Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Define torture

2012-03-22T16:20:46Z

Bazman:

Torture needs defining because liberals have blurred the true meaning. Is torture to stand on one foot with a black hood over your head? Maybe it is when you cut a persons fingers off. Is torture a degrading naked pyramid of men? Or maybe it is hammering nails into someones skull. Is torture having a scary dog bark at your face? Maybe it is beating your face silly with brass knuckles. Is torture three square meals a day, tropical skies, a free Koran? Or maybe it is locked in a cold dungeon, no light, starving to death. Help, the issue is so distorted. [[User talk:Jpatt|Jpatt]]

Simply use the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (Commence booing as was done at the SC Republican Debate 2012) [[User:Bazman|Bazman]] 03:22, 22 March 2012 (CDT)

Torture is any cruel or unusual punishment, forbidden by the 8th Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the highest law of our Republic, assuming we still have a Republic. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 03:22, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: So to call you a bad name, that is torture?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 03:34, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Thee square meals a day, tropical skies and a free Koran? You make prison sound like club med. Answer honestly, who was treated worse: enemy combatants and terrorists held by US forces in Abu Graib, or innocent British sailors captured by the Iranians?

There is no real line where you can say 'interregation stops here, then torture begins.' Horrible things go on in American prisons, but no one raises holy hell. The fact of the matter is that the US is supposed to be a moral nation, based on individual rights and liberty. When the world hears we stick people in jail without trial and use techniques like water boarding...well, how are we any better than those we are trying to fight in their eyes? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 08:53, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: I am not comparing prison to club med. I am comparing torture situations. Another America basher comments, way to Golz.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:''Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.''[http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm#part1]
:Well its a start...
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 09:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

How do '''''you''''' suggest that we get information, Ask nicely?

::That might not work ... on the other hand there are aparrently people trained in non-torturous interrogation who do know how to get information out of people. Their success rate is quite high and the information is usually of good quality. Under torture people are likely to admit to anything. One never knows if the information acquired is any good or not. Then again ... if you just like being cruel to people...
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 09:39, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:::like what? truth serum?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 09:45, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Never mind. Just carry on recruiting terrorists.
::::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 09:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Never mind, leave alone the terrorists so they can kill the innocent. Was there recruitment prior to 9/11?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:53, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I think that only American citizens should be protected by the constitution (even the 8th ammendment). We are better than the terrorists because they attacked us, and because we are the ones who will eventually win. I don't think that we should use anything that I personally would define as torture (sticking splinters up their fingernails, skining and salting them, etc.) but we could definately be doing a lot better to persuade them to confess. I suggest that we:

# Regularly starve them for a week or so; nothing life threatening but we don't want them to get comfortable.
# when we ''do'' feed them it should be nothing very good.
# Put them in solitary confinment; we might do this already but I wouldn't know.
# We can certainly ''pretend'' that we're going to do something cruel. I suggest we have somebody realy good at special effects make a video to show them of some horrible torture method. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I am all for that benjamin, but to the left, everything you mention is cruel and unusual punishment, a.k.a torture. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:46, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

*my definition of torture: techniques that cause irreversible physical or psychological damage. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 09:37, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:You know torure is not an effective means of getting accurate information, right? And you do know that the best way to get accurate information is, in fact, to be nice to them. It's like good cop bad cop, but they're already in prison so you don't even need a bad cop. Just the good cop.

:And Benjamin, while your ethnocentrism is to be applauded on this site, our various governmental documents don't make any allowance for all men to be created equal and certain unalienable rights... except then not so much for people that are different. And you say that "we are better than the terrorists because they attacked us." Well... how exactly do you know that the man you have in custody is a terrorist or was responsible for attacking us? So you're going to detain a man, deprive him of food on ''suspicion'' of being a terrorist? Well guess what: you can never let this man out because when you do, he's going to be a terrorist. And regardless of whether you let him out, his friends and brothers will be terrorists. And "they will be better than us because they wrongfully imprisoned my brother."

I thought we were discussing the ones that we ''know'' are terrorists. We obviously don't want to deprive them of food for information that they don't have or we will get a pack of lies. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 10:56, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Maybe we should abide by the laws we write and the treaties we sign, hm? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 09:56, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

I didn't know that we signed any treaties with radical islam. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 11:00, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::that'll probably require one-on-one therapy session with a psychologist over a 2 year treatment, ha ha ha. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 10:06, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: maybe the terrorists will abide by international law, hmmm--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Torture is also defined in the Geneva Convention. The fuzzy area is who the Convention covers, that's the real line that's been blurred.
And to Jpatt's original comment, the liberals didn't blur the line of what's torture, that's totally up to interpertation. Same as hazing laws in the US, they're vaguely worded to allow the legal system greater leeway in prosecuting and protecting rights. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:35, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

When liberals accuse the USA of torture, it is defintely been blurred because a slow painful death to me is torture, not inprisonment by America.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: If countries like the UK and US practise torture, then haven't we given up a bit of what makes us better than terrorists? JPatt's comment is a perfect example of the childish view of international affairs that has caused this problem - 'cause they're breaking international law, we can too! Cheney, get me those thumbscrews now!' You can't fight fire with fire. Torture just recruits terrorists - as was shown when Aussaresses justified torture in Algeria. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

: To fight fire with fire or torture with torture, is just fubar. My point which is too complicated for Wiki, I was not asking for vague law interpretation, which one side doesn't adhere to and the other side blames it's leaders for breaking. It is a matter of treatment, suffering, unspeakable human behavior. Defining torture to seperate what is and what is not political fodder to accuse and point fingers. Calling you the name FAT, if overweight is cruel. Does it fit as torture? Black hooded standing on one foot, does it fit as torture? If you hate America, yes it does mean torture. I say hell no as I outlined what torture really is above.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:05, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: One other point I forgot to respond to. Torture recruits terrorists? Who was the US torturing when the WTC was attacked? I guess they were recruited before 9/11, when we were so comfy safe at home. It's the same method of operation liberals use to discredit why we are in Iraq, just recruits terrorists. Except, they were attacking us well before we occupied Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe they were attacking us because no response after the USS Cole was bombed embolden them to do more harm. 2000 plus days after taking the fight to them, the homeland hasn't suffered.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:24, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::Masochistic Omnipotence Syndrome? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:05, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Wuh? [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
::::http://www.theaugeanstables.com/reflections-from-second-draft/self-criticism/ [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:12, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::: 'Wow! Because we're us, anything we do must be right!' Sorry, doesn't cut it. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
::::::http://www.theaugeanstables.com/reflections-from-second-draft/moral-equivalence/ [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:22, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::: 'They're worse than us; they've got to be, because they're not us!' Kerching, next. We should really get closer to the topic, though this is fun. :) [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
::::::::'They are not us, so they have no moral' Sorry, doesn't cut it. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 17:41, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

My litmus test: if The Enemy did the given disputed action to an American, would we
call it torture? If yes, then it's torture, if no, not.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 14:28, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:1a. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion. b. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain. 2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense. 3. Something causing severe pain or anguish.[http://www.bartleby.com/61/33/T0283300.html American Heritage]

:1 a : anguish of body or mind : AGONY b : something that causes agony or pain
:2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
:3 : distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : STRAINING[http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/torture Merriam-Webster]

:I'm waiting with considerable interest to see just what language Bush and Blair come up with to describe the treatment of the captured British sailors by the Iranians. I nominate [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10020629/site/newsweek/ "torture lite"] as the ugliest phrase to emerge in the last ten years. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:39, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:::If you include "anguish of body or mind" in your definition of torture, then every criminal locked in jail in America is being tortured.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 17:45, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::'''My''' definition of torture? No, please, ''the dictionary's'' definition of torture. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:58, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::doesn't matter, do you support freeing all criminals in jail? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 15:45, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::Do you support distortion of overrefinement of a meaning or an argument? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:46, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Even if I don't, lawyers will.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 20:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
"We are better than the terrorists because they attacked us, and '''because we are the ones who will eventually win.'''"
Benjamin, did you not criticize another user in the discussion on morality for allegedly saying that might makes right?--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 20:23, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Okay, now that we've settled that, how about [[Debate:Define terrorism]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

''I thought we were discussing the ones that we know are terrorists. We obviously don't want to deprive them of food for information that they don't have or we will get a pack of lies. --BenjaminS 10:56, 6 April 2007 (EDT)''
Ah, "Innocent 'til Proven Guilty" is for wusses, eh?
You _are_ aware that some of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay have had to be released after several '''years''' of imprisonment, right? [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3501910.stm] Since the US Government generally (I hope) isn't in the habit of locking people up just for the fun of it, I think it's safe to assume that someone THOUGHT they 'knew' these guys were Terrorists, and turned out to be wrong.
It's hilarious to see members of the Small Government Party arguing for the infallability and unwavering righteousness of a bunch of bureaucrats. Bureaucrats with GUNS, but bureaucrats nonetheless. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 21:26, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

And for the 'definition of torture', why not break out the ol' Ouija board and ask some of the Suspected Terrorists who died under the tender care of Lynndie England, She-Wolf of the US? I suspect they'd have a few choice words on the subject. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 21:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Lynndie England wasn't so bad, she just mocked some guy's genital.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 22:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I guess that one guy whose corpse she was photographed grinning over just died of embarrassment? --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 22:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Like you've never grinned during a funneral.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:41, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::I can say without hesitation that I've never stood over the coffin at a funeral, grinned at the camera, and given a thumbs up. And I can say with even more certainty that I've never stood over the dead body of murder victim and done it. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:55, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::: I don't believe any US Soldier has been convicted of murder of an inmate at Abu Griab. There has been an instance in Afganistan. No such thing as torture in Abu Griab, unless you are an American hater and site the black hood, naked pyramid and barkin dog as torture. What they did was wrong and hurt the credibility of our troops.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:46, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

"If The Enemy did the given disputed action to an American, would we call it torture? If yes, then it's torture, if no, not."
Wise words WJThomas, wise words.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Multiple definitions:
*Torture is painful or humilating treatment used to punish or coerce.
*Torture (as defined in law or treaty): such treatment which the goverment agrees to refrain from doing

Shining bright lights in a suspect's eyes to make him talk can be considered "torture", but most people have in mind things like cutting a man's ears or nuts off. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:42, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

As a family member of a survivor of torture at the hands of the government of Argentina, I am saddened that Americans would even suggest some of the things you have been speaking of. Untill you have looked first-hand at the results of prolonged torture sessions, do not be so hasty to condem another human being to it.

::What's sad is that at one time, "most people" understood that torture involves far more sophisticated methods than simply maiming someone. Bright lights, sleep deprivation, stress positions, sexual humiliation, all were methods of torture widely understood to be torture back in the 60s and 70s, when both living memories of the Second World War and the publication of THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO were there to remind us. Ever read Solzhenitsyn's chapter on torture?

::Today there seems to be a concerted movement online to redefine the word "torture" to the point where it's meaningless. Apparently, if you want to countenance torture, but just can't get around that visceral reaction most decent people have to the word "torture," the next step is to just change common usage of the word -- right Ed? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:15, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

==What is Torture==
I think when considering this discussion, one should acept that there are different threshholds, and different responses to pain.If any of you take the time to look at the Al Qaeda handbook, part of the evidence used in a trial in NY in 2003, I believe, you'll see they train their people to spill the beans at the first threat of physical abuse. The first fingernail you pull out, they are expected to scream bloody murder. In this way, we are led to believe we are getting true information. Sadly, this will almost always not be the case.

Further, remember that when you condemn these people to be tortured, you also condemn our soldiers to be tortured by them. So, at the risk of sounding like Bill O'Reilly, why do you hate the troops? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 21:41, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:::most information from confession can be verified for authenticity, and Al Qaeda usually just cut off soldiers' head without bothring to torture them.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 03:43, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Not resorting to torture is one of the things that separate free countries from dictatorships.
Torture is also very inefficient: untrained prisoners will confess to anything to make the pain go away while trained prisoners will simply lie, or not talk at all.

Also consider what this was originally about: a war on terror.
If one side wants to claim moral superiority it has to stick with the Geneva conventions, no matter how cruel their enemies are.
If both sides practice the same ethics, neither side can claim to be morally superior: the war would be nothing more than a struggle for territory and resources.

If the United States were one of these two sides, its government would have a hard time explaining why the war is necessary and why it's not imperialism, to its own citizens as well as potential allies.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:::Depends on your definition of torture. All free countries put some people in jail, which some people would consider torture.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 16:27, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

putting underwear on someones head is not torture. cutting someones head off w/ a dull, rusty blade is torture. So is slapping them with a wet codfish. or a wet cod PIECE. now THAT is torture. duh.
--[[User:The vigilante|The vigilante]] 14:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::Putting underwear on someone's head while making them stand nude, taking their picture, and/or putting them in a stress position for several hours and not allowing to sleep for long periods of time can definitely be a part of torture. People who trivialize what happened at Abu Ghraib by concentrating on the "underwear on the head" thing as if that were all that happened keep leaving out those bits. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:04, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::: It cannot be definetly defined as torture. Could be described as a means of gathering intelligence.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:52, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::::In college, I knew some people who wear underwear on their head on purpose.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 16:24, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

So if captured US soldiers were piled up naked you'd say their treatment would be acceptable?

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:::Sounds like a frat party.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 16:24, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

I am not excusing their actions MadMiddleMan. I am also not claiming it was torture.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:55, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: Tell me, jpatt -- was sticking underwear on someone's head all that happened at Abu Ghraib? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:36, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

This just hit the wires, torture now described as unscented soap, under inflated soccer balls and a noisy fan.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:48, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::Cite please, Jpatt. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:26, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

::Note, folks, that Jpatt hasn't answered my question about whether or not sticking underwear on someone's head is all that happened at Abu Ghraib. JPatt doesn't answer because Jpatt knows that going into detail about what actually happened there reveals the moral bankruptcy behind Jpatt's attempts to trivialize torture. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:29, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
:::He's just being a [[moral relativity|moral relativist]]. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 16:25, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

::::I suggest everyone actually research's everything that occured there before typing. I think we should simply let those who have experienced torture establish the rules on torture, John McCain for example. [[User:ITfreq51|ITfreq51]] 19 April 2008

== Other ==
I am for the following:

Waterboarding

sleep deprevation

light or darkness deprevation

reduction in food and water

solitary confinement no visitors

hot and cold environments

deception(making them believe something is happening when its REALLY not)

deprive them of clothes

make them sleep on a cement floor

hoods and handcuffs are good

no reading material of any kind

UNTIL the first nuke/bio weapon goes off on american soil...then the gloves come off...
</pre>

--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 12:56, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

So you're claiming that if enemy combatants stripped American soldiers naked, starved them and waterboarded them, you wouldn't consider that torture?

