like what's being said because it's contrary to the blocking editor's opinion, got up on the wrong side of the bed, had a fight with someone in real life and are taking it out on editors here at CP.) You yourself just handed out an ''infinite'' block for ''defending'' someone.

:Many editors, myself included, have protested User:Conservative's articles and his method of defending them. If anyone objects, he automatically deems them an atheist/evolutionist, etc., which at least in my case, is far from the truth. I object to several things. First, his use of "obese" as a ''ad hominem'' attack against people whose ideas he disagrees with. I've dealt with bullying behavior about weight most of my life, and have tried to point out to him how hurtful his taunts are, but he thinks it's amusing, and the other sysops here (yourself included) appear to agree. I'm all for a good discussion about ''ideas'', but when the attacks become personal, and all-inclusive, then yes, I'm going to protest.

:Second, most of the articles are just ''badly, badly written''. They meander ''miles'' away from the original topic, they tend to be a bunch of quotes lumped together, and in many of them, the point that he's trying to make is missed completely. The actual subjects might be valid, and important enough to warrent an article on them, but creating 10 articles that say the same thing, and that can (and should) be consolidated into one, '''''well-researched and well-written document''''', is just poor scholarship. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 12:53, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

::Well, thank you for not giving me an excuse to block you! ;-) Very well written . . .

::As I've said elsewhere, [http://ameriwiki.wikkii.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=4073&oldid=4071] I disagree with the stance of "the admin" who is making ''[[ad hominem]]'' attacks on atheists; I think it's a misguided attempt to attract readership.

::If anyone's had a '''good''' edit reverted for a bad reason, they can just let me know. Just remember: if anyone is criticizing to condemn, I'm not interested, but if they want me to change things, I'm the man who can do it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:03, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

== BrentH's block ==

I see you blocked BrentH for trolling and reverted 2 of his edits. He linked [[Professor]] to an existing article here on CP, [[Professor values]]. Why was that trolling? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:55, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
:Perhaps prior edits?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:01, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
::User: Ed Poor did not appreciate the section right above this one--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 21:14, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
:::BrentH made a perfectly reasonable and respectful suggestion. It would appear from the edit history that he was referring to an article about Winona Ryder, created by Ed Poor, which contained one piece of trivia but no basic information regarding the person whatsoever. What BrentH said is simply common sense, and I too cannot see how this can justify a block. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 22:45, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Indeed, certain longstanding members of this community seem to have rather thin skin. I did not see BrentH's post as offensive or out of line--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 22:54, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

== This is an encyclopedia. ==

You wrote that on my talkpage. ''This is an encyclopedia.''. Well, if it is articles like [[bestiality and Britain]] ahould be deleted because, as I have pointed out numerous times, it has nothing to do with bestiality and Britain. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:27, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

:Article deleted. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=Ed+Poor&page=&year=&month=-1&hide_patrol_log=1]
::Hey thanks Ed. Just for the record though I wasn't "bothered" by the content so much as bothered by the ''lack'' of content. As the commandments say - everything must be true and verifiable which that article clearly wasn't. Many thanks. I must admit - I have a lot of respect for you and karajou. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:54, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Ed, evolution was birthed in Britain and secularism has grown rampant in their country. Now their society is a mess and there is rioting in the streets. In addition, the'' Guardian'' just published a puff piece on bestiality. I say enough is enough and it's time their moral rot is exposed. I realize that pointing out that folly and consequences of atheism/evolutionism annoys liberals, but so what. Not only are they grossly and obviously in error, but atheists/evolutionists have shown themselves [[Atheism and cowardice|to be timid little bunnies]]. I restored the article because I feel confident that Conservapedia can stand up to foolish and timid little bunnies. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:21, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Enough with the insults conservative. I am neither a liberal nor an atheist and am sick to death of you accusing me of such. The article has nothing, I repeat '''nothing''' about the practice in Britain. I say again '''nothing'''. You poor scholarship is on show and we can ''all'' see it. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:02, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::Ed, a Brit was trying to bring over his deviant farming practices to the United States as can be seen [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7600523/British-man-51-arrested-at-bestiality-farm.html HERE]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:28, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::You misread the article, Conservative. The Oregon farm is owned by an American. The British man was visiting it. Read [http://www.examiner.com/headlines-in-seattle/seattle-convicted-cocaine-smuggler-arrested-likely-into-bestiality-liking-sex-with-animals here] for a version of the story that makes who owned the farm clearer.
[[File:Keldaby goats.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|An exclusive British art gallery was criticised for displaying a highly offensive bestiality oriented painting which featured a [[goat]] just yards from The Ritz hotel and where it could be seen by children.- The Daily Mail online (MailOnline), August 5, 2011 ''The explicit art that shows bestiality with a goat just yards from The Ritz'']]
::::::::There is no way I'd let children any where this site with Conservatives despicable articles all over the place. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:54, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::Max, I heard Oregon was pretty liberal. It figures the farm was in Oregon. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:30, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::I heard that most states are pretty liberal... But that doesn't make the rumors true. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 22:34, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
Oregon voted for Obama plus fairly recently they had the most atheists per capita in the United States. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:57, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
:Omaha, Nebraska also voted for obama but calling it liberal is very silly--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:58, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/25/new-poll-identifies-most-liberal-and-conservative-states/ Oregon is liberal] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:07, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
:I'm slightly confused as to why it's relevant or not that Oregon is liberal. After all the state DOES have a law against bestiality, so that argues against liberals being tolerant of it. --[[User:ColSharp|ColSharp]] 08:33, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
::Since when do liberals obey the laws on the books in the first place? This photo [http://www.conservapedia.com/File:1915b7ec753fa9d0352885dc23da4469.jpg] is proof that liberals have no intention of obeying laws regarding littering. They trashed Washington D.C. ''when they got their way'', January 20, 2009. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:10, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
:::There's a law in New Jersey about recycling, yet I know several conservatives who refuse to recycle. Why is this? [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 13:26, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

== Request for Admin assistance ==

To all senior admins and sysops. I am being repeatedly abused by user:conservative who, among other things, accuses me continuously of being an atheist simply because I point out some of the holes in his articles. See [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=113357&diff=924642&oldid=924636 here for the latest accusation]. I have asked him numerous times to desist with his sneering name calling as I find it offensive to have my faith questioned and nothing is ever done. He state’s I am atheist because I don’t agree with some of his ridiculous contentions. In actual fact it isn’t even that I disagree with him it is that I point out his shoddy research, poor scholarship and his berating, insulting and sarcastic behaviour towards others. I am of the opinion now that he is purposely calling me names because he knows I don’t like it which is unchristian, impolite and, above all, insulting. Is anyone going to teach this man some manners? Has Conservapedia become a place where Conservative is allowed to behave this way without any warning or comeuppance but all other editors and warned and blocked for minor infractions. He is in continual violation of the commandments yet NOTHING is done whereas people like myself are always watching out to avoid being banned. Well, fine, ban me if you like. I probably will be after this posting and no doubt Conservative will cackle with glee at “winning” again. But laugh Conservative, you win nothing. I post this is full knowledge that I might be blocked banned and insulted by you in my absence and I have always remained polite and civil plus I can hold my head up high. Hopefully one of you will take a stand and insist on standards of civility. But I don’t hold out much hope. Thanks, many of you were kind, decent people whom I enjoyed working with and I pray for you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:21, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
:I am disappointed in you most of all Ed. Coming from wikipedia and being the first to jump on others for incivility you ignore when it comes to the ruling chaste of Conservapedia. You should be ashamed. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:48, 12 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Max, I think you assume entirely too much about my dispositions. You really don't know what extent I "cackle" or if I "cackle" at all. You also don't know what value I place on "winning". In fact, you don't even know if I am one person or a team. I/we remain inscrutable. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:24, 12 October 2011 (EDT)
::::User:Conservative, this is getting silly. You wrote for instance:
::::::''Actually KhalidM, I have a very outgoing personality and a university professor friend of mine told me that I would make a great administrator because I can be very diplomatic. While I realize that I will never cultivate a large atheist or liberal fan club, I can live with that. Conservative 20:34, 5 October 2011 (EDT) ''
::::So, while your grammatical gender may be undetermined, your number isn't. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:44, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

== King George I ==

The article of [[King George I]] was deleted as a ''creation of vandals''. On the talk page I read the comment of User:RJJense: ''I added much new text, all of which I wrote, and previously posted on Citizendium.'' I looked up the article at Citizendium and it seemed to be quite informative - certainly not vandalistic! Could it be restored? I'd like to insert a valid link into [[elector]]s.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:57, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
:::I restored the last version by RJJense. I feel confident that his last version was a good article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:34, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks - it really seems so! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:57, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

=="New Ordeal"==
Hello, I noticed that you placed the quotation marks around the term "New Ordeal." As you have probably noticed I have been attempting to fix that article. Quite frankly, the article is pretty bad to start with and several of the references that prior authors cited have nothing to do with the topic. Do you know if there is procedure in which this article may be recommended for deletion? --[[User:Padams|Padams]] 15:33, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

:Better to mark it as an essay. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:31, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

== Block of AugustO ==

I looked at [[Conservapedia:Editor's_guide#If_you_get_blocked]]:

''If you get blocked, it's probably because you (1) broke the rules and (2) ignored hints, requests and/or warnings. So the first thing you should do is review your communications with others here, particularly those who are admins. Have you been trying to get along by following our practices and supporting our goals, or have you been trying to change our ways? If you are new here, it's best to go along to get along. After you have contributed a lot, we'll be more likely to listen to your suggestions, but breaking the rules will just end up with eliminating you from the project. ''

::*I can't think of any rule which I broke
::*I was requested to ''to do some charitable work somewhere instead''. I'm already engaged in such work, so this doesn't apply...
::*I don't try to ''change our ways''. I try to correct factual errors (e.g., ιδού can be translated as ''at this moment'' or that it is right to call ''Carolus Martellus'' the grandson of ''Carolus Magnus''.)

