Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

CGS

2008-12-09T03:58:01Z

Bolly: Redirecting to Committee of General Security

#REDIRECT [[Committee of General Security]]

Committee of General Security

2008-12-09T03:57:51Z

Bolly: New page: The '''Committee of General Security''' was tasked with rooting out all anti-republican opposition. It established a Revolutionary Tribunal in Paris on 10 March 1793 to try suspects. [[Geo...

The '''Committee of General Security''' was tasked with rooting out all anti-republican opposition. It established a Revolutionary Tribunal in Paris on 10 March 1793 to try suspects. [[Georges Danton]] intended to stop events like the [[September Massacres]], saying "Let us embody Terror so as to prevent the people from doing so."

[[Category:French Revolution]]

CPS

2008-12-09T03:52:59Z

Bolly: Redirecting to Committee of Public Safety

#REDIRECT [[Committee of Public Safety]]

Thermidorian Reaction

2008-12-09T03:52:04Z

Bolly: New page: The '''Thermidorian Reaction''' is so named beacuse it began in the month of Thermidor on the Revolutionary Calender (July 19 - August 17) of the year II (1794). It was a reaction to the [...

The '''Thermidorian Reaction''' is so named beacuse it began in the month of Thermidor on the Revolutionary Calender (July 19 - August 17) of the year II (1794). It was a reaction to the [[Reign of Terror]] after the execution of [[Maximilien de Robespierre]]. The original Thermidorians were made up of members of the two committees (The [[CPS]] and [[CGS]]), members of the moderate party and ex-terrorists. The moderates rose to take control, and as they had benefited greatly from the Revolution, they saw no need for the return of the Monarchy. They also disliked the [[Jacobins]].

== Ending the Terror ==
Between July 1794 and 31 May 1795 the [[Convention]] went about demolishing the machinery of the Terror. This included the abolition of the Revolutionary Tribunal, the release of all suspects from prison and the closing of the Jacobin Club. The role of the CPS and CGS was taken over by committees of the Convention to limit their power. To deal with religious issues, the Convention renounced the [[Constitutional Church]] and enforced the seperation of Church and State by deciding to no longer pay clerical salaries. Freedom of worship for all religions was restored on 21 February 1795, thus formally ending the policy of de-christianisation. France was the first major European country to declare itself entirly neutral in all matters of religion.

== The Constitution of the Year III, 1795 ==
The main features of the new constitution were:
* All males over the age of 21 who paid direct taxes were allowed to vote for electors.
* The electors chose the deputies and had to pay the equivalent of 150-200 days labour in taxes.
* The legislature was rigidly seperated from the executive.

== Weaknesses in the new Constitution ==
* Elections every year reduced stability with a high turnover of deputies.
* There was no easy method of resolving conflict between the legislature and the executive.
*If a hostile majority dominated the legislature then the [[Directory]] was paralysed as it could not dissolve the legislature or veto its laws.

[[Category:French Revolution]]

Vendée rebellion

2008-12-09T03:30:36Z

Bolly: New page: The '''Vendée Rebellion''' was an 'anti-revolutionary' rebellion as opposed to a 'counter-revolutionary' rebellion as it was directed against the Revolution's demands rather then working ...

The '''Vendée Rebellion''' was an 'anti-revolutionary' rebellion as opposed to a 'counter-revolutionary' rebellion as it was directed against the Revolution's demands rather then working to restore the ''ancién regime''.

In early 1793 the government ordered the conscription of 300,000 troops from the south of France. On the 11 March 1793, four departments south of the Loire revolted. The discontent was not limited to the troop levy. Under the new government, this region was paying more taxes then they had under the monarchy. They also hated the anti-catholic policies of the revoltionary government as it was a deeply catholic region.

The situation became serious enough that the government withdrew 30,000 troops from the northern front to deal with the peasants. Yet the rebels were never a true threat to the government, they were more suited to guerilla warfare then open war and they refused to move far from the homes they were defending.

[[Category:French Revolution]]

French Revolution

2008-12-09T03:19:04Z

Bolly:

[[Image:Prise de la Bastille.jpg|thumb|Capture of the Bastille.]]
'''The French Revolution''' was a 1789 revolution which began the modern era. In a sequence of upheavals, it saw the downfall of King [[Louis XVI]], rise of [[Robespierre]] and the [[Reign of Terror]], a chaos wherein thousands were [[guillotine|guillotined]] for political leanings and moderatism.

Radicals saw the Catholic Church as the enemy and promoted in its place a [[Cult of Reason]]. The Revolution emerged in part from the [[rationalism]] of the [[Enlightenment]] which distrusted all established institutions. It inspired fear into European monarchs and aristocrats as well as conservative intellectuals like [[Edmund Burke]] in Britain, who mobilized to fight the Revolution, and finally succeeded in 1815.
==Social structure of Old Regime==
Before the Revolution, France had three levels in its social system: The First, Second, and Third Estates. The [[First Estate]] was about 1% of the population, but it controlled 10% of the land. [[Image:3estates.jpg|thumb|320px|left]] The First Estate consisted of the clergy, and they did not pay any taxes. The [[Second Estate]] was about 2% of the population and they controlled 20% of the land. These were the nobility, and they too paid very little taxes. The [[Third Estate]] was everyone else, and they were badly overtaxed by the monarch. This overtaxing was a major cause of the [[French]] Revolution.

The leaders of the Third Estate were the upper middle class, especially lawyers; they are called the [[bourgeoisie]]. They were educated in the ideas of the [[Enlightenment]], most importantly [[Jean Jacques Rousseau]]. Rousseau's book, "The Social Contract" supported a [[direct democracy]]. The social contract spoke against titles for nobility and demanded complete equality for all people.

French Revolutionary ideals, especially thanks to Napoleon, later inspired liberal and democratic movements of the 19th Century.

==Chronology of the French Revolution==

[[Image:Paris1789.jpg|thumb|425px]]

Several costly wars, the War of Austrian Succession (1740-8), the Seven Years War (1756-63) and the American Revolution (1778-83), had reduced the government to the verge of bankruptcy. The deficit for 1786 would be 112 million ''livres'', nearly a quater of total income. Due to the poorly organised taxation system it was impossible for the King and his finance minister to make up the deficit without serious reforms. In 1787 he called a meeting of 144 leading nobles, the Assembly of Notables, to attempt to persuade them to pay tax in return for increased powers. The nobles refused his requests and were supported by the local assembly; the Parlement de Paris.

Outraged at this perceived slight to his authority, King Louis exiled the Parlement to Troyes on 15 August 1788. The result was an aristocratic revolt, supported by members of the clergy around the country. Although fragmented and disorganised, the revolts continued until the King withdrew his demands at this challenge to his authority, which was greeted by thousands taking to the street to celebrate. When troops were ordered to "Get some lead into the bastards' backsides", they fired into the air instead. In hindsight this can be seen as the start of dissent. It is notable that the initiators of this unrest were the upper classes, who had little reason to think there was any thirst for revolution. In April 1787, [[Calonne]] resigned in disgrace and the middle classes, strengthened by the protests, began to demand the Estates-Generale, a Parliament in which they would be represented.

==1789 - Year of Revolution==

With growing unrest and France nearing bankruptcy, the King agreed to call the Estates-Generale in May 1789. The [[Estate-Generale]] was divided into the three estates, with the first two estates (nobility and clergy) electing their representatives. The third estate representation required a series of elections in which all property owners over the age of twenty-five were eligible to take part. They elected a group of electors, who in turn chose delegates. The delegates themselves were overwhelmingly middle class, including the young lawyer [[Maximilien Robespierre]]. Furthermore, the Third Estate was required to produce a list of grievances known as ''cahiers''.

Between 25,000 and 60,000 documents were filled with grievances. Thousands demanded a constitution, reorganization of the clergy, lessening of the tax burden and an end to [[Royal]] waste. Few of these demands could be resolved without challenging the basis of [[Absolute Monarchy]]. However, not one of these document has been found to advocate abolition of the monarchy, with the large majority requesting moderate reform and many including expression of adoration towards the King.

The Estates-General had not met in 175 years and retained many of its former characteristics. Each Estate had one vote in the Assembly, such that the First and Second Estates could always outvote the Third Estate. That was acceptable in the early 1600s, but the Third Estate would not allow this in 1789 after learning the Enlightenment ideas. King Louis XVI responded to the Third Estate's complaints by doubling the number of Third Estate delegates in the Estates-General. By this time the alliance between the nobility and the third estate had broken down; the nobles may have called a march, but they drew the line at burning down tax offices. The Third Estate wanted a system of one vote per delegate, which would have given the Third Estate the same number of votes as the First and Second Estate combined.

The opening of the Estates-Generale did not bode well. The opening session was in an open coach house, which meant that the Third Estate struggled to hear the proceedings as they were on wooden benches at the far end of the room. Upon the entry of the King, the first and second estates were expected to remove their hats and sit down after the King, before replacing their hats. The Third Estate were expected to remain standing until after the first and second estates had replaced their hats, however, they chose to sit at the same time as the first and second estates. The First Estate were to wear glittering robes, the second estate were to wear silk coats, whilst the third estate were required to wear black coats. There was no question at this point of rudeness towards the King himself, and at this point none of the delegates (including Robespierre) was a republican in their beliefs. There then followed a speech by [[Necker]] on possible solutions to the economic crisis, that was of such length and dullness that Necker had to pass it on to a delegate to complete.

The Third Estate began to win votes in the Estates-Generale by attracting poorer clergy to their side. On 17 June the Third Estate, accompanied by the poorer clergy, voted 490 to 90 in favour of a motion to call themselves the [[National Assembly]] and claimed that they now had the right to manage the nations affairs and taxation. In an attempt to reassert his control, the king announced that Estates-Generale was postponed until 23 June where he would announce several reforms in a ''seance royale''. However, news of the postponement did not reach the delegates of the Third Estate, who arrived on the 20 June to find the room locked.

Following a period of confusion, Dr [[Guillotin]] (one of the Third Estate delegates) suggested it might be possible to convene at a nearby indoor tennis court and the group of over 500 delegate proceeded to meet at the court. The session was chaired by Bailly (a celebrity astronomer) and Mirabeau proposed that the delegation should not break up until a constitution was passed, which was opposed by only one delegate (Martin d'Auch). In effect the delegates had declared themselves the Government of France, pending a constitution to be organized by [[Mirabeau]].

The [[National Assembly]] approved the “[[Declaration of the Rights of Man]],” which combined ideas of the [[American Declaration of Independence]] with some Enlightenment concepts. The result of this combination had many debatable claims. The entire document is short and worth reading in full: [http://www.hrcr.org/docs/frenchdec.html] .

The King responded by ordering the delegates to disperse, however this had little effect. The following week the King sent a messenger, the Marquis de Breze, to order the finishing of the session. Mirabeau ordered the messenger to leave.
[[Image:David OathHoratti.jpg|left]]
In the last week of June the royal [[Government]] ordered 20,000 troops to march on Paris. It became apparent that compromise was not working. This was emphasized with the replacement of Necker by the hard line [[Baron de Breteuil]]. Thousands took to the streets to demand the reinstatement of [[Necker]], who was at the height of his popularity and seen as the only man who could solve the taxation crisis. Mirabeau spoke to the assembly, invoking the oath taken at the tennis court. [[Camille Desmoulins]] had ridden to Versailles to report on events and galloped back to Paris to report on the replacement of Necker.

Crowds marched to [[Abbaye]] prison to demand the release of the soldiers who had been arrested for not firing on the crowds. Troops were offered drinks by the crowd if they shouted 'Viva le tiers-etat'. Dummies of [[Necker]] and [[Duc d'Orleans]] were stolen to be paraded as heroes.

The deputies were now faced with a dilemma, requiring a mass movement for defence of the National Assembly, but fearing crowds getting out of control. Militia were therefore established, that excluded all unemployed and vagrants, and many districts demanded employers' references before admission. Admission varied enormously across districts, with 1,200 being recruited in [[Le Petit-St-Antoine]], but [[Les Minimes]] mustering four.

===Storming of the [[Bastille]]===

With the militia formed to repel the royal troops, there was an urgent need for weapons. The royalist [[Swiss Guard]]s had stored 30,000 pounds in the Bastille, to be used against the National Assembly. On the morning of July 14, 1789 (“[[Bastille Day]]”), a crowd of about a thousand people made up predominantly of small tradesmen arrived at the prison to demand the gun powder be handed over. The prison Governor invited a delegation in for breakfast, which proceeded for three and a half hours. Meanwhile, rumours circulated that royalist troops were committing atrocities across Paris.

A demonstrator outside the Bastille realized he would be able to get to the chains of the drawbridge by climbing from a nearby perfume shop. At this point the prison Governor, [[De Launay]], broke off negotiations and late in the afternoon cannon shots were aimed at the crowd. Two companies of French Guards were persuaded to the Bastille to the defend protesters being killed by cannon fire.

A Swiss Guard handed over the keys to the second drawbridge, leading to a moat. A clerk from a pawn office visited a carpenter and returned with eleven pieces of wood, one of which was able to span the moat. Once inside, seven prisoners were freed, though contrary to what is widely though, this did not include the [[Marquis de Sade]] (he had been moved as he had shouting at passers by through a pipe he had been given to urinate through. This took time however, as the keys to release the cells were the same as the keys to open the first draw bridge and the man with the keys had gone home.

In total six defenders of the Bastille were killed, including De launay, and ninety protestors.

The aftermath was one of euphoria throughout much of [[Paris]]. Much of the nobility proclaimed support for the act, realizing that it was not healthy to oppose public opinion on the matter. [[Louis XVI]] recalled Necker to his job and agreed to recognise the National Assembly, which included the Third Estate delegates, poorer clergy and nobility sympathetic to the Third Estate cause. [[Lafayette]] was appointed head of the police and the army, which was to be known as the National Guard. Bailly became the Mayor of Paris.

The King agreed to come to Paris and accept the gift of a cockade that had become a symbol of the revolution, which the king fastened to his hat, whilst the crowd cheered "Vive le Roi!". Whilst the significance of the day was evident, that it would produce a republic was far from clear. The plan of the King to take Paris with 20,000 troops had failed, but he was able to satisfy the populace that it was not intended and a peaceful resolution was reached. The changes that had so far occurred in a brief period of time were so dramatic that the thought that things could change further was difficult to conceive.

===The Great Fear===

During the week following the storming of the Bastille, news of events spread to the rest of France. This led to a panic as to what the response of the nobility would be to the events, The [[Great Fear]] or panic resulted. Many villages defended themselves against imaginary threats by forming peasant militias; riots occurred and peasants proceeded to burn wealthy homes.

The rural uprising prompted the National Assembly to pass a motion to 'destroy the [[feudal]] regime entirely', on August 4th. However, in order to release himself a peasant would have to pay twenty times his annual rent to the landlord, making the measure ineffectual.

===Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen===
[[Image:The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.jpg|220px|right]]
The Assembly in August 1789 passed the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen on the 4th August. This annulled the right of nobles to demand taxes, tithes and labor from peasants working on their family land. The declaration was inspired by the American Revolution and was partially written by LaFayette.

Unlike the American declaration that “all men are created equal,” the French version declared that “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.”

Whilst the American declaration that all men have inalienable rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” the French version declared that all men have natural rights of “liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression.”

Some declarations were troublesome; “Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law” left questions of definition. Also, the rights of French people to rebel were enshrined in the very constitution itself.

The water wheel was abolished as the method of execution by the more humane and scientific [[guillotine]]. It is notable that the only delegate to vote for the abolition of the [[death penalty]] was [[Robespierre]].

===A New Government===

France was slowly becoming a republic. Although the United States was well known as a republic, a European republic was still alien to the thoughts of most French, including revolutionaries. Negotiations over the new constitution continued, with Mirabeau and Lafayette appealing for calm less the King withdraw from negotiation. [[Jean Paul Marat]] took a less moderate line. Marat argued for universal suffrage and for the King to retain only an advisory role, a constitutional monarchy such as those seen in the [[United Kingdom]] or [[Sweden]] to this day.

===Royal Faux Pas===
On 1st October, 1789, a party was thrown at the [[Palace of Versailles]]. Louis XVI took the cap he had been presented with following the storming of the Bastille and trampled it underfoot. The king later denied this, however several witnesses recalled the incident and news of the incident spread to Paris. A contingent of women raided the Town Hall was raided for weapons and set off from Paris to Versailles, becoming a crowd of 10,000, who were later joined by the National Guard to ensure good order.

Upon the arrival for the group at the palace two guards opened fire, but were interrupted by decapitation. A small delegation of women were permitted to meet the Queen, however one fainted upon witnessing the beauty of the Palace of Versailles. The crowd became impatient by six o'clock the following morning and a militant group of fishwives broke in with a cry of "We are going to cut off her head, tear out her heart, fry her liver and that will not be the end of it"(Documents of the French Revolution, page 62). It was a forceful enough argument to force the Royal family back to Paris, where it was felt it would be possible to keep closer watch. It was also clear by now that the King was in no position to demand a veto.

Antoinette is reputed to have responded unsympathetically to the lack of bread for the peasants by declaring, “Let them eat cake!” Historians doubt she ever actually said that.

===Anniversary Pledge===

In July 1790 on the first anniversary of the storming of the Bastille a large ceremony was held in Paris at which members of the Government and the King pledges themselves to uphold the 'law, the nation and the King'. This represents a compromise in that the King was still seen as central, however all pledges had previously been to the King alone, and the King was required to make no pledge.

===1791 - The King Strikes Back===
In the two years following the storming of the Bastille French society had been transformed. There were an estimated 133 political journals in Paris, Parish priests had been dismissed and replaced by elected Priests. Robespierre had advanced plans for the emancipation of Jews and Protestants, equal treatment of all military ranks and the abolition of the property qualification for the National Guard. Robespierre remained incorruptible at this point, refusing to be the Duc d'Orleans let the luxury affect his judgement.

This situation was intolerable for the Royal Family, who began to organize a foreign force to invade France and restore their power. In December 1790 Louis wrote a secret note to the King of Prussia requesting a European army invade France. Furthermore, the King and Queen (herself Austrian) decided to flee Paris to help organise the invasion force from without France, let their presence in Paris compromise the invasion.

The royal couple decided to disguise themselves and flee across the border, which they did at night setting off at at a seven miles in part due to the weight requirements for the Queen to travel in the least luxury that she expected. The next morning the Kings letter to the National Assembly was found condemning all the measure which he had claimed to support for the previous two years.

The royal party reached [[Ste-Menehould]], where the papers of the party were checked by Drouet, who had been a staunch supporter of the revolution. Despite having seen the servant in the corner and 'struck by the resemblance of his face to the likeness of the King printed on the bank note', in disbelief he allowed the party to continue. Having discussed the incident with his colleague, Guillaume, the two raced to catch up with the party and spread word through the surrounding villages that the Royal family were attempting to flee. The family were captured and returned to Paris, with posters informing the gathering crowd "Whoever applauds the King will be flogged; whoever insults him will be hanged".

Most delegates wished to hold together a compromise, but the Head of State fleeing to lead a hostile invasion of the nation had created difficulties. Many insisted that the King must have been kidnapped. General Bouille wrote a statement confessing his involvement, but many insisted he was lying to implicate the King. While the only punishment towards the King was stripping of his powers of veto on laws and finance, talk began to emerge for the first time of the possibility of a republic. At this point Robespierre and most of the Paris commune strongly opposed the republic, whilst Lafayette rallied to the slogan 'The Revolution is Over'. By then the French Revolution was in full swing.

===Declaration of the Rights of Woman===

In 1791, a French journalist named [[Olympe de Gouges]] proposed a “[[Declaration of the Rights of Woman]],” (inspired by the writings of [[Mary Woolstonecraft]]) but the National Assembly rejected her proposal. She, like many other leaders of that time, was eventually executed by guillotine. Other sans-culotte groups were established including the [[Society of Revolutionary Women]]

==1791: New Start==

Politics in France became divided between the moderate [[Girondins]] and the more radical [[Jacobins]]. At this point the Girondins appeared to be in the stronger position, however the Jacobins were growing in strength. At this point the Jacobins were led by [[Robespierre]], who made a strong speech in favor of a republic.

The French National Assembly established a [[constitutional monarchy]] and, in 1791, adopted a new constitution that created a Legislative Assembly. Three factions quickly formed in the new Legislative Assembly, known as the radicals (liberals), moderates (centrists) and conservatives, similar to those political movements today in the United States. The three factions sat in different sections of the large assembly hall, with the radicals (liberals) sitting on the left, the moderates sitting in the center, and the conservatives sitting on the right. That gave rise to the left-center-right terminology that we still use today in the United States to describe these three political groups.

===German Invasion===
A large number of noblemen had gathered in [[Koblenz]] to form an army to invade France and restore the King to full rule. The emigrants carried stories of atrocities and encouraged reaction against the National Assembly and atrocities associated with lower class democracy. The Duke of Brunswick declared "We will soon be marching on Paris".

This was a matter of some concern in France, as many of the officers that had been in the French army in 1789 had joined the emigrant army in Germany. The Girondins remained confident, but Robespierre saw little cause for initial optimism. The Royal Family strongly supported war with the Prussian and Austrian force in the hope that the French would be defeated and they be restored.

On April 1792, the King declared war on the [[Hapsburg Empire]], who wished to restore his power. The French army suffered a series of defeats along the border, creating optimism in the Royal house. The National Assembly ordered the dispersal of the Kings bodyguard who were supporting the foreign invasion, but this was vetoed by the King. The Assembly then voted for 20,000 French patriots to come from across France to protect Paris, but this was also vetoed by the King.

The use of the royal veto to undermine the defense of France prompted a strong reaction, with demonstrators managing to pour into the royal apartments. The King was forced to wear a red cap while being taunted for several hours with taunts of "Fat Louis" and "Tyrants must Tremble". The time of compromise was nearing an end.

Lafayette planned a coup to restore the old order to as it was in 1787, using the National Guard. This force was resisted by a volunteer group of citizens. Traditionally this latter group are portrayed as ne'er-do-well criminals, however it is questionable whether such groups would march typically 800 miles. The volunteer groups were greeted as heroes in towns they passed through and [[Rouget de Lisle]] composed 'La Marseillaise' as a call to arms.

The war started badly for the French and on 25th July the Duke of Brunswick prepared to March on Paris and pledged to restore the French Royal Family to their original statue, but that he had no intention of meddling in the internal affairs of France. He demanded total surrender or the Prussian and Austrian armies would "take an exemplary and never-to-be-forgotten vengeance, by giving up the town of Paris to military execution..and the guilty rebels to the death they deserve".

===Second Revolution===

Paris was divided, with 20,000 signing a petition to support the full restoration of an absolute monarchy and a foreign army was invading France rapidly. Moderates such as Mme Roland supported withdrawal from Paris, whereas Maton would accept no backward step. On 10th August a larger demonstration marched on the palace demanding the removal of the King.

===Victory at the Battle of Valmy===
The National Assembly called for volunteers to defend the state, with assurances that this army would be different to the one that had gone before and collapsed before the troops of the Duke of Brunswick. The soldiers would sing Les Maseillaise into battle and officers and men would wear similar uniforms. The majority of the officers would be voted for by the soldiers.

In September 1792 the army was formed, and the Duke of Brunswick brought his army round to meet the French on by the village of [[Valmy]]. The French were grouped around a windmill in an area of uncommon tranquillity. The battle involved a day long exchange of cannon fire with little result. The significance of the battle is that the French volunteer troops remained firm.

[[Johann Goethe]] was present at the battle, as one of the troops of the Duke of Brunswick; "In the morning we had been talking of spitting and eating the French. Now everyone was thinking again. Almost everyone remained silent. Only a few men spoke and their reflections seemed illogical or frivolous".

In the opinion of Goethe, what had changed in the French was their spirit. They had won their freedom and did not wish to return to the days before the revolution, they had debated and were politically active. They were therefore able to stand firm. The news of the battle had a strong effect on French national morale, as the French came to believe they could win.

==The Convention as the new government==

On the day following the victory Valmy in September 1792, the newly elected French Government (the Convention). The Convention declared France to be an 'Indivisible Republic'. The Convention was made of three factions; the [[Girondins]], the [[Montagnards]] (including Robespierre, Danton and Marat) and the [[Grenouilles de la Marais]] or the Plain. Robespierre won an argument to allow a public gallery for debates.

All factions favored deposing the King, but were far from united beyond that point. The Montannards saw this as the first step to greater social equality, as opined by Robespierre, "Royalty has been destroyed, not the reign of equality is beginning". He attacked the wealthiest businessmen "those goods which are necessary to keep people alive as nothing more than an ordinary item of trade" - a sentiment echoed later by [[Karl Marx]]'s assertion that businessmen see objects not for their usefulness but for their value as commodities.

However, the Jocobin position was far from modern [[Socialism]], as they sought a nation of small property owners. The Government would be elected by property owners. Support for a republic was recently and had little idea of how to progress with the power they now found they had.

The Girdondins accused the Montagnards of preparing a dictatorship. However, the Girdondins had lost credibility by suggesting retreat from Paris and furthermore lacked the social roots that enabled the Montagnards to motivate thousands of volunteers. It reflects on the differing social backgrounds of the delegates that it was at this point Robespirre met a cabinet maker, M. Duplay. Duplay invited Robespierre back to his flat to meet his family and, finding that the family had been trying to let a spare room, Robespierre moved in. It is worth considering the contrast between the setting of the reign of Louis XVI to Robespierre who, whilst the most powerful man in France, has to queue behind his landlord to use the toilet in the morning.

===Execution of the King===
The King and family were detained in the Temple prison, but retained the trappings of luxury. The King had a library of 1,500 books, still ordered his shoes from his preferred cobbler and the family was provided with servants. The majority of servants remained utterly devoted to the family, feeling their employment to be a sacred duty.

This loyalty was not universal however, a former locksmith of the King revealed to the Paris Commune that there is secret cupboard containing correspondence between the King and invading powers showing collusion. Mirabeau and Lafayette were also implicated, though Mirabeau had no died and Lafayette had fled to [[Austria]].

The trial was debated by a number of key speakers. [[Louis St-Just]] debated the very validity of Kings, that to try the King as a bad King suggested it was possible to be a good, legal King, which was not acceptable. He was opposed by [[Thomas Paine]] who wished the King to be exiled to the United States. The vote was won for death by 387 to 334.

Louis XVI was executed in January 1793.

===Dechristianization movement===
The measures taken by the Convention to substitute the Revolutionary calendar for the old Christian calendar, and the decrees ordering the municipalities to seize and melt down the bells and treasures of the churches, proved that certain currents prevailed tending to the [[dechristianization]] of France.

The rest of décadi, every tenth day, replaced the Sunday rest. The "missionary representatives", sent to the provinces, closed churches, hunted down citizens suspected of religious practices. Persecution of all religious ideas began. Many churches were forcibly closed and converted into [[Cult of Reason|Temples of Reason]] <ref>John Hall Stewart, ''A Documentary Survey of the French Revolution'', Macmillan, New York, 1963.</ref>

During the first days of the Republic, provision had been made for dating public documents from "the first year of the French Republic," but no definite plan for a revised calendar had been proposed. A decree of 2 January, 1793, provided for the second year of the Republic to begin on 1 January, 1793. The new calendar took form in October and November, and lasted until 1806.

A vital force intended to sustain the political and economic terror was the creation of an ideology based on love of '' la Patrie'', "the Country" or "fatherland", and the subjugation of the individual to the collective will of whole. The Church of Notre-Dame-de-Paris became a temple of Reason, and the feast of Reason was celebrated on 10 November. The idea of honouring the fatherland, which had its origin in the festival of the Federation in 1790 gave rise to successive cults. Chamber Deputy Laloi commented they had "wiped out eighteen centuries of error".

Robespierre adopted the position that from the religious and Republican standpoint the idea of a Supreme Being was advantageous to the State, that religion should dispense with a priesthood, and that priests were to religion what charlatans were to medicine, and that the true priest of the Supreme Being was Nature. The Convention adopted a decree of which the first article was: "The French people recognize the existence of a Supreme Being and the immortality of the soul". The same decree states that freedom of worship is maintained but adds that in the case of disturbances caused by the exercise of a religion those who "excite them by fanatical preaching or by counter Revolutionary innovations", shall be punished according to the rigour of the law. Thus the condition of the Catholic Church remained equally precarious and the first festival of the Supreme Being was celebrated throughout France on 8 June, 1794. with aggressive splendour. Whereas the Exagérés wished simply to destroy Catholicism, and in the temples of Reason political rather than moral doctrines were taught. Robespierre desired that the civic religion should have a moral code which he based on the two dogmas of God and the immortality of the soul. He was of the opinion that the idea of God had a social value, that public morality depended on it and that Catholics would more readily support the republic under the auspices of a Supreme Being. <ref>Catholic Encyclopdeia, [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13009a.htm French Revolution]</ref>

===Committee of Public Safety===
The [[Committee of Public Safety]] was formed in April 1793, and passed a rule that Generals were to live in camp with the army. This had the practical effect of testing the belief in equality of the many Nobles in the army. [[General Dumouriez]] made overtures to the Prince of Coburg for the invasion of France and have Louis XVI's son proclaimed King Louis XVII.
===Reign of Terror===
The execution of Louis XVI led almost immediately to the [[Reign of Terror]] in 1793-94. [[Maximilian Robespierre]], head of the Committee of Public Safety, proceeded to guillotine numerous alleged enemies, including Marie Antoinette. In a classic illustration of Jesus’s teaching that “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword,” Jacobin leaders [[Georges Danton]] (a fiery orator) was guillotined, and [[Jean-Paul Marat]] (a scientist) was stabbed to death in his bathtub.