So you're an admirer of the manner in which the inmates of Soviet gulags were treated. Interesting. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 09:24, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

yeah right...i noticed you forgot to mention that in the gulags they were beaten, raped, killed
given electric shock and had body parts cutoff, burned, medically experimented on and were forced
to do hard labor. one might note 50 million died in gulags VS what 2-3 in US custody? nothing like i described aboved. typical liberal response of more fantasy than fact.
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 13:11, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, Wally, Solzhenitsyn's famous chapter on torture in the gulags doesn't really describe much maiming, burning, medical experiements, etc. What he describes are all those things you think WE should be doing. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:02, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

I believe this debate to be inflated far beyond the proportions it should be. The Ammendment pertaining to cruel and unusual punishment was not protecting against bad food and sleep depravation. If it was, college would be unconstitutional. The laws were passed to protect United States citizens from being maimed and mutilated in ways reminisce of the medieval inquistions. In England in colonial times you could be inprisoned for multiple years with horrible conditions on a cold stone floor with no medical treatment and minimal food for not paying taxes. Tortures such as ripping out teeth / nails, beating, blinding, boiling, bone breaking, branding and burning, castration, choking, cutting, disfigurement, dislocation, drowning, flagellation, whipping and beating, flaying, roasting, genital mutilation, limb/finger removal, starvation, and tongue removal, and quatering were used. Horrible devices like the catherine wheel, the rack, the iron maiden, thumbscrews, the heretic's fork, and many, many more were used to implement terror among political prisoners, heretics, and anyone who so much as stepped out of line. Christ himself was nailed to a tree and left to die because he spoke out against Rome. We are not treating the terrorists as enemy combatants, we are treating them to a resort hotel. I respect human life and dignity, but obviously anyone who would blow themselves up to kill as many "infidels" as possible doesn't. previous unsigned comment added by [[User:CRD]] 10:39, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

::So you figure soviet dissident Solzhenitysn was just a big ol' crybaby? And nobody who "respects human life and dignity" would mistake places like Abu Ghraib or Gitmo for a "resort hotel." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 01:10, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

People! Ann Coulter has already given us guidelines. It's not torture if:

* The same acts performed on a live stage have been favorably reviewed by Frank Rich of The New York Times;
* Andrew Sullivan has ever solicited it from total strangers on the Internet;
* You can pay someone in New York to do it to you;
* Karen Finley ever got a federal grant to do it;
* It's comparable to the treatment U.S. troops received in basic training;
* It's no worse than the way airlines treat little girls in pigtails flying to see Grandma.
citation: http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=62

==A More Specific Definition==
I propose that the reasonable definition of torture be ''"any situation in which a prisoner or captive has reason to fear for their life."'' Discuss. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:30, 11 November 2007 (EST)
:How about "any imposition of physical or psychological pain that would cause a reasonable person to falsely admit to crimes, just so they can make it stop".... for anyone who says sleep deprivation, starvation, and waterboarding are not torture, here's a test--let me try them on you for a few days, and see if I can't get you to "admit" to a crime.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 12:44, 12 November 2007 (EST)
::Hmm, good point Pandeism. Although I would suggest that sleep deprivation does not qualify as torture unless there is reason to believe the prisoner's life is in danger, e.g. heart palpitations or seizures. While I could easily be described as a filthy commie liberal, I'm aware that detainment centres are not supposed to be a particularly pleasant experience. Of course, an equally important issue is the need to improve implementation of habeas corpus and provide clear grounds for detainment in the first place. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:06, 12 November 2007 (EST)
:::What people are overlooking though is that it is the ''combination'' of techniques.... let me put it this way, the prisoners who are being waterboarded are not getting eight hours of sleep on a downy mattress, they are ''also'' being deprived of sleep and nutrition, and it is the combination of activities that has the cumulative effect of being torture.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 23:58, 12 November 2007 (EST)
::::I hadn't thought of that, but I see what you mean. Perhaps - and this is a wild suggestion - we could keep prisoners in a safe, hygienic environment and accord them some measure of dignity; even supplying religious texts on request. Perhaps real terrorists might reconsider their extremism when they encounter the Great Satan firsthand. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:21, 13 November 2007 (EST)
:::::I have to say I agree, though for different reasons. I seriously doubt that they would give up their Jihad, they're fundamentalists, they've substituted their beliefs for reality. The reason torture cannot be condoned is that to be the good guys, you have to be the good guys. You can't destroy a monster by becoming one, because then all that's left is another monster. People seem to think that torture has to leave physical scars or it isn't torture, when the truth is that you can cause monstrous amounts of pain without leaving a single mark.

Or you can cause no pain at all, extended bouts of complete sensory deprivation can lead to extreme anxiety and hallucinations, keep a person in long enough and their sense of self breaks down. But the question is what do all these things have in common? It isn't physical damage, it's the mental damage. A person who is raped can often heal the physical wounds in days, yet the mental damage can last a lifetime. Torture is an act that strips a human being of their status as a human being, and doing that lessens us. What is it to be safe if that safety means we must be monsters to attain it?

In the end, it's not about being safe. When I speak to my grand-children, I don't want to tell them I bought my safety with the pain of others. I want to be able to tell them that I accepted greater danger because it meant doing the right thing.

The deliberate infliction of severe physical pain on a sentient being for a prolonged amount of time--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 23:21, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Debate:Define torture

2012-03-22T16:17:24Z

Bazman:

Torture needs defining because liberals have blurred the true meaning. Is torture to stand on one foot with a black hood over your head? Maybe it is when you cut a persons fingers off. Is torture a degrading naked pyramid of men? Or maybe it is hammering nails into someones skull. Is torture having a scary dog bark at your face? Maybe it is beating your face silly with brass knuckles. Is torture three square meals a day, tropical skies, a free Koran? Or maybe it is locked in a cold dungeon, no light, starving to death. Help, the issue is so distorted. [[User talk:Jpatt|Jpatt]]

:: Simply use the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (Commence booing as was done at the SC Republican Debate 2012) [[User:Bazman|Bazman]] 03:22, 22 March 2012 (CDT)

Torture is any cruel or unusual punishment, forbidden by the 8th Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the highest law of our Republic, assuming we still have a Republic. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 03:22, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: So to call you a bad name, that is torture?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 03:34, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Thee square meals a day, tropical skies and a free Koran? You make prison sound like club med. Answer honestly, who was treated worse: enemy combatants and terrorists held by US forces in Abu Graib, or innocent British sailors captured by the Iranians?

There is no real line where you can say 'interregation stops here, then torture begins.' Horrible things go on in American prisons, but no one raises holy hell. The fact of the matter is that the US is supposed to be a moral nation, based on individual rights and liberty. When the world hears we stick people in jail without trial and use techniques like water boarding...well, how are we any better than those we are trying to fight in their eyes? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 08:53, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: I am not comparing prison to club med. I am comparing torture situations. Another America basher comments, way to Golz.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:''Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.''[http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm#part1]
:Well its a start...
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 09:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

How do '''''you''''' suggest that we get information, Ask nicely?

::That might not work ... on the other hand there are aparrently people trained in non-torturous interrogation who do know how to get information out of people. Their success rate is quite high and the information is usually of good quality. Under torture people are likely to admit to anything. One never knows if the information acquired is any good or not. Then again ... if you just like being cruel to people...
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 09:39, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:::like what? truth serum?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 09:45, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Never mind. Just carry on recruiting terrorists.
::::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 09:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Never mind, leave alone the terrorists so they can kill the innocent. Was there recruitment prior to 9/11?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:53, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I think that only American citizens should be protected by the constitution (even the 8th ammendment). We are better than the terrorists because they attacked us, and because we are the ones who will eventually win. I don't think that we should use anything that I personally would define as torture (sticking splinters up their fingernails, skining and salting them, etc.) but we could definately be doing a lot better to persuade them to confess. I suggest that we:

# Regularly starve them for a week or so; nothing life threatening but we don't want them to get comfortable.
# when we ''do'' feed them it should be nothing very good.
# Put them in solitary confinment; we might do this already but I wouldn't know.
# We can certainly ''pretend'' that we're going to do something cruel. I suggest we have somebody realy good at special effects make a video to show them of some horrible torture method. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I am all for that benjamin, but to the left, everything you mention is cruel and unusual punishment, a.k.a torture. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:46, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

*my definition of torture: techniques that cause irreversible physical or psychological damage. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 09:37, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:You know torure is not an effective means of getting accurate information, right? And you do know that the best way to get accurate information is, in fact, to be nice to them. It's like good cop bad cop, but they're already in prison so you don't even need a bad cop. Just the good cop.

:And Benjamin, while your ethnocentrism is to be applauded on this site, our various governmental documents don't make any allowance for all men to be created equal and certain unalienable rights... except then not so much for people that are different. And you say that "we are better than the terrorists because they attacked us." Well... how exactly do you know that the man you have in custody is a terrorist or was responsible for attacking us? So you're going to detain a man, deprive him of food on ''suspicion'' of being a terrorist? Well guess what: you can never let this man out because when you do, he's going to be a terrorist. And regardless of whether you let him out, his friends and brothers will be terrorists. And "they will be better than us because they wrongfully imprisoned my brother."

I thought we were discussing the ones that we ''know'' are terrorists. We obviously don't want to deprive them of food for information that they don't have or we will get a pack of lies. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 10:56, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Maybe we should abide by the laws we write and the treaties we sign, hm? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 09:56, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

I didn't know that we signed any treaties with radical islam. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 11:00, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::that'll probably require one-on-one therapy session with a psychologist over a 2 year treatment, ha ha ha. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 10:06, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: maybe the terrorists will abide by international law, hmmm--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Torture is also defined in the Geneva Convention. The fuzzy area is who the Convention covers, that's the real line that's been blurred.
And to Jpatt's original comment, the liberals didn't blur the line of what's torture, that's totally up to interpertation. Same as hazing laws in the US, they're vaguely worded to allow the legal system greater leeway in prosecuting and protecting rights. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:35, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

When liberals accuse the USA of torture, it is defintely been blurred because a slow painful death to me is torture, not inprisonment by America.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: If countries like the UK and US practise torture, then haven't we given up a bit of what makes us better than terrorists? JPatt's comment is a perfect example of the childish view of international affairs that has caused this problem - 'cause they're breaking international law, we can too! Cheney, get me those thumbscrews now!' You can't fight fire with fire. Torture just recruits terrorists - as was shown when Aussaresses justified torture in Algeria. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

: To fight fire with fire or torture with torture, is just fubar. My point which is too complicated for Wiki, I was not asking for vague law interpretation, which one side doesn't adhere to and the other side blames it's leaders for breaking. It is a matter of treatment, suffering, unspeakable human behavior. Defining torture to seperate what is and what is not political fodder to accuse and point fingers. Calling you the name FAT, if overweight is cruel. Does it fit as torture? Black hooded standing on one foot, does it fit as torture? If you hate America, yes it does mean torture. I say hell no as I outlined what torture really is above.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:05, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: One other point I forgot to respond to. Torture recruits terrorists? Who was the US torturing when the WTC was attacked? I guess they were recruited before 9/11, when we were so comfy safe at home. It's the same method of operation liberals use to discredit why we are in Iraq, just recruits terrorists. Except, they were attacking us well before we occupied Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe they were attacking us because no response after the USS Cole was bombed embolden them to do more harm. 2000 plus days after taking the fight to them, the homeland hasn't suffered.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:24, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::Masochistic Omnipotence Syndrome? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:05, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Wuh? [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
::::http://www.theaugeanstables.com/reflections-from-second-draft/self-criticism/ [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:12, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::: 'Wow! Because we're us, anything we do must be right!' Sorry, doesn't cut it. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
::::::http://www.theaugeanstables.com/reflections-from-second-draft/moral-equivalence/ [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:22, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::: 'They're worse than us; they've got to be, because they're not us!' Kerching, next. We should really get closer to the topic, though this is fun. :) [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
::::::::'They are not us, so they have no moral' Sorry, doesn't cut it. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 17:41, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

My litmus test: if The Enemy did the given disputed action to an American, would we
call it torture? If yes, then it's torture, if no, not.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 14:28, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:1a. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion. b. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain. 2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense. 3. Something causing severe pain or anguish.[http://www.bartleby.com/61/33/T0283300.html American Heritage]

:1 a : anguish of body or mind : AGONY b : something that causes agony or pain
:2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
:3 : distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : STRAINING[http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/torture Merriam-Webster]

:I'm waiting with considerable interest to see just what language Bush and Blair come up with to describe the treatment of the captured British sailors by the Iranians. I nominate [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10020629/site/newsweek/ "torture lite"] as the ugliest phrase to emerge in the last ten years. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:39, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:::If you include "anguish of body or mind" in your definition of torture, then every criminal locked in jail in America is being tortured.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 17:45, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::'''My''' definition of torture? No, please, ''the dictionary's'' definition of torture. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:58, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::doesn't matter, do you support freeing all criminals in jail? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 15:45, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::Do you support distortion of overrefinement of a meaning or an argument? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:46, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Even if I don't, lawyers will.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 20:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
"We are better than the terrorists because they attacked us, and '''because we are the ones who will eventually win.'''"
Benjamin, did you not criticize another user in the discussion on morality for allegedly saying that might makes right?--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 20:23, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Okay, now that we've settled that, how about [[Debate:Define terrorism]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

''I thought we were discussing the ones that we know are terrorists. We obviously don't want to deprive them of food for information that they don't have or we will get a pack of lies. --BenjaminS 10:56, 6 April 2007 (EDT)''
Ah, "Innocent 'til Proven Guilty" is for wusses, eh?
You _are_ aware that some of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay have had to be released after several '''years''' of imprisonment, right? [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3501910.stm] Since the US Government generally (I hope) isn't in the habit of locking people up just for the fun of it, I think it's safe to assume that someone THOUGHT they 'knew' these guys were Terrorists, and turned out to be wrong.
It's hilarious to see members of the Small Government Party arguing for the infallability and unwavering righteousness of a bunch of bureaucrats. Bureaucrats with GUNS, but bureaucrats nonetheless. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 21:26, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

And for the 'definition of torture', why not break out the ol' Ouija board and ask some of the Suspected Terrorists who died under the tender care of Lynndie England, She-Wolf of the US? I suspect they'd have a few choice words on the subject. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 21:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Lynndie England wasn't so bad, she just mocked some guy's genital.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 22:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I guess that one guy whose corpse she was photographed grinning over just died of embarrassment? --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 22:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Like you've never grinned during a funneral.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:41, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::I can say without hesitation that I've never stood over the coffin at a funeral, grinned at the camera, and given a thumbs up. And I can say with even more certainty that I've never stood over the dead body of murder victim and done it. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:55, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::: I don't believe any US Soldier has been convicted of murder of an inmate at Abu Griab. There has been an instance in Afganistan. No such thing as torture in Abu Griab, unless you are an American hater and site the black hood, naked pyramid and barkin dog as torture. What they did was wrong and hurt the credibility of our troops.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:46, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

"If The Enemy did the given disputed action to an American, would we call it torture? If yes, then it's torture, if no, not."
Wise words WJThomas, wise words.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Multiple definitions:
*Torture is painful or humilating treatment used to punish or coerce.
*Torture (as defined in law or treaty): such treatment which the goverment agrees to refrain from doing

Shining bright lights in a suspect's eyes to make him talk can be considered "torture", but most people have in mind things like cutting a man's ears or nuts off. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:42, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

As a family member of a survivor of torture at the hands of the government of Argentina, I am saddened that Americans would even suggest some of the things you have been speaking of. Untill you have looked first-hand at the results of prolonged torture sessions, do not be so hasty to condem another human being to it.

::What's sad is that at one time, "most people" understood that torture involves far more sophisticated methods than simply maiming someone. Bright lights, sleep deprivation, stress positions, sexual humiliation, all were methods of torture widely understood to be torture back in the 60s and 70s, when both living memories of the Second World War and the publication of THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO were there to remind us. Ever read Solzhenitsyn's chapter on torture?