''Perhaps upon reflection you may realize that you'd rather be part of the project than insist on your own way. You might want to apologize and get unblocked. ''

::*I don't insist on my own way and I apologize if anyone feels insulted by my criticism.

''If you want to discuss your block, '''do not create a new account'''. Rather, use one of the following methods to appeal the decision (listed in order of preference). ''

::*Here, I obviously failed.

1. ''Contact the person who blocked you (see below).
::*tried
2. ''If you get no reply after a reasonable amount of time, you may contact any Administrator.
::*tried
3. ''Email cpwebmaster@conservapedia.com giving the name of the Administrator or editor who blocked you, and the date, and it will be forwarded on to them.
::*tried

''If you contact more than one person about this, please do them the courtesy of letting them know who else you have tried contacting. ''
::*This should be obvious from the header of my emails.

''Contacting an Administrator or editor can usually be done by one of the following methods: ''
*''Use the "Email this user" link in the toolbox. This, however, will only work if both you and the Administrator or editor have enabled this on your/their respective accounts.
*''The Administrator or editor may have provided an email address or other contact information (e.g. AIM) on their user page.

::*This section seems to be obsolete: ''email this user'' doesn't work for any of the administrators I tried to reach. And I couldn't get Ed Poor's email address via his user page. So we are in a [[Catch 22]] kind of situation...
::*I emailed to <code>aschlafy@aol.com</code>, <code>conservapedia@zoho.com</code> and <code>cpwebmaster@conservapedia.com</code>. I didn't get any reply (is 1-2 days a ''reasonable amount of time'' to wait? I thinks so...) to my short email which stated: ''I understand that my criticisms of CBP and the World History Lectures are quite unwelcome, but they are hardly trolling! I'd appreciate if you lift my block.''
::*So I decided to create a new account to appeal the block, hoping that the advice against this action is as obsolete as other sections of the ''editor's guide''.
[[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 07:56, 26 October 2011 (EDT) (AugustO)
:::August, I think you should start a career in sales. You certainly have the persistence to be a good salesman. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:47, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

Ed Poor, the block of AugustO is now more than a week old. I tried to reach you via various channels - could you please lift the block as the stated reason ("trolling") doesn't apply? [[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 11:09, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

:Please get a [[writing plan]] from him and get it to me, and I'll consider it. Meanwhile, any sysop is free to unblock him. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:01, 31 October 2011 (EDT)
::Is that any official Sysop, or anyone with Block rights? I'd be happy to unblock Mr O so that he can post his writing plan.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:25, 1 November 2011 (EDT)
:::On second thoughts, perhaps I'll just go ahead. Please reverse my action if I'm overstepping the mark.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:33, 1 November 2011 (EDT)

*Thanks for the unblock!
*I read the article on the [[writing plan]], and I'll try to provide you with one. This would be easier if a ''sample plan'' were provided. But nonetheless, here it is:

Mainly I'm interested in the CBP. Mind you, I'm not ''Junker Jörg'', I'm not capable to create a translation on my own which stands for hundreds of years. But I think that translating the Bible in a group, and extensively discussing your work is a marvelous way to get a greater insight into the ''Book of books''. While doing so, I try to dig into what Conservative calls the ''ANE culture'', as you can see [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#Issue_with_translation_of_John_4:53|here]], where I try to shed light on timekeeping during the Roman empire.

When I came here, I thought that there would be a group of likewise interested individuals, but at the moment there seems to be only one other editor with similar interests.

As my approach to the CBP generates quite a few edits on talk-pages, I balance these with edits to articles. These tend to by connected somehow with my namesakes (August of Saxony, Ernest August of Hanover), the history - or just happen on pages where I read something which puzzled me :-)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:21, 8 November 2011 (EST)

== Abortion issue ==

It would be a great idea to merge the articles. In fact, if you were interested in expanding the article, I might be interested in helping.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 14:28, 29 October 2011 (EDT)

:Yes, please help me organize this. We should give prominence to conservative views, but let's steer away from censoring liberal views. It would be nice if liberals could see '''why''' conservatives believe differently. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:43, 29 October 2011 (EDT)
::OK!--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 14:48, 29 October 2011 (EDT)
::I merged the articles and added a bit on abortion and political ideology. How is it?--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 21:53, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

==Thanks for the change but==
perhaps it should be bed bugs (plural), and now when i make an edit and it goes thru, if i try to make another one i get "Someone else has changed this page since you started editing it" but no one has. Going back to page and trying anew results in the same. 3.1: longetivity should be longevity.

Jesus is Lord, thanks[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 07:58, 5 November 2011 (EDT)

== Blocking policy improvement panel member - please give your feedback here ==

Blocking policy improvement panel member - please give your feedback [http://conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Panel_members.2C_please_give_your_feedback_below HERE]

Your assistance would be much appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:05, 16 November 2011 (EST)

:I have explained my ideas in private email to you and Andy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:50, 11 December 2011 (EST)

== a few messages to you ==

There are a few messages to you here: http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Air_superiority [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:14, 26 May 2012 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

Thanks for picking up some of my "wiki litter" that I left behind (redirects to non-existent pages). I will try to be more diligent as far as not littering in the future. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:22, 11 June 2012 (EDT)

:You're welcome. And don't bother yourself: it's better for you to focus your time on building the wiki, while less talented contributors like myself do the routine housekeeping.

:If I had your writing skill, I'd be making whole article like you do. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:34, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

== A message to you from Cipe ==

Fixing a MediaWiki message:

Hello,

Could you perform the edit I described [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&oldid=992864#Edit_request here, on very bottom of the page]? I asked Aschlafly but he's probably busy now.

Best [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 15:33, 13 July 2012 (EDT)
::I know the basics of Wiki coding and not the advanced level coding. I would ask someone else. Try Ed Poor. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:32, 13 July 2012 (EDT)
:::Unfortunately, I cannot edit Ed's talk page. Could you suggest someone different? Or message him?

:::The change is rather small and requires only copy-and-paste. More directly: you can copy contents of this: [[User:Cipe/MW_fix]] to: [[MediaWiki:Revision-info]]. Even if my suggestion is wrong, it can be reverted, so there is no danger. [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 16:41, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

Okay, I did it. But where can I see the results? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:53, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

Thank you very much. You'll see it when checking older revision. Here is an example: [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&oldid=991546].

I noticed that MediaWiki has a different message when you're checking current revision. I'll prepare fix in a moment. [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 17:55, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

:The message seems to have logged me out. I think it needs fixing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:56, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

::I also got logged out, but only once. I can consistently see the new message now. Perhaps the software logs out when a edit to MediaWiki is made. Could you please copy [[User:Cipe/MW fix 2]] to [[MediaWiki:Revision-info-current]]? I promise it's the last change :) It is shown for a permalink to current revision. [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 18:08, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

:::I don't think that's it. I think you need to put the '''www.''' in front of '''www.conservapedia.com''' --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:09, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

::::It seems to work. I can see the messages: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&oldid=991546 for past revisions] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&oldid=992065 for current revision]. Thanks for changing. [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 18:19, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

== Thank you for unlocking your talk page ==

I really appreciate being able to get in contact with you directly when the circumstances arise. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 18:39, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

== Thank you ==
Now he can try to justify what he said about the article. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 14:29, 14 July 2012 (EDT)

== File:GoreFireBreathing.jpg ==

Do you think it would be appropriate to use this image in the [[Current TV]] article? It's already in Gore's main article, so why not include it in the article about his obscure TV network on channel 9800 on my TV? --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 20:35, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

== apology. ==

Hey, I just wanted to apologise for the comments I made related to you, they were impolite and unnecessary. I don't have anything against you or anything, I just posted something that I thought was relevent without thinking how it would be taken by anyone other than myself, as it happened they were rude and quite personal. I acknowledge that I behaved quite badly, and in future I will try to avoid giving you, or others, offense. So..... virtual handshake?[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 06:18, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

:Oh, don't be so dramatic. Just comment on the articles and issues of the day, and forget about personalities. That's how this project's supposed to run. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:33, 18 July 2012 (EDT)
::lol. Nah it's difficult to tell over the internet how people are reacting, so for all I knew you could have been quite insulted or something, and I had to make sure that I was being very clear. Anyway, cool[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 01:03, 19 July 2012 (EDT)

:::I'm not sure you get it: We don't want personal remarks on this wiki, clear or not. You need to be clear only about one thing: what you intend to write about an article topic. You must not comment on other users in any way. Is '''that''' clear? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:01, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

::::Mr. Poor, Conservapedia is a community. (At least it is supposed to be.) Don't you think it is reasonable for members of a community to discuss one another's actions and views, whether it be for educational purposes or to improve the project, as long as they are being civilized? With all due respect, I think you are overreacting about most of these "personal comments" that you are purging from the site. --[[User:BaileyJ|BaileyJ]] 18:09, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Water into Wine

2012-06-17T01:53:56Z

BaileyJ: Created page with "Isn't it likely that the liquid was observed visually before it was tasted? --~~~~"

Isn't it likely that the liquid was observed visually before it was tasted? --[[User:BaileyJ|BaileyJ]] 21:53, 16 June 2012 (EDT)

Basilica

2012-05-12T23:31:53Z

BaileyJ: Basilicas in Roman Catholicism

A '''basilica''' is a [[Christian]] structure designed for worship. It consists of a lengthy, rectangular shape having an [[apse]] at one end. It is divided by a row of columns and surrounded by an aisle. Windows in the upper part of the central [[nave]] provide lighting. The altar is within or before the apse that arches from the nave. Its width is never greater than one-half its length.