===The Thermidorian Reaction===
By 1794 many countries, including [[Great Britain]], [[Spain]], the [[Netherlands]], [[Prussia]] and [[Austria]], had formed the "First Coalition" to invade France and restore monarchy. The National Convention responded by drafting people into an army. Historians claim women were drafted, but such a politically inspired claim is worth investigating before accepting it. The war lasted for several years, on several fronts, but the First Coalition was eventually defeated.

Robespierre made a fatal mistake on 26 July (8 Thermidor on the revolutionary calender) when he made a speech attacking colleagues who he claimed were plotting against his government. He declined to name those he suspected, allowing moderates and terrorists (here used to refer to members of the government who supported the Terror) who felt threatened a chance to act. Had he named anyone they would immediately have been arrested and executed. Instead, the next day, when Robespierre attempted to speak at the Convention he was shouted down. Finally, after a farcical arrest and release due to popular support, Robespierre was arrested a second time, and executed the same day, 28 July.

At last the government of France was in the hands of a legislature, and an executive branch of five men called the Directory. The Directory picked a young, highly successful military genius named [[Napoleon]] to lead the French army. The very next day Napoleon seized all power in France as its [[dictator]], in November 1799.

===Economic controls===

On 29 September, 1793, in the Law of the Maximum was formulated to deal with the steady rise in prices of the necessities of life. Committees of experts had been appointed to study the whole subject. Prices were set at one and one-third its price in 1790, transportation costs were regulated at a fixed rate, a 5 per cent markup was allowed the wholesaler and 10 per cent to the retailer. Bertrand Barrere declared, "The needs of the people will no longer be spied upon in order that the commercial classes may arbitrarily take advantage".

The first result was farmers produced as little as they possibly could. Scarcity increased, and the people of the large cities were put on an rationing. Many shopkeepers went out of business, and the remainder forced buyers to pay enormous charges under the very natural excuse that the seller risked his life in trading at all. That this excuse was valid is easily seen by the daily lists of those condemned to the guillotine, in which not infrequently figure the names of men charged with violating the Maximum laws. Manufactures were crippled and frequently destroyed.

To detect goods concealed by farmers and shopkeepers, a spy system was established with a reward to the informer of one-third of the value of the goods discovered. To spread terror, the Criminal Tribunal at Strassburg was ordered to destroy the dwelling of anyone found guilty of selling goods above the price set by law. The farmer often found that he could not raise his products at anything like the price required by the new law; and when he tried to hold back his crops or cattle, alleging that he could not afford to sell them at the prices fixed by law, they were frequently taken from him by force and he was fortunate if he was paid in the depreciated fiat currency or escaped execution.

The Convention decreed that any person selling gold or silver coin, or making any difference in any transaction between paper banknotes (assignats), and precious metal coin (specie) should be imprisoned in irons for six years; that anyone who refused to accept a payment in assignats, or accepted assignats at a discount, should pay a fine of 3,000 francs; and that anyone committing this crime a second time shou1d pay a fine of 6,000 francs and suffer imprisonment 20 years in irons. Later, on 8 September, 1793, the penalty for such offences was made death, with confiscation of the property of the heirs, and a reward offered to any person informing the authorities regarding any such transaction. The Convention decreed, in May 1794, that the death penalty should be inflicted on any person convicted of 'having asked, before a bargain was concluded, in what money payment was to be made".

Georges Couthon, in August 1793, proposed and won passage of a law punishing any person who should sell assignats at less than their fixed value with imprisonment for 20 years in chains, and later passed a law making investment in foreign countries punishable by death. Prisons, guillotines, enactments inflicting 20 years' imprisonment in chains upon persons twice convicted of buying or selling paper money at less than its nominal value, and death upon investors in foreign securities, still did not stop people from procuring the necessities of life by bargaining and exchange; on 1 August, 1795, the gold louis of 25 francs was worth in paper, 920 francs; on 1 September, 1,200 francs; on 1 November, 2,600 francs; on 1 December, 3,050 francs. In February 1796, it was worth 7,200 francs or one franc in gold was worth 288 francs in paper. Prices of all commodities went up nearly in proportion. <ref>Andrew Dickson White, Fiat Money: Inflation in France, Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, 1959, pp. 75-89; first published in 1912 as revised version of 1876 lecture. Reproduced in ''Choice in Currency'', F. A. Hayek, The Institute of Economic Affairs 1976, "A Note on Government Monopoly of Money in Theory and History", [http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-book409pdf?.pdf France, 1789], pgs. 34 - 38.</ref>
==Directory==
The "Directory" was the government between November 1795 and November 1799.<ref> The Directory is also called the Constitution of the Year III because it was instituted in the third year of the First French Republic.</ref> It consisted of a Directory of five men, one of whom was replaced annually, and two representative assemblies, the '''Five Hundred''' and the '''Ancients.''' The assemblies were elected nationwide by property owners. The assemblies wielded legislative power, and the Directory executive power, but there was no device to resolve deadlocks between them.<ref>Jones, ''Great Nation'' (2002) ch 11</ref>

The Directory gave power to the more conservative forces remaining in France;<ref> Not including the royalists and aristocrats who had fled into exile.</ref> they had taken advantage of the enormous changes 1789-95, including the breakup or religious and aristocratic estates. The Directory continued the "Thermidorian reaction," which followed the fall of [[Maximilien Robespierre]] and the [[Jacobins]] in July 1794. The moderate middle-class republicans, mostly from the upper middle class favored the Directory because it ended the power of the royalists on the right and the Jacobin on the left. The Directory repeatedly used armed force and intimidation to stay in power, and thus depended on its generals, who gained popularity.

In foreign affairs the wars against Britain, Austria, Prussia, and for a time Russia were undertaken to protect France, expand its ideals, and acquire cash to pay army, which became more and more powerful in internal affairs. Conquests created a screen of six satellite republics set up in Holland, Switzerland, and Italy, and Bonaparte's seizure of Egypt. Prussia and Spain made peace, but Britain remained hostile and plans were drawn for an invasion. Instead Napoleon invaded Egypt.

In domestic affairs the era of the Directory was characterized by large-scale corruption. The revolution had demoralized public life, especially in Paris and the major cities. Profiteering in business, graft in politics and bureaucracy, extravagance in luxuries, and vulgarity in morals and manners, were the marks of the new regime. Public finances remained disorganized, as the nation could not raise enough taxes to pay its expenses. Inflation was rampant. In the private sector prosperity was returning, especially in the rural areas where most Frenchmen lived. One Director, [[Paul de Barras]] (1755-1829), who clung to power throughout the period, was a flamboyant, ruthlessly self-seeking man of immense greed and licentiousness. In total contrast was [[Lazare Carnot]] (1753-1823), the patriotic "organizer of victory," who served as a Director from 1795 until September 1797, and was largely responsible for the successes of the French army and of the Italian campaign in 1796-1797. Senior officials included the highly talented [[Joseph Fouché]], minister of police, and the [[Comte de Talleyrand]], minister of foreign affairs. The election as director of abbé [[Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès]] in May 1799 brought in a powerful intellectual who realized the system was doomed and resolved to overthrow it.

The Directory lost legitimacy by the series of coups it engineered to control elections. The coup of Fructidor (September 1797) against the royalists was followed by the coup of Floréal (May 1798) against the Jacobins, and then by that of Prairial (June 1799) against both. Repeated use of armed intimidation dismayed republicans, particularly army officers who believed in republican ideas. The coups paved the way for the overthrow of the regime by Napoleon in 1799.

==The 18th Brumaire and the end of Revolution==
Despite his military failures in Egypt, General [[Napoleon Bonaparte]] returned to a hero's welcome in 1799. In alliance with the director Sieyès and his brother, [[Lucien Bonaparte]], president of the council of five hundred, he overthrew the Directory by a coup d'etat on November 9, 1799 ("the 18th Brumaire" according to the revolutionary calendar), and closed down the council of five hundred. Napoleon became "first consul" for ten years, with two consuls appointed by him who had consultative voices only. His power was confirmed by the new constitution ("Constitution of the year VIII"), originally devised by Sieyès to give Napoleon a minor role, but rewritten by Napoleon, and accepted by direct popular vote (3,000,000 in favor, 1,567 opposed). The constitution preserved the appearance of a republic but in reality established a military dictatorship. Historians usually date the end of the Revolution with the days of Brumaire, as it sounded the end of the short-lived French republic: there was no more representative government, assemblies, a collegial executive, or liberty.<ref> Furet (1996) p 212</ref>
==Impact of the Revolution==
===Impact on France===
The soldiers of the 1790s became the heroes for future republicans, who admired the equality of all before the draft, the requirement to serve in person, the human qualities of flair, enthusiasm, generosity of spirit, and patriotism, as well as the upward mobility that could turn peasants into officers. The soldier was spared the denunciation heaped on one political faction or the other.<ref> Alan Forrest, "L'armee De l'an II: La Levee en Masse et la Creation d'un Mythe Republicain." ''Annales Historiques de la Révolution Française'' 2004 (335): 111-130. Issn: 0003-4436 </ref>

===Impact on World===
The influence of the French Revolution was immense throughout the western hemisphere, as other peoples felt that they, too, could rise up against their rulers and defeat them. Historians credit the French Revolution with spreading the ideas of the Enlightenment, limiting the power of nobility and clergy, and ending an absolute monarchy. But many who supported the French Revolution in its beginning were horrified by where it led, including numerous executions and terror. Some would say that France never fully recovered, as the French Revolution unleashed a hostility towards [[Christianity]] that continues to this day in France.

==Historiography==
===Republican tradition===
The Republican or "radical" interpretation of the Revolution, typified by politician [[François Guizot]] (1787–1874) and research scholar François Aulard (1849-1928), hailed it for the destruction of a reactionary nobility, which was replaced by men of the [[Enlightenment]] who introduced the rights of man, proclaimed equality, guaranteed liberty, strengthened the nation state, redefined citizenship, and modernized every aspect of France's political, social, cultural, religious, economic and diplomatic roles. He saw the duty of his own generation to continue and perfect the goals of the Revolution. The defeat of the reactionary Catholic Church was seen as a signal achievement, and bolstered the Radicals in French politics who attacked continuing roles of the Church in the late 19th and early 20th century.<ref> See Furet and Ozouf, eds. ''Critical Dictionary'' (1989), 881-1032 and Doyle ''Origins of the French Revolution'' (1999) ch 1-3, for a review of the major historians.</ref>
===Bourbon history===
The arch-conservative Legitimist or "Bourbon" interpretation, typified by [[Joseph de Maistre]] (1753–1821) portrayed the French Revolution as an illegitimate, bloodthirsty usurpation of legitimate rulers. The Right in France rejected the Revolution and all its works. However, recent conservative historiography has argued that the Revolution accomplished only what was was already underway, and added little new except needless violence and hatreds. The Roman Catholic variation stressed the attacks on religion and the [[established church]], and the horrors of the Terror, thereby bolstering the political conservatism of the Catholics, whose schools were under attack by Radicals for much of the 19th century.
===Marxists===
The Marxist historians, for example [[Albert Soboul]], [[George Rude]] and [[Peter McPhee]], counter by pointing to the rise of the bourgeousie class in power due to the abolition of seigneruial rights and privileges, claiming that the French Revolution was the starting-point for capitalist society and the modern democracy. Marxist historiography, which was dominant from the 1930s into the 1970s, argued that material economic factors made a revolution inevitable, gave it force, and made it a model for the 20th century socialists to emulate. Marxists, led by Albert Mathiez (1874–1932), [[Georges Lefebvre]] (1874-1959)<ref> See
LeFebvre, ''The French Revolution: From its Origins to 1793'' (2001 edition) [http://www.amazon.com/French-Revolution-Origins-Routledge-Classics/dp/0415253934/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189603529&sr=1-2 excerpts and online search from Amazon.com] </ref> , and Albert Soboul (1914-1982)<ref> Soboul, ''The Sans-Culottes'' (1981 edition) [http://www.amazon.com/Sans-Culottes-Albert-Soboul/dp/0691007829/ref=pd_sim_b_2_img/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&qid=1189598691&sr=8-1 excerpts and online search from Amazon.com] </ref>, identify two stages, a liberal bourgeois revolution (1789) against the feudal landed aristocracy, followed by a second and more radical democratic revolution against the bourgeoisie led by the the sans-culottes (the urban poor)<ref>"1789: The Fact and Fiction of the Sans-Culottes Movement" (2007) online at [http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/rschwart/hist255/la/sans-culottes.html] </ref>. That is, the wealthy town dwellers and businessmen (the "bourgeoisie") were angry that the nobility governed France. They found a voice (in Marxist language, they realized their identity as a class) and first sought power against the upper class (in 1789) and then (1791-99) against the proletariat (poor people) of the cities and peasants from below who suddenly emerged and demanded power themselves. The conflict permanently radicalized France and was the foundation of the Left in French political history. Marxists lament the counterrevolution of Thermidor and the coming to power of Napoleon.

The Marxist approach was a simple model that claimed to simultaneously explain the Revolution's origins, its internal dynamics and its long-term consequences. The dominance of the Left in French intellectual life ensured the theory was dominant for decades, but it had serious flaws. As English scholar Alfred Cobban explained, feudalism as a system had withered away long before the Revolution abolished its last vestiges in the form of seigniorial rights. Furthermore where Marxists saw a self-conscious, capitalist bourgeois class, Cobban revealed only a loose collection of disparate social groups that did not include the industrialists and businessmen but rather the officeholders and lawyers. These men led the revolution not as spokesmen for the forces of capitalism; rather they were state-builders. Other scholars showed the nobility was not parasitic obstructionist and reactionary caste of Republican or Marxist writing, but rather a diverse and open group whose leaders actively promoted political and economic modernization.<ref> Alfred Cobban, ''The Social Interpretation of the French Revolution'' (1962); Doyle (1999) ch 2; John Dunne, "Fifty Years of Rewriting the French Revolution: Signposts Main Landmarks and Current Directions in the Historiographical Debate," ''History Review.'' (1998) pp 8+ [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001505046 online edition] </ref>
===Furet and conservatives===
To replace Marxist interpretations was the goal of [[François Furet]] (1927-97)), the head of the history section of the Ecole pratique des hautes etudes. He argued instead that the Revolution is best understood as the victory of the [[Enlightenment]]--particularly the [[Jean Jacques Rousseau|Rousseauian]] version--over social interests. Intellectual forces were dominant, not class conflict or materialistic forces. Furet's influential American ally was Keith Baker, of the University of Chicago. Baker, influenced by the linguistic turn pioneered by [[J. G. A. Pocock]] identified three competing discourses that shaped how people thought in the second half of the eighteenth century. The "language of will" promised rights to the majority while the "language of justice" and the "language of equality" also shaped political values. Justice emphasized history and the desire to maintain contracts; proponents of equality wanted reason to prevail in governmental decision making. According to Baker, in the summer of 1789 the revolutionaries suddenly embraced the language of will. Once embarked on this course, the Terror followed from their insistence that the majority should realize its ambitions. Political and social factors were not necessary to arrive at this unfortunate result, said Baker; instead it was the embrace of the three political discourses of will, justice and equality that drove the revolution.<ref>Censer, "Amalgamating the Social in the French Revolution" (2003) </ref>

===Class and culture===
Multiple cultural and intellectual themes have displaced monocausal economic interpretations. Thus in dealing with the middle class, the Marxist inevitable-class-conflict model has given way. On the one hand there are cultural studies that emphasize the ways in which the middle class functions as a political and moral claim rather than a sociological entity. On the other hand microscopic ethnographic studies examine the middle class in terms of daily cultural practices, focusing on the formation of class identity through family structure, consumer behavior, sociability, and sexuality.<ref>Carol E. Harrison, "The Bourgeois after the Bourgeois Revolution: Recent Approaches to the Middle Class in European Cities." ''Journal of Urban History'' 2005 31(3): 382-392. Issn: 0096-1442 Fulltext: in [[Ebsco]] </ref>
The minimalist view, championed by such historians as [[Simon Schama]], [[Alfred Cobban]] and [[Roger Price]], states that, in the words of Price: <blockquote>
In political and ideological terms the Revolution was no doubt of crucial importance, but humanity was not transformed thereby... At the end of all the political upheavals of the Revolution and Empire little had changed in the daily life of most Frenchmen.<ref>Roger Price. ''An Economic History of Modern France, 1730-1914.'' London. Macmillan. 1975.</ref>
</blockquote>
In other words, all the events of the French Revolution had little lasting effect on everyday life.
===Regions and localities===
Thanks to the postmodern emphasis on the specific rather than the general, instead of the old emphasis on Paris there has been much greater emphasis on regional and local conditions. Postmodern historians tend to see the French Revolution as a haphazard event with random and largely unforeseen consequences, to the dismay of old Marxists like [[Eric Hobsbawm]] (1917- ).<ref> E. J. Hobsbawm, "The Making of a 'Bourgeois Revolution'" ''Social Research'' 2004 71(3): 455-480. Issn: 0037-783x Fulltext: []Ebsco]]</ref>
===International===
Since the 1980s historiographical perspectives have emphasized the global context of disturbances, riots, and revolts in Europe and the Americas--[[Atlantic history|in the Atlantic world]]--in the late 18th century, with attention to similarities and differences. The comparative approach was pioneered by American historian Robert Palmer.<ref>Robert R. Palmer, ''The Age of the Democratic Revolution: A Political History of Europe and America, 1760-1800.'' (2 vol 1959), [http://www.questia.com/read/22790906 vol 1 online] </ref>

==Further reading==
* Baker, Keith M. ed. ''The French Revolution and the Creation of Modern Political Culture'' (Oxford, 1987-94) ''vol 1: The Political Culture of the Old Regime,'' ed. K.M. Baker (1987); ''vol. 2: The Political Culture of the French Revolution,'' ed. C. Lucas (1988); ''vol. 3: The Transformation of Political Culture, 1789-1848,'' eds. F. Furet & M. Ozouf (1989); ''vol. 4: The Terror,'' ed. K.M. Baker (1994). [http://www.amazon.com/French-Revolution-Creation-Political-Culture/dp/0080413870/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197926396&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search vol 4]; advanced essays by leading scholars; conservative approach
* Blanning, T.C.W. ''The French Revolutionary Wars 1787-1802'' (1996).
* Doyle, William. ''The Oxford History of the French Revolution'' (1989). [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-oxford-history-of-the-french-revolution-by-william-doyle.jsp online complete edition]; also [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-French-Revolution/dp/019925298X/ref=sr_1_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189484963&sr=1-4 excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]
* Doyle, William. ''The French Revolution: A Very Short Introduction.'' (2001), 120pp; [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-french-revolution-a-very-short-introduction-by-william-doyle.jsp online edition]
* Doyle, William. ''Origins of the French Revolution'' (3rd ed. 1999) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/origins-of-the-french-revolution-by-william-doyle.jsp online edition]
* Englund, Steven. ''Napoleon: A Political Life.'' (2004). 575 pages; the best political biography [http://www.amazon.com/Napoleon-Political-Life-Steven-Englund/dp/0674018036/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197704843&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Fremont-Barnes, Gregory. ed. ''The Encyclopedia of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars: A Political, Social, and Military History'' (ABC-CLIO: 3 vol 2006)
* Frey, Linda S. and Marsha L. Frey. ''The French Revolution.'' (2004) 190pp [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-french-revolution-by-linda-s-frey-marsha-l-frey.jsp online edition], conservative approach
* Furet, François. ''The French Revolution, 1770-1814'' (1996) [http://www.amazon.com/French-Revolution-1770-1814-History-France/dp/0631202994/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197704970&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search], by the leading French conservative scholars
* Furet, François and Mona Ozouf, eds. ''A Critical Dictionary of the French Revolution'' (1989), 1120pp; long essays by scholars; conservative perspective; stress on history of ideas [http://www.amazon.com/Critical-Dictionary-French-Revolution/dp/0674177282/ref=sr_1_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189497174&sr=8-2 excerpt and online search from Amazon.com], by the leading French conservative scholars
* Griffith, Paddy. ''The Art of War of Revolutionary France 1789-1802,'' (1998); 304 pp; [http://www.amazon.com/Art-War-Revolutionary-France-1789-1802/dp/1853673358/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197705004&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Jones, Colin. ''The Longman Companion to the French Revolution'' (1989)
* Jones, Colin. ''The Great Nation: France from Louis XV to Napoleon'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Great-Nation-Napoleon-Penguin-History/dp/0140130934/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197705067&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Neely, Sylvia. '' A Concise History of the French Revolution'' (2008)
* Palmer, Robert R. ''The Age of the Democratic Revolution: A Political History of Europe and America, 1760-1800.'' (2 vol 1959), highly influential comparative history; [http://www.questia.com/read/22790906 vol 1 online]
* Paxton, John. ''Companion to the French Revolution'' (1987), hundreds of short entries.
* Rude, George F. and Harvey J. Kaye. ''Revolutionary Europe, 1783-1815'' (2000), scholarly survey [http://www.amazon.com/Revolutionary-Europe-Blackwell-Classic-Histories/dp/0631221905/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197705215&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Schroeder, Paul. ''The Transformation of European Politics, 1763-1848.'' 1996; Thorough coverage of diplomatic history; hostile to Napoleon; [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-transformation-of-european-politics-1763-1848-by-paul-w-schroeder.jsp online edition]
* Schwab, Gail M., and John R. Jeanneney, eds. ''The French Revolution of 1789 and Its Impact'' (1995) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-french-revolution-of-1789-and-its-impact-by-john-r-jeanneney-gail-m-schwab.jsp online edition]
* Scott, Samuel F. and Barry Rothaus. ''Historical Dictionary of the French Revolution, 1789-1799'' (2 vol 1984), short essays by scholars
* Schama, Simon. ''Citizens. A Chronicle of the French Revolution'' (1989), highly readable narrative by scholar [http://www.amazon.com/Citizens-Simon-Schama/dp/0141017279/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197705186&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Sutherland, D.M.G. ''France 1789–1815. Revolution and Counter-Revolution'' (2nd ed. 2003, 430pp [http://www.amazon.com/French-Revolution-Empire-Quest-Civic/dp/0631233636/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189597597&sr=1-1 excerpts and online search from Amazon.com]
===Historiography===
* Censer, Jack R. "Amalgamating the Social in the French Revolution." ''Journal of Social History 2003'' 37(1): 145-150. Issn: 0022-4529 Fulltext: in [[Project Muse]] and [[Ebsco]]
* Dunne, John. "Fifty Years of Rewriting the French Revolution: Signposts Main Landmarks and Current Directions in the Historiographical Debate," ''History Review.'' (1998) pp 8+ [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001505046 online edition]
* Kates, Gary. ''The French Revolution'' (2nd ed. 2005), 308pp; essays by scholars; [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0415358329/ref=sib_dp_pop_bc/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&p=S08O#reader-link excerpts and online search from Amazon.com]
* Lefebvre, Georges. ''The French Revolution'' (2 vol 1957) classic Marxist synthesis. [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-french-revolution-vol-1-by-georges-lefebvre-elizabeth-moss-evanson.jsp complete online edition vol 1]; also [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0231085982/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]
* Rothenberg, Gunther E. "The Origins, Causes, and Extension of the Wars of the French Revolution and Napoleon," ''Journal of Interdisciplinary History,'' Vol. 18, No. 4, (Spring, 1988), pp. 771-793 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-1953%28198821%2918%3A4%3C771%3ATOCAEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-N in JSTOR]
==External links==
* [http://webspace.qmul.ac.uk/cdhjones/greatnationbibliography.html detailed bibliography from Colin Jones, ''The Great Nation'' (2002)]
* [http://users.ipfw.edu/gatesb/H114e.PPT Powerpoint of college lecture by Professor Ben Gates, IUPU-Ft Wayne]

====References====
<references/>

== See also ==
* [[Edmund Burke]]
* [[Alexis de Tocqueville]]
* [[Louis XVI]]
* [[Republicanism]]

[[Category:French Revolution| ]]
[[Category:French History]]

September Massacres

2008-12-09T03:15:16Z

Bolly:

Following the second [[French Revolution]] and the [[Battle of Tuileries]], there was a period of great anxiety in France. The attempt by the [[Duke of Brunswick]] to orchestrate a foreign backed invasion of [[France]], sponsored by the French [[Monarchy]] had raised the stakes to an extreme level and the French army was without a leading general following the defection of the[[Marquis de Lafayette]] to the Austrians.

Counter revolutions occurred in in [[Brittany]] and on the 2nd September, the [[Prussia]]ns captured [[Verdun]]. Verdun represented the last major town between the Prussians and [[Paris]], thus prompting terror of an invasion that would seek revenge for the revolution. Tales that [[Royalist]] soldiers would be released and criminals incorporated into the invading army lead to general alarm throughout France.

On the afternoon of the second, a coach of suspected royalists in Paris was being transported towards prison and surrounded. A fracas ensued and the defenders were slaughtered. This was the beginning of the massacres. Rumours of a plot to free the criminals in the overcrowded Parisian jails and the shortage of troops and weapons in the capital itself created a situation of high tension. [[Jean-Paul Marat]] called for the execution of the conspirators and a mob of ''sans-culottes'' arose to follow his lead. This was the beginning of the [[Reign of Terror]] under [[Maximilien de Robespierre]] and in the five days following 2 September between 1100 and 1400 of 2600 prisoners were killed.

[[Category:French Revolution]]

User talk:RJJensen

2008-12-09T03:05:05Z

Bolly: /* French Revolution */

[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:49, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for your fascinating addition to [[Barack Obama]] re: financing. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

== Welcome ==
Welcome indeed to CP! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:18, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::hey thanks! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:25, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

==China==
Chinese history would appear not to be your forte. How describing the fluctuating state of authority in the warlord period counts as 'red propaganda', I am at a loss to understand. Please don't cause damage to other Chinese history articles. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:03, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:: Ah but I am fairly familiar with 20c Chinese history. the article was full of Red propaganda (not that particular example)--which is bad for a conservative encyclopedia. for examples:
#the very title, and many of the pinyin terms, are the ones created in the 1950s by Communists in Beijing, and not used at the time or by the anti-communists in Taiwan.
#" However, Chiang was aided by the 'Guangxi Clique' of nationally-minded warlords; and the northern progress of the expedition was aided by carefully-timed popular uprisings planned by the CCP against local warlords."
#" Chiang again turned on the communists in the 'Shanghai Coup'. Aided by the police of the International Settlement and the French Concession in the city, and by gunmen of the influential 'Green Gang' criminal network, Chiang's troops and police rounded up and executed hundred of communists and trade unionists"
# "that to build a strong China it was necessary to defeat communism first, to an increasing number of Chinese his attitude appeared capitulationist and unpatriotic."
[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 07:13, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

All those are established facts, however unpalatable some of them may be. At Conservapedia we deal in truth, not propaganda. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:16, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

In addition, it is a very bad idea to build up Chiang as a conservative ideal type. He was - to put it mildly - an unsavoury and unscrupulous thug, who was portrayed as a democratic leader in the west for the sake of wartime unity, and wwas later loyal to the US as he had no choice but to be so. He was the very opposite of loyal at other stages of his career: vide his flirtation with [[Nazism]], and his cavalier treatment of General Stilwell. In terms of opersonal morality, well.... suffice to say that his avowal of Christianity was purely opportunistic; he presided over a regime of brutality and corruption that alienated all potential allies; he was the sort of man who actually made Communism look like a desirable alternative. How bad do you have to be to do that? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:22, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

::- ::No, you have to read some of the history. I actually worked through the books in the bibliography. For example, who cliams " to an increasing number of Chinese his attitude appeared capitulationist and unpatriotic." (answer: the far left). The story of the Nanchang uprising ("carefully-timed popular uprisings planned" is from Communist folklore as told to Edgar Snow in "Red Star over China", a notorous far-left book. As for Chiang's character, it is NOT white washed here. He was a rough character and I do not call him democratic. As for Stillwell, I think Chiang and Chennault were mostly right and Stillwell mostly wrong. (My articles on Stillwell and Chennault are coming soon--they are now both at Citizensium--take a look also atmy CBI article there. I have read the major studies for China in the 1940s.). Corruption--alas that is the history of China for the last 150 years, continuously (for example, don't feed your baby on Chinese formula--or feed your cat with their stuff. That is 2008 corrpution.
:::I too know a bit about that period - the Americans backed a loser in Chiang; and the real blame for the fall of China to communism lies with him - not with Service or Lattimore or any of the other John Birch Society bugaboos. Chiang was a late era warlord who used the KMT as a personal vehicle, and whose corruption and nepotism ruined the infant republic. There were better warlords for the west to have dealt with - Yan Xishan at least would have kept his hands out of the till - or Li Zongren. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:42, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
::::well everyone to his own warlord. Fact is Chiang came to power in 1920s and remained so to 1940 with zero American help. I think we agree the US policy to support China in order to defeat Japan was a fiasco (this was Stillwell's idea.) --More on this in my WW2 articles to come. I did not drop the conspiracy interpretation of the late 1940s which was in the article for a months or years.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 07:46, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::''well everyone to his own warlord'' hehe - I once attended a lecture by Jack Gray who was an ardent fan of Wu Peifu. I think his argument was that because he had no fixed territorial power base, this showed not that he had drawn the short straw geographically, but that it meant he was a truly 'national' leader rather than all those regionalist cliques, Zhang Zuolin in Manchuria, Feng in the north-west, etc. I thought it a dubious argument then and still do. But anyway... Chiang held power from the 20s to the 40s, but he certainly relied on Communist help both in 1925-27 (and he was plotted against as much as plotting, I have no doubt), and at the Xian incident. If the Young Marshal had had him put up against a wall, and seized power for himself, rather than bottling it.... [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:::the happy fact (not yet in the article) is that he created a regime on Taiwan with far less corruption and it historically led to a pro-US nation with capitalism and democracy. As for Christianity, the issue was active persecution of the missionaries. Chiang's highly public conversion helped change the status of Christians and reduced the persecution they sufferedin 1930s. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 08:54, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

== Latino ==

Could we please talk about it before reverting? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:32, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
::Yes indeed--I have explained my edits. I fixed a several little grammar issues, enlarged the map to make it legible, expanded the caption. We don't want to illustrate a U.S. article with a Mexican coach in Spain. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:35, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

::: The image shows a latino, beening in the US or not he is a latino; it is illustrating the very first part of the article. It also shows that not all latinos are illegals or land workers. This is enough to have a place there. The map is much better where it was before according to the subject. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:43, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::get a better image. This person is a Mexican living in Spain. The map was to small to figure out. The article makes it very clear that only a minority of latinos are illegal[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:45, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

We use to lock the articles while in the Main Page. If you need to edit it, please let me know. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:00, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
::OK, no problem. I won't be working on it for a while. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 07:06, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

== Warning ==

Please be more accurate in your edit summaries of "minor" edits. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 02:18, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
::sorry about that. I tried to change categories (Bryan was never a jurist) and the result was a bizarre edit I did not intend. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 09:40, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

== Newton ==

Hi, your calculus section in the [[Isaac Newton]] article had some conceptual errors in it -- I've rewritten the mathematics of this section appropriately. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 04:17, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::very nice job--thanks! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 08:25, 3 November 2008 (EST)

==National Socialist German Workers Party==

Just to let you know, I'm not interested in getting into an edit war here, but the listing of the Allies led by the US, Russia and Britain is inaccurate. The term Allies (for WWII) applies to all the countries that opposed the Axis powers, and that list included 21 countries or blocs before the US joined in 1941. Obviously the effort of the Allies had to be co-ordinated in the years between 1939-41 so the question of who led the Allies during WWII is, at best, not something that can be easily dispensed with a single sentence. Furthermore, saying that Russia was an member of the Allies is inaccurate, it was the USSR which was a member of the Allies, of which Russia was a part (an equivalent example would be if the sentence had read that .....by the Allies, led by Texas, Russia and Britain).