::Today there seems to be a concerted movement online to redefine the word "torture" to the point where it's meaningless. Apparently, if you want to countenance torture, but just can't get around that visceral reaction most decent people have to the word "torture," the next step is to just change common usage of the word -- right Ed? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:15, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

==What is Torture==
I think when considering this discussion, one should acept that there are different threshholds, and different responses to pain.If any of you take the time to look at the Al Qaeda handbook, part of the evidence used in a trial in NY in 2003, I believe, you'll see they train their people to spill the beans at the first threat of physical abuse. The first fingernail you pull out, they are expected to scream bloody murder. In this way, we are led to believe we are getting true information. Sadly, this will almost always not be the case.

Further, remember that when you condemn these people to be tortured, you also condemn our soldiers to be tortured by them. So, at the risk of sounding like Bill O'Reilly, why do you hate the troops? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 21:41, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:::most information from confession can be verified for authenticity, and Al Qaeda usually just cut off soldiers' head without bothring to torture them.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 03:43, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Not resorting to torture is one of the things that separate free countries from dictatorships.
Torture is also very inefficient: untrained prisoners will confess to anything to make the pain go away while trained prisoners will simply lie, or not talk at all.

Also consider what this was originally about: a war on terror.
If one side wants to claim moral superiority it has to stick with the Geneva conventions, no matter how cruel their enemies are.
If both sides practice the same ethics, neither side can claim to be morally superior: the war would be nothing more than a struggle for territory and resources.

If the United States were one of these two sides, its government would have a hard time explaining why the war is necessary and why it's not imperialism, to its own citizens as well as potential allies.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:::Depends on your definition of torture. All free countries put some people in jail, which some people would consider torture.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 16:27, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

putting underwear on someones head is not torture. cutting someones head off w/ a dull, rusty blade is torture. So is slapping them with a wet codfish. or a wet cod PIECE. now THAT is torture. duh.
--[[User:The vigilante|The vigilante]] 14:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::Putting underwear on someone's head while making them stand nude, taking their picture, and/or putting them in a stress position for several hours and not allowing to sleep for long periods of time can definitely be a part of torture. People who trivialize what happened at Abu Ghraib by concentrating on the "underwear on the head" thing as if that were all that happened keep leaving out those bits. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:04, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::: It cannot be definetly defined as torture. Could be described as a means of gathering intelligence.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:52, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::::In college, I knew some people who wear underwear on their head on purpose.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 16:24, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

So if captured US soldiers were piled up naked you'd say their treatment would be acceptable?

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:::Sounds like a frat party.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 16:24, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

I am not excusing their actions MadMiddleMan. I am also not claiming it was torture.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:55, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: Tell me, jpatt -- was sticking underwear on someone's head all that happened at Abu Ghraib? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:36, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

This just hit the wires, torture now described as unscented soap, under inflated soccer balls and a noisy fan.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:48, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::Cite please, Jpatt. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:26, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

::Note, folks, that Jpatt hasn't answered my question about whether or not sticking underwear on someone's head is all that happened at Abu Ghraib. JPatt doesn't answer because Jpatt knows that going into detail about what actually happened there reveals the moral bankruptcy behind Jpatt's attempts to trivialize torture. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:29, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
:::He's just being a [[moral relativity|moral relativist]]. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 16:25, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

::::I suggest everyone actually research's everything that occured there before typing. I think we should simply let those who have experienced torture establish the rules on torture, John McCain for example. [[User:ITfreq51|ITfreq51]] 19 April 2008

== Other ==
I am for the following:

Waterboarding

sleep deprevation

light or darkness deprevation

reduction in food and water

solitary confinement no visitors

hot and cold environments

deception(making them believe something is happening when its REALLY not)

deprive them of clothes

make them sleep on a cement floor

hoods and handcuffs are good

no reading material of any kind

UNTIL the first nuke/bio weapon goes off on american soil...then the gloves come off...
</pre>

--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 12:56, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

So you're claiming that if enemy combatants stripped American soldiers naked, starved them and waterboarded them, you wouldn't consider that torture?

So you're an admirer of the manner in which the inmates of Soviet gulags were treated. Interesting. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 09:24, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

yeah right...i noticed you forgot to mention that in the gulags they were beaten, raped, killed
given electric shock and had body parts cutoff, burned, medically experimented on and were forced
to do hard labor. one might note 50 million died in gulags VS what 2-3 in US custody? nothing like i described aboved. typical liberal response of more fantasy than fact.
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 13:11, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, Wally, Solzhenitsyn's famous chapter on torture in the gulags doesn't really describe much maiming, burning, medical experiements, etc. What he describes are all those things you think WE should be doing. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:02, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

I believe this debate to be inflated far beyond the proportions it should be. The Ammendment pertaining to cruel and unusual punishment was not protecting against bad food and sleep depravation. If it was, college would be unconstitutional. The laws were passed to protect United States citizens from being maimed and mutilated in ways reminisce of the medieval inquistions. In England in colonial times you could be inprisoned for multiple years with horrible conditions on a cold stone floor with no medical treatment and minimal food for not paying taxes. Tortures such as ripping out teeth / nails, beating, blinding, boiling, bone breaking, branding and burning, castration, choking, cutting, disfigurement, dislocation, drowning, flagellation, whipping and beating, flaying, roasting, genital mutilation, limb/finger removal, starvation, and tongue removal, and quatering were used. Horrible devices like the catherine wheel, the rack, the iron maiden, thumbscrews, the heretic's fork, and many, many more were used to implement terror among political prisoners, heretics, and anyone who so much as stepped out of line. Christ himself was nailed to a tree and left to die because he spoke out against Rome. We are not treating the terrorists as enemy combatants, we are treating them to a resort hotel. I respect human life and dignity, but obviously anyone who would blow themselves up to kill as many "infidels" as possible doesn't. previous unsigned comment added by [[User:CRD]] 10:39, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

::So you figure soviet dissident Solzhenitysn was just a big ol' crybaby? And nobody who "respects human life and dignity" would mistake places like Abu Ghraib or Gitmo for a "resort hotel." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 01:10, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

People! Ann Coulter has already given us guidelines. It's not torture if:

* The same acts performed on a live stage have been favorably reviewed by Frank Rich of The New York Times;
* Andrew Sullivan has ever solicited it from total strangers on the Internet;
* You can pay someone in New York to do it to you;
* Karen Finley ever got a federal grant to do it;
* It's comparable to the treatment U.S. troops received in basic training;
* It's no worse than the way airlines treat little girls in pigtails flying to see Grandma.
citation: http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=62

==A More Specific Definition==
I propose that the reasonable definition of torture be ''"any situation in which a prisoner or captive has reason to fear for their life."'' Discuss. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:30, 11 November 2007 (EST)
:How about "any imposition of physical or psychological pain that would cause a reasonable person to falsely admit to crimes, just so they can make it stop".... for anyone who says sleep deprivation, starvation, and waterboarding are not torture, here's a test--let me try them on you for a few days, and see if I can't get you to "admit" to a crime.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 12:44, 12 November 2007 (EST)
::Hmm, good point Pandeism. Although I would suggest that sleep deprivation does not qualify as torture unless there is reason to believe the prisoner's life is in danger, e.g. heart palpitations or seizures. While I could easily be described as a filthy commie liberal, I'm aware that detainment centres are not supposed to be a particularly pleasant experience. Of course, an equally important issue is the need to improve implementation of habeas corpus and provide clear grounds for detainment in the first place. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:06, 12 November 2007 (EST)
:::What people are overlooking though is that it is the ''combination'' of techniques.... let me put it this way, the prisoners who are being waterboarded are not getting eight hours of sleep on a downy mattress, they are ''also'' being deprived of sleep and nutrition, and it is the combination of activities that has the cumulative effect of being torture.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 23:58, 12 November 2007 (EST)
::::I hadn't thought of that, but I see what you mean. Perhaps - and this is a wild suggestion - we could keep prisoners in a safe, hygienic environment and accord them some measure of dignity; even supplying religious texts on request. Perhaps real terrorists might reconsider their extremism when they encounter the Great Satan firsthand. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:21, 13 November 2007 (EST)
:::::I have to say I agree, though for different reasons. I seriously doubt that they would give up their Jihad, they're fundamentalists, they've substituted their beliefs for reality. The reason torture cannot be condoned is that to be the good guys, you have to be the good guys. You can't destroy a monster by becoming one, because then all that's left is another monster. People seem to think that torture has to leave physical scars or it isn't torture, when the truth is that you can cause monstrous amounts of pain without leaving a single mark.

Or you can cause no pain at all, extended bouts of complete sensory deprivation can lead to extreme anxiety and hallucinations, keep a person in long enough and their sense of self breaks down. But the question is what do all these things have in common? It isn't physical damage, it's the mental damage. A person who is raped can often heal the physical wounds in days, yet the mental damage can last a lifetime. Torture is an act that strips a human being of their status as a human being, and doing that lessens us. What is it to be safe if that safety means we must be monsters to attain it?

In the end, it's not about being safe. When I speak to my grand-children, I don't want to tell them I bought my safety with the pain of others. I want to be able to tell them that I accepted greater danger because it meant doing the right thing.

The deliberate infliction of severe physical pain on a sentient being for a prolonged amount of time--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 23:21, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?

2012-03-21T20:33:27Z

Bazman:

{{debate}}

Its just a thought I had. At their core element, political parties are economic. You have the right, which favors the rich, and the left, which favors the poor. One strives to keep things the same, the other tries to change the system so it is more equal. So why does the right seem to embrace religion more?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 09:30, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:I doubt that Conservatives are more religious than Liberals. Liberals are just more tolerant of religious beleifs. Left leaning politicians also do not say or do things to seem more pious. .--[[User:Bazman|Bazman]] 03:36, 21 March 2012 (CDT)

:"Conservatism" is about conserving things, such as traditions. Regardless of what it stands for right now in the US, conservatism has always meant trying to preserve order, protect the country, protect the ruling class, and protect a country's traditions. Every country has some traditional religion, and the conservatives (i.e. right side of the political spectrum) usually want to protect that.--[[User:Mathematica|Mathematica]] 03:36, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'd say it's a bit more complicated than that. Politicians, by definition have no qualms about anything, do not hold any principles really - whatever will get them elected and allow them to keep their power. Religion has worked for the right (often) and economic disparity has worked to the left (class warfare). The Rev Ted Haggard is but the most recent example of the hypocrisy of the "right" and on the "left" Nancy Pelosi's efforts at exempting the American Samoa from the minimum wage hike (lobbying by companies headquartered in San Francisco). In a very broad sense, Milton Friedman was right (and as believed by President Reagan) - the best way to protect our freedoms is to keep the pie that the politician rascals control as small as possible and give them as little power as possibly we can. The "left" and the "right" loves Governmental control when it suits their purpose - the left for economic reasons (mostly), the right for social/religious/related agendas that they can enforce. [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 12:10 PM, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

::If politicians have no principles, as you seem to be suggesting, then why run for political office in the first place? In other words, if you don't have an agenda that you wish to advance, why run for office? Power in and of itself is useless unless you turn it to advancing your own beliefs. "Government Control" only gets us halfway. Control over what? I suppose the recognition and money are nice, but there are a lot better ways than running for political office to make money. Politicians only seem unprincipled because they are often forced to compromise with the other side to advance their beliefs at all. --[[User:Rustybutterknife|Rustybutterknife]] 18:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::A rush, a high, the desire to grab power (OK, perhaps there IS a principle, "grab power") - When I hear about "Public service to give back" - I puke. Many who are in office have, I am guessing, no other better way to make money than wheel/deal - trade/back stab/whatever ... True, that many may try to do what they want to do, but such do not survive - leaving us with the scoundrels. I am watching the story of Congressman Jeff Flake of Arizona, who is STILL fighting a losing battle on the issue of pork/ear marks - he was on 60 minutes a while ago. I do sound like such a cynic. [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 23:45 (CDT) 21 March 2007

:I dont believe that the right does embrace religion more. The Left is full of religion. For example, environmentalism taken to its extreme is a religion. [[User: kara]]

:I'm talking about religion in the classical sense of modern Abrahamic religions. Let me rephrase. In any society, when you have a SMD|Plurality voting system like the US, 2 political parties emerge. One party favors the business sector or the rich. The other party favors the working class or the poor. This will always happen under these circumstances. So why is it that in America, the right have taken up God as a member of their party?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 10:31, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I would not say that the right has taken up God more than the left. What about Jesse Jackson?There are plenty of preachers on the left. To say that the left favors the poor and that the right favors the rich is not accurate. Things are not that clear cut. For example, some would say that the Roman Catholic church is far right. However, the Church has taken a clear pro-illegal immigrant stand in the United States. Most people (that would include politicians) are right on some issues and left on others. [[User: kara]]

Perhaps it is only that what is "right" and what is "left" is all a matter of perspective? Religion certainly plays a role in shaping perspective, though that does not mean that it is the only thing. I for one, do not consider myself a conservative, but I do consider myself religiously a Christian. I think the reason people think the "right" is more religious is because more people on the right voice their religion as justification, and claim unity among their religion to back their claim. I think the good example of this is the Creation Theology branch that I've seen on this site and elsewhere. It's pretty much a "Christians believe this, or else they are not real Christian" kind of claim. Then it's a simple matter of taking a poll and asking people if they consider themselves Christians or not. If they say "yes," then it appears they believe what you do. You can follow the same pattern with any religion, or even with any group or folk. "I am a republican, I believe abortion is wrong. All republicans believe this, therefore if anyone else is a republican, they also believe this. If they do not, they are not a real republican." 'Tis all a matter of opinion. -- [[user:Dikaiosune|Dikaiosune]] 21 March 2007

Leftist Christians don't bring their religion into it as much as conservatives. --[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 00:01, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I get the sense that conservatives us the Religion more because that is often all they have.--[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 25 March 2007 (EDT)

This question is obvious. It's because God favors conservatives, and therefore, the rich. Debate closed. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 14:42, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:People who actually have a relationship with Jesus Christ tend to be on the right side of the political spectrum. People who just have a religion based on doing good things will drift to the left side. So the debate question is wrong from the start. [[User:SarahFan|SarahFan]] 09:26, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

==They aren't!==
Conservatives enrichen the poor while the left exploits them for votes. But recently I've seen more religiousness eminate from the left then the right. Non-theistic religion has been on a steady increase. I'm sorry if that pops the bubble the people think of religion as only being a belief in the spiritual realm such as Christianity. Humanists proclaim their religion everday from the left spectrum and everyone hasn't a clue that a religion is being professed. So I don't, and can't agree that it is only the right side of the spectrum that is more religious.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:07, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

I didnt noticed if this debate is talking particulary about the US but here(in this part of the continent) poor people that are mostly farmers or so, are very attached to religion. To prove that, anyone should listen to the folk songs and theyre full of religion. A lot of Singers which came from the poor part of the society and which are clearly left-winged, sing a lot of things about religion.
I think that the church (as an institution) tends to protect their enormous amount of money and interests (At least here in south america) and always using god as their banner. Nevertheless there was (and still are) a lot of individual people inside the church more related to social work, helping the poor(economically poor) people, Not by charity. They help them day by day, next to them teaching them important things to survive. I have to point out in case that i didnt express myself quite right: all these people are seen like they belong to some left ideology.
Thats all, well. I hope that i expressed myself good enough.
Ogainax

The answer, when broken down to it's most simple truism, is that the right wing can only exist in a hoary dreamscape populated by various stretches of blind faith. This is how the secondary religion of the right ends up being a stringent orthodoxy to the proven failures of a raw, unregulated, purely "free market" utopia. -JBall

Might I just add that I am an Atheist but i despise the left wing. Real Atheism tends to lean right-wing as atheists tend to be smart enough to not be left wing. Of course you get the loud-mouthed exceptions over in the USA but over here in Britain almost every atheist I know is a Thacherite. -RCS

==Rationality vs Faith==
The right is more religious because their ideology is more based on faith than rationality. They have faith that
A.) Christianity is right
B.) Trickle Down economics work
C.) In a capitalist system the rich will donate to charity to help the poor
D.) Life begins at conceptions
etc

the left however, don't have this faith and thus put in laws that make people help those beneath them. They don't take it on faith that homosexuality is bad, or that a fetus is a person, and they are in general less trusting of mankind

==The other way around==
I don't think it is the case that the "right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religious." I think it's more than people who are more religious tend to be on the right of the political spectrum. I know it seems to be a minor difference: But my political views certainly arise from my religious views, and not the other way around. Do people agree?--[[User:Newton|Newton]] 21:22, 26 March 2010 (EDT)

Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?