In [[Roman Catholicism]], basilicas are large and important [[churches]] designated by the [[Pope]].

The shape of the basilica resulted from the ancient conversion of pagan structures into Christian use.

[[Image:Basilica OLOG.jpg|290px]]

Basilica de [[Our Lady of Guadalupe|Guadalupe]].

[[Category:Christianity]][[Category:Places of Worship]]

Church

2012-05-12T23:27:02Z

BaileyJ: See also: basilica

{{Christianity}}
[[File:Church of St. Anne in Budapest WC PD.jpg|thumb|left|Church of St. Anne in Budapest, [[Hungary]].]]
A '''church''' is a building in which worship, usually of a [[Christian]] nature, takes place.

A church that contains the seat of a bishop is designated a [[cathedral]]. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/+Cathedral]

Sometimes the term "Church" is used to refer to a collective Christian body such as the [[Catholic Church]] or the total body of believers.

The word "Church" arises in Christian use from a number of New |Testament sources, perhaps the prime, the words of Jesus - "On this rock I will build by Church". This is at once concrete and it is general with portents of the future. It is concrete as Church, the "Ekkelsia" those that are "called out" (of the environs) for the purpose of gathering together is a direct reference to the synagogue ("led or assembled togther") - "Beit Knesset" in Hebrew, those that are "gathered together", visible, concrete, societal, a people. These then, together are the Israel of God, a new creation, upon which will sit, guide, judge, the 12 apostles, waiting for the Lord to return.

And yet, Church, is something beyond this, something that takes it in but transcends this as Church is somehow related to the Body of the Risen Christ which He now in Heaven fills and lives in here on earth. We the Church have now somehow by His grace become part of His Body, or we ,all together, are His Body on earth, through which He lives and continues His good and continuing work of the Kingdom of God.

Our nexus to His Body are the following ; it is faith in Him our Savior that has initially brought us to the Body to join us togther with a real community and to Him. It is baptism which has brought us firmly into the life of the Spirit of the Body and Community and signifying that it is to Him that we belong. It is the communion with Him granted us at the table of the Lord in "Communion" that strengthens us for our life here on earth. It is the illumination and actual grace to help that comes to us in the hearing of His Word of Holy Scripture. It is in obeying that Word which we have heard that these weak and mortal bodies on earth receive Heaven's transforming power and new life - even as we live on earth awaiting His return, and it is in forgiving love, one member of the Body to another, that we actually experience the sweetness of Jesus living with us in His Body on earth, the Church.
[[File:Washington Cathedral.jpg|thumb|left|300px|Washington Cathedral]]
The Church is thus concrete and specific, the people of God among many peoples, and transcending this, it is general, universal, attached to a greater reality - the Risen Christ Himself. The joining of Christ in Heaven with His Body on Earth, the Church gives force to this saying of the Lord:

"Then shall the King say unto them at his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;
for I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:Naked, and ye clothed me: Sick. and visited me: Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord ,when saw we thee an hungred and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger and took thee in? or naked and clothed thee? or when saw we thee sick or in or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer, and say unto them, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these, my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Matt. 25:35-40.

==Possibly the first Church Structure==

On [[Mount Zion]] in [[Jerusalem]], identified wrongly as such by the Crusaders, close to the present day Roman Catholic [[Dormition Abbey]], and entering the room below that of the Last Supper of Jesus, one views the huge remembrance stone indicating the tomb of [[King David]] from Crusader times. Outside the tomb enclosure, there are are usually orthodox Jews praying. But behind the remembrance stone on the wall of the room facing the Temple Mount, one can see the niche at the exact height above the ground for the scrolls of the Bible to be placed. This indicates that the room had originally been a synagogue. Walking around the outside of the room in the courtyard, one can see the "Herodian" stone blocks with their characteristic and tell-tale incised borders. So this room was originally built in the first century. Further, the stones were of different sizes and shapes indicating that this was their secondary placement having been brought here from elsewhere, perhaps the destroyed temple area itself. During the 1948 Israeli War of Independence, an artillery shell landed in the courtyard, shattering the successive layers of plaster of the room within, until the last layer could be seen, extending down past the Ottoman Turk, Early Muslim, Crusader, Byzantine period floor levels, ending at the original 1st century floor. This was further confirmation that the room was built in the first century. There were prayers in Greek to Jesus inscribed on the wall. This indicates that the synagogue was a hellenistic oriented Jewish Christian synagogue (similar to the New Testament reference of the Jewish "synagogue of the Libertins"). It also explains why the room, right across the valley from the Temple Mount, was not oriented to it in the usual way that the worshipers would face the temple, but was rather facing north in the exact direction of the both the later "Constantinian" Church of the Holy Sepulcher and the most recent "Gordon's Calvary" - the two contenders for the site of the crucifixtion, burial and resurrection of Jesus.

This "Kibla" or prayer direction is in accord with ancient practice of facing the direction of importance. For the Old Testament and Judaism, facing Jerusalem and, in particular if within Jerusalem, facing the temple; for Islam (after it disavowed Jerusalem as the kibla), facing Mecca; and, at one time, for Christians, facing the East, the direction of the rising sun (Mal.3) and also the direction from which Christ would return.

The mosaic Byzantine [[Madaba map]] of Jerusalem shows the location and the room as being adjacent to another structure - the Church of the Holy Apostles, indicating that it was considered as particularly important or held holy in the Byzantine period. The later huge Crusader period Church of St. Mary, built at the same spot as the earlier Byzantine church, is shown by archeology to have actually included the room within the Church structure. This then was the most likely first Church and home to the Believers in Jesus before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. The "Church House", possibly the home of Mark, that would later be called "[[The Church of the Holy Apostles]]" and the "Mother of all Churches" - (The Liturgy of St. James).

==Etymology==

The word '''church''' comes, through the Old English ''circe'', from the [[Koine Greek]] κυριακον (''kyriakon''), which means "Lord's House".

==See also==
*[[Cathedral]]
*[[Basilica]]
*[[Famous Cathedrals]]
*[[Gates of Hell]]
*[[Transmigration of Words in Religion: an essay]]
*[[Essay: The earliest Christian Church, a prison in Armageddon]]

[[Category:Christianity]][[Category:Places of Worship]]

Church of England

2012-03-14T03:33:46Z

BaileyJ: /* Leadership */ Structure

[[Image:Canterbury.jpg|thumb|300px|[[Canterbury Cathedral]] is the mother church of the Church of England]]
The '''Church of England''' (the mother church of the Anglican Church) is the [[England|English]] national [[church]]. The Church traces its history back to at least the fourth century A.D. It contains High Church elements (similar in ritual to the [[Roman Catholic Church|Roman Catholics]]), Low Church elements (similar to [[Methodism|Methodists]]), and a Broad Church middle. It is part of the worldwide [[Anglican Communion]]. Under King [[Henry VIII]] England broke with Rome and reasserted its independence in questions of [[religion]].

==Reformation==
[[Image:Chester.jpg|thumb|350px|[[Chester]] Cathedral]]
[[Henry VIII]], who reigned 1509-47, broke with the [[Pope]] on two issues, his [[divorce]], and control over the Church inside England, as he declared himself head of the Church in England. Disagreement with Henry on religious issues was a political affront, and he could not tolerate it. Moderate reform took place in the 1530s because Queen Anne and top aides [[Thomas Cranmer]] (1489-1556) and Cromwell had the king's ear and carried out attacks on the old religion. Queen Anne patronized and promoted clergy and bishops of a reforming turn of mind; Cromwell (1485?–1540), the Earl of Essex, was a convinced reformer and in effect the ruthless and unpopular prime minister from 1532 until he fell from favour and was beheaded in 1540. Cranmer (1489–1556) was archbishop of Canterbury after 1533. Henry persecuted those who still held to Papal Supremacy, and encouraged Protestant ideas to flourish. Protestantism was officially established during the short reign of Henry’s son, Edward VI.

After Henry's death in 1547, Cranmer wrote much of the first ''Book of Common Prayer'' (1549, revised 1552), the centerpiece of the Anglican liturgy. The basic summary of Anglican beliefs and practices is the [[Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion]], written by Cranmer and adopted in 1563 under Queen [[Elizabeth I]]. In these foundational documents the supreme authority and sufficiency of scripture for salvation was explicitly stated. In Cranmer's theology, the Holy Spirit inspires the proper understanding of the Bible in the faithful.

This marks the full establishment of the Church of England, largely Protestant in theology but with a hierarchical structure similar to the Roman Catholic establishment, and a largely Catholic liturgy translated from Latin into English. Numerous '''dissenters''' had theological differences, a major factor leading to the [[English Civil War]] of the 17th century.

Like Oriental and Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches (and unlike most Protestant churches), Anglicans maintain authority within the church through [[Apostolic succession]].