As a compromise I suggest: ......and was finally destroyed in [[World War II]] by the Allies, the major powers of which were the United States who led the Allied forces in Europe from 1941, the USSR (more commonly known as the Soviet Union) and Britain. [[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 22:03, 3/Nov/08 (GMT)
::the US joined the fighting in 1941 but had already been financing the war for both Britain and USSR, and was providing much of the munitions. Leadership also consists in setting strategy and policy which the US did--maybe 95% in the case of the war against Japan, 75% against Italy and say 40% in the case of Europe. As for the Soviets, they were Hitler's allies until June of 1941. You are right that USSR/Soviet is a better term than Russia. The debate should be on the article talk page, not here. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:42, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Copied the debate over to the talk page.

== ''Germania'' ==

I loved to read your article on the German Americans. Thanks for posting it! --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 15:49, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::hey thanks! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:53, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== Roosevelt ==

Why are you deleting sourced material from this article? Remember that the removal of relevant, sourced material from Conservapedia is considered vandalism. Please do not try to insert your own [[opinion]] into articles by censoring [[facts]]. --[[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]] 14:05, 6 November 2008 (EST)
::the article is supposed to be about FDR and introducing red herrings hurts students. CZ rules clearly state: "Please note that all contributions to Conservapedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here." [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:18, 6 November 2008 (EST)

==[[Holocaust]] article==
The additions you placed in there now make that article repetative; things are said twice. It needs to be fixed so it runs smoothly. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:57, 10 November 2008 (EST)
::you're right and I will try to smooth it out. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 13:59, 10 November 2008 (EST)

== Category Military history ==

Thank you for your work on the project. When we create categories we use capitalization so the category should be Military History. I would also recommend that if you do feel that category is important, that it covers a specifically defined area. Perhaps it should probably deal with overlying changes in tactics or doctrine that has guided military functioning that has had a profound impact. I would not use it for things like Wars or Battles which already have their own categories.

Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:32, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::thanks for the tip. I think the demand for article on military history is enormous--look at the very heavy emphasis at Borders and Barnes and Noble, for example. My college courses on military history attracted far more students than other history topics. Of course a specific topic may well overlap several categories. People will want to use our category pages as an index to what is available here. Discussions of tactics, strategy, technology and doctrine, for example, are often included in articles on specific wars. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:41, 15 November 2008 (EST)

== First Black President ==

Hello, please do not censor correct information in the [[First Black president]] article. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 10:49, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::what information was correct? it did not check out. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:04, 19 November 2008 (EST)

I notice you are a controversial editor who has never geneflected before Mr. Schlafly, and neither have you praised his wisdom and judgement in his fascinating revelation that Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim. Are you a Muslim sir? [[User:MarkBaley|MarkBaley]] 22:57, 20 November 2008 (EST)
::well actually more of a Catholic (a graduate of Notre Dame University class of 1962).[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:01, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Are you more like Barack Obama, a [[Liberal]] who lies about his religion, and then subverts the office of the United States, and then deceives the American people and then institutes an Islamic Caliphate, giving control of our nuclear arsenal to Iran and Bin Laden? If this is what you are, then we are better off without you. [[User:MarkBaley|MarkBaley]] 23:05, 20 November 2008 (EST)
::well no--but I was hoping Biden would be president--as a Catholic he will bring the Pope over to straighten us all aout. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:12, 20 November 2008 (EST)

I would rather the pope as my slavemaster than Bin Laden! Obama will, any day now I'm sure, give the nuclear launch codes to all of our enemies - Bin Laden, Iran, Satan, Green Goblin, France - and introduce an Islamic Caliphate to our great and glorious nation! Heel before the almighty Schlafly, only his logic and truth can save the world from the dark precipice it has gotten itself under! Only the bright and free can be saved! [[User:MarkBaley|MarkBaley]] 23:16, 20 November 2008 (EST)

==English and UK categories==

Question for you at [[Talk:William the Conqueror]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:26, 21 November 2008 (EST)

*Thanks for meeting me there, and now a question on ...

==World War II fatalities==

Thank for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Japan&curid=11154&diff=564889&oldid=555832&rcid=615850 this addition]. I had simply assumed that every Japanes soldier who died in WWII was directly killed by the US and its allies. Except maybe an insignificant number of accidents - oh, and the suicidal heroics of the [[Kamikaze]].

If a soldier dies from starvation, I'd lay that death at the feet of the man who sent him out. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:01, 21 November 2008 (EST)
::I was also surprised at the numbers. I knew about the starvation on the isolated Pacific islands but was surprised at China numbers. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:10, 21 November 2008 (EST)

== Shays' Rebellion ==

I wander why the ''Block quote'' was deleted? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:19, 25 November 2008 (EST)
::it was too vague and did not add information to what was already covered regarding the impact of Shays' on the government. It took a left-wing approach that did not help any. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:28, 25 November 2008 (EST)

== The so-called Progressive Era? ==

*Sorry for removing a category you only created today, but CP likes to not make stand-alone narrow cats. Somehow we need an over-arching category to easily facilitate searches, and not just one per person. It might be easier to discuss adding categories somewhere, rather than just doing it.....or at least leaving a trail of bread crumbs for the less historically blessed to follow! :-D --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:57, 30 November 2008 (EST)
::I agree. We need a page on CP where technical issues can be discussed and conventions established. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 07:14, 1 December 2008 (EST)

== Additional privileges ==

Congratulations, you've earned the additional privileges of 24-hour editing, uploading images, and blocking others. Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 1 December 2008 (EST)
::hey thanks--I appreciate that! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 10:55, 1 December 2008 (EST)
:::Congrats. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:01, 1 December 2008 (EST)
::::Congratulations from me too. Well deserved! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:41, 2 December 2008 (EST)

==Oz pic==
Just uploaded it for the article: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Woz_movie.jpg] [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:12, 4 December 2008 (EST)
::thanks--the visuals are great. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 03:21, 5 December 2008 (EST)

== [[Barry Goldwater]] ==

I see some recent stretching to include people like Goldwater as libertarians. You are too good a historian to muddle the waters with throw-away lines such as "many of his later views were libertarian". Yes? So? Many of his views would, today, be considered near leftist as well. ''Historians need to resist revisionism''. In his time, by his own definition, Goldwater rejected libertarianism, and self-branded himself a conservative. Goldwater did not believe in abortion as a substitute for abstaining or birth control, nor did he support "abortion on demand". Many views held by even Ted Kennedy could be considered "conservative", but that hardly gives license to brand him one, or make the statement "some of his views are conservative", that would be misleading, IMO. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 16:55, 5 December 2008 (EST)
:well I knew Goldater personally since 1958 and followed his career very closely. After 1980 or so he was libertarian on most social issues, while remaining conservative on defense and spending issues. In his heyday as a conservative leader (1960-64) he rarely mentioned social issues and they were seldom on the agenda. Here is what Bill Buckley said of Goldwater:
<blockquote>
''Conspicuous here was his defense of Supreme Court decisions involving abortion, gay rights, and the separation of church and state. Most followers of the senator were surprised, and abashed, especially at his defense of abortion.''[http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/wfb200412101327.asp from National RreviewDec10, 2004]</blockquote>
[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:01, 5 December 2008 (EST)

::*Ditto for me. My family were neighbors at the Balboa Bay Club in Newport Beach, CA, for several decades. But this is straw snatching, trying to paint the man as a libertarian, by a few high-profile pronouncements later in life, to somehow add cred to the libertarian cause. Find your own hero's, but kindly do not snatch our conservative ones! I do not disagree with showing, with cites, his later libertarian views (many of which I agreed with), but putting him, and others, with the help of another libertarian editor, into the libertarian category, and implying some "conversion" isn't being honest. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 17:19, 5 December 2008 (EST)
::Conversion? well, I think Barry was always a libertarian but only became outspoken about it in the 1980s when social issues got high on the political agenda. When he was a leader of the conservative movement (1958-64) he rarely mentioned social issues of any kind--he never mentioned abortion, for example. (he did mention gays in 1964 in the Walter Jenkins scandal--a top LBJ aide was arrested during the election campaign-- but did not condemn it.) His libertarianism after 1980 was not a "few" statements it was his high profile fight to get O'Connor on the Supreme Court. He was at that time a very powerful Senator and his views are quite important. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:42, 5 December 2008 (EST)

::*We mostly agree. Just please don't go adding him to the libertarian category, or make it seem he was not a conservative. We are obviously near-contemporary, and no doubt share the acquaintanceship/friendship of many, it seems. However to use your friendship and personal assumptions as to what he was, absent of his repudiating being a conservative, is wrong and purely anecdotal. That is my only objection. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 17:48, 5 December 2008 (EST)
:::I'm glad we agree. I was not the one who added the libertarian category. But he publicly announced his positions and angered a lot of Arizona conservatives by so doing. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:52, 5 December 2008 (EST)

:::::I well remember! We should have a libation one day and swap old stories. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 17:58, 5 December 2008 (EST)
::::::I'll drink to that. I left Arizona this summer and we moved to Montana, but there's a bar and a casino on every corner here. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 18:01, 5 December 2008 (EST)

== [[French Revolution]] ==
Hey, I noticed you're doing a bit of work around this area, and as you seem to be the resident historian, I thought I'd volunteer my services here, so you're free to do other area's that need some touching up or expanding. If there's any articles or stubs in the French Revolution section that need to be fixed, just let me know. Thanks [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 21:54, 8 December 2008 (EST)
::GREAT! we can use short articles on the major players and events. Suggestion use the facts from the online Columbia Encyclopedia at [http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/sitesearch?FILTER=col65&query=French+Revolution&x=0&y=0 Columbia Enyc srticles on French Rev.] -- it's very good. Be sure to summarize & rewrite the facts, not quote exactly. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 22:02, 8 December 2008 (EST)

:::OK I'll get right onto it. Thanks for the suggestion! [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 22:05, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Arthur Conan Doyle

2008-12-09T02:59:55Z

Bolly: typo

[[Image:Arthur Conan Doyle.jpg|140px|right]]
'''Sir Arthur Conan Doyle''' (Edinburgh 1859 - Crowborough 1930) was a [[British]] [[writer]], creator of the fictitious detective [[Sherlock Holmes]]. Doyle's love of Holmes didn't match that of his fans, and at one point Doyle tried to kill Holmes off, only to bring him back under public outcry. In the end, although he tried his hand at other things, Doyle's primary accomplishment in life for which he is known is the Sherlock Holmes character.

::::''I have seen too much not to know that the impression of a woman may be more valuable than the conclusion of an analytical reasoner.''

[[Edgar Allan Poe]] and [[Bret Harte]] were some of his favorite authors.

Doyle was an enthusiastic advocate of [[spiritualism]] and could be described as credulous: he was, for example, taken in by the [[Cottingley fairies]] hoax.

He was buried in Hampshire, England.

== Select Works ==

Sherlock Holmes:
* ''[[A Study in Scarlet]]'' (1887)
* ''[[The Sign of Four]]'' (1890)
* ''[[The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes]]'' (1892)
* ''[[The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes]]'' (1894)
* ''[[The Hound of the Baskervilles]]'' (1902)
* ''[[The Return of Sherlock Holmes]]'' (1905)
* ''[[The Valley of Fear]]'' (1915)

Others:
* ''[[The Lost World]]'' (1912)

Doyle's other works include science fiction stories, historical novels, plays and romances, poetry, and non-fiction.

== Evolutionary Racism ==
Doyle was a highly controversial due to his [[evolutionary racism|evolutionary racist]] views. ''The Lost World'', an early work of science fiction, continually upholds [[Darwin]] and evolutionary theory. The white Englishmen are described as the most cultured and advanced, while the Spanish [[creole|creoles]] are untrustworthy and the lone Black character is remarkably unintelligent. Similarly, in ''The Sign of Four'', a native of Southeast Asia is described as being subhuman and grotesque.

== See also ==
*[[G.K. Chesterton]]

== External links ==
*[http://www.sherlockholmesonline.org/ Official web site of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle]
*[http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/arthur_conan_doyle.html Arthur Conan Doyle Quotes]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Doyle, Arthur Conan}}

[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Evolutionists]]

User talk:RJJensen

2008-12-09T02:54:09Z

Bolly:

French Revolution

2008-12-09T02:48:03Z

Bolly: /* Chronology of the French Revolution */

[[Image:Prise de la Bastille.jpg|thumb|Capture of the Bastille.]]
'''The French Revolution''' was a 1789 revolution which began the modern era. In a sequence of upheavals, it saw the downfall of King [[Louis XVI]], rise of [[Robespierre]] and the [[Reign of Terror]], a chaos wherein thousands were [[guillotine|guillotined]] for political leanings and moderatism.

Radicals saw the Catholic Church as the enemy and promoted in its place a [[Cult of Reason]]. The Revolution emerged in part from the [[rationalism]] of the[[Enlightenment]] which distrusted all established institutions. It inspired fear into European monarchs and aristocrats as well as conservative intellectuals like [[Edmund Burke]] in Britain, who mobilized to fight the Revolution, and finally succeeded in 1815.
==Social structure of Old Regime==
Before the Revolution, France had three levels in its social system: The First, Second, and Third Estates. The [[First Estate]] was about 1% of the population, but it controlled 10% of the land. [[Image:3estates.jpg|thumb|320px|left]] The First Estate consisted of the clergy, and they did not pay any taxes. The [[Second Estate]] was about 2% of the population and they controlled 20% of the land. These were the nobility, and they too paid very little taxes. The [[Third Estate]] was everyone else, and they were badly overtaxed by the monarch. This overtaxing was a major cause of the [[French]] Revolution.

The leaders of the Third Estate were the upper middle class, especially lawyers; they are called the [[bourgeoisie]]. They were educated in the ideas of the [[Enlightenment]], most importantly [[Jean Jacques Rousseau]]. Rousseau's book, "The Social Contract" supported a [[direct democracy]]. The social contract spoke against titles for nobility and demanded complete equality for all people.

French Revolutionary ideals, especially thanks to Napoleon, later inspired liberal and democratic movements of the 19th Century.

==Chronology of the French Revolution==

[[Image:Paris1789.jpg|thumb|425px]]

Several costly wars, the War of Austrian Succession (1740-8), the Seven Years War (1756-63) and the American Revolution (1778-83), had reduced the government to the verge of bankruptcy. The deficit for 1786 would be 112 million ''livres'', nearly a quater of total income. Due to the poorly organised taxation system it was impossible for the King and his finance minister to make up the deficit without serious reforms. In 1787 he called a meeting of 144 leading nobles, the Assembly of Notables, to attempt to persuade them to pay tax in return for increased powers. The nobles refused his requests and were supported by the local assembly; the Parlement de Paris.

Outraged at this perceived slight to his authority, King Louis exiled the Parlement to Troyes on 15 August 1788. The result was an aristocratic revolt, supported by members of the clergy around the country. Although fragmented and disorganised, the revolts continued until the King withdrew his demands at this challenge to his authority, which was greeted by thousands taking to the street to celebrate. When troops were ordered to "Get some lead into the bastards' backsides", they fired into the air instead. In hindsight this can be seen as the start of dissent. It is notable that the initiators of this unrest were the upper classes, who had little reason to think there was any thirst for revolution. In April 1787, [[Calonne]] resigned in disgrace and the middle classes, strengthened by the protests, began to demand the Estates-Generale, a Parliament in which they would be represented.

==1789 - Year of Revolution==

With growing unrest and France nearing bankruptcy, the King agreed to call the Estates-Generale in May 1789. The [[Estate-Generale]] was divided into the three estates, with the first two estates (nobility and clergy) electing their representatives. The third estate representation required a series of elections in which all property owners over the age of twenty-five were eligible to take part. They elected a group of electors, who in turn chose delegates. The delegates themselves were overwhelmingly middle class, including the young lawyer [[Maximilien Robespierre]]. Furthermore, the Third Estate was required to produce a list of grievances known as ''cahiers''.

Between 25,000 and 60,000 documents were filled with grievances. Thousands demanded a constitution, reorganization of the clergy, lessening of the tax burden and an end to [[Royal]] waste. Few of these demands could be resolved without challenging the basis of [[Absolute Monarchy]]. However, not one of these document has been found to advocate abolition of the monarchy, with the large majority requesting moderate reform and many including expression of adoration towards the King.

The Estates-General had not met in 175 years and retained many of its former characteristics. Each Estate had one vote in the Assembly, such that the First and Second Estates could always outvote the Third Estate. That was acceptable in the early 1600s, but the Third Estate would not allow this in 1789 after learning the Enlightenment ideas. King Louis XVI responded to the Third Estate's complaints by doubling the number of Third Estate delegates in the Estates-General. By this time the alliance between the nobility and the third estate had broken down; the nobles may have called a march, but they drew the line at burning down tax offices. The Third Estate wanted a system of one vote per delegate, which would have given the Third Estate the same number of votes as the First and Second Estate combined.

The opening of the Estates-Generale did not bode well. The opening session was in an open coach house, which meant that the Third Estate struggled to hear the proceedings as they were on wooden benches at the far end of the room. Upon the entry of the King, the first and second estates were expected to remove their hats and sit down after the King, before replacing their hats. The Third Estate were expected to remain standing until after the first and second estates had replaced their hats, however, they chose to sit at the same time as the first and second estates. The First Estate were to wear glittering robes, the second estate were to wear silk coats, whilst the third estate were required to wear black coats. There was no question at this point of rudeness towards the King himself, and at this point none of the delegates (including Robespierre) was a republican in their beliefs. There then followed a speech by [[Necker]] on possible solutions to the economic crisis, that was of such length and dullness that Necker had to pass it on to a delegate to complete.

The Third Estate began to win votes in the Estates-Generale by attracting poorer clergy to their side. On 17 June the Third Estate, accompanied by the poorer clergy, voted 490 to 90 in favour of a motion to call themselves the [[National Assembly]] and claimed that they now had the right to manage the nations affairs and taxation. In an attempt to reassert his control, the king announced that Estates-Generale was postponed until 23 June where he would announce several reforms in a ''seance royale''. However, news of the postponement did not reach the delegates of the Third Estate, who arrived on the 20 June to find the room locked.

Following a period of confusion, Dr [[Guillotin]] (one of the Third Estate delegates) suggested it might be possible to convene at a nearby indoor tennis court and the group of over 500 delegate proceeded to meet at the court. The session was chaired by Bailly (a celebrity astronomer) and Mirabeau proposed that the delegation should not break up until a constitution was passed, which was opposed by only one delegate (Martin d'Auch). In effect the delegates had declared themselves the Government of France, pending a constitution to be organized by [[Mirabeau]].

The [[National Assembly]] approved the “[[Declaration of the Rights of Man]],” which combined ideas of the [[American Declaration of Independence]] with some Enlightenment concepts. The result of this combination had many debatable claims. The entire document is short and worth reading in full: [http://www.hrcr.org/docs/frenchdec.html] .

The King responded by ordering the delegates to disperse, however this had little effect. The following week the King sent a messenger, the Marquis de Breze, to order the finishing of the session. Mirabeau ordered the messenger to leave.
[[Image:David OathHoratti.jpg|left]]
In the last week of June the royal [[Government]] ordered 20,000 troops to march on Paris. It became apparent that compromise was not working. This was emphasized with the replacement of Necker by the hard line [[Baron de Breteuil]]. Thousands took to the streets to demand the reinstatement of [[Necker]], who was at the height of his popularity and seen as the only man who could solve the taxation crisis. Mirabeau spoke to the assembly, invoking the oath taken at the tennis court. [[Camille Desmoulins]] had ridden to Versailles to report on events and galloped back to Paris to report on the replacement of Necker.

Crowds marched to [[Abbaye]] prison to demand the release of the soldiers who had been arrested for not firing on the crowds. Troops were offered drinks by the crowd if they shouted 'Viva le tiers-etat'. Dummies of [[Necker]] and [[Duc d'Orleans]] were stolen to be paraded as heroes.

The deputies were now faced with a dilemma, requiring a mass movement for defence of the National Assembly, but fearing crowds getting out of control. Militia were therefore established, that excluded all unemployed and vagrants, and many districts demanded employers' references before admission. Admission varied enormously across districts, with 1,200 being recruited in [[Le Petit-St-Antoine]], but [[Les Minimes]] mustering four.

===Storming of the [[Bastille]]===

With the militia formed to repel the royal troops, there was an urgent need for weapons. The royalist [[Swiss Guard]]s had stored 30,000 pounds in the Bastille, to be used against the National Assembly. On the morning of July 14, 1789 (“[[Bastille Day]]”), a crowd of about a thousand people made up predominantly of small tradesmen arrived at the prison to demand the gun powder be handed over. The prison Governor invited a delegation in for breakfast, which proceeded for three and a half hours. Meanwhile, rumours circulated that royalist troops were committing atrocities across Paris.

A demonstrator outside the Bastille realized he would be able to get to the chains of the drawbridge by climbing from a nearby perfume shop. At this point the prison Governor, [[De Launay]], broke off negotiations and late in the afternoon cannon shots were aimed at the crowd. Two companies of French Guards were persuaded to the Bastille to the defend protesters being killed by cannon fire.

A Swiss Guard handed over the keys to the second drawbridge, leading to a moat. A clerk from a pawn office visited a carpenter and returned with eleven pieces of wood, one of which was able to span the moat. Once inside, seven prisoners were freed, though contrary to what is widely though, this did not include the [[Marquis de Sade]] (he had been moved as he had shouting at passers by through a pipe he had been given to urinate through. This took time however, as the keys to release the cells were the same as the keys to open the first draw bridge and the man with the keys had gone home.

In total six defenders of the Bastille were killed, including De launay, and ninety protestors.

The aftermath was one of euphoria throughout much of [[Paris]]. Much of the nobility proclaimed support for the act, realizing that it was not healthy to oppose public opinion on the matter. [[Louis XVI]] recalled Necker to his job and agreed to recognise the National Assembly, which included the Third Estate delegates, poorer clergy and nobility sympathetic to the Third Estate cause. [[Lafayette]] was appointed head of the police and the army, which was to be known as the National Guard. Bailly became the Mayor of Paris.

The King agreed to come to Paris and accept the gift of a cockade that had become a symbol of the revolution, which the king fastened to his hat, whilst the crowd cheered "Vive le Roi!". Whilst the significance of the day was evident, that it would produce a republic was far from clear. The plan of the King to take Paris with 20,000 troops had failed, but he was able to satisfy the populace that it was not intended and a peaceful resolution was reached. The changes that had so far occurred in a brief period of time were so dramatic that the thought that things could change further was difficult to conceive.

===The Great Fear===

During the week following the storming of the Bastille, news of events spread to the rest of France. This led to a panic as to what the response of the nobility would be to the events, The [[Great Fear]] or panic resulted. Many villages defended themselves against imaginary threats by forming peasant militias; riots occurred and peasants proceeded to burn wealthy homes.

The rural uprising prompted the National Assembly to pass a motion to 'destroy the [[feudal]] regime entirely', on August 4th. However, in order to release himself a peasant would have to pay twenty times his annual rent to the landlord, making the measure ineffectual.

===Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen===
[[Image:The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.jpg|220px|right]]
The Assembly in August 1789 passed the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen on the 4th August. This annulled the right of nobles to demand taxes, tithes and labor from peasants working on their family land. The declaration was inspired by the American Revolution and was partially written by LaFayette.

Unlike the American declaration that “all men are created equal,” the French version declared that “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.”

Whilst the American declaration that all men have inalienable rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” the French version declared that all men have natural rights of “liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression.”

Some declarations were troublesome; “Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law” left questions of definition. Also, the rights of French people to rebel were enshrined in the very constitution itself.

The water wheel was abolished as the method of execution by the more humane and scientific [[guillotine]]. It is notable that the only delegate to vote for the abolition of the [[death penalty]] was [[Robespierre]].

===A New Government===

France was slowly becoming a republic. Although the United States was well known as a republic, a European republic was still alien to the thoughts of most French, including revolutionaries. Negotiations over the new constitution continued, with Mirabeau and Lafayette appealing for calm less the King withdraw from negotiation. [[Jean Paul Marat]] took a less moderate line. Marat argued for universal suffrage and for the King to retain only an advisory role, a constitutional monarchy such as those seen in the [[United Kingdom]] or [[Sweden]] to this day.

===Royal Faux Pas===
On 1st October, 1789, a party was thrown at the [[Palace of Versailles]]. Louis XVI took the cap he had been presented with following the storming of the Bastille and trampled it underfoot. The king later denied this, however several witnesses recalled the incident and news of the incident spread to Paris. A contingent of women raided the Town Hall was raided for weapons and set off from Paris to Versailles, becoming a crowd of 10,000, who were later joined by the National Guard to ensure good order.

Upon the arrival for the group at the palace two guards opened fire, but were interrupted by decapitation. A small delegation of women were permitted to meet the Queen, however one fainted upon witnessing the beauty of the Palace of Versailles. The crowd became impatient by six o'clock the following morning and a militant group of fishwives broke in with a cry of "We are going to cut off her head, tear out her heart, fry her liver and that will not be the end of it"(Documents of the French Revolution, page 62). It was a forceful enough argument to force the Royal family back to Paris, where it was felt it would be possible to keep closer watch. It was also clear by now that the King was in no position to demand a veto.

Antoinette is reputed to have responded unsympathetically to the lack of bread for the peasants by declaring, “Let them eat cake!” Historians doubt she ever actually said that.

===Anniversary Pledge===

In July 1790 on the first anniversary of the storming of the Bastille a large ceremony was held in Paris at which members of the Government and the King pledges themselves to uphold the 'law, the nation and the King'. This represents a compromise in that the King was still seen as central, however all pledges had previously been to the King alone, and the King was required to make no pledge.

===1791 - The King Strikes Back===
In the two years following the storming of the Bastille French society had been transformed. There were an estimated 133 political journals in Paris, Parish priests had been dismissed and replaced by elected Priests. Robespierre had advanced plans for the emancipation of Jews and Protestants, equal treatment of all military ranks and the abolition of the property qualification for the National Guard. Robespierre remained incorruptible at this point, refusing to be the Duc d'Orleans let the luxury affect his judgement.