2012-03-21T20:32:21Z

Bazman:

{{debate}}

Its just a thought I had. At their core element, political parties are economic. You have the right, which favors the rich, and the left, which favors the poor. One strives to keep things the same, the other tries to change the system so it is more equal. So why does the right seem to embrace religion more?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 09:30, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:I doubt that Conservatives are more religious than Liberals. Liberals are just more tolerant of religious beleifs. Left leaning politicians also do not say or do things to seem more pious.

:"Conservatism" is about conserving things, such as traditions. Regardless of what it stands for right now in the US, conservatism has always meant trying to preserve order, protect the country, protect the ruling class, and protect a country's traditions. Every country has some traditional religion, and the conservatives (i.e. right side of the political spectrum) usually want to protect that.--[[User:Mathematica|Mathematica]] 03:36, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'd say it's a bit more complicated than that. Politicians, by definition have no qualms about anything, do not hold any principles really - whatever will get them elected and allow them to keep their power. Religion has worked for the right (often) and economic disparity has worked to the left (class warfare). The Rev Ted Haggard is but the most recent example of the hypocrisy of the "right" and on the "left" Nancy Pelosi's efforts at exempting the American Samoa from the minimum wage hike (lobbying by companies headquartered in San Francisco). In a very broad sense, Milton Friedman was right (and as believed by President Reagan) - the best way to protect our freedoms is to keep the pie that the politician rascals control as small as possible and give them as little power as possibly we can. The "left" and the "right" loves Governmental control when it suits their purpose - the left for economic reasons (mostly), the right for social/religious/related agendas that they can enforce. [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 12:10 PM, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

::If politicians have no principles, as you seem to be suggesting, then why run for political office in the first place? In other words, if you don't have an agenda that you wish to advance, why run for office? Power in and of itself is useless unless you turn it to advancing your own beliefs. "Government Control" only gets us halfway. Control over what? I suppose the recognition and money are nice, but there are a lot better ways than running for political office to make money. Politicians only seem unprincipled because they are often forced to compromise with the other side to advance their beliefs at all. --[[User:Rustybutterknife|Rustybutterknife]] 18:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::A rush, a high, the desire to grab power (OK, perhaps there IS a principle, "grab power") - When I hear about "Public service to give back" - I puke. Many who are in office have, I am guessing, no other better way to make money than wheel/deal - trade/back stab/whatever ... True, that many may try to do what they want to do, but such do not survive - leaving us with the scoundrels. I am watching the story of Congressman Jeff Flake of Arizona, who is STILL fighting a losing battle on the issue of pork/ear marks - he was on 60 minutes a while ago. I do sound like such a cynic. [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 23:45 (CDT) 21 March 2007

:I dont believe that the right does embrace religion more. The Left is full of religion. For example, environmentalism taken to its extreme is a religion. [[User: kara]]

:I'm talking about religion in the classical sense of modern Abrahamic religions. Let me rephrase. In any society, when you have a SMD|Plurality voting system like the US, 2 political parties emerge. One party favors the business sector or the rich. The other party favors the working class or the poor. This will always happen under these circumstances. So why is it that in America, the right have taken up God as a member of their party?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 10:31, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I would not say that the right has taken up God more than the left. What about Jesse Jackson?There are plenty of preachers on the left. To say that the left favors the poor and that the right favors the rich is not accurate. Things are not that clear cut. For example, some would say that the Roman Catholic church is far right. However, the Church has taken a clear pro-illegal immigrant stand in the United States. Most people (that would include politicians) are right on some issues and left on others. [[User: kara]]

Perhaps it is only that what is "right" and what is "left" is all a matter of perspective? Religion certainly plays a role in shaping perspective, though that does not mean that it is the only thing. I for one, do not consider myself a conservative, but I do consider myself religiously a Christian. I think the reason people think the "right" is more religious is because more people on the right voice their religion as justification, and claim unity among their religion to back their claim. I think the good example of this is the Creation Theology branch that I've seen on this site and elsewhere. It's pretty much a "Christians believe this, or else they are not real Christian" kind of claim. Then it's a simple matter of taking a poll and asking people if they consider themselves Christians or not. If they say "yes," then it appears they believe what you do. You can follow the same pattern with any religion, or even with any group or folk. "I am a republican, I believe abortion is wrong. All republicans believe this, therefore if anyone else is a republican, they also believe this. If they do not, they are not a real republican." 'Tis all a matter of opinion. -- [[user:Dikaiosune|Dikaiosune]] 21 March 2007

Leftist Christians don't bring their religion into it as much as conservatives. --[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 00:01, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I get the sense that conservatives us the Religion more because that is often all they have.--[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 25 March 2007 (EDT)

This question is obvious. It's because God favors conservatives, and therefore, the rich. Debate closed. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 14:42, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:People who actually have a relationship with Jesus Christ tend to be on the right side of the political spectrum. People who just have a religion based on doing good things will drift to the left side. So the debate question is wrong from the start. [[User:SarahFan|SarahFan]] 09:26, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

==They aren't!==
Conservatives enrichen the poor while the left exploits them for votes. But recently I've seen more religiousness eminate from the left then the right. Non-theistic religion has been on a steady increase. I'm sorry if that pops the bubble the people think of religion as only being a belief in the spiritual realm such as Christianity. Humanists proclaim their religion everday from the left spectrum and everyone hasn't a clue that a religion is being professed. So I don't, and can't agree that it is only the right side of the spectrum that is more religious.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:07, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

I didnt noticed if this debate is talking particulary about the US but here(in this part of the continent) poor people that are mostly farmers or so, are very attached to religion. To prove that, anyone should listen to the folk songs and theyre full of religion. A lot of Singers which came from the poor part of the society and which are clearly left-winged, sing a lot of things about religion.
I think that the church (as an institution) tends to protect their enormous amount of money and interests (At least here in south america) and always using god as their banner. Nevertheless there was (and still are) a lot of individual people inside the church more related to social work, helping the poor(economically poor) people, Not by charity. They help them day by day, next to them teaching them important things to survive. I have to point out in case that i didnt express myself quite right: all these people are seen like they belong to some left ideology.
Thats all, well. I hope that i expressed myself good enough.
Ogainax

The answer, when broken down to it's most simple truism, is that the right wing can only exist in a hoary dreamscape populated by various stretches of blind faith. This is how the secondary religion of the right ends up being a stringent orthodoxy to the proven failures of a raw, unregulated, purely "free market" utopia. -JBall

Might I just add that I am an Atheist but i despise the left wing. Real Atheism tends to lean right-wing as atheists tend to be smart enough to not be left wing. Of course you get the loud-mouthed exceptions over in the USA but over here in Britain almost every atheist I know is a Thacherite. -RCS

==Rationality vs Faith==
The right is more religious because their ideology is more based on faith than rationality. They have faith that
A.) Christianity is right
B.) Trickle Down economics work
C.) In a capitalist system the rich will donate to charity to help the poor
D.) Life begins at conceptions
etc

the left however, don't have this faith and thus put in laws that make people help those beneath them. They don't take it on faith that homosexuality is bad, or that a fetus is a person, and they are in general less trusting of mankind

==The other way around==
I don't think it is the case that the "right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religious." I think it's more than people who are more religious tend to be on the right of the political spectrum. I know it seems to be a minor difference: But my political views certainly arise from my religious views, and not the other way around. Do people agree?--[[User:Newton|Newton]] 21:22, 26 March 2010 (EDT)

Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?

2012-03-16T20:03:01Z

Bazman: /* Obama Is An Atheist */

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==NormanS's View==

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

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

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

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

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

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

==What's the Point?==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Who cares==

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

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

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

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

==Obama Is An Atheist==

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

Or maybe he thinks the Islamic call to prayer is beautiful for the same reason he might think a song is beautiful. --- --[[User:OmarAlfarouqo|OmarAlfarouqo]] 23:38, 16 January 2010 (EST)

:My Dad thinks Obama is an athiest who says Christian things for political reasons. I'm not sure what I think, because personally, I think it's impossible to know for an absolute, positive fact where someone's faith in Christ is at. We can see plenty of indications, but we're not God and we can't "read someone's heart".

:However, I do think that the "athiest theory" makes sense. I mean, he doesn't seem to agree with Christians in the political realm; he's a supporter of abortion (including radical, barbaric partial-birth abortion) and seems sympathetic to the cause of gay marriage, both views that are rare among Christians. Plus, I seem to recall his speech at the Easter banquet was rather odd ("There's just something about the resurrection that puts everything in perspective...") And it would make sense for him to pretend to be Christian and say Christian things; in America, it's pretty normal to have a Christian as commander-in-chief, and being an atheist could hurt support for him among Christians.

:But I must emphasize: I do '''NOT''' know what his faith is. I am '''NOT''' God and I could be ''completely wrong'' about this. I'm not trying to say anything conclusive. --[[User:StoryMaker|StoryMaker]] 13:35, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

Finally, some sense. Yes, I think Obama could be a secret Atheist, Agnostic or Deist. He would not have been elected if he admitted to being any of these. Not that it matters to me personally.
--[[User:Baz Man|Baz Man]]

Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?

2012-03-16T20:02:41Z

Bazman: /* Obama Is An Atheist */

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==NormanS's View==

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

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

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

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

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

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

==What's the Point?==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Who cares==

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

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

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

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

==Obama Is An Atheist==

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

Or maybe he thinks the Islamic call to prayer is beautiful for the same reason he might think a song is beautiful. --- --[[User:OmarAlfarouqo|OmarAlfarouqo]] 23:38, 16 January 2010 (EST)

:My Dad thinks Obama is an athiest who says Christian things for political reasons. I'm not sure what I think, because personally, I think it's impossible to know for an absolute, positive fact where someone's faith in Christ is at. We can see plenty of indications, but we're not God and we can't "read someone's heart".

:However, I do think that the "athiest theory" makes sense. I mean, he doesn't seem to agree with Christians in the political realm; he's a supporter of abortion (including radical, barbaric partial-birth abortion) and seems sympathetic to the cause of gay marriage, both views that are rare among Christians. Plus, I seem to recall his speech at the Easter banquet was rather odd ("There's just something about the resurrection that puts everything in perspective...") And it would make sense for him to pretend to be Christian and say Christian things; in America, it's pretty normal to have a Christian as commander-in-chief, and being an atheist could hurt support for him among Christians.

:But I must emphasize: I do '''NOT''' know what his faith is. I am '''NOT''' God and I could be ''completely wrong'' about this. I'm not trying to say anything conclusive. --[[User:StoryMaker|StoryMaker]] 13:35, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:Finally, some sense. Yes, I think Obama could be a secret Atheist, Agnostic or Deist. He would not have been elected if he admitted to being any of these. Not that it matters to me personally.
--[[User:Baz Man|Baz Man]]

Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?

2012-03-16T20:01:46Z

Bazman: /* Obama Is An Atheist */

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==NormanS's View==

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

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

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

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

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

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

==What's the Point?==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Who cares==

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

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

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

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

==Obama Is An Atheist==

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

Or maybe he thinks the Islamic call to prayer is beautiful for the same reason he might think a song is beautiful. --- --[[User:OmarAlfarouqo|OmarAlfarouqo]] 23:38, 16 January 2010 (EST)

:My Dad thinks Obama is an athiest who says Christian things for political reasons. I'm not sure what I think, because personally, I think it's impossible to know for an absolute, positive fact where someone's faith in Christ is at. We can see plenty of indications, but we're not God and we can't "read someone's heart".

:However, I do think that the "athiest theory" makes sense. I mean, he doesn't seem to agree with Christians in the political realm; he's a supporter of abortion (including radical, barbaric partial-birth abortion) and seems sympathetic to the cause of gay marriage, both views that are rare among Christians. Plus, I seem to recall his speech at the Easter banquet was rather odd ("There's just something about the resurrection that puts everything in perspective...") And it would make sense for him to pretend to be Christian and say Christian things; in America, it's pretty normal to have a Christian as commander-in-chief, and being an atheist could hurt support for him among Christians.

:But I must emphasize: I do '''NOT''' know what his faith is. I am '''NOT''' God and I could be ''completely wrong'' about this. I'm not trying to say anything conclusive. --[[User:StoryMaker|StoryMaker]] 13:35, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

:Finally, some sense. Yes, I think Obama could be a secret Atheist, Agnostic or Deist. He would not have been elected if he admitted to being any of these. Not that it matters to me personally.

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2012-03-16T19:29:25Z

Bazman: /* Religious debates */

'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''

(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)

==Philosophical Debates==
# [[Debate:Can Conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad]]
# [[Debate:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
# [[Debate:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Debate:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Debate:Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Debate:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]
# [[Debate:Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Embryonic Stem Cells: Why or why not?]]
# [[Debate:Why Reason?]]
# [[Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?]]
# [[Debate:What is the real love?]]
# [[Debate:who created God?]]
# [[Debate: Why have conservatives let themselves get a bad name?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible for God to be timeless?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion?]]
# [[Debate: How do conservatives view the Open Source movement and software?]]
# [[Debate: At what point does "Human" life begin?]]
# [[Debate: Are fear of death and sorrow compatible with faith?]]