==Victorian era==
===Morality===
The late Victorian social purity movement heralded a new phase in the history of moral regulation, generating significant levels of Anglican and Nonconformist support for male chastity and the elimination of the sexual double standard. Historians have studied the use criminal legislation and censorship to elevate standards of public morality. Morgan (2007) stresses the role of women activists who were prominent campaigners for social purity. Women purity workers exerted enormous pressure on the professional hierarchies of church and chapel, actively reworking Christian readings of the body so as to bring the moral influence of the churches to bear on public opinion. In so doing, they brought about a significant transformation in clerical attitudes that regarded discussions of sex as beyond the boundaries of civilized discourse and led in the promotion of a regulatory, but nonetheless highly public, religious discourse on sexuality. <ref> Sue Morgan, "'Wild Oats or Acorns?' Social Purity, Sexual Politics and the Response of the Late-Victorian Church," ''Journal of Religious History'' 2007 31(2): 151-168 online at [[EBSCO]]</ref>

===High, Low, Broad===
The Church of England struggled to maintain within itself the diametrically opposed tendencies of high-church Anglo-Catholicism and low-church evangelicalism. Even within the broad church movement, disciples of low-church historian and Rugby headmaster Thomas Arnold (1795-1842) and former Unitarian founder of [[Christian Socialism]] Frederick Denison Maurice (1805-72), while overlapping somewhat in their membership, based their comprehensiveness on different theology.<ref> Jeremy Morris, "The Spirit of Comprehension: Examining the Broad Church Synthesis in England," ''Anglican & Episcopal History'' 2006 75(3): 423-443 </ref>

===Ecumenical efforts===
In the late 19th, 20th, and early 21st centuries, Anglican priests have participated in several ecumenical events. The [[Eucharist|Lord's supper]] was shared with Scottish [[Presbyterians]] in 1913<ref>http://justus.anglican.org/resources/timeline/15ecumenical.html</ref>. Three bishops of the Church of England converted to the [[Roman Catholic]] church in 2011, and more than a thousand clergy and laity have indicated that they are likely to convert as well.<ref>http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1821374,00.html</ref>

==Leadership==
[[File:Anglican church.jpg|thumbnail|375px|Anglican Church in [[Australia]]
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/75905404@N00/2152137897/ Flickr], see: [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
The British monarch (currently, Queen [[Elizabeth II]]) is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. The monarch also bears the title Defender of the Faith. A 1701 law, still in effect, prevents a Roman Catholic or spouse of a Roman Catholic from becoming king or queen.<ref> See [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1565208 Text]</ref>

The [[Archbishop of Canterbury]] is the [[Primate]] of the church, head of the worldwide [[Anglican Communion]], and an ''ex officio'' member of Britain's House of Lords along with twenty other bishops. Recent moves to appoint Roman Catholic bishops have been disapproved by parliament.

The principal book of worship in Anglican churches is the [[Book of Common Prayer]]. Most churches in England still follow the liturgy set down in it, despite moves to modernize the language - all of which were rejected by the Bishops.
The Church of England is the "established church" of England. At the time of the [[American Revolution]], it was a legal requirement in England that all public officials, including university professors, take an oath to uphold the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England. There were no such requirements in the colonies, but the Church of England was established and tax supported in some southern colonies. It was disestablished during the American Revolution. The Church was in disarray during the Revolution, as many leaders returned to England. After the war it slowly rebuilt as the [[Episcopal Church in the United States of America]].

Clergy form a three-level hierarchy, with Deacon at the lowest level, then Priest, then Bishop. An Archbishop is the presiding bishop of a province. Only bishops are able to ordain those below them and also have special authority in other matters. For example, it usually is only a Bishop who conducts the sacramental rite of Confirmation.

The Church has two provinces, Canterbury (Southern) and York (Northern). Each province is divided into dioceses, and each diocese is divided into parishes.<ref>http://www.churchofengland.org/about-us/structure.aspx</ref>

===Protestant Experimentalists (group of Anglican modernists)===
In the early 20th century several Anglican priests and scholars showed interest in the new wired and wireless communications technologies such as radio and their possible use in furthering Christianity. Their interests included telepathy, psychic research, psychology, and healing. Such Anglican intellectuals were the Anglican Archbishop Frederick Du Vernet and the Espicopal bible scholar Kirsopp Lake. <ref> [http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/75/3/651 "Radio Mind: Protestant Experimentalists on the Frontiers of Healing"], ''Journal of the American Academy of Religion'' 2007 75(3):651-683</ref>

==Bibliography==
* Chapman, Mark. ''Anglicanism: A Very Short Introduction'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Anglicanism-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0192806939/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231711052&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Hassett, Miranda K. ''Anglican Communion in Crisis: How Episcopal Dissidents and Their African Allies Are Reshaping Anglicanism'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Anglican-Communion-Crisis-Dissidents-Anglicanism/dp/069112518X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231706964&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Pawley, Bernard & Margaret Pawley. ''Rome and Canterbury Through Four Centuries: A study of the relations between the church of Rome and the Anglican churches 1530-1973'' (1974)
* Porter, Muriel. ''The New Puritans: The Rise of Fundamentalism in the Anglican Church'' (2007)
* Rosenthal, James. ''The Essential Guide to the Anglican Communion'' (1998)
* Sykes, Stephen, and John Booty, eds. ''The Study of Anglicanism'' (1988), important essays by 31 scholars on all aspects of the Church
===Primary sources===
* Evans, G.R. and Robert Wright, eds. ''The Anglican Tradition: A Handbook of Sources'' (1991), over 600 historical documents

==External links==
* [http://www.geocities.com/anglicana_ecclesia/ Anglicana Ecclesia], primary documents

==References==
{{Reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:England, Church of}}
[[Category:Anglicans]]
[[category:Christian Denominations]]
[[Category:British History]]
[[Category:Protestantism]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Heartland Institute

2012-03-02T03:53:45Z

BaileyJ: anti-junk science

The Heartland Institute is a not-for-profit institution based in [[Chicago]]. It was founded in 1984 by David Padden and Joseph Best with the mission "to discover and promote [[free market|free-market]] solutions to social and economic problems". In addition to being a free market advocate, the institute has also worked to fight junk science, such as the idea of man-made [[global warming]] and the tenuous link between [[passive smoking]] and health risks.<ref>http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/tobacco-and-oil-pay-for-climate-conference-790474.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:United States Political Organizations]]
[[Category:Libertarianism]]
[[Category:Welfare State]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]

Talk:Mystery:Why Do Atheists Dislike Underdogs?

2012-02-09T00:07:15Z

BaileyJ: /* UK has worse social mobility than most other developed countries plus ungodly UK citizens and poodles and other underdogs */

Uhh quick question, aren't Atheists in competition with Christians to rule the United States... But there so many more Christians than Atheists? Are Atheists the underdogs in that competition? [[User:Curiousity|Curiousity]] 20:56, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:There isn't any competition for what religions to "rule" the US. Christianity and Atheism are just at a minor, petty feud with each other. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 21:47, 6 February 2012 (EST)
== Britain's hatred of the underdog ==

Since when? --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 21:23, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:I see that Andy has seen fit to remove the fact tags that I inserted seeking references for the bizarre assertions that he makes about the British character. No explanation was given for the removal. No surprises there I guess. I will await an explanation or a reference. If neither are forthcoming I will reinsert the fact tags. At that point I assume I will be blocked and reverted and any offending evidence will be burned. As an underdog on this site I am only too aware of the irony. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 23:36, 6 February 2012 (EST)

::John, Britain's attitude against the underdog is common knowledge. Please research the issue and add references if you think it is really necessary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:::If it's common knowledge you should be able to back it up easily enough. What about Americans love of the Yankees? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:46, 6 February 2012 (EST)

:::Is it really common knowledge ? I was really enthusiastic about this encyclopedia but I am starting to see its limits...--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:45, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::::[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2293974/Top-10-FA-Cup-upsets.html Here] is a source showing a British love for sporting underdogs, and let's not forget [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9whxWNI7bE Susan Boyle.] [[User:IvanC|IvanC]] 08:32, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::[http://www.bharatbhasha.net/entertainment.php/330808 Here] is an entire article on the subject. [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/beastliness-foetal-attraction-and-britains-love-of-the-underdog-1234349.html Here] is an article which references the British love of the underdog quite a lot. [http://www.webstercontent.com/articles/163541/1/Underdog-Spirit--the-UKs-Obsession-With-the-Underdog/Page1.html Here] is another. Don't you think that it is time to delete that part of the "article?" [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 18:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)

The claim that the British hate underdogs is easily one of the worst statements to come from conservapedia. If anything, Britain is probably the MOST supportive of underdogs. Take football (the good kind) for example. The English football league system is enormous, possibly the biggest in the world, going down 23-24 tiers. Even the lowest of these clubs gain support. How much more "underdog" can you get? I also have two atheist friends (at least they tell me their atheists), one of whom supports Blackburn Rovers, who are going through a torrid time at the moment, currently near the bottom of the table, and having just lost 7-1 to Arsenal, yet he still backs them fully.

After such a heavy counter to your statements by many of the posters here, are you going to give us some evidence for your claims? --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 23:40, 7 February 2012 (GMT)

==Weak argumentation==
I am not an atheist but I believe your arguments can be countered easily. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:32, 6 February 2012 (EST)

== Survival of the fittest ==

1. Survival of the fittest (natural selection) is not a lifestyle choice. It is a biological theory. Just because evolutionary scientists accept the theory does not mean that they promote it as a way to live in human society.

2. Survival of the fittest (natural selection) is also accepted by creationists. Why then does the author of this "mystery" article point the finger at atheists alone?