This situation was intolerable for the Royal Family, who began to organize a foreign force to invade France and restore their power. In December 1790 Louis wrote a secret note to the King of Prussia requesting a European army invade France. Furthermore, the King and Queen (herself Austrian) decided to flee Paris to help organise the invasion force from without France, let their presence in Paris compromise the invasion.

The royal couple decided to disguise themselves and flee across the border, which they did at night setting off at at a seven miles in part due to the weight requirements for the Queen to travel in the least luxury that she expected. The next morning the Kings letter to the National Assembly was found condemning all the measure which he had claimed to support for the previous two years.

The royal party reached [[Ste-Menehould]], where the papers of the party were checked by Drouet, who had been a staunch supporter of the revolution. Despite having seen the servant in the corner and 'struck by the resemblance of his face to the likeness of the King printed on the bank note', in disbelief he allowed the party to continue. Having discussed the incident with his colleague, Guillaume, the two raced to catch up with the party and spread word through the surrounding villages that the Royal family were attempting to flee. The family were captured and returned to Paris, with posters informing the gathering crowd "Whoever applauds the King will be flogged; whoever insults him will be hanged".

Most delegates wished to hold together a compromise, but the Head of State fleeing to lead a hostile invasion of the nation had created difficulties. Many insisted that the King must have been kidnapped. General Bouille wrote a statement confessing his involvement, but many insisted he was lying to implicate the King. While the only punishment towards the King was stripping of his powers of veto on laws and finance, talk began to emerge for the first time of the possibility of a republic. At this point Robespierre and most of the Paris commune strongly opposed the republic, whilst Lafayette rallied to the slogan 'The Revolution is Over'. By then the French Revolution was in full swing.

===Declaration of the Rights of Woman===

In 1791, a French journalist named [[Olympe de Gouges]] proposed a “[[Declaration of the Rights of Woman]],” (inspired by the writings of [[Mary Woolstonecraft]]) but the National Assembly rejected her proposal. She, like many other leaders of that time, was eventually executed by guillotine. Other sans-culotte groups were established including the [[Society of Revolutionary Women]]

==1791: New Start==

Politics in France became divided between the moderate [[Girondins]] and the more radical [[Jacobins]]. At this point the Girondins appeared to be in the stronger position, however the Jacobins were growing in strength. At this point the Jacobins were led by [[Robespierre]], who made a strong speech in favor of a republic.

The French National Assembly established a [[constitutional monarchy]] and, in 1791, adopted a new constitution that created a Legislative Assembly. Three factions quickly formed in the new Legislative Assembly, known as the radicals (liberals), moderates (centrists) and conservatives, similar to those political movements today in the United States. The three factions sat in different sections of the large assembly hall, with the radicals (liberals) sitting on the left, the moderates sitting in the center, and the conservatives sitting on the right. That gave rise to the left-center-right terminology that we still use today in the United States to describe these three political groups.

===German Invasion===
A large number of noblemen had gathered in [[Koblenz]] to form an army to invade France and restore the King to full rule. The emigrants carried stories of atrocities and encouraged reaction against the National Assembly and atrocities associated with lower class democracy. The Duke of Brunswick declared "We will soon be marching on Paris".

This was a matter of some concern in France, as many of the officers that had been in the French army in 1789 had joined the emigrant army in Germany. The Girondins remained confident, but Robespierre saw little cause for initial optimism. The Royal Family strongly supported war with the Prussian and Austrian force in the hope that the French would be defeated and they be restored.

On April 1792, the King declared war on the [[Hapsburg Empire]], who wished to restore his power. The French army suffered a series of defeats along the border, creating optimism in the Royal house. The National Assembly ordered the dispersal of the Kings bodyguard who were supporting the foreign invasion, but this was vetoed by the King. The Assembly then voted for 20,000 French patriots to come from across France to protect Paris, but this was also vetoed by the King.

The use of the royal veto to undermine the defense of France prompted a strong reaction, with demonstrators managing to pour into the royal apartments. The King was forced to wear a red cap while being taunted for several hours with taunts of "Fat Louis" and "Tyrants must Tremble". The time of compromise was nearing an end.

Lafayette planned a coup to restore the old order to as it was in 1787, using the National Guard. This force was resisted by a volunteer group of citizens. Traditionally this latter group are portrayed as ne'er-do-well criminals, however it is questionable whether such groups would march typically 800 miles. The volunteer groups were greeted as heroes in towns they passed through and [[Rouget de Lisle]] composed 'La Marseillaise' as a call to arms.

The war started badly for the French and on 25th July the Duke of Brunswick prepared to March on Paris and pledged to restore the French Royal Family to their original statue, but that he had no intention of meddling in the internal affairs of France. He demanded total surrender or the Prussian and Austrian armies would "take an exemplary and never-to-be-forgotten vengeance, by giving up the town of Paris to military execution..and the guilty rebels to the death they deserve".

===Second Revolution===

Paris was divided, with 20,000 signing a petition to support the full restoration of an absolute monarchy and a foreign army was invading France rapidly. Moderates such as Mme Roland supported withdrawal from Paris, whereas Maton would accept no backward step. On 10th August a larger demonstration marched on the palace demanding the removal of the King.

===Victory at the Battle of Valmy===
The National Assembly called for volunteers to defend the state, with assurances that this army would be different to the one that had gone before and collapsed before the troops of the Duke of Brunswick. The soldiers would sing Les Maseillaise into battle and officers and men would wear similar uniforms. The majority of the officers would be voted for by the soldiers.

In September 1792 the army was formed, and the Duke of Brunswick brought his army round to meet the French on by the village of [[Valmy]]. The French were grouped around a windmill in an area of uncommon tranquillity. The battle involved a day long exchange of cannon fire with little result. The significance of the battle is that the French volunteer troops remained firm.

[[Johann Goethe]] was present at the battle, as one of the troops of the Duke of Brunswick; "In the morning we had been talking of spitting and eating the French. Now everyone was thinking again. Almost everyone remained silent. Only a few men spoke and their reflections seemed illogical or frivolous".

In the opinion of Goethe, what had changed in the French was their spirit. They had won their freedom and did not wish to return to the days before the revolution, they had debated and were politically active. They were therefore able to stand firm. The news of the battle had a strong effect on French national morale, as the French came to believe they could win.

==The Convention as the new government==

On the day following the victory Valmy in September 1792, the newly elected French Government (the Convention). The Convention declared France to be an 'Indivisible Republic'. The Convention was made of three factions; the [[Girondins]], the [[Montagnards]] (including Robespierre, Danton and Marat) and the [[Grenouilles de la Marais]] or the Plain. Robespierre won an argument to allow a public gallery for debates.

All factions favored deposing the King, but were far from united beyond that point. The Montannards saw this as the first step to greater social equality, as opined by Robespierre, "Royalty has been destroyed, not the reign of equality is beginning". He attacked the wealthiest businessmen "those goods which are necessary to keep people alive as nothing more than an ordinary item of trade" - a sentiment echoed later by [[Karl Marx]]'s assertion that businessmen see objects not for their usefulness but for their value as commodities.

However, the Jocobin position was far from modern [[Socialism]], as they sought a nation of small property owners. The Government would be elected by property owners. Support for a republic was recently and had little idea of how to progress with the power they now found they had.

The Girdondins accused the Montagnards of preparing a dictatorship. However, the Girdondins had lost credibility by suggesting retreat from Paris and furthermore lacked the social roots that enabled the Montagnards to motivate thousands of volunteers. It reflects on the differing social backgrounds of the delegates that it was at this point Robespirre met a cabinet maker, M. Duplay. Duplay invited Robespierre back to his flat to meet his family and, finding that the family had been trying to let a spare room, Robespierre moved in. It is worth considering the contrast between the setting of the reign of Louis XVI to Robespierre who, whilst the most powerful man in France, has to queue behind his landlord to use the toilet in the morning.

===Execution of the King===
The King and family were detained in the Temple prison, but retained the trappings of luxury. The King had a library of 1,500 books, still ordered his shoes from his preferred cobbler and the family was provided with servants. The majority of servants remained utterly devoted to the family, feeling their employment to be a sacred duty.

This loyalty was not universal however, a former locksmith of the King revealed to the Paris Commune that there is secret cupboard containing correspondence between the King and invading powers showing collusion. Mirabeau and Lafayette were also implicated, though Mirabeau had no died and Lafayette had fled to [[Austria]].

The trial was debated by a number of key speakers. [[Louis St-Just]] debated the very validity of Kings, that to try the King as a bad King suggested it was possible to be a good, legal King, which was not acceptable. He was opposed by [[Thomas Paine]] who wished the King to be exiled to the United States. The vote was won for death by 387 to 334.

Louis XVI was executed in January 1793.

===Dechristianization movement===
The measures taken by the Convention to substitute the Revolutionary calendar for the old Christian calendar, and the decrees ordering the municipalities to seize and melt down the bells and treasures of the churches, proved that certain currents prevailed tending to the [[dechristianization]] of France.

The rest of décadi, every tenth day, replaced the Sunday rest. The "missionary representatives", sent to the provinces, closed churches, hunted down citizens suspected of religious practices. Persecution of all religious ideas began. Many churches were forcibly closed and converted into [[Cult of Reason|Temples of Reason]] <ref>John Hall Stewart, ''A Documentary Survey of the French Revolution'', Macmillan, New York, 1963.</ref>

During the first days of the Republic, provision had been made for dating public documents from "the first year of the French Republic," but no definite plan for a revised calendar had been proposed. A decree of 2 January, 1793, provided for the second year of the Republic to begin on 1 January, 1793. The new calendar took form in October and November, and lasted until 1806.

A vital force intended to sustain the political and economic terror was the creation of an ideology based on love of '' la Patrie'', "the Country" or "fatherland", and the subjugation of the individual to the collective will of whole. The Church of Notre-Dame-de-Paris became a temple of Reason, and the feast of Reason was celebrated on 10 November. The idea of honouring the fatherland, which had its origin in the festival of the Federation in 1790 gave rise to successive cults. Chamber Deputy Laloi commented they had "wiped out eighteen centuries of error".

Robespierre adopted the position that from the religious and Republican standpoint the idea of a Supreme Being was advantageous to the State, that religion should dispense with a priesthood, and that priests were to religion what charlatans were to medicine, and that the true priest of the Supreme Being was Nature. The Convention adopted a decree of which the first article was: "The French people recognize the existence of a Supreme Being and the immortality of the soul". The same decree states that freedom of worship is maintained but adds that in the case of disturbances caused by the exercise of a religion those who "excite them by fanatical preaching or by counter Revolutionary innovations", shall be punished according to the rigour of the law. Thus the condition of the Catholic Church remained equally precarious and the first festival of the Supreme Being was celebrated throughout France on 8 June, 1794. with aggressive splendour. Whereas the Exagérés wished simply to destroy Catholicism, and in the temples of Reason political rather than moral doctrines were taught. Robespierre desired that the civic religion should have a moral code which he based on the two dogmas of God and the immortality of the soul. He was of the opinion that the idea of God had a social value, that public morality depended on it and that Catholics would more readily support the republic under the auspices of a Supreme Being. <ref>Catholic Encyclopdeia, [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13009a.htm French Revolution]</ref>

===Committee of Public Safety===
The [[Committee of Public Safety]] was formed in April 1793, and passed a rule that Generals were to live in camp with the army. This had the practical effect of testing the belief in equality of the many Nobles in the army. [[General Dumouriez]] made overtures to the Prince of Coburg for the invasion of France and have Louis XVI's son proclaimed King Louis XVII.
===Reign of Terror===
The execution of Louis XVI led almost immediately to the [[Reign of Terror]] in 1793-94. [[Maximilian Robespierre]], head of the Committee of Public Safety, proceeded to guillotine numerous alleged enemies, including Marie Antoinette. In a classic illustration of Jesus’s teaching that “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword,” Jacobin leaders [[Georges Danton]] (a fiery orator) was guillotined, and [[Jean-Paul Marat]] (a scientist) was stabbed to death in his bathtub.

===The Thermidorian Reaction===
By 1794 many countries, including [[Great Britain]], [[Spain]], the [[Netherlands]], [[Prussia]] and [[Austria]], had formed the "First Coalition" to invade France and restore monarchy. The National Convention responded by drafting people into an army. Historians claim women were drafted, but such a politically inspired claim is worth investigating before accepting it. The war lasted for several years, on several fronts, but the First Coalition was eventually defeated.

Robespierre made a fatal mistake on 26 July (8 Thermidor on the revolutionary calender) when he made a speech attacking colleagues who he claimed were plotting against his government. He declined to name those he suspected, allowing moderates and terrorists (here used to refer to members of the government who supported the Terror) who felt threatened a chance to act. Had he named anyone they would immediately have been arrested and executed. Instead, the next day, when Robespierre attempted to speak at the Convention he was shouted down. Finally, after a farcical arrest and release due to popular support, Robespierre was arrested a second time, and executed the same day, 28 July.

At last the government of France was in the hands of a legislature, and an executive branch of five men called the Directory. The Directory picked a young, highly successful military genius named [[Napoleon]] to lead the French army. The very next day Napoleon seized all power in France as its [[dictator]], in November 1799.

===Economic controls===

On 29 September, 1793, in the Law of the Maximum was formulated to deal with the steady rise in prices of the necessities of life. Committees of experts had been appointed to study the whole subject. Prices were set at one and one-third its price in 1790, transportation costs were regulated at a fixed rate, a 5 per cent markup was allowed the wholesaler and 10 per cent to the retailer. Bertrand Barrere declared, "The needs of the people will no longer be spied upon in order that the commercial classes may arbitrarily take advantage".

The first result was farmers produced as little as they possibly could. Scarcity increased, and the people of the large cities were put on an rationing. Many shopkeepers went out of business, and the remainder forced buyers to pay enormous charges under the very natural excuse that the seller risked his life in trading at all. That this excuse was valid is easily seen by the daily lists of those condemned to the guillotine, in which not infrequently figure the names of men charged with violating the Maximum laws. Manufactures were crippled and frequently destroyed.

To detect goods concealed by farmers and shopkeepers, a spy system was established with a reward to the informer of one-third of the value of the goods discovered. To spread terror, the Criminal Tribunal at Strassburg was ordered to destroy the dwelling of anyone found guilty of selling goods above the price set by law. The farmer often found that he could not raise his products at anything like the price required by the new law; and when he tried to hold back his crops or cattle, alleging that he could not afford to sell them at the prices fixed by law, they were frequently taken from him by force and he was fortunate if he was paid in the depreciated fiat currency or escaped execution.

The Convention decreed that any person selling gold or silver coin, or making any difference in any transaction between paper banknotes (assignats), and precious metal coin (specie) should be imprisoned in irons for six years; that anyone who refused to accept a payment in assignats, or accepted assignats at a discount, should pay a fine of 3,000 francs; and that anyone committing this crime a second time shou1d pay a fine of 6,000 francs and suffer imprisonment 20 years in irons. Later, on 8 September, 1793, the penalty for such offences was made death, with confiscation of the property of the heirs, and a reward offered to any person informing the authorities regarding any such transaction. The Convention decreed, in May 1794, that the death penalty should be inflicted on any person convicted of 'having asked, before a bargain was concluded, in what money payment was to be made".

Georges Couthon, in August 1793, proposed and won passage of a law punishing any person who should sell assignats at less than their fixed value with imprisonment for 20 years in chains, and later passed a law making investment in foreign countries punishable by death. Prisons, guillotines, enactments inflicting 20 years' imprisonment in chains upon persons twice convicted of buying or selling paper money at less than its nominal value, and death upon investors in foreign securities, still did not stop people from procuring the necessities of life by bargaining and exchange; on 1 August, 1795, the gold louis of 25 francs was worth in paper, 920 francs; on 1 September, 1,200 francs; on 1 November, 2,600 francs; on 1 December, 3,050 francs. In February 1796, it was worth 7,200 francs or one franc in gold was worth 288 francs in paper. Prices of all commodities went up nearly in proportion. <ref>Andrew Dickson White, Fiat Money: Inflation in France, Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, 1959, pp. 75-89; first published in 1912 as revised version of 1876 lecture. Reproduced in ''Choice in Currency'', F. A. Hayek, The Institute of Economic Affairs 1976, "A Note on Government Monopoly of Money in Theory and History", [http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-book409pdf?.pdf France, 1789], pgs. 34 - 38.</ref>
==Directory==
The "Directory" was the government between November 1795 and November 1799.<ref> The Directory is also called the Constitution of the Year III because it was instituted in the third year of the First French Republic.</ref> It consisted of a Directory of five men, one of whom was replaced annually, and two representative assemblies, the '''Five Hundred''' and the '''Ancients.''' The assemblies were elected nationwide by property owners. The assemblies wielded legislative power, and the Directory executive power, but there was no device to resolve deadlocks between them.<ref>Jones, ''Great Nation'' (2002) ch 11</ref>

The Directory gave power to the more conservative forces remaining in France;<ref> Not including the royalists and aristocrats who had fled into exile.</ref> they had taken advantage of the enormous changes 1789-95, including the breakup or religious and aristocratic estates. The Directory continued the "Thermidorian reaction," which followed the fall of [[Maximilien Robespierre]] and the [[Jacobins]] in July 1794. The moderate middle-class republicans, mostly from the upper middle class favored the Directory because it ended the power of the royalists on the right and the Jacobin on the left. The Directory repeatedly used armed force and intimidation to stay in power, and thus depended on its generals, who gained popularity.

In foreign affairs the wars against Britain, Austria, Prussia, and for a time Russia were undertaken to protect France, expand its ideals, and acquire cash to pay army, which became more and more powerful in internal affairs. Conquests created a screen of six satellite republics set up in Holland, Switzerland, and Italy, and Bonaparte's seizure of Egypt. Prussia and Spain made peace, but Britain remained hostile and plans were drawn for an invasion. Instead Napoleon invaded Egypt.

In domestic affairs the era of the Directory was characterized by large-scale corruption. The revolution had demoralized public life, especially in Paris and the major cities. Profiteering in business, graft in politics and bureaucracy, extravagance in luxuries, and vulgarity in morals and manners, were the marks of the new regime. Public finances remained disorganized, as the nation could not raise enough taxes to pay its expenses. Inflation was rampant. In the private sector prosperity was returning, especially in the rural areas where most Frenchmen lived. One Director, [[Paul de Barras]] (1755-1829), who clung to power throughout the period, was a flamboyant, ruthlessly self-seeking man of immense greed and licentiousness. In total contrast was [[Lazare Carnot]] (1753-1823), the patriotic "organizer of victory," who served as a Director from 1795 until September 1797, and was largely responsible for the successes of the French army and of the Italian campaign in 1796-1797. Senior officials included the highly talented [[Joseph Fouché]], minister of police, and the [[Comte de Talleyrand]], minister of foreign affairs. The election as director of abbé [[Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès]] in May 1799 brought in a powerful intellectual who realized the system was doomed and resolved to overthrow it.

The Directory lost legitimacy by the series of coups it engineered to control elections. The coup of Fructidor (September 1797) against the royalists was followed by the coup of Floréal (May 1798) against the Jacobins, and then by that of Prairial (June 1799) against both. Repeated use of armed intimidation dismayed republicans, particularly army officers who believed in republican ideas. The coups paved the way for the overthrow of the regime by Napoleon in 1799.

==The 18th Brumaire and the end of Revolution==
Despite his military failures in Egypt, General [[Napoleon Bonaparte]] returned to a hero's welcome in 1799. In alliance with the director Sieyès and his brother, [[Lucien Bonaparte]], president of the council of five hundred, he overthrew the Directory by a coup d'etat on November 9, 1799 ("the 18th Brumaire" according to the revolutionary calendar), and closed down the council of five hundred. Napoleon became "first consul" for ten years, with two consuls appointed by him who had consultative voices only. His power was confirmed by the new constitution ("Constitution of the year VIII"), originally devised by Sieyès to give Napoleon a minor role, but rewritten by Napoleon, and accepted by direct popular vote (3,000,000 in favor, 1,567 opposed). The constitution preserved the appearance of a republic but in reality established a military dictatorship. Historians usually date the end of the Revolution with the days of Brumaire, as it sounded the end of the short-lived French republic: there was no more representative government, assemblies, a collegial executive, or liberty.<ref> Furet (1996) p 212</ref>
==Impact of the Revolution==
===Impact on France===
The soldiers of the 1790s became the heroes for future republicans, who admired the equality of all before the draft, the requirement to serve in person, the human qualities of flair, enthusiasm, generosity of spirit, and patriotism, as well as the upward mobility that could turn peasants into officers. The soldier was spared the denunciation heaped on one political faction or the other.<ref> Alan Forrest, "L'armee De l'an II: La Levee en Masse et la Creation d'un Mythe Republicain." ''Annales Historiques de la Révolution Française'' 2004 (335): 111-130. Issn: 0003-4436 </ref>

===Impact on World===
The influence of the French Revolution was immense throughout the western hemisphere, as other peoples felt that they, too, could rise up against their rulers and defeat them. Historians credit the French Revolution with spreading the ideas of the Enlightenment, limiting the power of nobility and clergy, and ending an absolute monarchy. But many who supported the French Revolution in its beginning were horrified by where it led, including numerous executions and terror. Some would say that France never fully recovered, as the French Revolution unleashed a hostility towards [[Christianity]] that continues to this day in France.

==Historiography==
===Republican tradition===
The Republican or "radical" interpretation of the Revolution, typified by politician [[François Guizot]] (1787–1874) and research scholar François Aulard (1849-1928), hailed it for the destruction of a reactionary nobility, which was replaced by men of the [[Enlightenment]] who introduced the rights of man, proclaimed equality, guaranteed liberty, strengthened the nation state, redefined citizenship, and modernized every aspect of France's political, social, cultural, religious, economic and diplomatic roles. He saw the duty of his own generation to continue and perfect the goals of the Revolution. The defeat of the reactionary Catholic Church was seen as a signal achievement, and bolstered the Radicals in French politics who attacked continuing roles of the Church in the late 19th and early 20th century.<ref> See Furet and Ozouf, eds. ''Critical Dictionary'' (1989), 881-1032 and Doyle ''Origins of the French Revolution'' (1999) ch 1-3, for a review of the major historians.</ref>
===Bourbon history===
The arch-conservative Legitimist or "Bourbon" interpretation, typified by [[Joseph de Maistre]] (1753–1821) portrayed the French Revolution as an illegitimate, bloodthirsty usurpation of legitimate rulers. The Right in France rejected the Revolution and all its works. However, recent conservative historiography has argued that the Revolution accomplished only what was was already underway, and added little new except needless violence and hatreds. The Roman Catholic variation stressed the attacks on religion and the [[established church]], and the horrors of the Terror, thereby bolstering the political conservatism of the Catholics, whose schools were under attack by Radicals for much of the 19th century.
===Marxists===
The Marxist historians, for example [[Albert Soboul]], [[George Rude]] and [[Peter McPhee]], counter by pointing to the rise of the bourgeousie class in power due to the abolition of seigneruial rights and privileges, claiming that the French Revolution was the starting-point for capitalist society and the modern democracy. Marxist historiography, which was dominant from the 1930s into the 1970s, argued that material economic factors made a revolution inevitable, gave it force, and made it a model for the 20th century socialists to emulate. Marxists, led by Albert Mathiez (1874–1932), [[Georges Lefebvre]] (1874-1959)<ref> See
LeFebvre, ''The French Revolution: From its Origins to 1793'' (2001 edition) [http://www.amazon.com/French-Revolution-Origins-Routledge-Classics/dp/0415253934/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189603529&sr=1-2 excerpts and online search from Amazon.com] </ref> , and Albert Soboul (1914-1982)<ref> Soboul, ''The Sans-Culottes'' (1981 edition) [http://www.amazon.com/Sans-Culottes-Albert-Soboul/dp/0691007829/ref=pd_sim_b_2_img/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&qid=1189598691&sr=8-1 excerpts and online search from Amazon.com] </ref>, identify two stages, a liberal bourgeois revolution (1789) against the feudal landed aristocracy, followed by a second and more radical democratic revolution against the bourgeoisie led by the the sans-culottes (the urban poor)<ref>"1789: The Fact and Fiction of the Sans-Culottes Movement" (2007) online at [http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/rschwart/hist255/la/sans-culottes.html] </ref>. That is, the wealthy town dwellers and businessmen (the "bourgeoisie") were angry that the nobility governed France. They found a voice (in Marxist language, they realized their identity as a class) and first sought power against the upper class (in 1789) and then (1791-99) against the proletariat (poor people) of the cities and peasants from below who suddenly emerged and demanded power themselves. The conflict permanently radicalized France and was the foundation of the Left in French political history. Marxists lament the counterrevolution of Thermidor and the coming to power of Napoleon.

The Marxist approach was a simple model that claimed to simultaneously explain the Revolution's origins, its internal dynamics and its long-term consequences. The dominance of the Left in French intellectual life ensured the theory was dominant for decades, but it had serious flaws. As English scholar Alfred Cobban explained, feudalism as a system had withered away long before the Revolution abolished its last vestiges in the form of seigniorial rights. Furthermore where Marxists saw a self-conscious, capitalist bourgeois class, Cobban revealed only a loose collection of disparate social groups that did not include the industrialists and businessmen but rather the officeholders and lawyers. These men led the revolution not as spokesmen for the forces of capitalism; rather they were state-builders. Other scholars showed the nobility was not parasitic obstructionist and reactionary caste of Republican or Marxist writing, but rather a diverse and open group whose leaders actively promoted political and economic modernization.<ref> Alfred Cobban, ''The Social Interpretation of the French Revolution'' (1962); Doyle (1999) ch 2; John Dunne, "Fifty Years of Rewriting the French Revolution: Signposts Main Landmarks and Current Directions in the Historiographical Debate," ''History Review.'' (1998) pp 8+ [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001505046 online edition] </ref>
===Furet and conservatives===
To replace Marxist interpretations was the goal of [[François Furet]] (1927-97)), the head of the history section of the Ecole pratique des hautes etudes. He argued instead that the Revolution is best understood as the victory of the [[Enlightenment]]--particularly the [[Jean Jacques Rousseau|Rousseauian]] version--over social interests. Intellectual forces were dominant, not class conflict or materialistic forces. Furet's influential American ally was Keith Baker, of the University of Chicago. Baker, influenced by the linguistic turn pioneered by [[J. G. A. Pocock]] identified three competing discourses that shaped how people thought in the second half of the eighteenth century. The "language of will" promised rights to the majority while the "language of justice" and the "language of equality" also shaped political values. Justice emphasized history and the desire to maintain contracts; proponents of equality wanted reason to prevail in governmental decision making. According to Baker, in the summer of 1789 the revolutionaries suddenly embraced the language of will. Once embarked on this course, the Terror followed from their insistence that the majority should realize its ambitions. Political and social factors were not necessary to arrive at this unfortunate result, said Baker; instead it was the embrace of the three political discourses of will, justice and equality that drove the revolution.<ref>Censer, "Amalgamating the Social in the French Revolution" (2003) </ref>

===Class and culture===
Multiple cultural and intellectual themes have displaced monocausal economic interpretations. Thus in dealing with the middle class, the Marxist inevitable-class-conflict model has given way. On the one hand there are cultural studies that emphasize the ways in which the middle class functions as a political and moral claim rather than a sociological entity. On the other hand microscopic ethnographic studies examine the middle class in terms of daily cultural practices, focusing on the formation of class identity through family structure, consumer behavior, sociability, and sexuality.<ref>Carol E. Harrison, "The Bourgeois after the Bourgeois Revolution: Recent Approaches to the Middle Class in European Cities." ''Journal of Urban History'' 2005 31(3): 382-392. Issn: 0096-1442 Fulltext: in [[Ebsco]] </ref>
The minimalist view, championed by such historians as [[Simon Schama]], [[Alfred Cobban]] and [[Roger Price]], states that, in the words of Price: <blockquote>
In political and ideological terms the Revolution was no doubt of crucial importance, but humanity was not transformed thereby... At the end of all the political upheavals of the Revolution and Empire little had changed in the daily life of most Frenchmen.<ref>Roger Price. ''An Economic History of Modern France, 1730-1914.'' London. Macmillan. 1975.</ref>
</blockquote>
In other words, all the events of the French Revolution had little lasting effect on everyday life.
===Regions and localities===
Thanks to the postmodern emphasis on the specific rather than the general, instead of the old emphasis on Paris there has been much greater emphasis on regional and local conditions. Postmodern historians tend to see the French Revolution as a haphazard event with random and largely unforeseen consequences, to the dismay of old Marxists like [[Eric Hobsbawm]] (1917- ).<ref> E. J. Hobsbawm, "The Making of a 'Bourgeois Revolution'" ''Social Research'' 2004 71(3): 455-480. Issn: 0037-783x Fulltext: []Ebsco]]</ref>
===International===
Since the 1980s historiographical perspectives have emphasized the global context of disturbances, riots, and revolts in Europe and the Americas--[[Atlantic history|in the Atlantic world]]--in the late 18th century, with attention to similarities and differences. The comparative approach was pioneered by American historian Robert Palmer.<ref>Robert R. Palmer, ''The Age of the Democratic Revolution: A Political History of Europe and America, 1760-1800.'' (2 vol 1959), [http://www.questia.com/read/22790906 vol 1 online] </ref>