==Religious debates==
# [[Debate:Was God not intelligent enough to create life on Mars as well as Earth?]]
# [[Debate:Does God punish sinners for eternity?]]
# [[Debate: Should certain books be banned from libraries?]]
# [[Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?]]
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion?]]
# [[Debate:Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce?]]
# [[Debate:Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]
# [[Debate:Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Debate:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Debate:What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:What does Christianity say about Pedosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Debate:Did God create evil?]]
# [[Debate:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Debate:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?]]
# [[Debate:AntiSemitism]]
# [[Debate:Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Debate:What is the relationship between religion and the human tendency to kill each other?]]
# [[Debate:Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Debate:What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Debate:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Debate:If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Debate:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|Debate:If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Debate:Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Debate:Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
# [[Debate:Why the Bible|Debate:What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Debate:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Debate:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
# [[Debate:Antisemitism]]
# [[Debate:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Debate:Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Debate:Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Debate:Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]
# [[Debate:Atheism vs. Deism]]
# [[Debate:Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]]
# [[Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?]]
# [[Debate:Is there 1 God or are there many gods?]]
# [[Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?]]
# [[Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?]]
# [[Debate:Is atheism a religion?]]
# [[Debate: If not naturalism, how do we decide which supernatural explanation is correct?]]
# [[Debate: Are Catholics Christians?]]
# [[Debate: Do Atheist believe they have a soul?]]
# [[Debate:Were Judas' actions necessary and foreordained?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible to voluntarily convert one's religion?]]
# [[Debate: Can Christianity exist without Apostles and Prophets?]]
# [[Debate: What do you think about the violence in the Bible?]]
# [[Debate: Could Christian denominations exist without the Catholic Church?]]
# [[Debate: Which version of the Bible should be used as the authoritative reference on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate: Should Christians celebrate Christmas?]]
#[[Debate:Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong]]
#[[Debate:Creationist]]
#[[Debate:Did Joan of Arc truly hear voices?]]
#[[Debate:Do ALL suicides go to hell?]]
#[[Debate:Epicurus' Trilemma]]
#[[Debate: Why does God care if we worship Him or not? Is it His ego?]]
#[[Debate: Can God explain all of the conspiracy theories and all other phenonmena?]]
#[[Debate: Should Christians be more forthright in stating that Allah is not the same being as the Judeo-Christian God?]]
#[[Debate: Why does God send us on Earth ?]]
#[[Debate: When are you lot just going to grow ?]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
#[[Debate: Do genuinely saved Christians sin?]]
#[[Debate: Were Achan's children stoned and if so, was it just?]]

==Historical debates==
# [[Debate:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?]]
# [[Debate:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?]]
# [[Debate:Was President George H. W. Bush wrong to leave Saddam in power in 1991?]]
# [[Debate:Which was worse? the Civil War and it's effects or slavery?]]
# [[Debate:Why are most actors turned politicians Republicans?]]
# [[Debate: Did the Founding Fathers intend to apply their personal faith to the nation "As an institution"?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States of America really be counted as a country?]]

==Political debates==
# [[Debate:Does Abstinence Only Education help or hurt us?]]
# [[Debate: Should we criminalize homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:Is homosexuality responsible for totalitarianism?]]
# [[Debate: Did the Founders have a religious motive?]]
# [[Debate: To what extent should we have obscenity laws]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still have an embargo on Cuba?]]
# [[Debate:Has Britain Declined?]]
# [[Debate:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]
# [[Debate:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Debate:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Debate:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?]]
# [[Debate:Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Debate:Define torture]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
# [[Debate:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Debate:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|Debate:If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Debate:Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Debate:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Debate:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Debate:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Debate:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Debate:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Debate:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Debate:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Debate:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Debate:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[Debate:Women in the Military?]]
# [[Debate:Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religious?]]
# [[Debate:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Debate:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Debate:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Debate:Is President Bush good for America?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Debate:Does single sex schooling promotes homesexuality?|Debate:Does Single sex schooling promote homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Debate:What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Debate:Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Debate:Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]
# [[Debate:Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]
# [[Debate:Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?]]
# [[Debate:Define Civil War]]
# [[Debate:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?]]
# [[Debate:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?]]
# [[Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?]]
# [[Debate:Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?]]
# [[Debate:Placing the blame on how America got polarized]]
# [[Debate:Is most government criticism really patriotic?]]
# [[Debate:Is environmentalism mostly about preserving natural resources?]]
# [[Debate:Third Party Debate]]
# [[Debate:Preferred Democrat for the White House?]]
# [[Debate:Does Republican equal conservative? Does Democrat equal liberal?]]
# [[Debate:Obama's preacher.]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States begin Colonizing Space?]]
# [[Debate:Should the federal government have the power to define marriage?]]
# [[Debate:The Declaration of Independence or Interdependence?]]
# [[Debate:Should the U.S.A. abide by a withdrawal timetable if the Iraqi Parliament votes for one?]]
# [[Debate:Should U.S. troops be subject to Iraqi law if that allows our continued presence there?]]
# [[Debate:Should government restrictions on smoking be tightened or rolled back?]]
# [[Debate:Is Sarah Palin an asset or a liability to John McCain's candidacy?]]
# [[Debate:Is a candidate's military record relevant anymore?]]
# [[Debate:Should politicians be allowed to misspeak?]]
# [[Debate: What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Was McCain's threat to pull out of the debates a political stunt?]]
# [[Debate:If Obama Was Conservative]]
# [[Debate:What level of Gun Control is appropriate?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Bush administration's Conscience Rule a step forward or backward for U.S. Healthcare?]]
# [[Debate: Why do political views appear to be correlated with others?]]
#[[Debate:What should be America's policy toward Islam]]?
#[[Debate:Is the American Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands justified?]]
#[[Debate:Was the American involvement in the Vietnam War justified?]]
#[[Debate:Was the North right to prevent Southern secession in the US Civil War?]]
#[[Debate:Is the 2009 Stimulus Plan the right approach, and if not what would be?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama being unfairly criticized, or is too much being expected of our new president?]]
# [[Is it possible to be conservative and know there is no possibility of there ever being a "God" and/or higher being?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama an Atheist?]]
# [[Would anybody consider President Barry Soetoro a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Illegal Immigrants: Is it too late for US?]]
# [[Debate: Was Osama really killed in Abbottabad?]]

==Economic debates==
# [[Debate: Did World War II end the Great Depression?]]
# [[Debate: Can there be price controls without shortages?]]
# [[Debate: Counterfeiting: A Moral Hazard]]
#[[Debate:Should Americans be required to buy health insurance?]]
# [[Is our freedom to consume what we want whenever we want worth the cost (i.e. environmental, social, economic, etc.)?]]

==Scientific debates==
# [[Debate:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]
# [[Debate:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Debate:Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]
# [[Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Debate:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Debate:God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Debate:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?|Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?]]
# [[Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]
# [[Debate:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]
# [[Debate:What is CP's position on Relativity? (and, in general, on physical sciences)]]
# [[Debate:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?]]
# [[Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?|Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal]]
# [[Debate:Why are God's works always questioned?]]
# [[Debate:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?|Debate:Are there any elements of choice]]
# [[Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing]]
# [[Debate:Is homosexuality a mental illness?]]
# [[Debate:Can the science of evolution be separated from the philosophy of it?]]
# [[Debate: Should the United States defund the National Science Foundation?]]
# [[Debate: Creationism, Evolutionism and the 15 questions]]
# [[Debate: What does Evolution attempt to explain?]]

==Debates about Conservapedia==
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?]]
# [[Debate:The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Debate:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Debate:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Debate:Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Debate:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Debate:What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate:Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Debate:Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Debate:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Debate:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Debate:Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]
# [[Debate:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]
# [[Debate:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]
# [[Debate:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]
# [[Debate:Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?]]
# [[Debate:Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia blinkered?|Is Conservapedia blinkered?]]
# [[Debate:Does Conservapedia censor opponents the way Expelled says ID advocates are censored?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Conservapedia Logo in violation of US Flag Code?]]
# [[Debate:The 90/10 rule exists soley to squash debate, and should be eliminated]]
# [[Debate:What will Conservapedia be like if Barack Obama wins the election?]]
# [[Debate:Which is more important, economic or social conservatism?]]
# [[Debate:Should the Conservapedia logo be changed?]]
# [[Debate:Can/May/Should online wiki encyclopedias copy from each other?]]
# [[Debate:Is it time to propagate Conservapedia in other languages/countries?]]
# [[Debate:Should Conservapedia be more open about sex related articles?]]

==Funny, maybe?==

# [[Debate:Are cats just useless Dogs]]
# [[Debate:Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?]]
# [[Debate:Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]
# [[Debate:Favorite old time radio show]]

==Other==
# [[Debate:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]
# [[Debate:Is Rap music torture?]]
# [[Debate:Should marijuana be legalized?]]
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]
# [[Debate:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?]]
# [[Debate:Mall Shootings]]
# [[Debate:Creationist]]
# [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]
# [[Debate:Does modern music negatively influence children]]
# [[Debate:Propaganda in childrens' television]]
# [[Debate:What Is Music?]]
# [[Debate:Why are there so few homosexual athletes]]
# [[Debate:Relationship between Socialism and athletic performance]]

{{Conservapedia}}

[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?

2012-03-16T14:49:09Z

Bazman: /* Yes */

{{debate-politics}}

== No ==

Every single one of the users arguing against guns merely argues that the bad guys don't have guns if we ban them. However it is the opposite. If the United States utelizes gun control, ONLY the criminals will have guns and the law abiding citizens will not be able to stop them.

The answer to this is pretty obvious, a no brainer as you people put it. In the UK guns are banned. You can own a shotgun if you're a farmer, but even then you need a license and a check up. You can be a collector, but rules are strict.

OK there are more fire arms murders now, but this is down to eastern europe having a lot of Russian weapons around. However the number of people killed by firearms in the UK every yaer is less than the rate for most US cities in a week! There has NEVER been a situation where kids have run amok in there own schools with firearms - that is NEVER.

There has been ONE incident where an adult went amok in a school with guns since records started - Dunblane. There has been ONE incident where some guy with guns went postal in living memory, Hungerford Massacre in 1987. We don't need guns, criminals don't carry them - just carrying a gun on a burglary will turn it into a life sentence, police for the most part don't carry them. This is civillisation.

How anyone can argue in favour of widespread firearm ownership and compare EU gun crime rates with US ones is a mystery. Just one of the reasons I thank the lord that I wasn't born a US Citizen.

''I'd like to point out the fact that the population of the United States is approx 5X the population of the United Kingdom. OBVIOUSLY there will be fewer gun-related incidents in the UK. Besides...who would want to terrorize the UK? - Comatoseraccoon''

'''''I'd''' like to point out that the amount of gun related incidents per capita is still lower in the UK. OBVIOUSLY you have to take that into account. Besides... it's not like the UK has ever been a victim of terrorist attacks... right? - [[User:GShore|GShore]]''

(Oh and by the way Conservapedia argues that US spellings should be used as the majority of English speakers are American, not so. India and Anglophone Africa outnumber American English speakers by a large factor).

Conservatism OK! No gun control No Way!

No!!!!

[[User:DeborahB.|Deborah]]

Hah, I Don't think that gun control is the answer to crime solving. Did you know that the cities with Gun shows and that have guns are safer then the ones who don't have guns. I mean come on people this is obvious, we need guns, war is what made this country what it is. So, live with it you're going to want to have guns one day. Just wait, just you wait.

Sargedave

If nobody had weapons then there would be no need for weapons. Like it or not bad people have weapons so good people need weapons to defend against bad people. Why should the criminal have the advantage over the righteous?--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Right cause no one hunts hmmmm ok
NOOO!!!!!!!!
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:08, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Okay basically heres the deal, people are goin to get shot either way. One of the main arguments for pro-gun control people is that the crime on the streets would decrease, it would be harder for those kids to get guns. Have yall ever heard the saying "Locks only keep honest people out"? the same principle applies here, people who want guns are gunna get them one way or another. The only difference is that a part of their proceeds wont be goin to uncle sam and there are no safety regulations, so therefore the chances of an accident go through the roof. Plus it will add a HUGE market to the black market, you know how drugs are now, or alcohol was durin prohibition? you will have the same thing now. By the way the second amendment contains 2 clauses independent of each other, yes the right to a well regulated militia is given and so is the right to bear arms. You know when Thomas Jefferson wrote that, he wrote it in a negative language. That means that its language is restrictive, not charitable. Meaning that it restricts the Government, instead of pointing out individual rights to give to the people. Thus limiting the government and giving more rights to the people. He is spinning in his grave at the idea of gun control. Now i realize the Constitution was written vague so it could be made into a moving changing document, however the framers intent cannot be blantantly trampled upon. Tommy gun (i realize this name prolly makes me look like a hardcore gun nut but its a nickname given to me a long time ago and not for my pol. views lol)

Despite the fact that it was not Jefferson who wrote the Second Amendment (Madison wrote the Bill of Rights), I somewhat agree with Tommygun here. I am surprised that these radical conservatives have not yet advocated the aborting of all minority babies to solve this problem. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 22:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

"Locks only keep honest people out'?...(quote from User: Tommy gun (above)) I would probably say that a small sign saying 'Keep Out' would be enough to keep out most honest people. Bars on the windows and deadbolts would keep everyone out. Also, what about the locks that keep the very bad men in? [[User:Clownshoes|Clownshoes]]13:49 17 April 2007 (GMT)

---While the standard NRA phrase "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" holds true, the oft ignored fact is that an increased amount of firearms leads to an increased amount of violence. Gun crime rates in gun controlled countries versus the US make this clear. Gun violence is simply the price one has to pay to live in a country without firearm bans. The reason for the second amendment is to make certain the general population has a trump card to hold against the government. The American Revolution would not have occurred were it not for the fact that many colonists were armed, and willing to kill. This same holds true for other revolutions and the general overthrow of serfdom in Europe. Firearms forced nobility to acquiesce to the will of the commoner. The murder rate doesn't bother me as long as I can back up my voice with force. Hopefully that will never be necessary for me, although it has been so in the past for others. [[User:Bomber23k|Bomber23k]]

The whole question is just silly. Obviously gun control is the answer to crimes involving guns as anyone can tell by merely glancing at violent crime statistics. Yes, gun control is an effective strategy but also one that is realistically impossible to implement in the U.S.. We have been buying and using firearms for way too long to actually expect that we can round them all up. If no-one else had a gun, neither would I but while the possibility exists that a criminal element out there posesses firearms then it's really not so dumb to have a properly stored firearm in your house in case, God forbid, you need to defend your family.[[User:Neuro|Neuro]] 15:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Alright for all those in the "yes" section here are the facts. Most criminals with access to weapons can easily obtain them from other criminals via the black market. Enforcing gun control would simply make it easier for people to be harmed. Yes, some criminals will be prevented from getting guns but the majority will still have them. Even if you do ban guns and no one has a gun it won't matter, crime will still happen. People will simply resort to more brutal weapons in order to carry out crimes (knives, baseball bats, etc.) I remember seeing a news story where ABC interviewed a bunch of criminals serving life sentences. They convicts said that their worst fear was if their victim had a weapon because it meant that they might get hurt in the process of trying to rob somebody. Basically, taking away people's guns only hurts the victims trying to defend themselves, not the criminals you are trying to stop - Comatoseraccoon

No, there is already effective gun control practices in place such as backround checks. Of course, there are those people that wish to raid the constitution, wrong very wrong. Suing gun manufacturers is also unjustified. There is not an easy solution to prevent death by guns. Banning guns is a quick fix solution that would never work. We cannot stop the fomation of illegal gangs how can we ever stop the acquisition of illegally obtained guns? My personal opinion, which means zilch, would be to raise the price of firearms. Some iPods cost more than some weapons. Still, the criminals ruin it for everyone.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:09, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

The thing with gun control is this. No matter how many bans you put on it, people will still find them and use them. The statistics for the European countries differ entirely from us because of a little thing called American Ingenuity. They outlawed drugs and so have we, the problem is our dopers know how to avoid prosecution. Secondly, the second ammendment is vital to the well being of Americans for the simple fact that this is a big nation. Were something to happen, the government could not sent militants to every part of our grand country. We need guns if there were to be some massive crisis in which we needed protection. Case and point, Al-Qaeda. If you stay paranoid long enough, sooner or later your gonna be right (Thank you Kinky Friedman). [[user: Dfairlyxed13|Dfairlyxed13]]

All in favor of gun control raise your right hand....
*does hitler salute*
--[[User:The vigilante|The vigilante]] 14:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, Sweden has no gun control, in fact everyone is in the military and has a gun, and their crime rates are through the floor. who wants to rob someone who has a desert eagle in their back pocket? Not me.