--[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 21:59, 6 February 2012 (EST)

== IQ and Atheism ==

If atheists have an above-average IQ, doesn't that mean that non-atheists, i.e. religious folks, have a below average IQ? --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 22:13, 6 February 2012 (EST)

:That sort of simplistic argument appeals to potential atheists. But upon closer look it suggests that atheism is less appealing the smarter one is, above around 105 in IQ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:43, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::Justin, as far as the issue of IQ and atheism, I wanted to help you out and point out that you misspelled the word atheism. :) I bet if you worked on your spelling and vocabulary that your IQ would go up. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:51, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:::Okay, I guess I'm missing something. I thought that the average [[IQ]] was 100, but our article doesn't mention that so maybe I'm mistaken. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient Wikipedia agrees], but the statement isn't referenced. Is that not the case? Because if it is, and if we can divide everyone into two groups (atheists and non-atheists) then if one group has an above average IQ (atheists), the other must necessarily have a below average IQ (as a group, though obviously individual IQs would run the gamut). Or am I just misunderstanding the claim being made? Conservative, thanks. For whatever reason I didn't get the little red squiggles in the "Subject/headline" field and I've always had a problem with the i before e rule (which oddly doesn't apply here). Thankfully, technology is (usually) around to save me. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 03:05, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Faith and hope ==

Atheism is not a denial of faith or hope. It is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. No more. No less. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 23:42, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:Wasn't "hope" a central pillar of the election campaign of a certain B. Hussein Obama? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:44, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:Well, atheism does technically lack faith in terms of worship. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 23:51, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::Yeah, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. "I don't believe in God, therefore the Giants cannot beat the Packers"? Doesn't work logically. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:54, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:::I agree there. The argument presented especially fails when considering people who have a team nearby playing in sports. Regardless of who is favored to win, sports fans that have local teams playing will probably cheer for them. Just because atheists don't believe in God doesn't mean that they don't believe in anything. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 00:06, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::::What I meant was that atheism says nothing about either faith or hope ''per se''. An atheist can have faith in all manner of things other than gods. And they can certainly have hope. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 00:12, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Do Atheists dislike underdogs? ==

Whilst I recognise that this is Andy's website, and he is free to write about whatever mystery he is unable to answer; I feel that someone must point out that there appears no reason at all to suspect that atheists dislike underdogs. Certainly Andy has not given one other than "common knowledge". Well, the knowledge cannot be all that common because I have never heard of it.

However my objection goes further than simply one of insufficient evidence; I simply don't think the claim is true. I was at a major rugby 7's tournament in the weekend in NZ, obviously one of the most atheistic countries in the world, and in an event with excesses of drinking, incivility and lewdness (all atheistic traits as I'm sure we can agree). I can assure everybody that apart from when NZ was involved '''without exception''' the teams that got the most support were always the lesser team or underdog. I have witnessed this trait in sporting crowds all throughout the world, from South America to Australia to the UK - whenever there is no local team playing crowds invariably support the underdog.
I don't see any reason at all to think that atheists see things differently, and this essay does not provide assistance. I hope we can have a sensible discussion about this idea. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 00:15, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:You say, "I don't see any reason at all to think that atheists see things differently." I would be astounded if two groups of people, atheists and Christians, who have fundamentally opposite view of reality, saw things identically. It would be like saying a color-blinded person saw reality exactly the same as someone with perfect color perception. Surely they don't.

:As to New Zealand, atheism is not nearly as high there as in European nations, including Britain. [http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html] Also, fan conduct at a stadium is probably not a representative sample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:38, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::On your first point, I would agree that there are many things that atheists and Christians will not see identically; however I don't know why support or otherwise for underdogs would be one of them. In any case you have not offered any evidence that they see this particular thing differently - it appears you have simply assumed it. I don't think it is inappropriate to ask for some form of positive evidence.
::Your next points, are valid, but they are only valid in a rebuttal sense. They do nothing to provide support for your thesis that atheists and Christians differ in their support for underdogs. I would say that as for NZ it has been 15 years since we have had a theist of any variety as Prime Minister (and standards have slipped markedly in that time!)
::Let me approach this in a different way. When did you first know that atheists don't support underdogs in the same way as Christians? Was it in an article you read, or something someone told you? Or was it something you realised for yourself after noticing a general trend? Perhaps if we work out why you think its true we might be able to gather some evidence for it -positive or negative. I have an open mind on this, but we do need to see some form of evidence. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:38, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::Andy - fan conduct at a stadium is what brought this discussion about, is it not? You wrote this article to illustrate your own point about atheist fans at the Superbowl. Please tell me, how do we tell when "fan conduct is ... relative" and when it is not? [[User:Bobson|Bobson]] 07:56, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::They might not be as atheistic as the UK, but they are more atheistic than the USA, so it still contradicts your point that the more atheists there are, the less they root for the underdog. I'm still waiting for even a shred of evidence here. You state "The lack of cheering by atheists for the upset victory by the Giants in the Super Bowl...", I'm just wondering where you got your facts there. Do you observe it yourself? How could you know who was an atheist and who wasn't? Did you read some statistic somewhere? Where? So far it appears you're using a circular argument: atheists didn't rot for the underdog. How do i know this? Atheists never root for the underdog. Evidence? Well, look at the Super Bowl! Also, keep in mind the Giants weren't even much of an underdog, the Patriots were favored only by about 3 points. They were the real underdog 4 years ago. If you really wanted to make your point here, you should have gone with Tebow, as he was a real underdog who a lot of Christians rooted for. He's still one atypical example, and the reason a lot people who didn't like him is because they thought he was overhyped, getting much more attention than many better players, some even on his own team. He really isn't a very good quarterback, at least not yet. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 10:05, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Is this serious? ==
If this page had not been added by Aschlafly I would propose speedy deletion as obvious parody. To suggest that people in the UK do not support the underdog shows a lamentable lack of knowledge of the British and of UK culture in general. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 03:16, 7 February 2012 (EST)

==''Britain's attitude against the underdog is common knowledge''==

Aschlafly, you claim that the British don't favor the underdog. OTOH, there seems to be a fine tradition in Great Britain to stand up for the ''little man'' - and the bookies don't complain that no one is ever betting on the outsider.

I don't recall that Hollywood changed ''Karate Kid'' or ''Rocky'' to please the British market. Nevertheless they were successful over there, more successful than ''Apollo Creed - the movie'' could ever have been.

The whole ''mystery'' seems to be made up! In fact, the root seems to be the following reasoning:

*Aschlafly doesn't like atheists.
*Aschlafly likes underdogs (with the possible exception of [[North Korea]]).
*Therfeore atheists don't like underdogs.

For those who think ''wait, that isn't fallacious enough for me'', another gem is thrown in:

*Stalin was an atheist.
*Stalin '''''probably''''' didn't like underdogs-
*Therefore atheists don't like underdogs.

Aschlafly, obviously you can't cave in in front of the many critics above: the more critics there are, the more wrong they have to be, as you become an underdog yourself.

Unfortunately, sometimes the underdog fights for the wrong side.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:18, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:In the USA atheists are the underdog. Do true American Christians therefore root for them? Anyway, one of administrator Karajou's rules does apply here: "... do the research when you write an article. I’ll have more respect for you if you hit the books and do a detailed article then [sic] if you simply put in one or two sentences...". [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 09:35, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::Also, on the international stage the USA are probably the most non-underdog nation in the world. Do Americans root against the USA when their Olympic basketball team plays Slovenia? Clearly there are many cases in which they are the underdog (e.g. World Cup), but we are still the overall favorites in international competition, having won 2549 medals in Olympic games (more than twice our nearest competitor). Are Americans more likely to root for Barbados, who have only ever won a single bronze? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 09:52, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Who do atheists root for? ==

I did a little research, and found some circumstantial evidence that suggests that a slightly higher proportion of those rooting for the Patriots may have been atheists. This assumes people usually root for the home team. Of course, this is certainly not always the case, and many New Yorkers hate the Yankees specifically because they are the antithesis of the underdog, and rooting for them is seen as rooting for WalMart or Ticketmaster. In any case, we assumethe New England states are the most likely to root for the Patriots, and [http://www.gallup.com/poll/114022/State-States-Importance-Religion.aspx according to this], the 6 New England states are among the top 10 least religious in the country. The other most unreligious geographic area is the Pacific Northwest. However, these states are the ones most likely to support the Seahawks, who most certainly ''are'' underdogs. The most religious area is, unsurprisingly, the South, where the Falcons, Cowboys, Titans, Panthers, and Texans are going to be the most popular (the Bucs, Dolphins, and Jags, while technically southern, are probably going to be less popular outside of Florida, and the Jags have little fanbase at all). Some of those teams are perennial underdogs, others not so much, depending on each season and who they're playing. So it seems that statistically, it is likely that a slightly higher proportion of NE fans may have been atheists than NY fans, if only because New England has a slightly higher rate of non-religiousness than NY. New York, [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703453804575479961782758620.html having more fans overall] than the Patriots, still might have had more atheists rooting for them. There's really no way of knowing at this point. Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with atheists supporting underdogs or not. They, like anyone else, probably root for the home team more, and in this one case, the "atheist home team" was the favorite. The truth is, should, heaven forbid, Tom Brady break his back in a car accident today, and never play football again, the Patriots would immediately be labelled underdogs in the 2012 season, but those New Englanders, atheists and all, would keep rooting for them, because they'd still be the home team.