==Further reading==
* Baker, Keith M. ed. ''The French Revolution and the Creation of Modern Political Culture'' (Oxford, 1987-94) ''vol 1: The Political Culture of the Old Regime,'' ed. K.M. Baker (1987); ''vol. 2: The Political Culture of the French Revolution,'' ed. C. Lucas (1988); ''vol. 3: The Transformation of Political Culture, 1789-1848,'' eds. F. Furet & M. Ozouf (1989); ''vol. 4: The Terror,'' ed. K.M. Baker (1994). [http://www.amazon.com/French-Revolution-Creation-Political-Culture/dp/0080413870/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197926396&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search vol 4]; advanced essays by leading scholars; conservative approach
* Blanning, T.C.W. ''The French Revolutionary Wars 1787-1802'' (1996).
* Doyle, William. ''The Oxford History of the French Revolution'' (1989). [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-oxford-history-of-the-french-revolution-by-william-doyle.jsp online complete edition]; also [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-French-Revolution/dp/019925298X/ref=sr_1_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189484963&sr=1-4 excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]
* Doyle, William. ''The French Revolution: A Very Short Introduction.'' (2001), 120pp; [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-french-revolution-a-very-short-introduction-by-william-doyle.jsp online edition]
* Doyle, William. ''Origins of the French Revolution'' (3rd ed. 1999) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/origins-of-the-french-revolution-by-william-doyle.jsp online edition]
* Englund, Steven. ''Napoleon: A Political Life.'' (2004). 575 pages; the best political biography [http://www.amazon.com/Napoleon-Political-Life-Steven-Englund/dp/0674018036/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197704843&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Fremont-Barnes, Gregory. ed. ''The Encyclopedia of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars: A Political, Social, and Military History'' (ABC-CLIO: 3 vol 2006)
* Frey, Linda S. and Marsha L. Frey. ''The French Revolution.'' (2004) 190pp [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-french-revolution-by-linda-s-frey-marsha-l-frey.jsp online edition], conservative approach
* Furet, François. ''The French Revolution, 1770-1814'' (1996) [http://www.amazon.com/French-Revolution-1770-1814-History-France/dp/0631202994/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197704970&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search], by the leading French conservative scholars
* Furet, François and Mona Ozouf, eds. ''A Critical Dictionary of the French Revolution'' (1989), 1120pp; long essays by scholars; conservative perspective; stress on history of ideas [http://www.amazon.com/Critical-Dictionary-French-Revolution/dp/0674177282/ref=sr_1_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189497174&sr=8-2 excerpt and online search from Amazon.com], by the leading French conservative scholars
* Griffith, Paddy. ''The Art of War of Revolutionary France 1789-1802,'' (1998); 304 pp; [http://www.amazon.com/Art-War-Revolutionary-France-1789-1802/dp/1853673358/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197705004&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Jones, Colin. ''The Longman Companion to the French Revolution'' (1989)
* Jones, Colin. ''The Great Nation: France from Louis XV to Napoleon'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Great-Nation-Napoleon-Penguin-History/dp/0140130934/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197705067&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Neely, Sylvia. '' A Concise History of the French Revolution'' (2008)
* Palmer, Robert R. ''The Age of the Democratic Revolution: A Political History of Europe and America, 1760-1800.'' (2 vol 1959), highly influential comparative history; [http://www.questia.com/read/22790906 vol 1 online]
* Paxton, John. ''Companion to the French Revolution'' (1987), hundreds of short entries.
* Rude, George F. and Harvey J. Kaye. ''Revolutionary Europe, 1783-1815'' (2000), scholarly survey [http://www.amazon.com/Revolutionary-Europe-Blackwell-Classic-Histories/dp/0631221905/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197705215&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Schroeder, Paul. ''The Transformation of European Politics, 1763-1848.'' 1996; Thorough coverage of diplomatic history; hostile to Napoleon; [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-transformation-of-european-politics-1763-1848-by-paul-w-schroeder.jsp online edition]
* Schwab, Gail M., and John R. Jeanneney, eds. ''The French Revolution of 1789 and Its Impact'' (1995) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-french-revolution-of-1789-and-its-impact-by-john-r-jeanneney-gail-m-schwab.jsp online edition]
* Scott, Samuel F. and Barry Rothaus. ''Historical Dictionary of the French Revolution, 1789-1799'' (2 vol 1984), short essays by scholars
* Schama, Simon. ''Citizens. A Chronicle of the French Revolution'' (1989), highly readable narrative by scholar [http://www.amazon.com/Citizens-Simon-Schama/dp/0141017279/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197705186&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Sutherland, D.M.G. ''France 1789–1815. Revolution and Counter-Revolution'' (2nd ed. 2003, 430pp [http://www.amazon.com/French-Revolution-Empire-Quest-Civic/dp/0631233636/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189597597&sr=1-1 excerpts and online search from Amazon.com]
===Historiography===
* Censer, Jack R. "Amalgamating the Social in the French Revolution." ''Journal of Social History 2003'' 37(1): 145-150. Issn: 0022-4529 Fulltext: in [[Project Muse]] and [[Ebsco]]
* Dunne, John. "Fifty Years of Rewriting the French Revolution: Signposts Main Landmarks and Current Directions in the Historiographical Debate," ''History Review.'' (1998) pp 8+ [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001505046 online edition]
* Kates, Gary. ''The French Revolution'' (2nd ed. 2005), 308pp; essays by scholars; [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0415358329/ref=sib_dp_pop_bc/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&p=S08O#reader-link excerpts and online search from Amazon.com]
* Lefebvre, Georges. ''The French Revolution'' (2 vol 1957) classic Marxist synthesis. [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-french-revolution-vol-1-by-georges-lefebvre-elizabeth-moss-evanson.jsp complete online edition vol 1]; also [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0231085982/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]
* Rothenberg, Gunther E. "The Origins, Causes, and Extension of the Wars of the French Revolution and Napoleon," ''Journal of Interdisciplinary History,'' Vol. 18, No. 4, (Spring, 1988), pp. 771-793 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-1953%28198821%2918%3A4%3C771%3ATOCAEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-N in JSTOR]
==External links==
* [http://webspace.qmul.ac.uk/cdhjones/greatnationbibliography.html detailed bibliography from Colin Jones, ''The Great Nation'' (2002)]
* [http://users.ipfw.edu/gatesb/H114e.PPT Powerpoint of college lecture by Professor Ben Gates, IUPU-Ft Wayne]

====References====
<references/>

== See also ==
* [[Edmund Burke]]
* [[Alexis de Tocqueville]]
* [[Louis XVI]]
* [[Republicanism]]

[[Category:French Revolution| ]]
[[Category:French History]]

French Revolution

2008-12-07T01:43:00Z

Bolly: /* Legacy of the Revolution */

[[Image:Delacroix La liberte guidant le peuple.jpg|250px|right|La liberte guidant le peuple]]
'''The French Revolution''' was a 1789 revolution which is oft-quoted as the beginning of the modern era. In fact a set of several revolutions in a period of unprecedented turmoil, it saw the rise of [[Robespierre]] and the [[Reign of Terror]], a chaos wherein thousands were [[guillotine|guillotined]] for political leanings and moderatism.

The French Revolution was very [[atheism|atheistic]] in nature, as radicals outlawed the Church and tried to establish a [[Cult of Reason]] in its place. The Revolution also saw the rise of [[evolution|evolutionary]] thinking, a result of extreme [[rationalism]]. It inspired fear into European moderates like [[Edmund Burke]], who realized it was proof of the danger of [[liberalism]] run amok.

Before the Revolution, [[France]] had three levels in its social system: The First, Second, and Third Estates. The [[First Estate]] was about 1% of the population, but it controlled 10% of the land. The First Estate consisted of the clergy, and they did not pay any taxes. The [[Second Estate]] was about 2% of the population and they controlled 20% of the land. These were the nobility, and they too paid very little taxes. The [[Third Estate]] was everyone else, and they were badly overtaxed by the monarch. This overtaxing was a major cause of the [[French]] Revolution.

The leaders of the Third Estate were the middle class, called the [[bourgeoisie]]. They were educated in the ideas of the [[Enlightenment]], most importantly [[Jean Jacques Rousseau]]. Rousseau's book, "The Social Contract" supported a [[direct democracy]], rather that the republican government that had been adopted in [[America]]. The social contract spoke against titles for nobility and demanded complete equality for all people.

French Revolutionary ideals, especially thanks to Napoleon, later inspired liberal and democratic movements of the 19th Century.

==Chronology of the French Revolution==

Several costly wars, the War of Austrian Succession (1740-8), the Seven Years War (1756-63) and the American War of Independence (1778-83), had reduced the government to the verge of bankruptcy. The deficit for 1786 would be 112 million ''livres'', nearly a quater of total income. Due to the poorly organised taxation system it was impossible for the King and his finance minister to make up the deficit without serious reforms. In 1787 he called a meeting of 144 leading nobles, the Assembly of Notables, to attempt to persuade them to pay tax in return for increased powers. The nobles refused his requests and were supported by the local assembly; the Parlement de Paris.

The King withdrew his demands at this challenge to his authority, which was greeted by thousands taking to the street to celebrate. When troops were ordered to "Get some lead into the bastards' backsides", they fired into the air instead. In hindsight this can be seen as the start of dissent. It is notable that the initiators of this unrest were the upper classes, who had little reason to think there was any thirst for revolution. In April 1787, [[Calonne]] resigned in disgrace and the middle classes, strengthened by the protests, began to demand the Estates-Generale, a Parliament in which they would be represented.

==1789 - Year of Revolution==

With growing unrest and France nearing bankruptcy, the King agreed to call the Estates-Generale in May 1789. The [[Estate-Generale]] was divided into the three estates, with the first two estates (nobility and clergy) electing their representatives. The third estate representation required a series of elections in which all property owners over the age of twenty-five were eligible to take part. They elected a group of electors, who in turn chose delegates. The delegates themselves were overwhelmingly middle class, including the young lawyer [[Maximilien Robespierre]]. Furthermore, the Third Estate was required to produce a list of grievances known as ''cahiers''.

Between 25,000 and 60,000 documents were filled with grievances. Thousands demanded a constitution, reorganization of the clergy, lessening of the tax burden and an end to [[Royal]] waste. Few of these demands could be resolved without challenging the basis of [[Absolute Monarchy]]. However, not one of these document has been found to advocate abolition of the monarchy, with the large majority requesting moderate reform and many including expression of adoration towards the King.

The Estates-General had not met in 175 years and retained many of its former characteristics. Each Estate had one vote in the Assembly, such that the First and Second Estates could always outvote the Third Estate. That was acceptable in the early 1600s, but the Third Estate would not allow this in 1789 after learning the Enlightenment ideas. King Louis XVI responded to the Third Estate's complaints by doubling the number of Third Estate delegates in the Estates-General. By this time the alliance between the nobility and the third estate had broken down; the nobles may have called a march, but they drew the line at burning down tax offices. The Third Estate wanted a system of one vote per delegate, which would have given the Third Estate the same number of votes as the First and Second Estate combined.

The opening of the Estates-Generale did not bode well. The opening session was in an open coach house, which meant that the Third Estate struggled to hear the proceedings as they were on wooden benches at the far end of the room. Upon the entry of the King, the first and second estates were expected to remove their hats and sit down after the King, before replacing their hats. The Third Estate were expected to remain standing until after the first and second estates had replaced their hats, however, they chose to sit at the same time as the first and second estates. The First Estate were to wear glittering robes, the second estate were to wear silk coats, whilst the third estate were required to wear black coats. There was no question at this point of rudeness towards the King himself, and at this point none of the delegates (including Robespierre) was a republican in their beliefs. There then followed a speech by [[Necker]] on possible solutions to the economic crisis, that was of such length and dullness that Necker had to pass it on to a delegate to complete.

The Third Estate began to win votes in the Estates-Generale by attracting poorer clergy to their side. On 17 June the Third Estate, accompanied by the poorer clergy, voted 490 to 90 in favour of a motion to call themselves the [[National Assembly]] and claimed that they now had the right to manage the nations affairs and taxation. In an attempt to reassert his control, the king announced that Estates-Generale was postponed until 23 June where he would announce several reforms in a ''seance royale''. However, news of the postponement did not reach the delegates of the Third Estate, who arrived on the 20 June to find the room locked.

Following a period of confusion, Dr [[Guillotin]] (one of the Third Estate delegates) suggested it might be possible to convene at a nearby indoor tennis court and the group of over 500 delegate proceeded to meet at the court. The session was chaired by Bailly (a celebrity astronomer) and Mirabeau proposed that the delegation should not break up until a constitution was passed, which was opposed by only one delegate (Martin d'Auch). In effect the delegates had declared themselves the Government of France, pending a constitution to be organized by [[Mirabeau]].

The [[National Assembly]] approved the “[[Declaration of the Rights of Man]],” which combined ideas of the [[American Declaration of Independence]] with some Enlightenment concepts. The result of this combination had many debatable claims. The entire document is short and worth reading in full: [http://www.hrcr.org/docs/frenchdec.html] .

The King responded by ordering the delegates to disperse, however this had little effect. The following week the King sent a messenger, the Marquis de Breze, to order the finishing of the session. Mirabeau ordered the messenger to leave.
[[Image:David OathHoratti.jpg|left]]
In the last week of June the royal [[Government]] ordered 20,000 troops to march on Paris. It became apparent that compromise was not working. This was emphasized with the replacement of Necker by the hard line [[Baron de Breteuil]]. Thousands took to the streets to demand the reinstatement of [[Necker]], who was at the height of his popularity and seen as the only man who could solve the taxation crisis. Mirabeau spoke to the assembly, invoking the oath taken at the tennis court. [[Camille Desmoulins]] had ridden to Versailles to report on events and galloped back to Paris to report on the replacement of Necker.

Crowds marched to [[Abbaye]] prison to demand the release of the soldiers who had been arrested for not firing on the crowds. Troops were offered drinks by the crowd if they shouted 'Viva le tiers-etat'. Dummies of [[Necker]] and [[Duc d'Orleans]] were stolen to be paraded as heroes.

The deputies were now faced with a dilemma, requiring a mass movement for defence of the National Assembly, but fearing crowds getting out of control. Militia were therefore established, that excluded all unemployed and vagrants, and many districts demanded employers' references before admission. Admission varied enormously across districts, with 1,200 being recruited in [[Le Petit-St-Antoine]], but [[Les Minimes]] mustering four.

==Storming of the [[Bastille]]==

With the militia formed to repel the royal troops, there was an urgent need for weapons. The royalist [[Swiss Guard]]s had stored 30,000 pounds in the Bastille, to be used against the National Assembly. On the morning of July 14, 1789 (“[[Bastille Day]]”), a crowd of about a thousand people made up predominantly of small tradesmen arrived at the prison to demand the gun powder be handed over. The prison Governor invited a delegation in for breakfast, which proceeded for three and a half hours. Meanwhile, rumours circulated that royalist troops were committing atrocities across Paris.

A demonstrator outside the Bastille realized he would be able to get to the chains of the drawbridge by climbing from a nearby perfume shop. At this point the prison Governor, [[De Launay]], broke off negotiations and late in the afternoon cannon shots were aimed at the crowd. Two companies of French Guards were persuaded to the Bastille to the defend protesters being killed by cannon fire.

A Swiss Guard handed over the keys to the second drawbridge, leading to a moat. A clerk from a pawn office visited a carpenter and returned with eleven pieces of wood, one of which was able to span the moat. Once inside, seven prisoners were freed, though contrary to what is widely though, this did not include the [[Marquis de Sade]] (he had been moved as he had shouting at passers by through a pipe he had been given to urinate through. This took time however, as the keys to release the cells were the same as the keys to open the first draw bridge and the man with the keys had gone home.

In total six defenders of the Bastille were killed, including De launay, and ninety protestors.

The aftermath was one of euphoria throughout much of [[Paris]]. Much of the nobility proclaimed support for the act, realizing that it was not healthy to oppose public opinion on the matter. [[Louis XVI]] recalled Necker to his job and agreed to recognise the National Assembly, which included the Third Estate delegates, poorer clergy and nobility sympathetic to the Third Estate cause. [[Lafayette]] was appointed head of the police and the army, which was to be known as the National Guard. Bailly became the Mayor of Paris.

The King agreed to come to Paris and accept the gift of a cockade that had become a symbol of the revolution, which the king fastened to his hat, whilst the crowd cheered "Vive le Roi!". Whilst the significance of the day was evident, that it would produce a republic was far from clear. The plan of the King to take Paris with 20,000 troops had failed, but he was able to satisfy the populace that it was not intended and a peaceful resolution was reached. The changes that had so far occurred in a brief period of time were so dramatic that the thought that things could change further was difficult to conceive.

==The Great Fear==

During the week following the storming of the Bastille, news of events spread to the rest of France. This led to a panic as to what the response of the nobility would be to the events, The [[Great Fear]] or panic resulted. Many villages defended themselves against imaginary threats by forming peasant militias; riots occurred and peasants proceeded to burn wealthy homes.

The rural uprising prompted the National Assembly to pass a motion to 'destroy the [[feudal]] regime entirely', on August 4th. However, in order to release himself a peasant would have to pay twenty times his annual rent to the landlord, making the measure ineffectual.

==Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen==

The Assembly also passed the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen on the 4th August. This annulled the right of nobles to demand taxes, tithes and labor from peasants working on their family land. The declaration was inspired by the American Revolution and was partially written by LaFayette.

Unlike the American declaration that “all men are created equal,” the French version declared that “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.”

Whilst the American declaration that all men have inalienable rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” the French version declared that all men have natural rights of “liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression.”

Some declarations were troublesome; “Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law” left questions of definition. Also, the rights of French people to rebel were enshrined in the very constitution itself.

The water wheel was abolished as the method of execution in place of the more humane [[guillotine]]. It is notable that the only delegate to vote for the abolition of the [[death penalty]] was [[Robespierre]].

==A New Government==

France remained a republic. Although a republic has been established in North America at this time and a previous English republic, a European republic was still alien to the thoughts of most French people, including revolutionaries. Negotiations over the new constitution continued, with Mirabeau and Lafayette appealing for calm less the King withdraw from negotiation. [[Jean Paul Marat]] took a less moderate line. Marat argued for universal suffrage and for the King to retain only an advisory role, a constitutional monarchy such as those seen in the [[United Kingdom]] or [[Sweden]] to this day.

==Royal Faux Pas==

On 1st October, 1789, a party was thrown at the [[Palace of Versailles]]. Louis XVI took the cap he had been presented with following the storming of the Bastille and trampled it underfoot. The king later denied this, however several witnesses recalled the incident and news of the incident spread to Paris. A contingent of women raided the Town Hall was raided for weapons and set off from Paris to Versailles, becoming a crowd of 10,000, who were later joined by the National Guard to ensure good order.

Upon the arrival for the group at the palace two guards opened fire, but were interrupted by decapitation. A small delegation of women were permitted to meet the Queen, however one fainted upon witnessing the beauty of the Palace of Versailles. The crowd became impatient by six o'clock the following morning and a militant group of fishwives broke in with a cry of "We are going to cut off her head, tear out her heart, fry her liver and that will not be the end of it"(Documents of the French Revolution, page 62). It was a forceful enough argument to force the Royal family back to Paris, where it was felt it would be possible to keep closer watch. It was also clear by now that the King was in no position to demand a veto.

Antoinette is reputed to have responded unsympathetically to the lack of bread for the peasants by declaring, “Let them eat cake!” Historians doubt she ever actually said that.

==Anniversary Pledge==

On the first anniversary of the storming of the Bastille a large ceremony was held in Paris at which members of the Government and the King pledges themselves to uphold the 'law, the nation and the King'. This represents a compromise in that the King was still seen as central, however all pledges had previously been to the King alone, and the King was required to make no pledge.

==1791 - The King Strikes Back==

In the two years following the storming of the Bastille French society had been transformed. There were an estimated 133 political journals in Paris, Parish priests had been dismissed and replaced by elected Priests. Robespierre had advanced plans for the emancipation of [[Jews]] and [[Protestantism|Protestants]], equal treatment of all military ranks and the abolition of the property qualification for the National Guard. Robespierre remained incorruptible at this point, refusing to be the Duc d'Orleans let the luxury affect his judgement.

This situation was intolerable for the Royal Family, who began to organize a foreign force to invade France and restore their power. In December 1790 Louis wrote a secret note to the King of Prussia requesting a European army invade France. Furthermore, the King and Queen (herself Austrian) decided to flee Paris to help organise the invasion force from without France, let their presence in Paris compromise the invasion.

The royal couple decided to disguise themselves and flee across the border, which they did at night setting off at at a seven miles in part due to the weight requirements for the Queen to travel in the least luxury that she expected. The next morning the Kings letter to the National Assembly was found condemning all the measure which he had claimed to support for the previous two years.

The royal party reached [[Ste-Menehould]], where the papers of the party were checked by Drouet, who had been a staunch supporter of the revolution. Despite having seen the servant in the corner and 'struck by the resemblance of his face to the likeness of the King printed on the bank note', in disbelief he allowed the party to continue. Having discussed the incident with his colleague, Guillaume, the two raced to catch up with the party and spread word through the surrounding villages that the Royal family were attempting to flee. The family were captured and returned to Paris, with posters informing the gathering crowd "Whoever applauds the King will be flogged; whoever insults him will be hanged".

Most delegates wished to hold together a compromise, but the Head of State fleeing to lead a hostile invasion of the nation had created difficulties. Many insisted that the King must have been kidnapped. General Bouille wrote a statement confessing his involvement, but many insisted he was lying to implicate the King. While the only punishment towards the King was stripping of his powers of veto on laws and finance, talk began to emerge for the first time of the possibility of a republic. At this point Robespierre and most of the Paris commune strongly opposed the republic, whilst Lafayette rallied to the slogan 'The Revolution is Over'. By then the French Revolution was in full swing.

==Declaration of the Rights of Woman==

In 1791, a French journalist named [[Olympe de Gouges]] proposed a “[[Declaration of the Rights of Woman]],” (inspired by the writings of [[Mary Woolstonecraft]]) but the National Assembly rejected her proposal. She, like many other leaders of that time, was eventually executed by guillotine. Other sans-culotte groups were established including the [[Society of Revolutionary Women]]

==New Start==

Politics in France became divided between the moderate [[Girondins]] and the more radical [[Jacobins]]. At this point the Girondins appeared to be in the stronger position, however the Jacobins were growing in strength. At this point the Jacobins were led by [[Robespierre]], who made a strong speech in favor of a republic.

The French National Assembly established a [[constitutional monarchy]] and, in 1791, adopted a new constitution that created a Legislative Assembly. Three factions quickly formed in the new Legislative Assembly, known as the radicals (liberals), moderates (centrists) and conservatives, similar to those political movements today in the United States. The three factions sat in different sections of the large assembly hall, with the radicals (liberals) sitting on the left, the moderates sitting in the center, and the conservatives sitting on the right. That gave rise to the left-center-right terminology that we still use today in the United States to describe these three political groups.

==German Invasion==

A large number of noblemen had gathered in [[Koblenz]] to form an army to invade France and restore the King to full rule. The emigrants carried stories of atrocities and encouraged reaction against the National Assembly and atrocities associated with lower class democracy. The Duke of Brunswick declared "We will soon be marching on Paris".

This was a matter of some concern in France, as many of the officers that had been in the French army in 1789 had joined the emigrant army in Germany. The Girondins remained confident, but Robespierre saw little cause for initial optimism. The Royal Family strongly supported war with the Prussian and Austrian force in the hope that the French would be defeated and they be restored.

On April 1792, the King declared war on the [[Hapsburg Empire]], who wished to restore his power. The French army suffered a series of defeats along the border, creating optimism in the Royal house. The National Assembly ordered the dispersal of the Kings bodyguard who were supporting the foreign invasion, but this was vetoed by the King. The Assembly then voted for 20,000 French patriots to come from across France to protect Paris, but this was also vetoed by the King.

The use of the royal veto to undermine the defense of France prompted a strong reaction, with demonstrators managing to pour into the royal apartments. The King was forced to wear a red cap while being taunted for several hours with taunts of "Fat Louis" and "Tyrants must Tremble". The time of compromise was nearing an end.

Lafayette planned a coup to restore the old order to as it was in 1787, using the National Guard. This force was resisted by a volunteer group of citizens. Traditionally this latter group are portrayed as ne'er-do-well criminals, however it is questionable whether such groups would march typically 800 miles. The volunteer groups were greeted as heroes in towns they passed through and [[Rouget de Lisle]] composed 'La Marseillaise' as a call to arms.

The war started badly for the French and on 25th July the Duke of Brunswick prepared to March on Paris and pledged to restore the French Royal Family to their original statue, but that he had no intention of meddling in the internal affairs of France. He demanded total surrender or the Prussian and Austrian armies would "take an exemplary and never-to-be-forgotten vengeance, by giving up the town of Paris to military execution..and the guilty rebels to the death they deserve".

==Second Revolution==

Paris was divided, with 20,000 signing a petition to support the full restoration of an absolute monarchy and a foreign army was invading France rapidly. Moderates such as Mme Roland supported withdrawal from Paris, whereas Maton would accept no backward step. On 10th August a larger demonstration marched on the palace demanding the removal of the King.

==Valmy==

The National Assembly called for volunteers to defend the state, with assurances that this army would be different to the one that had gone before and collapsed before the troops of the Duke of Brunswick. The soldiers would sing Les Maseillaise into battle and officers and men would wear similar uniforms. The majority of the officers would be voted for by the soldiers.

The army was formed, and the Duke of Brunswick brought his army round to meet the French on by the village of [[Valmy]]. The French were grouped around a windmill in an area of uncommon tranquillity. The battle involved a day long exchange of cannon fire with little result. The significance of the battle is that the French volunteer troops remained firm.

[[Johann Goethe]] was present at the battle, as one of the troops of the Duke of Brunswick; "In the morning we had been talking of spitting and eating the French. Now everyone was thinking again. Almost everyone remained silent. Only a few men spoke and their reflections seemed illogical or frivolous".

In the opinion of Goethe, what had changed in the French was their spirit. They had won their freedom and did not wish to return to the days before the revolution, they had debated and were politically active. They were therefore able to stand firm. The news of the battle had a strong effect on French national morale, as the French came to believe they could win.

==Republic==

On the day following the [[Battle of Valmy]], the newly elected French Government (the Convention). The Convention declared France to be an 'Indivisible Republic'. The Convention was made of three factions; the [[Girondins]], the [[Montagnards]] (including Robespierre, Danton and Marat) and the [[Grenouilles de la Marais]] or the Plain. Robespierre won an argument to allow a public gallery for debates.

All factions favored deposing the King, but were far from united beyond that point. The Montannards saw this as the first step to greater social equality, as opined by Robespierre, "Royalty has been destroyed, not the reign of equality is beginning". He attacked the wealthiest businessmen "those goods which are necessary to keep people alive as nothing more than an ordinary item of trade" - a sentiment echoed later by [[Karl Marx]]'s assertion that businessmen see objects not for their usefulness but for their value as commodities.

However, the Jocobin position was far from modern [[Socialism]], as they sought a nation of small property owners. The Government would be elected by property owners. Support for a republic was recently and had little idea of how to progress with the power they now found they had.

The Girdondins accused the Montagnards of preparing a dictatorship. However, the Girdondins had lost credibility by suggesting retreat from Paris and furthermore lacked the social roots that enabled the Montagnards to motivate thousands of volunteers. It reflects on the differing social backgrounds of the delegates that it was at this point Robespirre met a cabinet maker, M. Duplay. Duplay invited Robespierre back to his flat to meet his family and, finding that the family had been trying to let a spare room, Robespierre moved in. It is worth considering the contrast between the setting of the reign of Louis XVI to Robespierre who, whilst the most powerful man in France, has to queue behind his landlord to use the toilet in the morning.

==Trial of the King==

The King and family were detained in the Temple prison, but retained the trappings of luxury. The King had a library of 1,500 books, still ordered his shoes from his preferred cobbler and the family was provided with servants. The majority of servants remained utterly devoted to the family, feeling their employment to be a sacred duty.

This loyalty was not universal however, a former locksmith of the King revealed to the Paris Commune that there is secret cupboard containing correspondence between the King and invading powers showing collusion. Mirabeau and Lafayette were also implicated, though Mirabeau had no died and Lafayette had fled to [[Austria]].

The trial was debated by a number of key speakers. [[Louis St-Just]] debated the very validity of Kings, that to try the King as a bad King suggested it was possible to be a good, legal King, which was not acceptable. He was opposed by [[Thomas Paine]] who wished the King to be exiled to the [[USA]]. The vote was won for death by 387 to 334.

Louis XVI was executed in January 1793.

==Dechristianization movement==

The measures taken by the Convention to substitute the Revolutionary calendar for the old Christian calendar, and the decrees ordering the municipalities to seize and melt down the bells and treasures of the churches, proved that certain currents prevailed tending to the [[dechristianization]] of France.