--I find it interesting how you say that if we banned guns before the 1920s then there would be less gun violence today. That is an ignorant statement and holds no ground in a gun control debate. Unless you have a time machine guns will not get banned in the past, so don't even talk about it.

Also, if guns were banned today you have no way of knowing that people would run out, remember guns will still be made in other countries smuggled in like drugs. There is also a number of craftsman who make and customize guns, if suddenly their career becomes illegal they will either find a new career or make guns illegally. In summation there's no way of proving people will run out of guns.

As for the gun control, you can't simply refer to criminals, millions of honest people who will never kill anyone use guns. I for example have been raised with guns, since I was able to shoot I have been. Not only is going out to the range and plinking a great way to spend an afternoon, its also a great way to bond with friends and family members. Some of my best memories are shooting in my backyard with my cousin and my father, not because of guns necessarily but because we were all doing something we love together. Hunting is also a tradition which has existed since the dawn of man, and has modernized to involve guns. I can truly say one of the best ways to enjoy nature is to wake up before dawn and go dear hunting with family and friends, even if nothing is shot, its still very enjoyable.

Many people view guns as weapons, or something to kill another human being with. I must say that yes guns are dangerous but when in the right hands they are quite safe. Simply because a select few individuals choose to commit crimes with guns, that is no grounds for an all out ban. Also, many underestimate how simple acquiring a gun, more specifically a hand gun is. For those of us who follow the laws, in New York State, for acquiring a handgun, the process is in fact rather lengthy. An application must be filled out and submitted to local police department, as well as a letter as to why one wants an pistol permit. Then the police review the information, send it to the FBI for a background check. After this the findings are sent back to the county judge for approval, and every hand gun bought must be place on a card carried by the owner. This process can take over a year and there is no guarantee you will be accepted.

I must say this seems quite adequate in deterring the wrong people from acquiring a pistol. Finally if we are so worried about objects that kill humans, why don't we talk about banning cars. Cars kill more people kill then guns do in the US, yet we aren't arguing about controlling cars. The fact of the matter is people die and people will kill other people, any object can be deadly, so the next time you argue for stricter gun control remember guns are merely a tool. In my personal opinion a two day waiting period for purchasing a gun is adequate gun control. I do feel that being able to waltz into a gun store and purchase 15 pistols is ridiculous. I hope I have given readers an insight into guns and their possibility for non-violent use.[[User:H20h0us391|H20h0us391]] 17:53, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:The difference between cars and guns is that you don't go out with intent to kill with a car. A gun there aren't any other uses besides shooting things. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 23:37, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

'''what part of NO dont liberals understand?'''
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 13:12, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Personally my belief is since everyone carried guns in the west there was obviously no crime and history has it wrong. I mean history doesn't tell you anything. So I'm going to go buy a gun and a holster, a hat, maybe a pair of boots with spurs, and a horse. Then I'm going to challenge somebody to a duel at high noon. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 23:43, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

so your going to challenge someone to a duel with guns? um... forgive my ignorance but weren't the people with guns who went around shooting people usually outlaws/sherrifs? outlaws ignore gun-control and cops aren't restricted by them. so unless you were a outlaw then you probably wouldn't shoot anyone (and by the way wouldn't challenging someone to a gun duel (attempted murder i think)) unless it was in self defense-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 01:06, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

No. The populace should be armed, not just criminals and gangland types. [[User:Bojenmi|Bojenmi]] 14:38, 1 January 2009 (EST)

Start: You are cooking a delicious meal. you accidentally put your hand on the burner. Would you keep it there letting your hand turn into another course in your delicious meal? IS that common sense?
So you are a thief and are about to rob a house. The owner has his gun pointed at your face. Would you really continue to rob him? All he has to do is take the half-a-second to squeeze the trigger and they're picking you up with a stick and a spoon. IS that common sense?
Also, IF YOU DON'T WANT TO GET SHOT BY ME FOR BREAKING INTO MY HOUSE, THEN DON'T BREAK INTO MY HOUSE! It really is a simple solution to that problem. If you don't want to get burned, then take your hand off the burner!

Also, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!!!! How the hell hard is that!? Citizens who disagree with that do not understand the meaning of freedom. IT goes back to my point earlier. So now you are the government and you just banned guns. Are you going to really try to get the guns from the people who are aiming them at you? You are on the wrong side of the barrel, therefore, you are not calling the shots. I would also like to add that if that day ever comes (which is actually fairly unlikely) it is the responsibility of the American people to fight it until it is fixed as stated in the Declaration of Independence. It is the responsibility of the people to overthrow that government that threatens the pursuit of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

YOu're in a hostage situation and the gunman tells you to get on the floor. SO what do you do!? you get on the floor. (And then while he's looking away, I pull my Tarus Judge from by holster and fill him full of AAA 410 buck shot and the hostage situation is over.)

Honestly, sometimes liberals need to get a lesson in common damn sense and stop trying to overthrow every bit of America and human nature with their goody-goody feel good mentality that "would be so nice and wonderful" and makes me want to throw up from how fake and disgusting it is.

The only reason I can think of that the government would want to ban guns is because they are afraid of the citizens who may revolt with their guns. IT would pave the way for the government to take away all of the rest of the bill of rights and we turn into a dictatorship. Although, if they were smart they would be afraid to take away the right to bear arms because they should know by no that Americans will not go quietly into the night. IF it means the beginning of the second civil war, then so be it. I know I, and every other gun owner I know will fight to the death to maintain the freedoms guarenteed by the Constitution. "Give me liberty, or give me death!" is what is boils down to. Also, you can have my gun when you pry it from my dead cold hands comes to mind. And again, the key is I will be using the gun before my hands (or the rest of me) are cold, and dead to prevent me from becoming cold and dead. I could go on and on, but I think you all get the picture. End [mattfelton at 8:15pm 11/16/09]

The only real argument that I can see against gun CONTROL is freedom. I am not in favor of burning the constitution and instituting a dictatorship. I hope no one here is but. But I just see guns as just a mode that the government is giving to people to shoot each other. According to PBS, 85-90% of guns used in crime are bought from legal sellers. I am not for doing away with guns in the U.S. completely, I just think we need to reform gun control laws. We can't sell firearms to crazy people, such as Jared Lee Loughner, the crazy guy who shot Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona (which has some of the most lax gun laws in the nation). More background checks should be required before purchasing a gun. Just look at the facts: less guns=less gun violence. Its as simple as that. -Utnery
 

Gun control is the last thing that would prevent crimes involving guns. I'm sorry but guns are a pretty American thing whether you realize it or not. The Bill of Rights gives us the right to bear arms; the argument that the modern world isn't like Revolutionary American and its need for guns is silly. If the citizens of this country could own their own guns without all the ridiculous hassle and restrictions liberals place on it then we would be a lot safer. GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. Liberals are always making guns look like they're some ultra-dangerous device that could easily harm someone. Americans aren't stupid enough for that. How do these liberals think more people could get shot if we put more guns into peoples hands to protect them? I don't know about you, but I think that the average citizen will often use their gun to protect himself from armed attack and is often ready to. Even if gun control makes it a little bit harder for criminals to get their guns, taking guns away from the people would easily and noticeably increase gun-related crime. It only makes sense. Basically, the good among us need guns to protect themselves from the bad among us. If the bad acquire more weapons to harm the good, then the good would have to respond. It's just life. The liberal argument that this back and forth acquiring of arms for harm and then protection could escalate into something totally unsafe for society is inconceivable. [[User:BobSherman|BobSherman]] 19:53, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

==Yes==

If guns would have been banned before the rise of the American gang culture, let's say before 1920, American gun crime rates today would probably mirror those of Europe and Japan.

Banning them now would decrease gun crimes in the long run, but yes, it would still take years before the criminals run out of guns (yes, they will run out, the international black market isn't open to common burglar or thieves, only major criminal organisations have access to it).

I can understand that with today's crime rate some people would choose to lock a single handgun away, somewhere safe in their homes, that said, I still believe machine guns (M16, AK47, etc..) as well as assault rifles have no place in a civilian home and should be banned immediately.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Yes, but only part of the answer I think that there always will be some who have their own gun by illegal means but I think that if guns were illegal it would help-Mr.Random "flying butresses"

:Machine guns have been banned in the USA for over 80 years. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 14:26, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Reducing guns will reduce gun crime, especially impulsive crimes and crimes of passion. THere is no reason for anyone to need a handgun of any sort. I can understand bolt action rifles for hunting or farmers, but aside from that, no-one needs guns, not even police (except Special ops or SWAT)
The best solution would be to amend the second ammendment. Its an ammendment, obviously this is something that can be changed and was never meant to be permanent. It was ammended because the Colonies wanted to gain independence from the British. There is no contempory need that could possibly justify a right to bear arms or form militia.
Its just plain old greedy stupidity [[User:Nhyme|Nhyme]]

Ah, yes, impulsive crimes and crimes of passion, I hadn't even thought of that, good point.

You misunderstood me, I too think guns don't belong in civilian life, but I do understand some people would like to own a single gun for self defense, and rifles aren't very practical in an urban environment, so that's why I said handguns.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

==Yes==
Yes, but it depends what you mean by gun control. I don't think there will ever be a way to keep guns out of criminal's hands, there will always be a market. So no, there should not be a law banning all guns. What we should have is a registration process that makes gun owners accountable for their weapons. This will keep unscrupulous gun owners from selling to people that should not own guns.

[[User:BazMan |Baz man]]

== Yes ==

No Because I am narrowminded and can't see the light.!!! Let's do some logic, shall we? Crimes involving guns ''involve guns'', do they not? So, logically, if people didn't have guns, they wouldn't be able to commit crimes with them, would they? Therefore, controlling the possession of guns should decrease the incidence of gun-related crimes, shouldn't it?

With all due respect, I do not understand ''why'' people feel the need to wave around lethal weapons with no real point. If you don't have a gun, but the guy who's mugging you doesn't either, there's no point in having a gun, is there? You can always whip out your TASER and stun him, can't you, or do you somehow believe that you need to kill him? And, if he does have a gun, you can still stun him, and then have him arrested for possessing a gun against the law. Please, just use logic. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 17:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Most gun crimes in Canada occur with handguns, illegally imported from the US. So, I'm saying a large part of the gun crimes in Canada are a result of our neighbour haphazardly handing out guns to everyone. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Interestingly, Canada has almost as many guns per capita as the US. But a much lower gun homicide rate. Maybe it's the overt and strong rejection of European culture that has doomed the US to its globally-high firearm homicide rate? [[User:Human|Human]] 22:42, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::This is a blatantly false fact. According to the CBC, gun ownership is more than 10x higher in the United States than Canada - a statistic that roughly mirrors the comparitive murder rate. Furthermore, handguns are banned in many municipalities including Toronto, the largest city in Canada. [[User:Alttansou|Alttansou]] 15:00, 6 June 2009 (EDT)
Conservatives argue that gun control will not decrease gun-related crime and in fact puts innocent civilians at greater risk because they will not be prepared to face an armed assailant. Right? Then, by the same logic, shouldn't marajuana be de-criminalized, if marajuana control would not help prevent marajuana-related crimes? It is clear that conservatives are not using logic to make their arguments in a fair and balanced manner. Instead, they rely on dubious "ethical" opinions that they attempt to masquerade as conservatism. -- The preceeding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Olifelikeweedso|Olifelikeweedso]], 15:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:Marijuana(Thankfully we are not discussing marijuana so how did I get here you will never know, cause neither do I) is a addictive psychoactive drug that alters a users perception of reality. Guns are not.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::There is no conclusive evidence to indicate that marijuana is any more or less addictive than alcohol. Given the medicinal status of marijuana in many countries, I'd say your argument on pot doesn't fly. Keep in mind that while alcohol is a habit forming substance that alters a users perception of reality, it has no medicinal purposes (other than a topical antibacterial agent). --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 10:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Marijuana has no medicinal status in any country other than certain liberal enclaves of the US and California and ultra liberal socialist netherlands. Drugs made from it are completely separate from marijuana.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:AustinM|AustinM]].
::::Canada? It's grown by Prairie Plant Systems, on contract for Health Canada, in Flin Flon, Manitoba. Canada is, as of about ten minutes ago when I last checked, not part of the US. Please ensure the accuracy of comments before adding them. Warmest regards. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 17:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I obviously don't have your marijuana expertise ;)
::::[[User:AustinM|AustinM]], here's [http://www.drugwise-droguesoisfute.hc-sc.gc.ca/law-loi/medical_e.asp Health Canada's page on medical marijuana use in Canada]. Health Canada is a department of the Canadian government. Feel free to do some research before sounding off. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:07, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Marijuana is a legal substance in Amsterdam. Surprisingly, they have lower drugs usage rates than the United States. The logic is quite simple, legalizing marijuana takes away its mystique, that daring part of marijuana that makes it enticing (pushing the limit in other words). As one dutch official put it "[they] have succeeded in making pot boring." I myself have never nor ever plan to use drugs of any kind, but legalizing marijuana seems to be somewhat effective. - comatoseraccoon

Since when does the right to have a well-regulated militia equate to the right to carry a weapon at all times, anyway? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 18:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Since about a week ago, maybe :-( The framers of the constitution really could have been a lot clearer about this. I don't think anyone really knows what the Constitution means, and nobody will know until a case makes it to the Supreme Court and they decide to issue a broad ruling. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously gun control is the answer to gun crimes: if there are no guns, there will be no gun crimes. No one can really deny that. Thus, a more logically topic for debate is whether the right to own a gun is more important than the harm done by gun ownership.
--[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

It would be helpful to define terms here, first. Most folks, when they hear the term 'gun control', automatically think of denial - that is, denying the public access to weapons. However, gun control does not necessarily mean denial of access. It does mean registration and possibly a requirement for training. Consider that vehicles are required to be licensed, and drivers must be trained, licensed and insured, for the simple reason that it takes training to safely operate a vehicle. By the same token (speaking now as a professional military man), given the power of modern small arms, the safe handling and use of weapons most certainly requires training.