Also, the Packers were underdogs for years, but after winning the Super Bowl last year, they weren't the underdog in a single game they played. And after last year's win they became the country's most popular team, [http://www.businessinsider.com/most-popular-nfl-teams-2011-12#1-green-bay-packers-10 according to this site (other give different results)]. This sort of contradicts the statement that America loves underdogs. If they did, the Packers would be unpopular, and the Seahawks (perhaps currently the most atheistic team in the league) might be somewhere on that top 10 list. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 11:08, 7 February 2012 (EST)

==Citation Needed==
Hi Mr Schlafly, I noticed that you removed the "citation needed" I added on this page. Is it because a "Mystery" page is considered to be an essay and therefore does not need as much reference ? --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:26, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:You added numerous citation tags. If you feel references are needed for those points, then please take a look for them first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:36, 7 February 2012 (EST)

::Yes, I do feel references are needed. Unfortunately, I am not able to add references because I believe there is no references backing your claims. Also, I believe it is up to you to provide references when you add some disputable information. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 16:01, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::I agree. I've been looking for anything indicating that Brits as a rule disfavor underdogs more than anyone else, as well as the fact that atheists were against the Giants in the Super Bowl. In fact, I looked for anything indicating trends of sports favorite among atheists and came up with basically nothing. I found a few discussion groups on atheist websites about some teams here and there, but they were far too few to indicate any sort of overall trend (one of the few NFL teams mentioned by name was the Bills, a classic underdog). Are there any sources for anything in this article? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 16:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:: No, there is not. Citations are not needed for claims that fit the worldview of Aschlafly or the senior sysops. See [[Homosexuality]] and [[Barack Obama]] for reference. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:47, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::Rachel, you are being a deceitful liberal as far as one of your claims. The [[Homosexuality]] article has over 300 footnotes plus I did note that your claim as far as that article lacked support and specifics. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== UK has worse social mobility than most other developed countries plus ungodly UK citizens and poodles and other underdogs ==

UK has worse social mobility than most other developed countries - including the United States. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/10/oecd-uk-worst-social-mobility] It would seem being an underdog in the UK is more difficult than in many other developed nations. [[Social Darwinism]] started in Britain too. Plus, ungodly UK citizens and poodles and other underdogs: [[Bestiality and Britain]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:48, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::Social mobility has not improved in Britain for 30 years.[http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2007/SocialMobilityDec07.aspx] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:31, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::::Hum, apparently social mobility is pretty good in atheist countries like Denmark, Norway, Finland and Sweden ! --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:49, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::By the way, social mobility in the US is not good, it is even worse that it is in atheistic France.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 22:54, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::PhilipN, the degree of equality of opportunity is not the same thing as equal results. Who are the poor in the United States? What are the causes of their poverty? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:25, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::First, the degree of equality of opportunity is not the same thing as equal results in UK neither. Second, you did not answer to my first objection that atheistic Denmark and Norway have the best social mobility. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 00:36, 8 February 2012 (EST)
PhilipN, I already discussed with you the benefits of having a cultural legacy of Protestantism and this would apply to both Denmark and Norway (see: [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#.22Clearly.2C_the_.22secular.22_in_secular_Europe_is_not_working_out_well_in_many_countries.22 Protestant cultural legacy]). Plus, Norway has significant oil revenues and a cultural legacy in the somewhat recent past of hard working fisherman and farmers. I certainly have nothing against the Norweigans and just a few weeks ago I met a very nice Norweigan Christian. In Europe, people from Germany and Scandanavian countries, which have a cultural legacy of Protestantism (and thus the Protestant work ethic), are often hard workers. As far as America, I again suggest you look at the most common causes of poverty. Perhaps, you will find there is still a lot of opportunity in America. At the same time, I am a big believer in blooming where you are planted. I know a man in one of the poorest countries in Africa who had enough gumption to be successful in his country (he told me college was free in his country when he attended at least, but many people did not have enough drive to attend due to their pessimistic attitude). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:26, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Addendum: Give the higher degree of social stratification of British society and the lack of social mobility in Britain compared to other Western nations, I would be hard pressed to say they are a society that historically roots for the underdog compared to other Western societies. In 1975, Helmut Schmidt wrote of Britain: “If one asks oneself what are the true reasons for the differentiated development of societies and economies between the British and most ones on the Continent, I think it has something to do with the fact that British society, much more than the Scandinavian, German, Austrian, and Dutch societies, is characterized by a class-struggle type of society. This is true for both sides of the upper class as well as for the working classes. I think that the way in which organized Labour on the one hand and industrial management on the other had dealt with their problems is outmoded.”[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:41, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::Good reference: a 37 year old quote from a German socialist. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 09:35, 8 February 2012 (EST)
Sorry, but what ON EARTH has any of the above got to do with whether the British support the underdog or not? Absolutely nothing. The fact is that the British are known world wide for 'supporting the underdog' and this 'article' is a joke. As I suggested earlier, if anyone other than Aschlafly had written it it would already have been deleted as parody and the author blocked. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 08:43, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Conservative, you are being a deceitful liberal by trying to pass this 2 year old report from a French think tank off as convincing evidence. Be careful, I might have to call Transitional Services on you. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:56, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::Davidspencer, are you related to [[Herbert Spencer]]? In case you are not aware, Herbert Spencer was a British Social Darwinist. Put that in your British social stratified society and smoke it! :) By the way, unlike the British, the countries of France, Germany and the United States no longer have Kings and Queens. The American revolutionaries said, "We have no king, but King Jesus!" [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:48, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::::Not that I know of. Are you?
:::::I asked what this section had to do with the attitude of the British towards underdogs, you replied with a non-answer about someone who died over 100 years ago. Can you please try to stay roughly on topic when replying? Davidspencer 10:53, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::Would that be the same British queen who's also the head of the state religion? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 10:52, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::GeorgeLi, who said I was ever for state religions? I am on record for stating that atheism is a religion and the pseudoscience of Darwinism is a promotion of the atheist religion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:56, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::But the queen isn't anything to do with the "atheist religion," is she? She's head of the Anglican Church. Why do you keep making irrelevant comments? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 11:07, 8 February 2012 (EST)
Davidspencer, one last thing, unlike Britain, the countries of Finland, Norway and Sweden never had feudalism. :) 10:56, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Yes they did.<ref>http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/GeogHist/histories/history/hiscountries/D/denmark.html</ref><ref>http://www.collegetermpapers.com/TermPapers/Geography/Denmark.shtml</ref><ref>http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/157748/Denmark/33870/Medieval-Denmark</ref><ref>http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/scandinavia/swe12501397.html</ref> --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 11:00, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:Believe it or not I am probably more aware and more knowledgeable than you are of British and European history. What does fuedalism and the lack of it in extremely socialistic European countries have to do with the support of the British for the underdog? [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 11:00, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Nothing, of course. It's just a case of a couple of people who sadly won't admit they're wrong. Best to just drop it and go back to editing the worthwhile articles. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 11:02, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::True, I do not want to be 90/10'd for pointing out the blindingly obvious. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 11:05, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::::Davidspencer, unlike you, I don't feel the urge to brag about my supposed superiority of knowledge in a given subject area. :) Your comment further illustrates that you no doubt come from a higher than average socially stratified society with lower than average socially mobility in the Western World and feel the need to needlessly elevate yourself! :) By the way, consider reading Luke 14:7. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:12, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::"...unlike you, I don't feel the urge to brag about my supposed superiority of knowledge in a given subject area." Wow...
:::::::This coming from the user who talks like he knows the UK better than people who actually live there and ridicules those who disagree. User:Conservative, you are not as smart as you think you are. Just because you found a quote about the relevant subject by one person who might agree with you if interpreted a certain way, doesn't make you automatically the most knowledgable person on the subject. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 16:46, 8 February 2012 (GMT)

User Conservative: you make some interesting points about the cultural legacy of protestantism in Scandinavia but why doesn't the same apply to the UK? As well as being historically a centre of protestant and non-conformist thought, protestantism and non-conformism were central to the English Revolution, the colonisation of the New World, liberal humanism (eg the work of Adam Smith), the first stock and insurance markets, the Industrial Revolution and the British Empire. It still remains in Britain's cultural DNA. In fact, the UK today is far more conservative than the social democratic Scandinavian countries, both socially and economically. So why doesn't your Gladwellesque reasoning apply here? [[User:Rafael|Rafael]] 14:09, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::RedGoliath, who said that I/we don't live in the UK? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:26, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::I doubt someone with such a strong interest in American politics wouldn't be living in the US. [[User:LouW|LouW]] 18:59, 8 February 2012 (EST)
Rafael, I did think of that. Although having the mindset of working hard helps a "underdog" become a bigger dog, I also think a society not having unnecessary barriers in the way helps too which Gladwell does talk about in his book. I also know that England has a history of social stratification compared to other countries. Here is what a Christian site says about England: “In the 1800s England had one hundred sixty crimes punishable by hanging, including ones as trivial as stealing a loaf of bread.” “I thought of this when I was reading in the Gulag Archipelago by Alexander Solzhenitsyn of the lengthy prison sentences that Soviet children received for stealing when they were hungry.”[http://bible.org/seriespage/lamp-loaves-and-loudmouth-leviticus-24] The Bible has restitution for stealing.

Also, there is no doubt that atheists are more likely historically to promote social Darwinism and England was at the forefront of social Darwinism.