The rest of décadi, every tenth day, replaced the Sunday rest. The "missionary representatives", sent to the provinces, closed churches, hunted down citizens suspected of religious practices. Persecution of all religious ideas began. Many churches were forcibly closed and converted into [[Cult of Reason|Temples of Reason]] <ref>John Hall Stewart, ''A Documentary Survey of the French Revolution'', Macmillan, New York, 1963.</ref>

During the first days of the Republic, provision had been made for dating public documents from "the first year of the French Republic," but no definite plan for a revised calendar had been proposed. A decree of 2 January, 1793, provided for the second year of the Republic to begin on 1 January, 1793. The new calendar took form in October and November, and lasted until 1806.

A vital force intended to sustain the political and economic terror was the creation of an ideology based on love of '' la Patrie'', "the Country" or "fatherland", and the subjugation of the individual to the collective will of whole. The Church of Notre-Dame-de-Paris became a temple of Reason, and the feast of Reason was celebrated on 10 November. The idea of honouring the fatherland, which had its origin in the festival of the Federation in 1790 gave rise to successive cults. Chamber Deputy Laloi commented they had "wiped out eighteen centuries of error".

Robespierre adopted the position that from the religious and Republican standpoint the idea of a Supreme Being was advantageous to the State, that religion should dispense with a priesthood, and that priests were to religion what charlatans were to medicine, and that the true priest of the Supreme Being was Nature. The Convention adopted a decree of which the first article was: "The French people recognize the existence of a Supreme Being and the immortality of the soul". The same decree states that freedom of worship is maintained but adds that in the case of disturbances caused by the exercise of a religion those who "excite them by fanatical preaching or by counter Revolutionary innovations", shall be punished according to the rigour of the law. Thus the condition of the Catholic Church remained equally precarious and the first festival of the Supreme Being was celebrated throughout France on 8 June, 1794. with aggressive splendour. Whereas the Exagérés wished simply to destroy Catholicism, and in the temples of Reason political rather than moral doctrines were taught. Robespierre desired that the civic religion should have a moral code which he based on the two dogmas of God and the immortality of the soul. He was of the opinion that the idea of God had a social value, that public morality depended on it and that Catholics would more readily support the republic under the auspices of a Supreme Being. <ref>Catholic Encyclopdeia, [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13009a.htm French Revolution]</ref>

==Committee of Public Safety==

The [[Committee of Public Safety]] was formed in 1793, and passed a rule that Generals were to live in camp with the army. This had the practical effect of testing the belief in equality of the many Nobles in the army. [[General Dumouriez]] made overtures to the Prince of Coburg for the invasion of France and have Louis XVI's son proclaimed King Louis XVII.

The execution of Louis XVI led almost immediately to the [[Reign of Terror]]. [[Maximilian Robespierre]], head of the Committee of Public Safety, proceeded to guillotine numerous alleged enemies, including Marie Antoinette. In a classic illustration of Jesus’s teaching that “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword,” Jacobin leaders [[Georges Danton]] (a fiery orator) was guillotined, and [[Jean-Paul Marat]] (a scientist) was stabbed to death in his bathtub.

==The Thermidorian Reaction==

By this time many countries, including [[Great Britain]], [[Spain]], the [[Netherlands]], [[Prussia]] and [[Austria]], had formed a First Coalition to invade France and restore monarchy. The National Convention responded by drafting people into an army. Historians claim women were drafted, but such a politically inspired claim is worth investigating before accepting it. The war lasted for several years, on several fronts, but the First Coalition was eventually defeated.

Robespierre made a fatal mistake on 26 July (8 Thermidor on the revolutionary calender) when he made a speech attacking colleagues who he claimed were plotting against his government. He declined to name those he suspected, allowing moderates and terrorists (here used to refer to members of the government who supported the Terror) who felt threatened a chance to act. Had he named anyone they would immediately have been arrested and executed. Instead, the next day, when Robespierre attempted to speak at the Convention he was shouted down. Finally, after a farcical arrest and release due to popular support, Robespierre was arrested a second time, and executed the same day, 28 July.

At last the government of France was in the hands of a legislature, and an executive branch of five men called the Directory. The Directory picked a young, highly successful military genius named [[Napoleon]] to lead the French army. The very next day Napoleon seized all power in France as its [[dictator]], in November 1799.

==Economic controls==

On 29 September, 1793, in the Law of the Maximum was formulated to deal with the steady rise in prices of the necessities of life. Committees of experts had been appointed to study the whole subject. Prices were set at one and one-third its price in 1790, transportation costs were regulated at a fixed rate, a 5 per cent markup was allowed the wholesaler and 10 per cent to the retailer. Bertrand Barrere declared, "The needs of the people will no longer be spied upon in order that the commercial classes may arbitrarily take advantage".

The first result was farmers produced as little as they possibly could. Scarcity increased, and the people of the large cities were put on an rationing. Many shopkeepers went out of business, and the remainder forced buyers to pay enormous charges under the very natural excuse that the seller risked his life in trading at all. That this excuse was valid is easily seen by the daily lists of those condemned to the guillotine, in which not infrequently figure the names of men charged with violating the Maximum laws. Manufactures were crippled and frequently destroyed.

To detect goods concealed by farmers and shopkeepers, a spy system was established with a reward to the informer of one-third of the value of the goods discovered. To spread terror, the Criminal Tribunal at Strassburg was ordered to destroy the dwelling of anyone found guilty of selling goods above the price set by law. The farmer often found that he could not raise his products at anything like the price required by the new law; and when he tried to hold back his crops or cattle, alleging that he could not afford to sell them at the prices fixed by law, they were frequently taken from him by force and he was fortunate if he was paid in the depreciated fiat currency or escaped execution.

The Convention decreed that any person selling gold or silver coin, or making any difference in any transaction between paper banknotes (assignats), and precious metal coin (specie) should be imprisoned in irons for six years; that anyone who refused to accept a payment in assignats, or accepted assignats at a discount, should pay a fine of 3,000 francs; and that anyone committing this crime a second time shou1d pay a fine of 6,000 francs and suffer imprisonment 20 years in irons. Later, on 8 September, 1793, the penalty for such offences was made death, with confiscation of the property of the heirs, and a reward offered to any person informing the authorities regarding any such transaction. The Convention decreed, in May 1794, that the death penalty should be inflicted on any person convicted of 'having asked, before a bargain was concluded, in what money payment was to be made".

Georges Couthon, in August 1793, proposed and won passage of a law punishing any person who should sell assignats at less than their fixed value with imprisonment for 20 years in chains, and later passed a law making investment in foreign countries punishable by death. Prisons, guillotines, enactments inflicting 20 years' imprisonment in chains upon persons twice convicted of buying or selling paper money at less than its nominal value, and death upon investors in foreign securities, still did not stop people from procuring the necessities of life by bargaining and exchange; on 1 August, 1795, the gold louis of 25 francs was worth in paper, 920 francs; on 1 September, 1,200 francs; on 1 November, 2,600 francs; on 1 December, 3,050 francs. In February 1796, it was worth 7,200 francs or one franc in gold was worth 288 francs in paper. Prices of all commodities went up nearly in proportion. <ref>Andrew Dickson White, Fiat Money: Inflation in France, Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, 1959, pp. 75-89; first published in 1912 as revised version of 1876 lecture. Reproduced in ''Choice in Currency'', F. A. Hayek, The Institute of Economic Affairs 1976, "A Note on Government Monopoly of Money in Theory and History", [http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-book409pdf?.pdf France, 1789], pgs. 34 - 38.</ref>

==Legacy of the Revolution==

The influence of the French Revolution was immense throughout the western hemisphere, as other peoples felt that they, too, could rise up against their rulers and defeat them. Historians credit the French Revolution with spreading the ideas of the Enlightenment, limiting the power of nobility and clergy, and ending an absolute monarchy. But many who supported the French Revolution in its beginning were horrified by where it led, including numerous executions and terror. Some would say that France never fully recovered, as the French Revolution unleashed a hostility towards [[Christianity]] that continues to this day in France.

There are two main historical approaches to the French Revolution: the minimalist and the Marxist. The minimalist view, championed by such historians as [[Simon Schama]], [[Alfred Cobban]] and [[Roger Price]], states that, in the words of Price: <blockquote>
In political and ideological terms the Revolution was no doubt of crucial importance, but humanity was not transformed thereby... At the end of all the political upheavals of the Revolution and Empire little had changed in the daily life of most Frenchmen.<ref>Roger Price. ''An Economic History of Modern France, 1730-1914.'' London. Macmillan. 1975.</ref>
</blockquote>
In other words, all the events of the French Revolution had little lasting effect and the people that were killed because of the upheaval died in vain.

The Marxist historians, for example [[Albert Soboul]], [[George Rude]] and [[Peter McPhee]], counter by pointing to the rise of the bourgeousie class in power due to the abolition of seigneruial rights and privileges, claiming that the French Revolution was the starting-point for capitalist society and the modern democracy.

==Biblliography==
* Doyle, William. ''The Oxford History of the French Revolution'' (1989). [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-oxford-history-of-the-french-revolution-by-william-doyle.jsp online complete edition]; also [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-French-Revolution/dp/019925298X/ref=sr_1_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189484963&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search ]
* Doyle, William. ''The French Revolution: A Very Short Introduction.'' (2001), 120pp; [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-french-revolution-a-very-short-introduction-by-william-doyle.jsp online edition]
* Fremont-Barnes, Gregory. ed. ''The Encyclopedia of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars: A Political, Social, and Military History'' (ABC-CLIO: 3 vol 2006)
* Frey, Linda S. and Marsha L. Frey. ''The French Revolution.'' (2004) 190pp [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-french-revolution-by-linda-s-frey-marsha-l-frey.jsp online edition], conservative approach
* Furet, François. ''The French Revolution, 1770-1814'' (1996) [http://www.amazon.com/French-Revolution-1770-1814-History-France/dp/0631202994/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197704970&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search], by the leading French conservative scholars
* Furet, François and Mona Ozouf, eds. ''A Critical Dictionary of the French Revolution'' (1989), 1120pp; long essays by scholars; conservative perspective; stress on history of ideas [http://www.amazon.com/Critical-Dictionary-French-Revolution/dp/0674177282/ref=sr_1_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189497174&sr=8-2 excerpt and online search from Amazon.com], by the leading French conservative scholars
* Jones, Colin. ''The Longman Companion to the French Revolution'' (1989)
* Jones, Colin. ''The Great Nation: France from Louis XV to Napoleon'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Great-Nation-Napoleon-Penguin-History/dp/0140130934/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197705067&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Neely, Sylvia. '' A Concise History of the French Revolution'' (2008)
* Palmer, Robert R. ''The Age of the Democratic Revolution: A Political History of Europe and America, 1760-1800.'' (2 vol 1959), highly influential comparative history; [http://www.questia.com/read/22790906 vol 1 online]
* Paxton, John. ''Companion to the French Revolution'' (1987), hundreds of short entries.
* Schwab, Gail M., and John R. Jeanneney, eds. ''The French Revolution of 1789 and Its Impact'' (1995) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-french-revolution-of-1789-and-its-impact-by-john-r-jeanneney-gail-m-schwab.jsp online edition]
* Scott, Samuel F. and Barry Rothaus. ''Historical Dictionary of the French Revolution, 1789-1799'' (2 vol 1984), short essays by scholars
* Schama, Simon. ''Citizens. A Chronicle of the French Revolution'' (1989), highly readable narrative by scholar [http://www.amazon.com/Citizens-Simon-Schama/dp/0141017279/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197705186&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Sutherland, D.M.G. ''France 1789–1815. Revolution and Counter-Revolution'' (2nd ed. 2003, 430pp [http://www.amazon.com/French-Revolution-Empire-Quest-Civic/dp/0631233636/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189597597&sr=1-1 excerpts and online search from Amazon.com]

==References==
<references/>

== See also ==

*[[Alexis de Tocqueville]]

[[Category:French Revolution| ]]
[[Category:French History]]

French Revolution

2008-12-07T01:36:37Z

Bolly: /* Legacy of the Revolution */

[[Image:Delacroix La liberte guidant le peuple.jpg|250px|right|La liberte guidant le peuple]]
'''The French Revolution''' was a 1789 revolution which is oft-quoted as the beginning of the modern era. In fact a set of several revolutions in a period of unprecedented turmoil, it saw the rise of [[Robespierre]] and the [[Reign of Terror]], a chaos wherein thousands were [[guillotine|guillotined]] for political leanings and moderatism.

The French Revolution was very [[atheism|atheistic]] in nature, as radicals outlawed the Church and tried to establish a [[Cult of Reason]] in its place. The Revolution also saw the rise of [[evolution|evolutionary]] thinking, a result of extreme [[rationalism]]. It inspired fear into European moderates like [[Edmund Burke]], who realized it was proof of the danger of [[liberalism]] run amok.

Before the Revolution, [[France]] had three levels in its social system: The First, Second, and Third Estates. The [[First Estate]] was about 1% of the population, but it controlled 10% of the land. The First Estate consisted of the clergy, and they did not pay any taxes. The [[Second Estate]] was about 2% of the population and they controlled 20% of the land. These were the nobility, and they too paid very little taxes. The [[Third Estate]] was everyone else, and they were badly overtaxed by the monarch. This overtaxing was a major cause of the [[French]] Revolution.

The leaders of the Third Estate were the middle class, called the [[bourgeoisie]]. They were educated in the ideas of the [[Enlightenment]], most importantly [[Jean Jacques Rousseau]]. Rousseau's book, "The Social Contract" supported a [[direct democracy]], rather that the republican government that had been adopted in [[America]]. The social contract spoke against titles for nobility and demanded complete equality for all people.

French Revolutionary ideals, especially thanks to Napoleon, later inspired liberal and democratic movements of the 19th Century.

==Chronology of the French Revolution==

Several costly wars, the War of Austrian Succession (1740-8), the Seven Years War (1756-63) and the American War of Independence (1778-83), had reduced the government to the verge of bankruptcy. The deficit for 1786 would be 112 million ''livres'', nearly a quater of total income. Due to the poorly organised taxation system it was impossible for the King and his finance minister to make up the deficit without serious reforms. In 1787 he called a meeting of 144 leading nobles, the Assembly of Notables, to attempt to persuade them to pay tax in return for increased powers. The nobles refused his requests and were supported by the local assembly; the Parlement de Paris.

The King withdrew his demands at this challenge to his authority, which was greeted by thousands taking to the street to celebrate. When troops were ordered to "Get some lead into the bastards' backsides", they fired into the air instead. In hindsight this can be seen as the start of dissent. It is notable that the initiators of this unrest were the upper classes, who had little reason to think there was any thirst for revolution. In April 1787, [[Calonne]] resigned in disgrace and the middle classes, strengthened by the protests, began to demand the Estates-Generale, a Parliament in which they would be represented.

==1789 - Year of Revolution==

With growing unrest and France nearing bankruptcy, the King agreed to call the Estates-Generale in May 1789. The [[Estate-Generale]] was divided into the three estates, with the first two estates (nobility and clergy) electing their representatives. The third estate representation required a series of elections in which all property owners over the age of twenty-five were eligible to take part. They elected a group of electors, who in turn chose delegates. The delegates themselves were overwhelmingly middle class, including the young lawyer [[Maximilien Robespierre]]. Furthermore, the Third Estate was required to produce a list of grievances known as ''cahiers''.

Between 25,000 and 60,000 documents were filled with grievances. Thousands demanded a constitution, reorganization of the clergy, lessening of the tax burden and an end to [[Royal]] waste. Few of these demands could be resolved without challenging the basis of [[Absolute Monarchy]]. However, not one of these document has been found to advocate abolition of the monarchy, with the large majority requesting moderate reform and many including expression of adoration towards the King.

The Estates-General had not met in 175 years and retained many of its former characteristics. Each Estate had one vote in the Assembly, such that the First and Second Estates could always outvote the Third Estate. That was acceptable in the early 1600s, but the Third Estate would not allow this in 1789 after learning the Enlightenment ideas. King Louis XVI responded to the Third Estate's complaints by doubling the number of Third Estate delegates in the Estates-General. By this time the alliance between the nobility and the third estate had broken down; the nobles may have called a march, but they drew the line at burning down tax offices. The Third Estate wanted a system of one vote per delegate, which would have given the Third Estate the same number of votes as the First and Second Estate combined.

The opening of the Estates-Generale did not bode well. The opening session was in an open coach house, which meant that the Third Estate struggled to hear the proceedings as they were on wooden benches at the far end of the room. Upon the entry of the King, the first and second estates were expected to remove their hats and sit down after the King, before replacing their hats. The Third Estate were expected to remain standing until after the first and second estates had replaced their hats, however, they chose to sit at the same time as the first and second estates. The First Estate were to wear glittering robes, the second estate were to wear silk coats, whilst the third estate were required to wear black coats. There was no question at this point of rudeness towards the King himself, and at this point none of the delegates (including Robespierre) was a republican in their beliefs. There then followed a speech by [[Necker]] on possible solutions to the economic crisis, that was of such length and dullness that Necker had to pass it on to a delegate to complete.

The Third Estate began to win votes in the Estates-Generale by attracting poorer clergy to their side. On 17 June the Third Estate, accompanied by the poorer clergy, voted 490 to 90 in favour of a motion to call themselves the [[National Assembly]] and claimed that they now had the right to manage the nations affairs and taxation. In an attempt to reassert his control, the king announced that Estates-Generale was postponed until 23 June where he would announce several reforms in a ''seance royale''. However, news of the postponement did not reach the delegates of the Third Estate, who arrived on the 20 June to find the room locked.

Following a period of confusion, Dr [[Guillotin]] (one of the Third Estate delegates) suggested it might be possible to convene at a nearby indoor tennis court and the group of over 500 delegate proceeded to meet at the court. The session was chaired by Bailly (a celebrity astronomer) and Mirabeau proposed that the delegation should not break up until a constitution was passed, which was opposed by only one delegate (Martin d'Auch). In effect the delegates had declared themselves the Government of France, pending a constitution to be organized by [[Mirabeau]].

The [[National Assembly]] approved the “[[Declaration of the Rights of Man]],” which combined ideas of the [[American Declaration of Independence]] with some Enlightenment concepts. The result of this combination had many debatable claims. The entire document is short and worth reading in full: [http://www.hrcr.org/docs/frenchdec.html] .

The King responded by ordering the delegates to disperse, however this had little effect. The following week the King sent a messenger, the Marquis de Breze, to order the finishing of the session. Mirabeau ordered the messenger to leave.
[[Image:David OathHoratti.jpg|left]]
In the last week of June the royal [[Government]] ordered 20,000 troops to march on Paris. It became apparent that compromise was not working. This was emphasized with the replacement of Necker by the hard line [[Baron de Breteuil]]. Thousands took to the streets to demand the reinstatement of [[Necker]], who was at the height of his popularity and seen as the only man who could solve the taxation crisis. Mirabeau spoke to the assembly, invoking the oath taken at the tennis court. [[Camille Desmoulins]] had ridden to Versailles to report on events and galloped back to Paris to report on the replacement of Necker.

Crowds marched to [[Abbaye]] prison to demand the release of the soldiers who had been arrested for not firing on the crowds. Troops were offered drinks by the crowd if they shouted 'Viva le tiers-etat'. Dummies of [[Necker]] and [[Duc d'Orleans]] were stolen to be paraded as heroes.

The deputies were now faced with a dilemma, requiring a mass movement for defence of the National Assembly, but fearing crowds getting out of control. Militia were therefore established, that excluded all unemployed and vagrants, and many districts demanded employers' references before admission. Admission varied enormously across districts, with 1,200 being recruited in [[Le Petit-St-Antoine]], but [[Les Minimes]] mustering four.

==Storming of the [[Bastille]]==

With the militia formed to repel the royal troops, there was an urgent need for weapons. The royalist [[Swiss Guard]]s had stored 30,000 pounds in the Bastille, to be used against the National Assembly. On the morning of July 14, 1789 (“[[Bastille Day]]”), a crowd of about a thousand people made up predominantly of small tradesmen arrived at the prison to demand the gun powder be handed over. The prison Governor invited a delegation in for breakfast, which proceeded for three and a half hours. Meanwhile, rumours circulated that royalist troops were committing atrocities across Paris.

A demonstrator outside the Bastille realized he would be able to get to the chains of the drawbridge by climbing from a nearby perfume shop. At this point the prison Governor, [[De Launay]], broke off negotiations and late in the afternoon cannon shots were aimed at the crowd. Two companies of French Guards were persuaded to the Bastille to the defend protesters being killed by cannon fire.

A Swiss Guard handed over the keys to the second drawbridge, leading to a moat. A clerk from a pawn office visited a carpenter and returned with eleven pieces of wood, one of which was able to span the moat. Once inside, seven prisoners were freed, though contrary to what is widely though, this did not include the [[Marquis de Sade]] (he had been moved as he had shouting at passers by through a pipe he had been given to urinate through. This took time however, as the keys to release the cells were the same as the keys to open the first draw bridge and the man with the keys had gone home.

In total six defenders of the Bastille were killed, including De launay, and ninety protestors.

The aftermath was one of euphoria throughout much of [[Paris]]. Much of the nobility proclaimed support for the act, realizing that it was not healthy to oppose public opinion on the matter. [[Louis XVI]] recalled Necker to his job and agreed to recognise the National Assembly, which included the Third Estate delegates, poorer clergy and nobility sympathetic to the Third Estate cause. [[Lafayette]] was appointed head of the police and the army, which was to be known as the National Guard. Bailly became the Mayor of Paris.

The King agreed to come to Paris and accept the gift of a cockade that had become a symbol of the revolution, which the king fastened to his hat, whilst the crowd cheered "Vive le Roi!". Whilst the significance of the day was evident, that it would produce a republic was far from clear. The plan of the King to take Paris with 20,000 troops had failed, but he was able to satisfy the populace that it was not intended and a peaceful resolution was reached. The changes that had so far occurred in a brief period of time were so dramatic that the thought that things could change further was difficult to conceive.

==The Great Fear==

During the week following the storming of the Bastille, news of events spread to the rest of France. This led to a panic as to what the response of the nobility would be to the events, The [[Great Fear]] or panic resulted. Many villages defended themselves against imaginary threats by forming peasant militias; riots occurred and peasants proceeded to burn wealthy homes.

The rural uprising prompted the National Assembly to pass a motion to 'destroy the [[feudal]] regime entirely', on August 4th. However, in order to release himself a peasant would have to pay twenty times his annual rent to the landlord, making the measure ineffectual.

==Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen==

The Assembly also passed the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen on the 4th August. This annulled the right of nobles to demand taxes, tithes and labor from peasants working on their family land. The declaration was inspired by the American Revolution and was partially written by LaFayette.

Unlike the American declaration that “all men are created equal,” the French version declared that “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.”

Whilst the American declaration that all men have inalienable rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” the French version declared that all men have natural rights of “liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression.”

Some declarations were troublesome; “Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law” left questions of definition. Also, the rights of French people to rebel were enshrined in the very constitution itself.

The water wheel was abolished as the method of execution in place of the more humane [[guillotine]]. It is notable that the only delegate to vote for the abolition of the [[death penalty]] was [[Robespierre]].

==A New Government==

France remained a republic. Although a republic has been established in North America at this time and a previous English republic, a European republic was still alien to the thoughts of most French people, including revolutionaries. Negotiations over the new constitution continued, with Mirabeau and Lafayette appealing for calm less the King withdraw from negotiation. [[Jean Paul Marat]] took a less moderate line. Marat argued for universal suffrage and for the King to retain only an advisory role, a constitutional monarchy such as those seen in the [[United Kingdom]] or [[Sweden]] to this day.

==Royal Faux Pas==

On 1st October, 1789, a party was thrown at the [[Palace of Versailles]]. Louis XVI took the cap he had been presented with following the storming of the Bastille and trampled it underfoot. The king later denied this, however several witnesses recalled the incident and news of the incident spread to Paris. A contingent of women raided the Town Hall was raided for weapons and set off from Paris to Versailles, becoming a crowd of 10,000, who were later joined by the National Guard to ensure good order.

Upon the arrival for the group at the palace two guards opened fire, but were interrupted by decapitation. A small delegation of women were permitted to meet the Queen, however one fainted upon witnessing the beauty of the Palace of Versailles. The crowd became impatient by six o'clock the following morning and a militant group of fishwives broke in with a cry of "We are going to cut off her head, tear out her heart, fry her liver and that will not be the end of it"(Documents of the French Revolution, page 62). It was a forceful enough argument to force the Royal family back to Paris, where it was felt it would be possible to keep closer watch. It was also clear by now that the King was in no position to demand a veto.

Antoinette is reputed to have responded unsympathetically to the lack of bread for the peasants by declaring, “Let them eat cake!” Historians doubt she ever actually said that.

==Anniversary Pledge==

On the first anniversary of the storming of the Bastille a large ceremony was held in Paris at which members of the Government and the King pledges themselves to uphold the 'law, the nation and the King'. This represents a compromise in that the King was still seen as central, however all pledges had previously been to the King alone, and the King was required to make no pledge.

==1791 - The King Strikes Back==

In the two years following the storming of the Bastille French society had been transformed. There were an estimated 133 political journals in Paris, Parish priests had been dismissed and replaced by elected Priests. Robespierre had advanced plans for the emancipation of [[Jews]] and [[Protestantism|Protestants]], equal treatment of all military ranks and the abolition of the property qualification for the National Guard. Robespierre remained incorruptible at this point, refusing to be the Duc d'Orleans let the luxury affect his judgement.

This situation was intolerable for the Royal Family, who began to organize a foreign force to invade France and restore their power. In December 1790 Louis wrote a secret note to the King of Prussia requesting a European army invade France. Furthermore, the King and Queen (herself Austrian) decided to flee Paris to help organise the invasion force from without France, let their presence in Paris compromise the invasion.

The royal couple decided to disguise themselves and flee across the border, which they did at night setting off at at a seven miles in part due to the weight requirements for the Queen to travel in the least luxury that she expected. The next morning the Kings letter to the National Assembly was found condemning all the measure which he had claimed to support for the previous two years.

The royal party reached [[Ste-Menehould]], where the papers of the party were checked by Drouet, who had been a staunch supporter of the revolution. Despite having seen the servant in the corner and 'struck by the resemblance of his face to the likeness of the King printed on the bank note', in disbelief he allowed the party to continue. Having discussed the incident with his colleague, Guillaume, the two raced to catch up with the party and spread word through the surrounding villages that the Royal family were attempting to flee. The family were captured and returned to Paris, with posters informing the gathering crowd "Whoever applauds the King will be flogged; whoever insults him will be hanged".

Most delegates wished to hold together a compromise, but the Head of State fleeing to lead a hostile invasion of the nation had created difficulties. Many insisted that the King must have been kidnapped. General Bouille wrote a statement confessing his involvement, but many insisted he was lying to implicate the King. While the only punishment towards the King was stripping of his powers of veto on laws and finance, talk began to emerge for the first time of the possibility of a republic. At this point Robespierre and most of the Paris commune strongly opposed the republic, whilst Lafayette rallied to the slogan 'The Revolution is Over'. By then the French Revolution was in full swing.

==Declaration of the Rights of Woman==

In 1791, a French journalist named [[Olympe de Gouges]] proposed a “[[Declaration of the Rights of Woman]],” (inspired by the writings of [[Mary Woolstonecraft]]) but the National Assembly rejected her proposal. She, like many other leaders of that time, was eventually executed by guillotine. Other sans-culotte groups were established including the [[Society of Revolutionary Women]]

==New Start==

Politics in France became divided between the moderate [[Girondins]] and the more radical [[Jacobins]]. At this point the Girondins appeared to be in the stronger position, however the Jacobins were growing in strength. At this point the Jacobins were led by [[Robespierre]], who made a strong speech in favor of a republic.

The French National Assembly established a [[constitutional monarchy]] and, in 1791, adopted a new constitution that created a Legislative Assembly. Three factions quickly formed in the new Legislative Assembly, known as the radicals (liberals), moderates (centrists) and conservatives, similar to those political movements today in the United States. The three factions sat in different sections of the large assembly hall, with the radicals (liberals) sitting on the left, the moderates sitting in the center, and the conservatives sitting on the right. That gave rise to the left-center-right terminology that we still use today in the United States to describe these three political groups.

==German Invasion==

A large number of noblemen had gathered in [[Koblenz]] to form an army to invade France and restore the King to full rule. The emigrants carried stories of atrocities and encouraged reaction against the National Assembly and atrocities associated with lower class democracy. The Duke of Brunswick declared "We will soon be marching on Paris".

This was a matter of some concern in France, as many of the officers that had been in the French army in 1789 had joined the emigrant army in Germany. The Girondins remained confident, but Robespierre saw little cause for initial optimism. The Royal Family strongly supported war with the Prussian and Austrian force in the hope that the French would be defeated and they be restored.

On April 1792, the King declared war on the [[Hapsburg Empire]], who wished to restore his power. The French army suffered a series of defeats along the border, creating optimism in the Royal house. The National Assembly ordered the dispersal of the Kings bodyguard who were supporting the foreign invasion, but this was vetoed by the King. The Assembly then voted for 20,000 French patriots to come from across France to protect Paris, but this was also vetoed by the King.

The use of the royal veto to undermine the defense of France prompted a strong reaction, with demonstrators managing to pour into the royal apartments. The King was forced to wear a red cap while being taunted for several hours with taunts of "Fat Louis" and "Tyrants must Tremble". The time of compromise was nearing an end.