However, let's also look at the Second Amendment, which many are fond of quoting as "the right to bear arms". However, the full statement is as follows: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A militia is, essentially, a military force for the duration, citizen-soldiers who take up arms in time of war for the nation's defense. In short, what one could call Reservists or National Guard. At the time the Constitution was drafted, this was, essentially, white men, who were liable to military service if/when required. Today, gender and skin color or race doesn't enter into it, but I submit that the spirit of the Second Amendment is '''not''' that every Tom, Dick and Harry can wander around with a Glock stuck down the back of their pants. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, for no other reason that because it works. In Australia following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre there a massive federal crackdown on gun ownership. A wide range of guns, including all automatic and semi-automatic firearms (as far as I know) were banned under a gun buyback scheme. Since then the gun crime stats [http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_mr_cjb98] have spoken for themselves. This doesn't have to be a philosophical or constitutional debate. In fact, given the number of lives at stake daily it really shouldn't be. Just look at the results and consider whether it is a sacrifice worth making. [[User:Paul|user_136]] 20:05, 22 March 2007 (EST)

Well dur. After watching 'Bowling for Columbine' I am even more pro-gun control then ever. Theres too many shootings and gun crimes in america compared to like every other country. Plus, kids are starting to shoot kids. I live near Camden, NJ which is one of the poorest and worst places to live in the US. All the time little kids are getting caught up in shoot-outs and stuff. I'm tired of hearing about how 5 year old so and so was on her way to preschool when she was shot in the back of the head. Guns need to go. Sure, the government should have thme for defence I guess. But I'd rather see a world with no guns or weapons. [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 20:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT) (p.s. all that dumb second amendment stuff is so old and outdated. It's just dumb)

:The problem is not with guns, it is with humanity. No matter how many laws the government imposes, there will be someone who finds a way to murder another person. It's just the sinful nature of all people. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] [[User talk:SharonS|Talk!]] 21:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::'Bowling for Columbine' was a pretty dumb movie.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:35, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Pro-gun activists should look up statistics on gun deaths per capita in the UK, then remind yourself that gun sales are heavily restricted (forbidden, essentially) there. Then re-read the Second Amendment, and ask yourself what that line about the militia means.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:11, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::ya, UK is real peaceful. [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article1615598.ece][[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Gun deaths? What about total crime rates? [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 13:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Present-day Baghdad? ==
The argument is sometimes made that an armed citizenry is protection against criminals, a bulwark against possible government tyranny, and even protection against armed invasion. For example, [http://www.nra.org/Speech.aspx?id=6042 Charlton Heston writes] "The Founding Fathers guaranteed this freedom because they knew no tyranny can ever arise among a people endowed with the right to keep and bear arms. That's why you and your descendants need never fear fascism, state-run faith, refugee camps, brainwashing, ethnic cleansing, or especially, submission to the wanton will of criminals].

I once thought that argument had some merit to it. But by all accounts [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/03/world/middleeast/03guns.html?ex=1301716800&en=5d15095b872b5e6b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss] it is extremely common for Baghdad households to own a gun, with the Kalashnikov AK-47's being very popular, and it doesn't seem to be working out very well.

The argument against gun control seems to assume implicitly that the citizenry is all of one mind and all fighting ''on the same side.'' The Second Amendment speaks of "a well-regulated militia" but doesn't seem to address the possibility of multiple, ''poorly''-regulated militias, ''plural.''

Isn't Baghdad a fair example of one of the ways gun ownership can go wrong? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:16, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

not really. america was just a different animal when it came to this subject for MANY reasons
and really until JFK was killed everything was pertty cool here in the homeland. we just
never had the problems the rest of the world had of which there are too MANY to list.
maybe only isreal and switzerland can understand but the rest of the world is too screwed up.
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 13:10, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

The situation that is apparent in Baghdad cannot be attributed to universal gun ownership by the population. It can be attributed however to the basic desire intrinsic in all humanity to rule over more than oneself. Throughout history, whenever a large power is toppled by external forces which then do not seek total takeover, there will be an ongoing power struggle to fill the void until one group gains ascendency (the case is usually, but not always, different in the case of an internally sparked overthrow). In the case of Iraq, the US coalition is the external force. To say that gun ownership is the cause of the troubles would be to ignore that men seek power and guns empower. Since a gun is currently one of the cheapest and most effective method for an individual to wield power, it only follows that those who do not possess power yet desire it or wish to resist those who do should seek guns. If no guns existed and the current method of empowerment were a sharpen popsicle stick, thousands of people would die from popsicle stick related injuries. If it became illegal to sharpen popsicle sticks, people who respect the law would generally cease sharpening sticks. But people who do not respect the law would still carry their tools of empowerment. This leads to a rather one sided contest when one of the latter individuals attempts to exercise his power over one of the former. The argument that nobody would possess popsicle sticks due to the law or that the average person would be unable to procure a popsicle stick for the same reason is falacious. Even if every single popsicle stick were gathered up and destroyed, the ruling power would still maintain a large collection of popsicle sticks on hand in the event that people became unsubmissive to the law. And eventually people would discover rocks. Imagine the logistical nightmare it would be to collect and destroy all the rocks!

(as an aside, the greatest threat to freedom is bankers, and after that a standing army. see T. Jefferson and N. Webster)
--[[User:Historiocality|Historiocality]] 15:06, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?

2012-03-16T14:46:34Z

Bazman: /* Yes */

{{debate-politics}}

== No ==

Every single one of the users arguing against guns merely argues that the bad guys don't have guns if we ban them. However it is the opposite. If the United States utelizes gun control, ONLY the criminals will have guns and the law abiding citizens will not be able to stop them.

The answer to this is pretty obvious, a no brainer as you people put it. In the UK guns are banned. You can own a shotgun if you're a farmer, but even then you need a license and a check up. You can be a collector, but rules are strict.

OK there are more fire arms murders now, but this is down to eastern europe having a lot of Russian weapons around. However the number of people killed by firearms in the UK every yaer is less than the rate for most US cities in a week! There has NEVER been a situation where kids have run amok in there own schools with firearms - that is NEVER.

There has been ONE incident where an adult went amok in a school with guns since records started - Dunblane. There has been ONE incident where some guy with guns went postal in living memory, Hungerford Massacre in 1987. We don't need guns, criminals don't carry them - just carrying a gun on a burglary will turn it into a life sentence, police for the most part don't carry them. This is civillisation.

How anyone can argue in favour of widespread firearm ownership and compare EU gun crime rates with US ones is a mystery. Just one of the reasons I thank the lord that I wasn't born a US Citizen.

''I'd like to point out the fact that the population of the United States is approx 5X the population of the United Kingdom. OBVIOUSLY there will be fewer gun-related incidents in the UK. Besides...who would want to terrorize the UK? - Comatoseraccoon''

'''''I'd''' like to point out that the amount of gun related incidents per capita is still lower in the UK. OBVIOUSLY you have to take that into account. Besides... it's not like the UK has ever been a victim of terrorist attacks... right? - [[User:GShore|GShore]]''

(Oh and by the way Conservapedia argues that US spellings should be used as the majority of English speakers are American, not so. India and Anglophone Africa outnumber American English speakers by a large factor).

Conservatism OK! No gun control No Way!

No!!!!

[[User:DeborahB.|Deborah]]

Hah, I Don't think that gun control is the answer to crime solving. Did you know that the cities with Gun shows and that have guns are safer then the ones who don't have guns. I mean come on people this is obvious, we need guns, war is what made this country what it is. So, live with it you're going to want to have guns one day. Just wait, just you wait.

Sargedave

If nobody had weapons then there would be no need for weapons. Like it or not bad people have weapons so good people need weapons to defend against bad people. Why should the criminal have the advantage over the righteous?--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Right cause no one hunts hmmmm ok
NOOO!!!!!!!!
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:08, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Okay basically heres the deal, people are goin to get shot either way. One of the main arguments for pro-gun control people is that the crime on the streets would decrease, it would be harder for those kids to get guns. Have yall ever heard the saying "Locks only keep honest people out"? the same principle applies here, people who want guns are gunna get them one way or another. The only difference is that a part of their proceeds wont be goin to uncle sam and there are no safety regulations, so therefore the chances of an accident go through the roof. Plus it will add a HUGE market to the black market, you know how drugs are now, or alcohol was durin prohibition? you will have the same thing now. By the way the second amendment contains 2 clauses independent of each other, yes the right to a well regulated militia is given and so is the right to bear arms. You know when Thomas Jefferson wrote that, he wrote it in a negative language. That means that its language is restrictive, not charitable. Meaning that it restricts the Government, instead of pointing out individual rights to give to the people. Thus limiting the government and giving more rights to the people. He is spinning in his grave at the idea of gun control. Now i realize the Constitution was written vague so it could be made into a moving changing document, however the framers intent cannot be blantantly trampled upon. Tommy gun (i realize this name prolly makes me look like a hardcore gun nut but its a nickname given to me a long time ago and not for my pol. views lol)

Despite the fact that it was not Jefferson who wrote the Second Amendment (Madison wrote the Bill of Rights), I somewhat agree with Tommygun here. I am surprised that these radical conservatives have not yet advocated the aborting of all minority babies to solve this problem. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 22:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

"Locks only keep honest people out'?...(quote from User: Tommy gun (above)) I would probably say that a small sign saying 'Keep Out' would be enough to keep out most honest people. Bars on the windows and deadbolts would keep everyone out. Also, what about the locks that keep the very bad men in? [[User:Clownshoes|Clownshoes]]13:49 17 April 2007 (GMT)

---While the standard NRA phrase "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" holds true, the oft ignored fact is that an increased amount of firearms leads to an increased amount of violence. Gun crime rates in gun controlled countries versus the US make this clear. Gun violence is simply the price one has to pay to live in a country without firearm bans. The reason for the second amendment is to make certain the general population has a trump card to hold against the government. The American Revolution would not have occurred were it not for the fact that many colonists were armed, and willing to kill. This same holds true for other revolutions and the general overthrow of serfdom in Europe. Firearms forced nobility to acquiesce to the will of the commoner. The murder rate doesn't bother me as long as I can back up my voice with force. Hopefully that will never be necessary for me, although it has been so in the past for others. [[User:Bomber23k|Bomber23k]]

The whole question is just silly. Obviously gun control is the answer to crimes involving guns as anyone can tell by merely glancing at violent crime statistics. Yes, gun control is an effective strategy but also one that is realistically impossible to implement in the U.S.. We have been buying and using firearms for way too long to actually expect that we can round them all up. If no-one else had a gun, neither would I but while the possibility exists that a criminal element out there posesses firearms then it's really not so dumb to have a properly stored firearm in your house in case, God forbid, you need to defend your family.[[User:Neuro|Neuro]] 15:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Alright for all those in the "yes" section here are the facts. Most criminals with access to weapons can easily obtain them from other criminals via the black market. Enforcing gun control would simply make it easier for people to be harmed. Yes, some criminals will be prevented from getting guns but the majority will still have them. Even if you do ban guns and no one has a gun it won't matter, crime will still happen. People will simply resort to more brutal weapons in order to carry out crimes (knives, baseball bats, etc.) I remember seeing a news story where ABC interviewed a bunch of criminals serving life sentences. They convicts said that their worst fear was if their victim had a weapon because it meant that they might get hurt in the process of trying to rob somebody. Basically, taking away people's guns only hurts the victims trying to defend themselves, not the criminals you are trying to stop - Comatoseraccoon

No, there is already effective gun control practices in place such as backround checks. Of course, there are those people that wish to raid the constitution, wrong very wrong. Suing gun manufacturers is also unjustified. There is not an easy solution to prevent death by guns. Banning guns is a quick fix solution that would never work. We cannot stop the fomation of illegal gangs how can we ever stop the acquisition of illegally obtained guns? My personal opinion, which means zilch, would be to raise the price of firearms. Some iPods cost more than some weapons. Still, the criminals ruin it for everyone.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:09, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

The thing with gun control is this. No matter how many bans you put on it, people will still find them and use them. The statistics for the European countries differ entirely from us because of a little thing called American Ingenuity. They outlawed drugs and so have we, the problem is our dopers know how to avoid prosecution. Secondly, the second ammendment is vital to the well being of Americans for the simple fact that this is a big nation. Were something to happen, the government could not sent militants to every part of our grand country. We need guns if there were to be some massive crisis in which we needed protection. Case and point, Al-Qaeda. If you stay paranoid long enough, sooner or later your gonna be right (Thank you Kinky Friedman). [[user: Dfairlyxed13|Dfairlyxed13]]

All in favor of gun control raise your right hand....
*does hitler salute*
--[[User:The vigilante|The vigilante]] 14:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, Sweden has no gun control, in fact everyone is in the military and has a gun, and their crime rates are through the floor. who wants to rob someone who has a desert eagle in their back pocket? Not me.

--I find it interesting how you say that if we banned guns before the 1920s then there would be less gun violence today. That is an ignorant statement and holds no ground in a gun control debate. Unless you have a time machine guns will not get banned in the past, so don't even talk about it.

Also, if guns were banned today you have no way of knowing that people would run out, remember guns will still be made in other countries smuggled in like drugs. There is also a number of craftsman who make and customize guns, if suddenly their career becomes illegal they will either find a new career or make guns illegally. In summation there's no way of proving people will run out of guns.

As for the gun control, you can't simply refer to criminals, millions of honest people who will never kill anyone use guns. I for example have been raised with guns, since I was able to shoot I have been. Not only is going out to the range and plinking a great way to spend an afternoon, its also a great way to bond with friends and family members. Some of my best memories are shooting in my backyard with my cousin and my father, not because of guns necessarily but because we were all doing something we love together. Hunting is also a tradition which has existed since the dawn of man, and has modernized to involve guns. I can truly say one of the best ways to enjoy nature is to wake up before dawn and go dear hunting with family and friends, even if nothing is shot, its still very enjoyable.

Many people view guns as weapons, or something to kill another human being with. I must say that yes guns are dangerous but when in the right hands they are quite safe. Simply because a select few individuals choose to commit crimes with guns, that is no grounds for an all out ban. Also, many underestimate how simple acquiring a gun, more specifically a hand gun is. For those of us who follow the laws, in New York State, for acquiring a handgun, the process is in fact rather lengthy. An application must be filled out and submitted to local police department, as well as a letter as to why one wants an pistol permit. Then the police review the information, send it to the FBI for a background check. After this the findings are sent back to the county judge for approval, and every hand gun bought must be place on a card carried by the owner. This process can take over a year and there is no guarantee you will be accepted.

I must say this seems quite adequate in deterring the wrong people from acquiring a pistol. Finally if we are so worried about objects that kill humans, why don't we talk about banning cars. Cars kill more people kill then guns do in the US, yet we aren't arguing about controlling cars. The fact of the matter is people die and people will kill other people, any object can be deadly, so the next time you argue for stricter gun control remember guns are merely a tool. In my personal opinion a two day waiting period for purchasing a gun is adequate gun control. I do feel that being able to waltz into a gun store and purchase 15 pistols is ridiculous. I hope I have given readers an insight into guns and their possibility for non-violent use.[[User:H20h0us391|H20h0us391]] 17:53, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:The difference between cars and guns is that you don't go out with intent to kill with a car. A gun there aren't any other uses besides shooting things. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 23:37, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

'''what part of NO dont liberals understand?'''
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 13:12, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Personally my belief is since everyone carried guns in the west there was obviously no crime and history has it wrong. I mean history doesn't tell you anything. So I'm going to go buy a gun and a holster, a hat, maybe a pair of boots with spurs, and a horse. Then I'm going to challenge somebody to a duel at high noon. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 23:43, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

so your going to challenge someone to a duel with guns? um... forgive my ignorance but weren't the people with guns who went around shooting people usually outlaws/sherrifs? outlaws ignore gun-control and cops aren't restricted by them. so unless you were a outlaw then you probably wouldn't shoot anyone (and by the way wouldn't challenging someone to a gun duel (attempted murder i think)) unless it was in self defense-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 01:06, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

No. The populace should be armed, not just criminals and gangland types. [[User:Bojenmi|Bojenmi]] 14:38, 1 January 2009 (EST)

Start: You are cooking a delicious meal. you accidentally put your hand on the burner. Would you keep it there letting your hand turn into another course in your delicious meal? IS that common sense?
So you are a thief and are about to rob a house. The owner has his gun pointed at your face. Would you really continue to rob him? All he has to do is take the half-a-second to squeeze the trigger and they're picking you up with a stick and a spoon. IS that common sense?
Also, IF YOU DON'T WANT TO GET SHOT BY ME FOR BREAKING INTO MY HOUSE, THEN DON'T BREAK INTO MY HOUSE! It really is a simple solution to that problem. If you don't want to get burned, then take your hand off the burner!