Since people tend to be their own worst enemies, I do think an underdog's biggest asset is not having a bad mindset and having good habits and a good society should promote an industrious/virtuous mindset. In the Western World, although there are certainly young ladies who have husband's cheat on them, there are also plenty who have sex before marriage and wind up being single mothers with unruly kids. I also think feminism and selfish males increase divorce rates which causes single motherhood. Single motherhood can be a big factor when it comes to poverty and less social mobility in a society.

Here are some relevant statistics about the above as far as the United States:

In terms of household structure, households headed by women are far more likely to be poor than
other types of households. There are 4.1 million female-headed families in poverty and 2.9
million married-couple families in poverty; in total over 14.4 million households are headed by
women.73 Half of all women will potentially experience single motherhood at some point in
their lifetimes; 80 percent of black women and 45 percent of white women will become family
heads at some time during their childbearing years.74 In 2000, the distribution of female-headed
household types with children was as follows: 12 percent were headed by a woman with a
cohabitating male partner, 14.3 percent were headed by a grandmother, and 73.8 percent by a
single mother. A larger share of the households headed by a grandmother is black.75
Poverty rates in female-headed households are typically 3 to 4 times as high as those for the
overall population.76 Individuals in households that become headed by a female are extremely
likely to enter into poverty:

• When a two-adult household becomes a female-headed household, 20.1 percent entered
poverty.77
• The transition to a female-headed family accounts for 59 percent of the poverty
beginnings for female heads with children: 38 percent of these poverty spell
beginnings result from a marital breakup and 21 percent result from what is most likely
unmarried motherhood.78
• Persons in households that have been female-headed for 2 or more years are more likely
enter poverty than persons in two-adult and single male-headed households.79
• More than 6 out of 10 children who have experienced persistent or long-term
poverty have spent time in single parent families.80
Many female-headed households begin with a divorce. Nationally, over 13 million women are
divorced, and 18.4 percent of them are living in poverty.81 Divorce erodes the economic wellbeing
of custodial parents and their children. There is considerable evidence that upon divorce
women and children experience substantial financial declines, with income dropping;
divorced men’s relative income, on the other hand, remains stable or even increases.82 Median
household income for custodial parent households declines 40 percent, on average, during
the 5 years following divorce. Moreover, the decline in economic well-being held for poorly
educated and highly educated couples alike.83 Of those experiencing a new marital break-up, 23
percent become poor with the month that the break-up occurs (31% for female-headed families,
19% for families with elderly members).84 A father leaving the family increases the likelihood
that families with children will be poor: in one study the percent of families below poverty
increased by ten percentage points (about a 46% increase in the total number of families).85
13
Female-headed households than 6 out of 10 children who have experienced persistent or long-term
poverty have spent time in single parent families.80
Many female-headed households begin with a divorce. Nationally, over 13 million women are
divorced, and 18.4 percent of them are living in poverty.81 Divorce erodes the economic wellbeing
of custodial parents and their children. There is considerable evidence that upon divorce
women and children experience substantial financial declines, with income dropping;
divorced men’s relative income, on the other hand, remains stable or even increases.82 Median
household income for custodial parent households declines 40 percent, on average, during
the 5 years following divorce. Moreover, the decline in economic well-being held for poorly
educated and highly educated couples alike.83 Of those experiencing a new marital break-up, 23
percent become poor with the month that the break-up occurs (31% for female-headed families,
19% for families with elderly members).84 A father leaving the family increases the likelihood
that families with children will be poor: in one study the percent of families below poverty
increased by ten percentage points (about a 46% increase in the total number of families).85
13
Female-headed households’ status is closely tied to poverty because single parent families
typically have just one potential earner and are less likely than married parents to have a fulltime
worker. When there is only one adult earner in the household, fewer hours are worked and
fewer hours are available to be worked due to care giving responsibilities. Though employment
rates are high for single women with children (almost 80% work)86, mothers who never
marry are 70 percent less likely to be working full time compared to women who have only
marital births.87 If there is not another earner in the household, grandmother-headed households
with children have extremely high odds of experiencing poverty, significantly higher (40%) than
those headed by a single mother.88[http://www.heartlandalliance.org/whatwedo/advocacy/reports/causes-of-poverty.pdf]

Martin Seligman wrote about "learned helplessness" and I do think that liberal's constant promotion of victimhood promotes "learned helpflessness" as well as central government controlled social programs. After all is said and done, I think "America's war on poverty" has been a colossal failure as it rewards bad habits and causes a dependent mindset. I think when families and local communities were in charge of charity, there was more accountability and less fostering of a dependency and victimhood mindset. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:26, 8 February 2012 (EST)

:Wow, look at all those words! I didn't read any of them, but I can only assume [[User:Conservative]] won the argument. --[[User:BaileyJ|BaileyJ]] 19:07, 8 February 2012 (EST)

== Atheists and surprises ==

"The belief system of an atheist clings a denial that there will be any surprises like Hell. Victory by an underdog is an unexpected surprise, which is unsettling for atheists who insist that there must not be any big surprises in an afterlife."

Not correct. Hell would indeed be a surprise to atheists (as the non-existence of Heaven would be to theists, for that matter; they deny the possibility of that surprise), but that relates to an afterlife. Underdogs winning is a surprise in this life, and there is no evidence whatsoever to believe that atheists are more prone than theists to deny the possibility of surprises in this life. Furthermore "The belief system of an atheist clings a denial that…" is not proper English and "unexpected surprise" is redundant. It is the very essence of surprises to be unexpected.

Besides, I wonder how this article stacks up to the following Conservapedia rules:

Conservapedia commandment no 1: ''Everything you post must be true and verifiable.

Conservapedia guideline about attribution: ''There's a difference between stating flatly that "the earth is 6,000 years old" and reporting that "Young Earth creationists say that the earth is 6,000 years old." […] Simply by attributing a statement to the person who said it, we can turn bias into fact. That is, we convert a statement about something from a biased assertion into an attribution. We don't say "X". We say that "A said X." […] Thus, a good article "describes" - it does not "prescribe".'' [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 09:18, 8 February 2012 (EST)

<references/>

Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars

2012-02-09T00:04:14Z

BaileyJ: wikify

Most sports stars are probably [[conservative]]. Athletes at all levels of competition frequently praise God for giving them the strength to succeed at their sports. Here are some of the greatest:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Athlete
!Sport
![[Conservatism]]
|-
|[[Tim Tebow]]
|football<ref>The first college sophomore to win the [[Heisman Trophy]], and the only quarterback to lead his team to two [[BCS]] college championships.</ref>
|[[pro-life]], outspoken Christian
|-
|Tim Thomas
|Hockey
|A [[conservative]], Thomas declined to attend a ceremony staged by the [[Obama]] [[White House]] after Thomas's team won the [[Stanley Cup]].<ref>http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/01/boston-bruins-goalie-snubs-president-obama-111928.html</ref>
|-
|Janet Lynn
|figure skating<ref name="Lynn">"Considered One of the Greatest Freeskaters of All Time." [http://figureskating.about.com/od/famousfemaleiceskater1/p/janetlynn.htm]</ref>
|"Before every performance she would close her eyes and give thanks and praise to God. She believed that God had given her the gift of skating and in each performance she worked to glorify God."<ref name="Lynn"/> Lynn, once the highest-paid female athlete, also has written in support of conservative values.
|-
|[[Ted Williams]]
|baseball
|campaigned for Republicans, served as a fighter pilot, and also criticized the media (which was unfair to him, even denying him the MVP when he hit over .400)
|-
|[[Kurt Warner]]
|football
|pro-lifer who led two ''different'' underachieving teams to the [[Super Bowl]]
|-
|[[Zach Johnson]]
|golf
|won the [[Masters]] on [[Easter Sunday]] against the heavily favored Tiger Woods,<ref>http://www.fcagolf.org/masters-peace</ref> when Woods was at the peak of his career, and then gave credit to [[Jesus Christ]]
|-
|Trevor Bayne
|auto racing
|Gave credit to God for being the youngest Daytona 500 winner
|-
|Pete Sampras
|tennis<ref>Winner of 14 Grand Slam singles titles.</ref>
|
|-
|[[Mary Lou Retton]]
|gymnastics
|Olympic gold medalist, delivered the Pledge of Allegiance at the 2004 Republican National Convention.
|-
|Karl Malone
|basketball
|
|-
|[[Jim Bunning]]
|baseball
|former Republican Senator (KY)
|-
|[[Jon Runyan]]
|football
|Republican Congressman (NJ)
|-
|Steve Largent
|football
|former Republican Congressman (OK)
|-
|[[Jack Kemp]]
|football
|author of Kemp-Roth tax cuts as a Republican congressman from upstate [[New York]]; was also the vice presidential Republican candidate in 1996
|-
|Drew Brees
|football
|Led the [[New Orleans Saints]] to victory in the 2009 [[Super Bowl]]--professed his belief in Jesus Christ. <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=t0buCfbFuHw STV Interview with Drew Brees]</ref>
|-
|Chris Dudley
|basketball
|Republican nominee for Oregon governor
|-
|Curt Schilling
|baseball
|considered running for the seat previously held by [[Ted Kennedy]]
|-
|[[Jim Ryun]]
|track
|former Republican Congressman (KS)
|-
|[[J.C. Watts]]
|football
|former Republican Congressman (OK)
|-
|[[John Elway]]
|football
|supporter of Republican candidates
|-
|Lynn Swann
|football
|Republican candidate for governor (PA)
|-
|Jeff Suppan
|baseball
|did a pro-life ad while winning the World Series in 2006
|-
|Billy Sunday
|baseball
|Left professional baseball and became a famous evangelist
|-
|Dan Hampton
|football
|helped lead the Chicago Bears to their 1985 Super Bowl title, but declined an invitation to a ceremony held decades later by the [[Obama]] White House.
|-
|Paul Azinger
|golf
|PGA champion who criticized Obama
|-
|Jack Lynch
|hurling
|One of the greatest ever dual players. As Taoiseach, reduced taxes and thereby increased employment in Ireland.
|-
|Lewis Hamilton
|auto racing
|outspoken Christian, describing his 2008 world championship win as "a blessing"
|-
|Doug Flutie
|football
|endorsed [[Scott Brown]]
|-
|Michael Jones
|rugby
|His Christian beliefs caused him to abstain from playing or training on Sundays. Recently endorsed the conservative New Zealand National Party
|-
|Ewan Murray
|rugby
|Observes the Sabbath and does not play for his club (Newcastle) or country (Scotland) on Sundays.
|-
|Eric Liddell
|track
|Honoured in both Scotland and China as one of their great-ever athletes, Liddell refused to run in the 1924 Olympic 100m on a Sunday. Instead, he competed in the 400m and, though it was not his best event, he won the gold medal! Returned to China as a missionary and was devoted to helping the sick and poor.
|-
|Gavin Peacock
|soccer
|Attacking midfielder for Newcastle, Chelsea and QPR then a respected footballer commentator. From 2006, combined commentating with attending a seminary. Now training full-time for the ministry.
|-
|[[Gerald Ford]]
|college football
|38th [[President of the United States]], Republican
|-
|Jason Robinson
|rugby
|Becoming a born-again Christian enabled him to reform his troubled personal life
|-
|Josh Hamilton
|baseball
|Used to be a drug addict, then became a born-again Christian and plays major baseball now
|}