Lafayette planned a coup to restore the old order to as it was in 1787, using the National Guard. This force was resisted by a volunteer group of citizens. Traditionally this latter group are portrayed as ne'er-do-well criminals, however it is questionable whether such groups would march typically 800 miles. The volunteer groups were greeted as heroes in towns they passed through and [[Rouget de Lisle]] composed 'La Marseillaise' as a call to arms.

The war started badly for the French and on 25th July the Duke of Brunswick prepared to March on Paris and pledged to restore the French Royal Family to their original statue, but that he had no intention of meddling in the internal affairs of France. He demanded total surrender or the Prussian and Austrian armies would "take an exemplary and never-to-be-forgotten vengeance, by giving up the town of Paris to military execution..and the guilty rebels to the death they deserve".

==Second Revolution==

Paris was divided, with 20,000 signing a petition to support the full restoration of an absolute monarchy and a foreign army was invading France rapidly. Moderates such as Mme Roland supported withdrawal from Paris, whereas Maton would accept no backward step. On 10th August a larger demonstration marched on the palace demanding the removal of the King.

==Valmy==

The National Assembly called for volunteers to defend the state, with assurances that this army would be different to the one that had gone before and collapsed before the troops of the Duke of Brunswick. The soldiers would sing Les Maseillaise into battle and officers and men would wear similar uniforms. The majority of the officers would be voted for by the soldiers.

The army was formed, and the Duke of Brunswick brought his army round to meet the French on by the village of [[Valmy]]. The French were grouped around a windmill in an area of uncommon tranquillity. The battle involved a day long exchange of cannon fire with little result. The significance of the battle is that the French volunteer troops remained firm.

[[Johann Goethe]] was present at the battle, as one of the troops of the Duke of Brunswick; "In the morning we had been talking of spitting and eating the French. Now everyone was thinking again. Almost everyone remained silent. Only a few men spoke and their reflections seemed illogical or frivolous".

In the opinion of Goethe, what had changed in the French was their spirit. They had won their freedom and did not wish to return to the days before the revolution, they had debated and were politically active. They were therefore able to stand firm. The news of the battle had a strong effect on French national morale, as the French came to believe they could win.

==Republic==

On the day following the [[Battle of Valmy]], the newly elected French Government (the Convention). The Convention declared France to be an 'Indivisible Republic'. The Convention was made of three factions; the [[Girondins]], the [[Montagnards]] (including Robespierre, Danton and Marat) and the [[Grenouilles de la Marais]] or the Plain. Robespierre won an argument to allow a public gallery for debates.

All factions favored deposing the King, but were far from united beyond that point. The Montannards saw this as the first step to greater social equality, as opined by Robespierre, "Royalty has been destroyed, not the reign of equality is beginning". He attacked the wealthiest businessmen "those goods which are necessary to keep people alive as nothing more than an ordinary item of trade" - a sentiment echoed later by [[Karl Marx]]'s assertion that businessmen see objects not for their usefulness but for their value as commodities.

However, the Jocobin position was far from modern [[Socialism]], as they sought a nation of small property owners. The Government would be elected by property owners. Support for a republic was recently and had little idea of how to progress with the power they now found they had.

The Girdondins accused the Montagnards of preparing a dictatorship. However, the Girdondins had lost credibility by suggesting retreat from Paris and furthermore lacked the social roots that enabled the Montagnards to motivate thousands of volunteers. It reflects on the differing social backgrounds of the delegates that it was at this point Robespirre met a cabinet maker, M. Duplay. Duplay invited Robespierre back to his flat to meet his family and, finding that the family had been trying to let a spare room, Robespierre moved in. It is worth considering the contrast between the setting of the reign of Louis XVI to Robespierre who, whilst the most powerful man in France, has to queue behind his landlord to use the toilet in the morning.

==Trial of the King==

The King and family were detained in the Temple prison, but retained the trappings of luxury. The King had a library of 1,500 books, still ordered his shoes from his preferred cobbler and the family was provided with servants. The majority of servants remained utterly devoted to the family, feeling their employment to be a sacred duty.

This loyalty was not universal however, a former locksmith of the King revealed to the Paris Commune that there is secret cupboard containing correspondence between the King and invading powers showing collusion. Mirabeau and Lafayette were also implicated, though Mirabeau had no died and Lafayette had fled to [[Austria]].

The trial was debated by a number of key speakers. [[Louis St-Just]] debated the very validity of Kings, that to try the King as a bad King suggested it was possible to be a good, legal King, which was not acceptable. He was opposed by [[Thomas Paine]] who wished the King to be exiled to the [[USA]]. The vote was won for death by 387 to 334.

Louis XVI was executed in January 1793.

==Dechristianization movement==

The measures taken by the Convention to substitute the Revolutionary calendar for the old Christian calendar, and the decrees ordering the municipalities to seize and melt down the bells and treasures of the churches, proved that certain currents prevailed tending to the [[dechristianization]] of France.

The rest of décadi, every tenth day, replaced the Sunday rest. The "missionary representatives", sent to the provinces, closed churches, hunted down citizens suspected of religious practices. Persecution of all religious ideas began. Many churches were forcibly closed and converted into [[Cult of Reason|Temples of Reason]] <ref>John Hall Stewart, ''A Documentary Survey of the French Revolution'', Macmillan, New York, 1963.</ref>

During the first days of the Republic, provision had been made for dating public documents from "the first year of the French Republic," but no definite plan for a revised calendar had been proposed. A decree of 2 January, 1793, provided for the second year of the Republic to begin on 1 January, 1793. The new calendar took form in October and November, and lasted until 1806.

A vital force intended to sustain the political and economic terror was the creation of an ideology based on love of '' la Patrie'', "the Country" or "fatherland", and the subjugation of the individual to the collective will of whole. The Church of Notre-Dame-de-Paris became a temple of Reason, and the feast of Reason was celebrated on 10 November. The idea of honouring the fatherland, which had its origin in the festival of the Federation in 1790 gave rise to successive cults. Chamber Deputy Laloi commented they had "wiped out eighteen centuries of error".

Robespierre adopted the position that from the religious and Republican standpoint the idea of a Supreme Being was advantageous to the State, that religion should dispense with a priesthood, and that priests were to religion what charlatans were to medicine, and that the true priest of the Supreme Being was Nature. The Convention adopted a decree of which the first article was: "The French people recognize the existence of a Supreme Being and the immortality of the soul". The same decree states that freedom of worship is maintained but adds that in the case of disturbances caused by the exercise of a religion those who "excite them by fanatical preaching or by counter Revolutionary innovations", shall be punished according to the rigour of the law. Thus the condition of the Catholic Church remained equally precarious and the first festival of the Supreme Being was celebrated throughout France on 8 June, 1794. with aggressive splendour. Whereas the Exagérés wished simply to destroy Catholicism, and in the temples of Reason political rather than moral doctrines were taught. Robespierre desired that the civic religion should have a moral code which he based on the two dogmas of God and the immortality of the soul. He was of the opinion that the idea of God had a social value, that public morality depended on it and that Catholics would more readily support the republic under the auspices of a Supreme Being. <ref>Catholic Encyclopdeia, [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13009a.htm French Revolution]</ref>

==Committee of Public Safety==

The [[Committee of Public Safety]] was formed in 1793, and passed a rule that Generals were to live in camp with the army. This had the practical effect of testing the belief in equality of the many Nobles in the army. [[General Dumouriez]] made overtures to the Prince of Coburg for the invasion of France and have Louis XVI's son proclaimed King Louis XVII.

The execution of Louis XVI led almost immediately to the [[Reign of Terror]]. [[Maximilian Robespierre]], head of the Committee of Public Safety, proceeded to guillotine numerous alleged enemies, including Marie Antoinette. In a classic illustration of Jesus’s teaching that “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword,” Jacobin leaders [[Georges Danton]] (a fiery orator) was guillotined, and [[Jean-Paul Marat]] (a scientist) was stabbed to death in his bathtub.

==The Thermidorian Reaction==

By this time many countries, including [[Great Britain]], [[Spain]], the [[Netherlands]], [[Prussia]] and [[Austria]], had formed a First Coalition to invade France and restore monarchy. The National Convention responded by drafting people into an army. Historians claim women were drafted, but such a politically inspired claim is worth investigating before accepting it. The war lasted for several years, on several fronts, but the First Coalition was eventually defeated.

Robespierre made a fatal mistake on 26 July (8 Thermidor on the revolutionary calender) when he made a speech attacking colleagues who he claimed were plotting against his government. He declined to name those he suspected, allowing moderates and terrorists (here used to refer to members of the government who supported the Terror) who felt threatened a chance to act. Had he named anyone they would immediately have been arrested and executed. Instead, the next day, when Robespierre attempted to speak at the Convention he was shouted down. Finally, after a farcical arrest and release due to popular support, Robespierre was arrested a second time, and executed the same day, 28 July.

At last the government of France was in the hands of a legislature, and an executive branch of five men called the Directory. The Directory picked a young, highly successful military genius named [[Napoleon]] to lead the French army. The very next day Napoleon seized all power in France as its [[dictator]], in November 1799.

==Economic controls==

On 29 September, 1793, in the Law of the Maximum was formulated to deal with the steady rise in prices of the necessities of life. Committees of experts had been appointed to study the whole subject. Prices were set at one and one-third its price in 1790, transportation costs were regulated at a fixed rate, a 5 per cent markup was allowed the wholesaler and 10 per cent to the retailer. Bertrand Barrere declared, "The needs of the people will no longer be spied upon in order that the commercial classes may arbitrarily take advantage".

The first result was farmers produced as little as they possibly could. Scarcity increased, and the people of the large cities were put on an rationing. Many shopkeepers went out of business, and the remainder forced buyers to pay enormous charges under the very natural excuse that the seller risked his life in trading at all. That this excuse was valid is easily seen by the daily lists of those condemned to the guillotine, in which not infrequently figure the names of men charged with violating the Maximum laws. Manufactures were crippled and frequently destroyed.

To detect goods concealed by farmers and shopkeepers, a spy system was established with a reward to the informer of one-third of the value of the goods discovered. To spread terror, the Criminal Tribunal at Strassburg was ordered to destroy the dwelling of anyone found guilty of selling goods above the price set by law. The farmer often found that he could not raise his products at anything like the price required by the new law; and when he tried to hold back his crops or cattle, alleging that he could not afford to sell them at the prices fixed by law, they were frequently taken from him by force and he was fortunate if he was paid in the depreciated fiat currency or escaped execution.

The Convention decreed that any person selling gold or silver coin, or making any difference in any transaction between paper banknotes (assignats), and precious metal coin (specie) should be imprisoned in irons for six years; that anyone who refused to accept a payment in assignats, or accepted assignats at a discount, should pay a fine of 3,000 francs; and that anyone committing this crime a second time shou1d pay a fine of 6,000 francs and suffer imprisonment 20 years in irons. Later, on 8 September, 1793, the penalty for such offences was made death, with confiscation of the property of the heirs, and a reward offered to any person informing the authorities regarding any such transaction. The Convention decreed, in May 1794, that the death penalty should be inflicted on any person convicted of 'having asked, before a bargain was concluded, in what money payment was to be made".

Georges Couthon, in August 1793, proposed and won passage of a law punishing any person who should sell assignats at less than their fixed value with imprisonment for 20 years in chains, and later passed a law making investment in foreign countries punishable by death. Prisons, guillotines, enactments inflicting 20 years' imprisonment in chains upon persons twice convicted of buying or selling paper money at less than its nominal value, and death upon investors in foreign securities, still did not stop people from procuring the necessities of life by bargaining and exchange; on 1 August, 1795, the gold louis of 25 francs was worth in paper, 920 francs; on 1 September, 1,200 francs; on 1 November, 2,600 francs; on 1 December, 3,050 francs. In February 1796, it was worth 7,200 francs or one franc in gold was worth 288 francs in paper. Prices of all commodities went up nearly in proportion. <ref>Andrew Dickson White, Fiat Money: Inflation in France, Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, 1959, pp. 75-89; first published in 1912 as revised version of 1876 lecture. Reproduced in ''Choice in Currency'', F. A. Hayek, The Institute of Economic Affairs 1976, "A Note on Government Monopoly of Money in Theory and History", [http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-book409pdf?.pdf France, 1789], pgs. 34 - 38.</ref>

==Legacy of the Revolution==

The influence of the French Revolution was immense throughout the western hemisphere, as other peoples felt that they, too, could rise up against their rulers and defeat them. Historians credit the French Revolution with spreading the ideas of the Enlightenment, limiting the power of nobility and clergy, and ending an absolute monarchy. But many who supported the French Revolution in its beginning were horrified by where it led, including numerous executions and terror. Some would say that France never fully recovered, as the French Revolution unleashed a hostility towards [[Christianity]] that continues to this day in France.

There are two main historical approaches to the French Revolution: the minimalist and the Marxist. The minimalist view, championed by such historians as [[Simon Schama]], [[Alfred Cobban]] and [[Roger Price]], states that, in the words of Price: <blockquote>
In political and ideological terms the Revolution was no doubt of crucial importance, but humanity was not transformed thereby... At the end of all the political upheavals of the Revolution and Empire little had changed in the daily life of most Frenchmen.
</blockquote>
In other words, all the events of the French Revolution had little lasting effect and the people that were killed because of the upheaval died in vain.

The Marxist historians, for example [[Albert Soboul]], [[George Rude]] and [[Peter McPhee]], counter by pointing to the rise of the bourgeousie class in power due to the abolition of seigneruial rights and privileges, claiming that the French Revolution was the starting-point for capitalist society and the modern democracy.

==Biblliography==
* Doyle, William. ''The Oxford History of the French Revolution'' (1989). [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-oxford-history-of-the-french-revolution-by-william-doyle.jsp online complete edition]; also [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-French-Revolution/dp/019925298X/ref=sr_1_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189484963&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search ]
* Doyle, William. ''The French Revolution: A Very Short Introduction.'' (2001), 120pp; [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-french-revolution-a-very-short-introduction-by-william-doyle.jsp online edition]
* Fremont-Barnes, Gregory. ed. ''The Encyclopedia of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars: A Political, Social, and Military History'' (ABC-CLIO: 3 vol 2006)
* Frey, Linda S. and Marsha L. Frey. ''The French Revolution.'' (2004) 190pp [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-french-revolution-by-linda-s-frey-marsha-l-frey.jsp online edition], conservative approach
* Furet, François. ''The French Revolution, 1770-1814'' (1996) [http://www.amazon.com/French-Revolution-1770-1814-History-France/dp/0631202994/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197704970&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search], by the leading French conservative scholars
* Furet, François and Mona Ozouf, eds. ''A Critical Dictionary of the French Revolution'' (1989), 1120pp; long essays by scholars; conservative perspective; stress on history of ideas [http://www.amazon.com/Critical-Dictionary-French-Revolution/dp/0674177282/ref=sr_1_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189497174&sr=8-2 excerpt and online search from Amazon.com], by the leading French conservative scholars
* Jones, Colin. ''The Longman Companion to the French Revolution'' (1989)
* Jones, Colin. ''The Great Nation: France from Louis XV to Napoleon'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Great-Nation-Napoleon-Penguin-History/dp/0140130934/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197705067&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Neely, Sylvia. '' A Concise History of the French Revolution'' (2008)
* Palmer, Robert R. ''The Age of the Democratic Revolution: A Political History of Europe and America, 1760-1800.'' (2 vol 1959), highly influential comparative history; [http://www.questia.com/read/22790906 vol 1 online]
* Paxton, John. ''Companion to the French Revolution'' (1987), hundreds of short entries.
* Schwab, Gail M., and John R. Jeanneney, eds. ''The French Revolution of 1789 and Its Impact'' (1995) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-french-revolution-of-1789-and-its-impact-by-john-r-jeanneney-gail-m-schwab.jsp online edition]
* Scott, Samuel F. and Barry Rothaus. ''Historical Dictionary of the French Revolution, 1789-1799'' (2 vol 1984), short essays by scholars
* Schama, Simon. ''Citizens. A Chronicle of the French Revolution'' (1989), highly readable narrative by scholar [http://www.amazon.com/Citizens-Simon-Schama/dp/0141017279/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197705186&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Sutherland, D.M.G. ''France 1789–1815. Revolution and Counter-Revolution'' (2nd ed. 2003, 430pp [http://www.amazon.com/French-Revolution-Empire-Quest-Civic/dp/0631233636/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189597597&sr=1-1 excerpts and online search from Amazon.com]

==References==
<references/>

== See also ==

*[[Alexis de Tocqueville]]

[[Category:French Revolution| ]]
[[Category:French History]]

Conservapedia talk:Obama straw poll

2008-12-03T02:53:17Z

Bolly: /* My response to compromise proposal */

We should probably divide it up into several issues. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:31, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:Two that come to mind are religion and birthplace. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:38, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::The number of his gaffes. --[[User:MugiK|MugiK]] 11:39, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::First Black President maybe. It seems that Andy is trying to deny him that title as well. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:Shouldn't the Obama article simply follow the example set by the other articles about politicians both in style and tone? When you compare for example [[John McCain]], [[Bill Clinton]], and [[Barack Obama]], the choice should be clear.
:"Some conservatives" (Who?) say that he's a Muslim, and "some conservatives" (Who?) insist he wasn't born in Hawaii. I'm pretty sure that "some liberals" also insisted on quite a few things when [[George W. Bush]] became President, but you don't see every accusation in the article (judging from a quick look at least). Sarah Palin did drugs, Obama did drugs, but only the Obama article says it (to be fair, at least in Palin's case, it had been legal at the time, but that doesn't make it any better in my eyes). Maybe one standard for all articles would help us more than deciding just how far to move the Obama article away from the standard set by the other articles? --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 11:53, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::Yes...Shouldn't all articles (political or not) stick to the evidence for and against, and leave the speculation and editorializing for talk pages and essays?--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 12:37, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::: Wikipedia has an ignored-when-it-suits policy of not taking sides but presenting the evidence for and against (for example, it takes sides in the creation/evolution debate). Conservapedia, in contrast, is prepared to take a stand on issues; it is concerned with ''truth'' not, (per Wikipedia), ''verifiability''.
::: The issue here as far as I'm concerned is not that Conservapedia is taking a particular view, but that the particular view is without substantiation and even contrary to some of the evidence, and therefore almost certainly untrue.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:24, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Philip, what you've repeatedly deleted (censored) from the [[Obama]] entry is factual information that is undeniably true, such as how he pronounces "Pakistan". Conservapedia never stated that Obama is a Muslim, but presents compelling evidence about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::::: And yet various people deny it, so it is simply wrong to say that it's "undeniably" true. And you have consistently failed to actually provide any substantiation of your claims (including the claim of 'censorship'), which strongly suggests that they are false, especially given that counter-arguments have been given. And given that I've already pointed out that the article ''did'' say that "Obama is a Muslim", your claim that it didn't is tantamount to a lie. (NB: I haven't read your latest posts there, so it's possible that you've recently given evidence I haven't yet seen.)

== Admin only? ==

Can I ask why this is the case? It doesn't seem particularly democratic if enfranchisement is restricted. Be wary if you start [[American Revolution|taxing me]]! [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:40, 27 November 2008 (EST)
*Because inclusive discussion has so far failed to net any agreement, see [[talk:Barack Obama]] --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:42, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:Big difference between inclusive "discussion" (yes that page is a mess) and inclusive ''voting''. But I see your point. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::Straw poll, not inclusive discussion. You all get to see who thinks what. Happy Thanksgiving. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:45, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::How about going with what Andy decides? He is the Leader of Conservapedia and has already ruled on the situation after reading and considering views from both sides. Although the poll was begun with good intentions, there is a danger that it will be misused by Liberals who have already emphatically lost the argument on the Obama talk page to try and wrest the situation back and gain some spurious authority for their plaints. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:07, 27 November 2008 (EST)[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:47, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::::Who are these Liberal administrators? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 13:29, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Oh Henry, look and read. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:54, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::::: Bugler, are you calling Andy and yourself liberals? Because it's him and you (and co.) who have "emphatically lost the argument". I also find it most ironic that you posted "How about going with what Andy decides? He is the Leader of Conservapedia and has already ruled on the situation..." with the edit comment "''Anti-democratic cliquism''"! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::It's funny you should say that. I was under the impression that it is those who deny the truth - both about Obama and the nature of discourse on Conservapedia - and who have to rely on censorship, who have lost the argument. Read what Andy says below. We present the facts, pro and con, and let readers make up their own minds. That is the conservative way, and the Conservapedia way, but it clearly is not the way of the Rayment faction. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:41, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::: Given that your side has not actually ''given'' much of an argument, you cannot possibly claim to have won it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:28, 1 December 2008 (EST)

This is an experiment to see what effect a straw poll will have on, er, 'the situation'. Can't hurt, anyway. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:47, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Rod Weathers, this arose out of a discussion on my talk page. The problem with making it unrestricted is that doing so attracts all sorts of people, including trolls, socks, parodists, and sycophants. Limiting it to those with x number of edits discriminates against those that edit carefully and in depth in favour of those who can't understand the Preview button or who are making lots of trivial changes. Limiting it to administrators is a very blunt-instrument way of limiting it to those who are theoretically more entitled to have a say. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:36, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:I see. That seems rather reasonable. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:17, 28 November 2008 (EST)
::''Limiting it to Philip and his four imaginary Liberal friends is a very blunt-instrument way of limiting it to those who are theoretically more entitled to have a say.'' [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:52, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::: Huh? What "four imaginary Liberal friends"? What are you on? This poll page is limited to administrators. The administrators are not imaginary, number more than four, and are not liberal! You didn't get ''anything'' right! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:28, 1 December 2008 (EST)
:::Are his four imaginary liberal friends supposed to include Conservative, Ed Poor, and Tim? '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 17:17, 28 November 2008 (EST)
Only one of those, Klumpers. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:39, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:Funny, I thought all of those people existed. Learn something new every day. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:31, 28 November 2008 (EST)
::That was a big l "Liberal" in Bugler's post. In Australia a Liberal is a member of a conservative political party. Anyway this is the first hint I've seen that the secret liberal clique is actually imaginary. Excuse me while I go brace myself for another block for disagreeing with Bugler.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:46, 28 November 2008 (EST)

==Great American Tradition==
In the great American democratic tradition, people who were not elected will discuss policy that will be binding on all, while not counting the views of others. {{unsigned|KimSell}}

:Am I really the only non-sysop who thinks this is a good idea? Too often the arguments on talk pages are dragged out to the point of oblivion of reason. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 16:15, 28 November 2008 (EST)

== My comment ==

I've added a comment about his religion. I probably won't be adding anything else, because I haven't looked into the other issues as much.

Contrary to the offensive labelling of me as an "Obama defender", I'm not here to defend Obama, but simply to correct a blatant untruth in calling him a Muslim.

This straw poll is going to be pointless if we don't get a large percentage of the administrators putting comments here, but at the same time, perhaps many don't have too much of an opinion, at least on every issue.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 27 November 2008 (EST)

: The "blatant untruth" is any claim that Conservapedia asserts definitively that Obama is a Muslim. Conservapedia presents the facts and the reader can decide, as with all entries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::: Until Ed Poor changed it recently, that is exactly what it said, which I have already pointed out to you. This looks like "[[liberal denial]]" [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:33, 1 December 2008 (EST)
::''Conservapedia presents the facts and the reader can decide, as with all entries.'' Smething that I have been constantly stating to Philip, only to be met with blank incomprehension and denial. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:38, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::: I wonder why Ed Poor doesn't block ''you'' for "personal remarks". And your comment is simply a false claim. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:33, 1 December 2008 (EST)
:::::And calling me a liar ''isn't'' a personal remark? You really take the biscuit sometimes. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:49, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::::: I never said that calling you a liar wasn't a personal remark. (And I didn't call you a liar.) But again, you don't address the issue, but introduce a red herring. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:05, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::The issue is whether or not the statements about Obama are factual and relevant. Simply saying "Conservapedia presents the facts" begs the question - Philip is disputing that on the Obama page Conservapedia is presenting facts. If some evidence and justification is given for why the statements on the Obama page are factual and relevant, then that should be the end of the argument. So far Philip feels that such evidence and justification has not been given. To repeat, this has nothing to do with whether or not Conservapedia ''should'' present facts and let the reader decide, and everything to do with whether or not Conservapedia ''is'' presenting the facts and letting the reader decide. [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 17:48, 28 November 2008 (EST)
::::"The facts" would include factual evidence to the contrary, as I suggested [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&oldid=571768#Suggestion_for_compromise a week ago], to no avail. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:44, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Conservapedia presents evidence. We are not arrogant dogmatists; we present evidence and facts and let the reader make up his mind. Of course, there are some minds that are too closed to be made up. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:49, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::::: Still repeating the mantra without actually addressing the issue (justifying that the claims ''are'' valid evidence). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:08, 2 December 2008 (EST)

== Nuetral light? ==

Can we not just portray him as we would a white christian republican president? It almost seems like we are just spreading rumors about our future commander and chief. --[[User:Rcollins|Rcollins03]] 19:34, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:Yes, almost. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:02, 28 November 2008 (EST)

== The Poll ==

Ed if you want this to have meaning, then you should solicit all of the active sysops. It would also be good to see that you wish to participate in your own poll. I considered putting in my own thoughts and came back to do so, but apparently I was looking at a different version of the questions. When I looked at it, the reference was to Conservapedia; it has now changed to simply be some conservatives. Shouldn't a straw poll where only admins can respond deal with conservapedia's position and our thoughts on that position? Simply making it an opinion poll doesn't mean much. If it doesn't deal specifically with Conservapedia, then why even limit it to just admins? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:39, 28 November 2008 (EST)

==Non-Sysop Opinions==

I'm adding my two cents. 
*'''Religion:''' I believe Obama is a Christian, but a liberal one who does not take the Bible literally, and who is most comfortable with worship in the Black church. I believe he has been raised in such a way that he is more familiar with the Muslim religion, and with other international things, than most Americans, but this does not make him a Muslim. I believe the concept of Takeyya/Taqiyya is meant for life-threatening situations, similar to the case of Jews in Hitler's Germany who passed as Catholics to survive. The idea that Obama was exposed to Islam as a young child, took it to heart, and then hid it for the next 30 years is not credible to me. I believe that ''any'' president of the US ''needs'' to have an understanding of Islam, as Islamic extremists are a serious threat to Western countries like ours, thus I am glad that our commander-in-chief-elect has chosen to educate himself about this religion.
*'''Birthplace:''' I believe it is most likely that he was born in Hawaii. However, his mother, father, and maternal grandparents, the people most likely to know for sure, are dead. If there was a problem, the Republicans would have found it. We need to let this one go.
*'''Political gaffes:''' I believe that Obama is a human being, just like George Bush and Sarah Palin and me. I personally could not get up there and speak perfectly 100% of the time. Instead of quote-mining and micro-analyzing these sentences, we need to look carefully at context and big-picture to get a sense of what he is all about. When we insist a quote taken out of context means something that the context makes clear was not the intent, we look foolish, and rightfully so.
* In general, as people who are trying to write an encyclopedia, we must insist on the highest standards of documentation/citations/references, and must always make it clear *who* is making these claims, and *what evidence or speculation* the claims are based on. We must be brutally honest about what information we have and where it came from - what we know and what we do not know - what is speculation and what is documented knowledge. Conservatives don't always agree on every detail. In situations where there is conflicting information and conservatives do not agree, we must present both sides (from a conservative point of view). Ultimately, our readers should be given the references to decide for themselves.
--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:57, 29 November 2008 (EST)

== It is time to end this foolish endeavor. Now. ==

*CP has an owner, it is his absolute right to have whatever viewpoint he wants. To ask any questions he wants to, to speculate as to Obama's motives and/or background. If people agree, with even a part, they should stick around and help build this place. If they don't, what other reason, ''other than being obstinate or having malicious intent'', could they have? Disagreement is fine, debate is good. But where does it end, and argument without end begin? The "truth" isn't dependent upon polls, straw or otherwise. Since Conservapedia has officially eschewed a "mobocracy" what in the world is going on here? Can you gentlemen please take this where it belongs, to email? And yes, Philip, I understand ''your idea'' of the wiki format is different from what I think, what Andy thinks, what your fellow Administrators think. But you and Tim have always known that from the very beginning. It isn't like it was sprung on you by surprise, is it?. ''It is time to end this foolish and misguided endeavor.'' --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:18, 1 December 2008 (EST)

::You say: "CP has an owner, it is his absolute right to have whatever viewpoint he wants."
::However, the point of this project is to show the truth, not one particular person's viewpoint. If Andy wants to have a website that is an outlet to display his personal opinions and make his own political commentary and political attacks, that is absolutely fine by me. However, he is portraying Conservapedia as an encyclopedia, supposedly just the truth instead of political bias. Andy has to make a decision. Either he has an encyclopedia, and starts treating it like one, or else he can have a website dedicated to his personal opinion. Either one is fine by me. However, if he wants to have the latter, then he should advertise it as such. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:48, 1 December 2008 (EST)

::(Edit Conflict with CPAdmin1) I am not sure that it is my place to answer you, TK, but I feel some things must be said. Andrew Schlafly is undoubtedly the owner of this website. He does have the absolute right to have whatever viewpoint he wants. He does have the right to ask any questions, to speculate as to Obama's motives and/or background. But he does not have the right to post these viewpoints as facts. He is not infallible. No one is. To leave the truth to any one person's judgement, even if it is Mr. Schlafly's judgement, is faulty.