Also, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!!!! How the hell hard is that!? Citizens who disagree with that do not understand the meaning of freedom. IT goes back to my point earlier. So now you are the government and you just banned guns. Are you going to really try to get the guns from the people who are aiming them at you? You are on the wrong side of the barrel, therefore, you are not calling the shots. I would also like to add that if that day ever comes (which is actually fairly unlikely) it is the responsibility of the American people to fight it until it is fixed as stated in the Declaration of Independence. It is the responsibility of the people to overthrow that government that threatens the pursuit of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

YOu're in a hostage situation and the gunman tells you to get on the floor. SO what do you do!? you get on the floor. (And then while he's looking away, I pull my Tarus Judge from by holster and fill him full of AAA 410 buck shot and the hostage situation is over.)

Honestly, sometimes liberals need to get a lesson in common damn sense and stop trying to overthrow every bit of America and human nature with their goody-goody feel good mentality that "would be so nice and wonderful" and makes me want to throw up from how fake and disgusting it is.

The only reason I can think of that the government would want to ban guns is because they are afraid of the citizens who may revolt with their guns. IT would pave the way for the government to take away all of the rest of the bill of rights and we turn into a dictatorship. Although, if they were smart they would be afraid to take away the right to bear arms because they should know by no that Americans will not go quietly into the night. IF it means the beginning of the second civil war, then so be it. I know I, and every other gun owner I know will fight to the death to maintain the freedoms guarenteed by the Constitution. "Give me liberty, or give me death!" is what is boils down to. Also, you can have my gun when you pry it from my dead cold hands comes to mind. And again, the key is I will be using the gun before my hands (or the rest of me) are cold, and dead to prevent me from becoming cold and dead. I could go on and on, but I think you all get the picture. End [mattfelton at 8:15pm 11/16/09]

The only real argument that I can see against gun CONTROL is freedom. I am not in favor of burning the constitution and instituting a dictatorship. I hope no one here is but. But I just see guns as just a mode that the government is giving to people to shoot each other. According to PBS, 85-90% of guns used in crime are bought from legal sellers. I am not for doing away with guns in the U.S. completely, I just think we need to reform gun control laws. We can't sell firearms to crazy people, such as Jared Lee Loughner, the crazy guy who shot Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona (which has some of the most lax gun laws in the nation). More background checks should be required before purchasing a gun. Just look at the facts: less guns=less gun violence. Its as simple as that. -Utnery
 

Gun control is the last thing that would prevent crimes involving guns. I'm sorry but guns are a pretty American thing whether you realize it or not. The Bill of Rights gives us the right to bear arms; the argument that the modern world isn't like Revolutionary American and its need for guns is silly. If the citizens of this country could own their own guns without all the ridiculous hassle and restrictions liberals place on it then we would be a lot safer. GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. Liberals are always making guns look like they're some ultra-dangerous device that could easily harm someone. Americans aren't stupid enough for that. How do these liberals think more people could get shot if we put more guns into peoples hands to protect them? I don't know about you, but I think that the average citizen will often use their gun to protect himself from armed attack and is often ready to. Even if gun control makes it a little bit harder for criminals to get their guns, taking guns away from the people would easily and noticeably increase gun-related crime. It only makes sense. Basically, the good among us need guns to protect themselves from the bad among us. If the bad acquire more weapons to harm the good, then the good would have to respond. It's just life. The liberal argument that this back and forth acquiring of arms for harm and then protection could escalate into something totally unsafe for society is inconceivable. [[User:BobSherman|BobSherman]] 19:53, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

==Yes==

If guns would have been banned before the rise of the American gang culture, let's say before 1920, American gun crime rates today would probably mirror those of Europe and Japan.

Banning them now would decrease gun crimes in the long run, but yes, it would still take years before the criminals run out of guns (yes, they will run out, the international black market isn't open to common burglar or thieves, only major criminal organisations have access to it).

I can understand that with today's crime rate some people would choose to lock a single handgun away, somewhere safe in their homes, that said, I still believe machine guns (M16, AK47, etc..) as well as assault rifles have no place in a civilian home and should be banned immediately.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Yes, but only part of the answer I think that there always will be some who have their own gun by illegal means but I think that if guns were illegal it would help-Mr.Random "flying butresses"

:Machine guns have been banned in the USA for over 80 years. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 14:26, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Reducing guns will reduce gun crime, especially impulsive crimes and crimes of passion. THere is no reason for anyone to need a handgun of any sort. I can understand bolt action rifles for hunting or farmers, but aside from that, no-one needs guns, not even police (except Special ops or SWAT)
The best solution would be to amend the second ammendment. Its an ammendment, obviously this is something that can be changed and was never meant to be permanent. It was ammended because the Colonies wanted to gain independence from the British. There is no contempory need that could possibly justify a right to bear arms or form militia.
Its just plain old greedy stupidity [[User:Nhyme|Nhyme]]

Ah, yes, impulsive crimes and crimes of passion, I hadn't even thought of that, good point.

You misunderstood me, I too think guns don't belong in civilian life, but I do understand some people would like to own a single gun for self defense, and rifles aren't very practical in an urban environment, so that's why I said handguns.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Yes, but it depends what you mean by gun control. I don't think there will ever be a way to keep guns out of criminal's hands, there will always be a market. So no, there should not be a law banning all guns. What we should have is a registration process that makes gun owners accountable for their weapons. This will keep unscrupulous gun owners from selling to people that should not own guns.

== Yes ==

No Because I am narrowminded and can't see the light.!!! Let's do some logic, shall we? Crimes involving guns ''involve guns'', do they not? So, logically, if people didn't have guns, they wouldn't be able to commit crimes with them, would they? Therefore, controlling the possession of guns should decrease the incidence of gun-related crimes, shouldn't it?

With all due respect, I do not understand ''why'' people feel the need to wave around lethal weapons with no real point. If you don't have a gun, but the guy who's mugging you doesn't either, there's no point in having a gun, is there? You can always whip out your TASER and stun him, can't you, or do you somehow believe that you need to kill him? And, if he does have a gun, you can still stun him, and then have him arrested for possessing a gun against the law. Please, just use logic. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 17:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Most gun crimes in Canada occur with handguns, illegally imported from the US. So, I'm saying a large part of the gun crimes in Canada are a result of our neighbour haphazardly handing out guns to everyone. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Interestingly, Canada has almost as many guns per capita as the US. But a much lower gun homicide rate. Maybe it's the overt and strong rejection of European culture that has doomed the US to its globally-high firearm homicide rate? [[User:Human|Human]] 22:42, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::This is a blatantly false fact. According to the CBC, gun ownership is more than 10x higher in the United States than Canada - a statistic that roughly mirrors the comparitive murder rate. Furthermore, handguns are banned in many municipalities including Toronto, the largest city in Canada. [[User:Alttansou|Alttansou]] 15:00, 6 June 2009 (EDT)
Conservatives argue that gun control will not decrease gun-related crime and in fact puts innocent civilians at greater risk because they will not be prepared to face an armed assailant. Right? Then, by the same logic, shouldn't marajuana be de-criminalized, if marajuana control would not help prevent marajuana-related crimes? It is clear that conservatives are not using logic to make their arguments in a fair and balanced manner. Instead, they rely on dubious "ethical" opinions that they attempt to masquerade as conservatism. -- The preceeding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Olifelikeweedso|Olifelikeweedso]], 15:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:Marijuana(Thankfully we are not discussing marijuana so how did I get here you will never know, cause neither do I) is a addictive psychoactive drug that alters a users perception of reality. Guns are not.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::There is no conclusive evidence to indicate that marijuana is any more or less addictive than alcohol. Given the medicinal status of marijuana in many countries, I'd say your argument on pot doesn't fly. Keep in mind that while alcohol is a habit forming substance that alters a users perception of reality, it has no medicinal purposes (other than a topical antibacterial agent). --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 10:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Marijuana has no medicinal status in any country other than certain liberal enclaves of the US and California and ultra liberal socialist netherlands. Drugs made from it are completely separate from marijuana.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:AustinM|AustinM]].
::::Canada? It's grown by Prairie Plant Systems, on contract for Health Canada, in Flin Flon, Manitoba. Canada is, as of about ten minutes ago when I last checked, not part of the US. Please ensure the accuracy of comments before adding them. Warmest regards. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 17:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I obviously don't have your marijuana expertise ;)
::::[[User:AustinM|AustinM]], here's [http://www.drugwise-droguesoisfute.hc-sc.gc.ca/law-loi/medical_e.asp Health Canada's page on medical marijuana use in Canada]. Health Canada is a department of the Canadian government. Feel free to do some research before sounding off. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:07, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Marijuana is a legal substance in Amsterdam. Surprisingly, they have lower drugs usage rates than the United States. The logic is quite simple, legalizing marijuana takes away its mystique, that daring part of marijuana that makes it enticing (pushing the limit in other words). As one dutch official put it "[they] have succeeded in making pot boring." I myself have never nor ever plan to use drugs of any kind, but legalizing marijuana seems to be somewhat effective. - comatoseraccoon

Since when does the right to have a well-regulated militia equate to the right to carry a weapon at all times, anyway? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 18:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Since about a week ago, maybe :-( The framers of the constitution really could have been a lot clearer about this. I don't think anyone really knows what the Constitution means, and nobody will know until a case makes it to the Supreme Court and they decide to issue a broad ruling. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously gun control is the answer to gun crimes: if there are no guns, there will be no gun crimes. No one can really deny that. Thus, a more logically topic for debate is whether the right to own a gun is more important than the harm done by gun ownership.
--[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

It would be helpful to define terms here, first. Most folks, when they hear the term 'gun control', automatically think of denial - that is, denying the public access to weapons. However, gun control does not necessarily mean denial of access. It does mean registration and possibly a requirement for training. Consider that vehicles are required to be licensed, and drivers must be trained, licensed and insured, for the simple reason that it takes training to safely operate a vehicle. By the same token (speaking now as a professional military man), given the power of modern small arms, the safe handling and use of weapons most certainly requires training.

However, let's also look at the Second Amendment, which many are fond of quoting as "the right to bear arms". However, the full statement is as follows: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A militia is, essentially, a military force for the duration, citizen-soldiers who take up arms in time of war for the nation's defense. In short, what one could call Reservists or National Guard. At the time the Constitution was drafted, this was, essentially, white men, who were liable to military service if/when required. Today, gender and skin color or race doesn't enter into it, but I submit that the spirit of the Second Amendment is '''not''' that every Tom, Dick and Harry can wander around with a Glock stuck down the back of their pants. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, for no other reason that because it works. In Australia following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre there a massive federal crackdown on gun ownership. A wide range of guns, including all automatic and semi-automatic firearms (as far as I know) were banned under a gun buyback scheme. Since then the gun crime stats [http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_mr_cjb98] have spoken for themselves. This doesn't have to be a philosophical or constitutional debate. In fact, given the number of lives at stake daily it really shouldn't be. Just look at the results and consider whether it is a sacrifice worth making. [[User:Paul|user_136]] 20:05, 22 March 2007 (EST)

Well dur. After watching 'Bowling for Columbine' I am even more pro-gun control then ever. Theres too many shootings and gun crimes in america compared to like every other country. Plus, kids are starting to shoot kids. I live near Camden, NJ which is one of the poorest and worst places to live in the US. All the time little kids are getting caught up in shoot-outs and stuff. I'm tired of hearing about how 5 year old so and so was on her way to preschool when she was shot in the back of the head. Guns need to go. Sure, the government should have thme for defence I guess. But I'd rather see a world with no guns or weapons. [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 20:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT) (p.s. all that dumb second amendment stuff is so old and outdated. It's just dumb)

:The problem is not with guns, it is with humanity. No matter how many laws the government imposes, there will be someone who finds a way to murder another person. It's just the sinful nature of all people. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] [[User talk:SharonS|Talk!]] 21:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::'Bowling for Columbine' was a pretty dumb movie.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:35, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Pro-gun activists should look up statistics on gun deaths per capita in the UK, then remind yourself that gun sales are heavily restricted (forbidden, essentially) there. Then re-read the Second Amendment, and ask yourself what that line about the militia means.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:11, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::ya, UK is real peaceful. [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article1615598.ece][[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Gun deaths? What about total crime rates? [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 13:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Present-day Baghdad? ==
The argument is sometimes made that an armed citizenry is protection against criminals, a bulwark against possible government tyranny, and even protection against armed invasion. For example, [http://www.nra.org/Speech.aspx?id=6042 Charlton Heston writes] "The Founding Fathers guaranteed this freedom because they knew no tyranny can ever arise among a people endowed with the right to keep and bear arms. That's why you and your descendants need never fear fascism, state-run faith, refugee camps, brainwashing, ethnic cleansing, or especially, submission to the wanton will of criminals].

I once thought that argument had some merit to it. But by all accounts [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/03/world/middleeast/03guns.html?ex=1301716800&en=5d15095b872b5e6b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss] it is extremely common for Baghdad households to own a gun, with the Kalashnikov AK-47's being very popular, and it doesn't seem to be working out very well.

The argument against gun control seems to assume implicitly that the citizenry is all of one mind and all fighting ''on the same side.'' The Second Amendment speaks of "a well-regulated militia" but doesn't seem to address the possibility of multiple, ''poorly''-regulated militias, ''plural.''

Isn't Baghdad a fair example of one of the ways gun ownership can go wrong? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:16, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

not really. america was just a different animal when it came to this subject for MANY reasons
and really until JFK was killed everything was pertty cool here in the homeland. we just
never had the problems the rest of the world had of which there are too MANY to list.
maybe only isreal and switzerland can understand but the rest of the world is too screwed up.
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 13:10, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

The situation that is apparent in Baghdad cannot be attributed to universal gun ownership by the population. It can be attributed however to the basic desire intrinsic in all humanity to rule over more than oneself. Throughout history, whenever a large power is toppled by external forces which then do not seek total takeover, there will be an ongoing power struggle to fill the void until one group gains ascendency (the case is usually, but not always, different in the case of an internally sparked overthrow). In the case of Iraq, the US coalition is the external force. To say that gun ownership is the cause of the troubles would be to ignore that men seek power and guns empower. Since a gun is currently one of the cheapest and most effective method for an individual to wield power, it only follows that those who do not possess power yet desire it or wish to resist those who do should seek guns. If no guns existed and the current method of empowerment were a sharpen popsicle stick, thousands of people would die from popsicle stick related injuries. If it became illegal to sharpen popsicle sticks, people who respect the law would generally cease sharpening sticks. But people who do not respect the law would still carry their tools of empowerment. This leads to a rather one sided contest when one of the latter individuals attempts to exercise his power over one of the former. The argument that nobody would possess popsicle sticks due to the law or that the average person would be unable to procure a popsicle stick for the same reason is falacious. Even if every single popsicle stick were gathered up and destroyed, the ruling power would still maintain a large collection of popsicle sticks on hand in the event that people became unsubmissive to the law. And eventually people would discover rocks. Imagine the logistical nightmare it would be to collect and destroy all the rocks!

(as an aside, the greatest threat to freedom is bankers, and after that a standing army. see T. Jefferson and N. Webster)
--[[User:Historiocality|Historiocality]] 15:06, 29 June 2007 (EDT)