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs]]
*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies]]
*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Television Shows]]
[[Category:Essays]]
[[Category:Sports]]

Super Bowl

2012-02-05T22:48:03Z

BaileyJ: Super Bowl on TV

The '''Super Bowl''' is the [[National Football League]] (NFL) Championship Game played between the [[National Football Conference]] (NFC) and [[American Football Conference]] (AFC). The first Super Bowl ever played was in 1967 as a championship game between the top teams in the National Football League and the now-defunct [[American Football League]] (AFL). The teams that played in the first Super Bowl were the [[Green Bay Packers]] from the NFL and the [[Kansas City Chiefs]] from the AFL. After the AFL's merger into the NFL in 1969, the Super Bowl became the championship game within the NFL pitting the top teams from the AFC and NFC. The winners of the Super Bowl are awarded the [[Vince Lombardi]] Trophy, named for the Packer's legendary coach during the 1960's.

Super Bowl XLV was played in [[Dallas]] TX on February 6, 2011 between the Green Bay Packers, the NFC Champions, and the [[Pittsburgh Steelers]], the AFC Champions. The Packers won Super Bowl XLV 31 - 25 (four converted touchdowns and one field goal to two converted touchdowns, one two-point converted touchdown, and a field goal). Aaron Rodgers, the Packers quarterback, was named Most Valuable Player.

The teams who contested Super Bowl XLV are two of the most successful in NFL history. The Steelers won six Super Bowl championships prior to Super Bowl XLV; the Packers have now won four Super Bowls and also hold the record for NFL championships in the pre-Super Bowl era.

[[File:Super Bowl 2011 Cowboys Stadium.jpg]]

The Super Bowl is often the most widely watched program on [[television]] in a given year, and Super Bowls are among the most watched television broadcasts in history. Super Bowl XLV was the highest rated broadcast in history, with an average viewership of 111 million.<ref>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/02/07/super-bowl-xlv-poised-to-break-viewing-records-ties-1987-with-highest-overnight-ratings-ever/81684/</ref> Viewership has been increasing in recent years.<ref>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/01/18/historical-super-bowl-tv-ratings/11044/</ref>

==See also==

*[[Vince Lombardi]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
*[http://www.nfl.com/history NFL History]
*[http://www.superbowl.com/ Official Website of Super Bowl]

[[Category:National Football League]]
[[Category:Super Bowls|*]]
[[Category:Sports Championships]]

Talk:Atheism and Uncharitableness

2012-01-15T20:21:44Z

BaileyJ:

This page is currently the first part of a [[Special:DoubleRedirects|double redirect]]. The page is locked, so an admin should fix this or unlock the page so someone else can fix it. --[[User:BaileyJ|BaileyJ]] 15:21, 15 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Americans for Truth About Homosexuality

2012-01-15T20:18:58Z

BaileyJ: Created page with "This page is currently the first part of a double redirect. The page is locked, so an admin should fix this or unlock the page so someone else can fix..."

Sex

2012-01-14T02:17:29Z

BaileyJ: Alternate definition (Since these terms are used widely on Conservapedia - graphic details excluded)

'''Sex''' is the attribute of being either [[male]] or [[female]], categories which reflect biological reproductive functions (see also [[Gender]]).
The female sex is defined as the one which produces the larger [[gamete]] (the egg) and which typically bears the offspring. In contrast, the male sex has a smaller gamete (sperm) and rarely bears offspring.

Sex can also refer to sexual intercourse, the physical act of reproduction, also known as "sexual relations" or "having sex."

In some animals, sex may be assigned to specific structures rather than the entire organism. Earthworms, for example, are normally [[hermaphrodites]].

==Norms of social conduct==
{{main|Gender roles}}

"Sex" defines what is biologically present, whereas "gender" defines what society expects of persons of different sexes. The distinction is important in law, as it tends to forbid discrimination on the basis of either, e.g. effeminate men cannot be fired for not acting according to their "gender". In other areas the distinction is primarily important for more abstracted social and legal arguments, rather than everyday use.

The term ''sex'' is often used to denote the activity of sexual relations, and as such it is subject to laws of social conduct.

==Sexual morality in the Bible==
From the beginning, [[God]] created the male and female as uniquely compatible and complimentary, and only joined them in the sanctified sexual union of marriage.<ref>Gn. 1:27,27; 2:18-24; 1Cor. 11:8-12; Eph. 5:31</ref> All sexual relations with others outside that bond are revealed to be [[sexual immorality|fornication]], which is unconditionally (regardless of motive or circumstance) prohibited and condemned.<ref>Gn. 34:1-4,13,31; 38:15,18,24; Lv. 19:29; 21:9; Dt. 22:13-30; Num. 25:1; Jdg. 8:33; 2Chrn. 21:11; Prov. 7:10-12; Hos. 1:2; Ezek. 6:9; 16:17,36; 20:7,18; 23:7; Mat. 5:32; 15:19; 19:9; Jn. 8:41; Acts 15:20; 15:29; 21:25; Rom. 1:29; 1Cor. 5:1,11; 6:9,13,18; 7:2; 2Cor. 6:16; 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5; 1Thes. 4:3; Heb. 12:16; 13:4; 1Pet. 4:3; Rev. 9:21, etc.</ref>

In the Bible a ''harlot'' or ''whore'' ([[KJV]]) was a woman who had sex before marriage, including prostitutes.<ref>Gn. 34:1-4,13,31; 38:15,18,24 Num. 25:1</ref> If a man engaged in such with a single woman, he was required to marry her for life, while the [[death penalty]] was mandated for the man (or both if consensual) for engaging in sexual relations with a woman who was betrothed (contracted to marry) to another, or for a woman who married under the false pretense of being a virgin, and her husband objected upon discovering otherwise.<ref>Dt. 22:13-29</ref> Likewise, spiritual fornication was that of infidelity to God in making an idol to be one's god,<ref>Ezek. 6:9; 23:30; 37:23</ref> with Israel being covenantally "married" to God.<ref>Jer. 3:14; Ezek. 16:8</ref>

In the [[Gospel of Mark]] 7:20-23 (cf. Mt. 15:19), Jesus declares that sin begins in the heart, and the iniquities that proceed out of the heart include fornications, which being plural, includes all sexual relations outside marriage. While broader descriptions exist (i.e. "the bed of love": Ezek. 23:17) sexual intercourse is what is usually indicated (by euphemisms) in laws against illicit sex, yet it is generally held that this is not limited to such, but prohibits all sexual eroticism outside marriage (in which it is exclusively sanctioned: Prov. 5:15-20: SoS), and which all "uncleanness" <ref>Rm. 1:24; Eph. 5:3</ref> covers.<ref>Adam Clarke, [[Matthew Henry]], John Wesley, Eph. 5:3; Albert Barnes, Rm. 1:24</ref>

Though [[polygamy|more than one wife]] was allowed in the Old Testament, and even [[concubine]]s were wives <ref>Gn. 25:1; cf. 1Ch. 1:32; Gn. 30:4; cf. Gn. 35:22; 2Sam. 16:21, 22, cf. 2Sam. 20:3</ref>, the Lord Jesus restored that to the original standard of one man and one woman, for life (though most understand the fornication clause as allowing [[divorce]] in the case of marital infidelity, as fornication can include [[adultery]]<ref>[http://www.enterhisrest.org/articles/divorce_remarriage.pdf DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE UNDER GOD By L. S. Boardman]</ref>). In so doing, (Mt. 19:4-9) Jesus defined the male and the female as constituting the "what" of "what therefore God hath joined together", and which, along with other verses, excludes [[same-sex marriage]] or other sexual unions. {{Main|Homosexuality and biblical interpretation}}

==See also==
*[[Grammar]] for a discussion of grammatical gender

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

[[category:biology]]
[[category:sociology]]
[[Category:Sexuality]]
[[category:Bible]]