::You are also absolutely correct in that truth is not dependent upon polls, or "mobocracy" either. But these people who came up with the idea of a straw poll have seen no other way to get their point across. Their point is that any encyclopedic website should treat logic as king. Truth is not necessarily obtainable, but fact is. That is what Conservapedia should strive for: fact. And before anyone says that treating logic as king is atheistic or liberal, do not be too literal, because I hold other, more important things, like God and my faith, above logic. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 00:03, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::What Tim and JArneal have said I concur with. And point out that those opposing us continually misrepresent the situation, by claiming "censorship", the "right to decide what viewpoint to put", etc. Andy has never explicitly claimed that his viewpoint is sacrosanct (although that does seem to be implicit, and that view is supported by various people claiming as much; obviously they understand the thinking behind his actions also), and in fact Andy specifically said to me that truth is decided by logic and evidence. He didn't say that it's decided by what he thinks. But rather than argue logic and evidence, Andy, Bugler, and TK, in particular, are trying to silence the logic and evidence by claiming "censorship" (but never justifying that claim), the right to a viewpoint, that that it's "undeniable" (patently false), that this is supposedly all about how things are done on Wikipedia, and other red herrings that ''don't actually provide logic and evidence''! In doing so, they effectively demonstrate that they are wrong, as providing logically fallacious arguments is the resort of those that don't have good arguments! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:02, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::Philip, Tim, JArneal, what I said was, in addition to the parts you addressed is:

<blockquote>
'''"Since Conservapedia has officially eschewed a "mobocracy" what in the world is going on here? Can you gentlemen please take this where it belongs, to email? And yes, Philip, I understand your idea of the wiki format is different from what I think, what Andy thinks, what your fellow Administrators think. But you and Tim have always known that from the very beginning. It isn't like it was sprung on you by surprise, is it?"'''
</blockquote>

:::Yes, I realize you disagree. And I also realize you wouldn't accept that what you claim Andy (and others) are doing, is exactly what you (and others) did to me, at one time. No proof presented to me, nothing. No right to confront accusers, etc. But it seems to me you have a double standard, depending upon the situation, and if you agree or disagree with it. Can you, Philip, disagree with your employer, or their decisions about schedules? Are you allowed to argue publicly about cut-backs? I don't think so. Taking the job of an Admin, you by necessity forfeit certain rights others have. I think your claim of being able to wear "two hats", be at one turn an Admin, and as it suits you, an editor of equal standing with the majority of CP users, is a fallacy. I am not one of those clamoring for your removal, odd as that might seem to some. I am, however, looking for a resolution, and an end to this public family squabble short of blocking and removal as an Administrator. Someone has to give. IMO, those "someones" should be those who Andy has given his trust to, and endowed them with special rights others don't have, out of common courtesy. Can you guys please take this to email? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:17, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::Again, your analogy fails. If this was a project for Andy's purposes, and Andy's opinion, then it might hold some water. However the object is supposedly advancing the cause of truth. Therefore, truth should come before Andy's opinion, which is all that the Obama thing has become. Also for your analogy of an employer there are 2 definite differences. For one, an employee is bound to do the work of the employer because he is under contract, and being payed to do it. CP is a volunteer project, so editors should have more freedom. Secondly, as I pointed out already, CP is about truth, not about Andy, A business is about making money for the owner/shareholders, therefore all work is done to further their purposes. so your analogy fails. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 07:48, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::: TK, you haven't shown how a discussion about article content "belongs" in e-mail, I reject that it does, and I've seen nobody but you expecting that.
:::: Regarding what I "did" to you, you are wrong. You didn't want to see the proof, and you had every opportunity to confront accusers (and certainly criticised me heavily). Yes, I can disagree with my employers about schedules, and often do, but as Tim said, the situation is not the same, if for no other reason than we are talking about truth here.
:::: I fail to see how wearing two hats is "forfeit[ing] certain rights".
:::: If someone should "give", then why shouldn't it be those who are inserting POV as fact, calling others names, and failing to support their claims?
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:30, 2 December 2008 (EST)

This project is led by Andy, and leadership is necessary. Where disputes occur, he is rightly the arbiter of what constitutes truth. It is our duty to display loyalty to and respect for his judgement. What you are doing, Tim, is not only arrogant (in claiming for yourself the right to adjudicate) and wrong (the 'arguments' put forward by you and your clique hold less water than a broken sieve), but disloyal and subversive. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:56, 2 December 2008 (EST)
: "''...he is rightly the arbiter of what constitutes truth...''": I don't know how many times I've both denied this and also pointed out that not even Andy claims this, but here you go, repeating this mantra yet again, but still not substantiating your claims. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:30, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::There has to be an ultimate arbiter in the case of the endless sterile arguments of the kind that you have been fomenting, and Andy is the Leader of this project. If not him, then who? Certainly not this mysterious clique of yours, and we are most definitely not a mobocracy. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:37, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::And as for TK's comments, he is quite correct. There is such a thing as 'cabinet responsibility'. Be an administrator, or enjoy playing disloyal games (and take the consequences), but not both. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:39, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::: You know, hidden away in that comment there is actually a decent question (which I have an answer for), but until and unless you retract the unjustified slurs associated with it, you don't deserve an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:07, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::::'Injured feelings' make such a useful shield when one is on the ropes! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:53, 2 December 2008 (EST)

== Personal remarks ==

I am getting weary of reading so many personal remarks:

*didn't want to see the proof
*don't deserve an answer
*enjoy playing disloyal games
*exactly what you and others did to me
*retract the unjustified slurs
*this mysterious clique of yours
*trying to silence the logic and evidence

Now I am not suggesting we stop making important policy suggestions; just that we can do so in a more polite way. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:14, 2 December 2008 (EST)

: You missed a few, Ed:
:* you have a double standard
:* What you are doing, Tim, is not only arrogant ... but disloyal and subversive.
:* endless sterile arguments of the kind that you have been fomenting
: And that's just from posts in this section. I've yet to see you take anybody to task for labelling me "liberal".
: But the point remains, as I have pointed out before, that sometimes personal remarks are justified. I'd also dispute that "retract the unjustified slurs" is a personal remark. Rather, it's a justifiable request to retract comments that are both slurs and unjustified.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 2 December 2008 (EST)

== Compromise proposals ==

:This is getting nowhere, why not a deal? Why not something along the lines of: Andy, TK, Bugler and their posse can keep the article as they like it now until Obama is sworn into office. If Obama is sworn in on the Koran then keep the article, if he is sworn in on the Bible, then relegate the accusations/evidence of him being islamic to a lower part of the article and include some counter evidence provided by PJR, conservative, Tim and their posse. Or something along those lines, or some kind of deal. Because a compromise seems to me to be the only way forward that can potentially please both sides of this debate. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 19:02, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:: An interesting thought. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 19:04, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::As the saying goes, "very interesting, but a term that Ed Poor would rightly declare provocative". The scenario is incredible. If he is Muslim, and has been hiding it, he would hardly 'come out' at his inauguration. If he is not, he wouldn't use a Koran anyway. The likelihood - nay, certainty - that he won't use a Koran proves precisely zero. And we - that is, the 'posse' - are already compromising. It is the invisible clique that wishes to censor opposing opinion. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 19:39, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::Ok, that's fine, that's why I added "Or something along those lines". If you don't like those parameters then suggest others. The reason I'm putting this idea forward is that I have seen no attempt at compromise yet and I thought it might be worthwhile. Surely it would be better to come to an arrangement that, while not making the Obama article ideal for either side, would avoid the risk of long term rifts that could damage the future of conservapedia. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 19:46, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::*[http://www.amazon.com/Day-Reckoning-Ideology-Tearing-America/dp/0312376960 The Day of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology, and Greed Are Tearing America Apart] I don't see ''anything good coming from all this'', but then I repeat myself. It will be the doing of the ''False Prophet'' and its assembled Demons, as to the next step. Bolly, I for one, appreciate your effort at some sort of compromise, but I am afraid that Rubicon was crossed long ago, with continued reverts and argument without end. But I live with hope! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:52, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::::I, too, appreciate Bolly's efforts. The Blue Beret, honestly worn, is not dishonourable headgear. But the solution here, the only acceptable compromise, is for the 'clique' to cease their attempts at absolutist censorship and to accept compromise themselves. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 19:57, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::::::: You have ''still'' not justified the claim of "censorship", despite being called on to do so. As for compromise, see my comments below. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:14, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::::In that case, regardless of whether 'the clique' agree's with your assessment Bugler, could one of them come forward and offer a potential compromise? Once that's done, we can always debate the terms etc. but the only way forward is a sign that both sides are willing to talk. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 20:00, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::When side A wishes to present '''both''' sides of an argument, and side B wishes to censor all disagreement with its own view, the only possible compromise is for side B to accept the side A position. Anthing else is capitulationism, defeatism and appeasement. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 20:03, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::: To me, it sounds like I'm on side A and you're on side B. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:14, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::Do you consider me part of that clique, Bugler? Because I am very opposed to censorship. I just don't want to see opinions posted as facts! I believe that the articles here should be concerned only with the facts, and not opinions. However, I would be willing to compromise. I propose that all opinions and speculations about a topic be placed in a section titled "Opinions" (or something similar) in the article for that topic. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 20:06, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Prime facie evidence is posted as such, not as established fact. It is the 'clique' that is suggesting, very wrongly, that it is. We in the 'posse' just wish to see the two schools of thought presented with equal esteem, something which seems to stick in the craw of the cliquists, and to provoke them to insulting and intemperate language. I don't see you as connected with the clique, btw. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 20:10, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Much of it has been and still ''is'' posted as established fact. The article until recently said unambiguously "Obama is a Muslim", and it still says that Obama uses the "Muslim pronunciation" of Pakistan. And there's been no evidence of "the two schools of thought [being] presented with equal esteem". Where, for example, is there even the slightest hint that there is no such thing as a "Muslim pronunciation" of Pakistan? As for insulting and intemperate language, try looking in a mirror. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:14, 2 December 2008 (EST)

[unindent] Ok another suggestion: It seems, from my viewpoint, that the Obama article doesn't list many objections that the clique (that's how I'm going to refer to you guys from now on) have proposed. Why not keep the list of proof that the posse has assembled and then underneath (or above or wherever can be agreed is the best place for it) allow the clique to have a list of objections or counterclaims to the above evidence. So that way, the list is not censored and both sections receive the same layout and attention to detail etc. so they are truly equal. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 20:16, 2 December 2008 (EST)

: I much admire your efforts, Bolly, but I think that that is what talk pages are for...--'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 20:20, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::Sure, if thats where you think this should go, I only posted here because this was supposed to be a place for resolving the issues that some have with the Obama page. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 20:25, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::Of course. Though I wish you luck in trying to get your ideas across to Philip and his acolytes. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 20:29, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::::Please, Bugler, stop being divisive by labeling groups as 'cliques'. You said that "prime facie evidence is posted as such, not as established fact." You are ''almost'' correct in saying this (I will get to that later), but much of this speculation (we seem to have agreed it is speculation) comes before many undisputed facts about Barack Obama. This is the same as saying these opinions are more important than these facts. Also, the title of the section most opposed by many users, "Barack Obama will likely be the First Muslim President," is an opinion. The opinions should be put at the bottom of the page, in order to promote the importance of undisputed facts. Surely you could agree to this. I have offered multiple compromises now. Please consider them.--'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 20:53, 2 December 2008 (EST)

*I believe the "clique" remark was made by Bolly, the editor who proposed a compromise above. Does everyone need a little cooling off period? I also remind others that it isn't Bugler's decision, it is Andy's. Take a breath, everyone....have a soothing beverage! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:02, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:Yeh my bad! I just used the terms 'clique' and 'posse' to differentiate the two groups, there was absolutely no offence intended at all and I'm more then happy to change either of the names for sake of ease. But I second TK, lets all take a deep breath in and out, and move on. A lot of unpleasantness has gone before in this, why not, purely in the interests of the project, drop all of these name callings and so on. Let's just draw a line through the above and start with a clean slate. Sound good? --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 21:05, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::To Bolly's defense, Bugler was the first to use the term "clique" in this discussion. And I would gladly be discussing this with Mr. Schlafly if he would participate in this conversation.--'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 21:07, 2 December 2008 (EST)

=== My response to compromise proposal ===

I thank Bolly for attempting to find a compromise. I've never been one to accept compromising the truth with a lie, but this situation is not (as a whole) as black and white as that, so I'm prepared to consider suggestions. However, I would make the following points:
* Unless Andy agrees with a compromise, this is going nowhere.
* I consider my actions and argument so far to already be a huge compromise.
** I, along with most others (including administrators) who have expressed disagreement with the article, would like to see the entire section about Obama being a Muslim removed, along with other improvements. (For example, the statement that Obama referred to the "57 states" is in there as an "insight", not as a blooper.)
** That doesn't mean that there may not be a few valid points in that section that could be kept; just that that section as a whole should not be there.
** Even if that section was to be kept, it should not be given such prominence, including above the table of contents.
** Nevertheless, all I have tried to do ''so far'' is remove three spurious claims from that section. Only removing three spurious claims when I believe the section as a whole should be removed already is in effect a massive compromise. Yet the other side refuses to even accept ''that'' much! And at the same time they have the gall to accuse ''us'' of not accepting compromise!
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:33, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:What I'm seeing is that both sides have several points they seem willing to compromise on and some they simply won't. For example, the posse is adamant that the "Obama will likely be the first muslim president" is important and relavent and they aren't going to let it be removed. On the other hand, maybe they will agree to move the section to the first slot underneath the contents box and just have a mention of the accusations in the top section. Then a series of counterclaims can be added by the clique underneath the current list. To me, that seems like a decent compromise that, while not making everyone happy, will at least help to allieviate some of the tension. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 21:40, 2 December 2008 (EST)

He'll be the first Muslim president in about as precisely a fashion as Bill Clinton was the [[first black president]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:50, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:Ed, I understand you're position and your frustration, but I heard a saying once that "a good compromise is one that leaves everyone angry". The whole point of compromise is that you don't get everything you think you should, and the other side gets the same. The posse aren't going to just let their list be deleted. So instead, you might have to settle for it being moved and adding counter evidence. "let the reader decide" to quote several editors in this debate. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 21:53, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Montagnards

2008-12-03T02:48:00Z

Bolly: New page: The '''Montagnards''' were a faction of the Jacobins in the Convention. They were named the Montagnards (the Mountain) because they sat on the upper benches of the Assembly. There ...

The '''Montagnards''' were a faction of the [[Jacobins]] in the [[Convention]]. They were named the Montagnards (the Mountain) because they sat on the upper benches of the Assembly. There were approximately 300 Montagnard deputies, including [[Maximilien de Robespierre]], [[Georges Danton]] and [[Jean Paul Marat]]. They became the dominant faction in the Convention after the overthrow of [[Girondins]] on 2 June 1793.

[[Category:French Revolution]]

French Revolution

2008-12-03T02:43:06Z

Bolly: /* Republic */

[[Image:Delacroix La liberte guidant le peuple.jpg|250px|right|La liberte guidant le peuple]]
'''The French Revolution''' was a 1789 revolution which is oft-quoted as the beginning of the modern era. In fact a set of several revolutions in a period of unprecedented turmoil, it saw the rise of [[Robespierre]] and the [[Reign of Terror]], a chaos wherein thousands were [[guillotine|guillotined]] for political leanings and moderatism.

The French Revolution was very [[atheism|atheistic]] in nature, as radicals outlawed the Church and tried to establish a [[Cult of Reason]] in its place. The Revolution also saw the rise of [[evolution|evolutionary]] thinking, a result of extreme [[rationalism]]. It inspired fear into European moderates like [[Edmund Burke]], who realized it was proof of the danger of [[liberalism]] run amok.

Before the Revolution, [[France]] had three levels in its social system: The First, Second, and Third Estates. The [[First Estate]] was about 1% of the population, but it controlled 10% of the land. The First Estate consisted of the clergy, and they did not pay any taxes. The [[Second Estate]] was about 2% of the population and they controlled 20% of the land. These were the nobility, and they too paid very little taxes. The [[Third Estate]] was everyone else, and they were badly overtaxed by the monarch. This overtaxing was a major cause of the [[French]] Revolution.

The leaders of the Third Estate were the middle class, called the [[bourgeoisie]]. They were educated in the ideas of the [[Enlightenment]], most importantly [[Jean Jacques Rousseau]]. Rousseau's book, "The Social Contract" supported a [[direct democracy]], rather that the republican government that had been adopted in [[America]]. The social contract spoke against titles for nobility and demanded complete equality for all people.

French Revolutionary ideals, especially thanks to Napoleon, later inspired liberal and democratic movements of the 19th Century.

==Chronology of the French Revolution==

Several costly wars, the War of Austrian Succession (1740-8), the Seven Years War (1756-63) and the American War of Independence (1778-83), had reduced the government to the verge of bankruptcy. The deficit for 1786 would be 112 million ''livres'', nearly a quater of total income. Due to the poorly organised taxation system it was impossible for the King and his finance minister to make up the deficit without serious reforms. In 1787 he called a meeting of 144 leading nobles, the Assembly of Notables, to attempt to persuade them to pay tax in return for increased powers. The nobles refused his requests and were supported by the local assembly; the Parlement de Paris.

The King withdrew his demands at this challenge to his authority, which was greeted by thousands taking to the street to celebrate. When troops were ordered to "Get some lead into the bastards' backsides", they fired into the air instead. In hindsight this can be seen as the start of dissent. It is notable that the initiators of this unrest were the upper classes, who had little reason to think there was any thirst for revolution. In April 1787, [[Calonne]] resigned in disgrace and the middle classes, strengthened by the protests, began to demand the Estates-Generale, a Parliament in which they would be represented.

==1789 - Year of Revolution==

With growing unrest and France nearing bankruptcy, the King agreed to call the Estates-Generale in May 1789. The [[Estate-Generale]] was divided into the three estates, with the first two estates (nobility and clergy) electing their representatives. The third estate representation required a series of elections in which all property owners over the age of twenty-five were eligible to take part. They elected a group of electors, who in turn chose delegates. The delegates themselves were overwhelmingly middle class, including the young lawyer [[Maximilien Robespierre]]. Furthermore, the Third Estate was required to produce a list of grievances known as ''cahiers''.

Between 25,000 and 60,000 documents were filled with grievances. Thousands demanded a constitution, reorganization of the clergy, lessening of the tax burden and an end to [[Royal]] waste. Few of these demands could be resolved without challenging the basis of [[Absolute Monarchy]]. However, not one of these document has been found to advocate abolition of the monarchy, with the large majority requesting moderate reform and many including expression of adoration towards the King.

The Estates-General had not met in 175 years and retained many of its former characteristics. Each Estate had one vote in the Assembly, such that the First and Second Estates could always outvote the Third Estate. That was acceptable in the early 1600s, but the Third Estate would not allow this in 1789 after learning the Enlightenment ideas. King Louis XVI responded to the Third Estate's complaints by doubling the number of Third Estate delegates in the Estates-General. By this time the alliance between the nobility and the third estate had broken down; the nobles may have called a march, but they drew the line at burning down tax offices. The Third Estate wanted a system of one vote per delegate, which would have given the Third Estate the same number of votes as the First and Second Estate combined.

The opening of the Estates-Generale did not bode well. The opening session was in an open coach house, which meant that the Third Estate struggled to hear the proceedings as they were on wooden benches at the far end of the room. Upon the entry of the King, the first and second estates were expected to remove their hats and sit down after the King, before replacing their hats. The Third Estate were expected to remain standing until after the first and second estates had replaced their hats, however, they chose to sit at the same time as the first and second estates. The First Estate were to wear glittering robes, the second estate were to wear silk coats, whilst the third estate were required to wear black coats. There was no question at this point of rudeness towards the King himself, and at this point none of the delegates (including Robespierre) was a republican in their beliefs. There then followed a speech by [[Necker]] on possible solutions to the economic crisis, that was of such length and dullness that Necker had to pass it on to a delegate to complete.

The Third Estate began to win votes in the Estates-Generale by attracting poorer clergy to their side. On 17 June the Third Estate, accompanied by the poorer clergy, voted 490 to 90 in favour of a motion to call themselves the [[National Assembly]] and claimed that they now had the right to manage the nations affairs and taxation. In an attempt to reassert his control, the king announced that Estates-Generale was postponed until 23 June where he would announce several reforms in a ''seance royale''. However, news of the postponement did not reach the delegates of the Third Estate, who arrived on the 20 June to find the room locked.

Following a period of confusion, Dr [[Guillotin]] (one of the Third Estate delegates) suggested it might be possible to convene at a nearby indoor tennis court and the group of over 500 delegate proceeded to meet at the court. The session was chaired by Bailly (a celebrity astronomer) and Mirabeau proposed that the delegation should not break up until a constitution was passed, which was opposed by only one delegate (Martin d'Auch). In effect the delegates had declared themselves the Government of France, pending a constitution to be organized by [[Mirabeau]].

The [[National Assembly]] approved the “[[Declaration of the Rights of Man]],” which combined ideas of the [[American Declaration of Independence]] with some Enlightenment concepts. The result of this combination had many debatable claims. The entire document is short and worth reading in full: [http://www.hrcr.org/docs/frenchdec.html] .

The King responded by ordering the delegates to disperse, however this had little effect. The following week the King sent a messenger, the Marquis de Breze, to order the finishing of the session. Mirabeau ordered the messenger to leave.
[[Image:David OathHoratti.jpg|left]]
In the last week of June the royal [[Government]] ordered 20,000 troops to march on Paris. It became apparent that compromise was not working. This was emphasized with the replacement of Necker by the hard line [[Baron de Breteuil]]. Thousands took to the streets to demand the reinstatement of [[Necker]], who was at the height of his popularity and seen as the only man who could solve the taxation crisis. Mirabeau spoke to the assembly, invoking the oath taken at the tennis court. [[Camille Desmoulins]] had ridden to Versailles to report on events and galloped back to Paris to report on the replacement of Necker.

Crowds marched to [[Abbaye]] prison to demand the release of the soldiers who had been arrested for not firing on the crowds. Troops were offered drinks by the crowd if they shouted 'Viva le tiers-etat'. Dummies of [[Necker]] and [[Duc d'Orleans]] were stolen to be paraded as heroes.

The deputies were now faced with a dilemma, requiring a mass movement for defence of the National Assembly, but fearing crowds getting out of control. Militia were therefore established, that excluded all unemployed and vagrants, and many districts demanded employers' references before admission. Admission varied enormously across districts, with 1,200 being recruited in [[Le Petit-St-Antoine]], but [[Les Minimes]] mustering four.

==Storming of the [[Bastille]]==

With the militia formed to repel the royal troops, there was an urgent need for weapons. The royalist [[Swiss Guard]]s had stored 30,000 pounds in the Bastille, to be used against the National Assembly. On the morning of July 14, 1789 (“[[Bastille Day]]”), a crowd of about a thousand people made up predominantly of small tradesmen arrived at the prison to demand the gun powder be handed over. The prison Governor invited a delegation in for breakfast, which proceeded for three and a half hours. Meanwhile, rumours circulated that royalist troops were committing atrocities across Paris.

A demonstrator outside the Bastille realized he would be able to get to the chains of the drawbridge by climbing from a nearby perfume shop. At this point the prison Governor, [[De Launay]], broke off negotiations and late in the afternoon cannon shots were aimed at the crowd. Two companies of French Guards were persuaded to the Bastille to the defend protesters being killed by cannon fire.

A Swiss Guard handed over the keys to the second drawbridge, leading to a moat. A clerk from a pawn office visited a carpenter and returned with eleven pieces of wood, one of which was able to span the moat. Once inside, seven prisoners were freed, though contrary to what is widely though, this did not include the [[Marquis de Sade]] (he had been moved as he had shouting at passers by through a pipe he had been given to urinate through. This took time however, as the keys to release the cells were the same as the keys to open the first draw bridge and the man with the keys had gone home.

In total six defenders of the Bastille were killed, including De launay, and ninety protestors.

The aftermath was one of euphoria throughout much of [[Paris]]. Much of the nobility proclaimed support for the act, realizing that it was not healthy to oppose public opinion on the matter. [[Louis XVI]] recalled Necker to his job and agreed to recognise the National Assembly, which included the Third Estate delegates, poorer clergy and nobility sympathetic to the Third Estate cause. [[Lafayette]] was appointed head of the police and the army, which was to be known as the National Guard. Bailly became the Mayor of Paris.

The King agreed to come to Paris and accept the gift of a cockade that had become a symbol of the revolution, which the king fastened to his hat, whilst the crowd cheered "Vive le Roi!". Whilst the significance of the day was evident, that it would produce a republic was far from clear. The plan of the King to take Paris with 20,000 troops had failed, but he was able to satisfy the populace that it was not intended and a peaceful resolution was reached. The changes that had so far occurred in a brief period of time were so dramatic that the thought that things could change further was difficult to conceive.

==The Great Fear==

During the week following the storming of the Bastille, news of events spread to the rest of France. This led to a panic as to what the response of the nobility would be to the events, The [[Great Fear]] or panic resulted. Many villages defended themselves against imaginary threats by forming peasant militias; riots occurred and peasants proceeded to burn wealthy homes.

The rural uprising prompted the National Assembly to pass a motion to 'destroy the [[feudal]] regime entirely', on August 4th. However, in order to release himself a peasant would have to pay twenty times his annual rent to the landlord, making the measure ineffectual.

==Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen==

The Assembly also passed the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen on the 4th August. This annulled the right of nobles to demand taxes, tithes and labor from peasants working on their family land. The declaration was inspired by the American Revolution and was partially written by LaFayette.

Unlike the American declaration that “all men are created equal,” the French version declared that “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.”

Whilst the American declaration that all men have inalienable rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” the French version declared that all men have natural rights of “liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression.”

Some declarations were troublesome; “Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law” left questions of definition. Also, the rights of French people to rebel were enshrined in the very constitution itself.

The water wheel was abolished as the method of execution in place of the more humane [[guillotine]]. It is notable that the only delegate to vote for the abolition of the [[death penalty]] was [[Robespierre]].

==A New Government==

France remained a republic. Although a republic has been established in North America at this time and a previous English republic, a European republic was still alien to the thoughts of most French people, including revolutionaries. Negotiations over the new constitution continued, with Mirabeau and Lafayette appealing for calm less the King withdraw from negotiation. [[Jean Paul Marat]] took a less moderate line. Marat argued for universal suffrage and for the King to retain only an advisory role, a constitutional monarchy such as those seen in the [[United Kingdom]] or [[Sweden]] to this day.

==Royal Faux Pas==

On 1st October, 1789, a party was thrown at the [[Palace of Versailles]]. Louis XVI took the cap he had been presented with following the storming of the Bastille and trampled it underfoot. The king later denied this, however several witnesses recalled the incident and news of the incident spread to Paris. A contingent of women raided the Town Hall was raided for weapons and set off from Paris to Versailles, becoming a crowd of 10,000, who were later joined by the National Guard to ensure good order.

Upon the arrival for the group at the palace two guards opened fire, but were interrupted by decapitation. A small delegation of women were permitted to meet the Queen, however one fainted upon witnessing the beauty of the Palace of Versailles. The crowd became impatient by six o'clock the following morning and a militant group of fishwives broke in with a cry of "We are going to cut off her head, tear out her heart, fry her liver and that will not be the end of it"(Documents of the French Revolution, page 62). It was a forceful enough argument to force the Royal family back to Paris, where it was felt it would be possible to keep closer watch. It was also clear by now that the King was in no position to demand a veto.

Antoinette is reputed to have responded unsympathetically to the lack of bread for the peasants by declaring, “Let them eat cake!” Historians doubt she ever actually said that.

==Anniversary Pledge==

On the first anniversary of the storming of the Bastille a large ceremony was held in Paris at which members of the Government and the King pledges themselves to uphold the 'law, the nation and the King'. This represents a compromise in that the King was still seen as central, however all pledges had previously been to the King alone, and the King was required to make no pledge.

==1791 - The King Strikes Back==

In the two years following the storming of the Bastille French society had been transformed. There were an estimated 133 political journals in Paris, Parish priests had been dismissed and replaced by elected Priests. Robespierre had advanced plans for the emancipation of [[Jews]] and [[Protestantism|Protestants]], equal treatment of all military ranks and the abolition of the property qualification for the National Guard. Robespierre remained incorruptible at this point, refusing to be the Duc d'Orleans let the luxury affect his judgement.

This situation was intolerable for the Royal Family, who began to organize a foreign force to invade France and restore their power. In December 1790 Louis wrote a secret note to the King of Prussia requesting a European army invade France. Furthermore, the King and Queen (herself Austrian) decided to flee Paris to help organise the invasion force from without France, let their presence in Paris compromise the invasion.

The royal couple decided to disguise themselves and flee across the border, which they did at night setting off at at a seven miles in part due to the weight requirements for the Queen to travel in the least luxury that she expected. The next morning the Kings letter to the National Assembly was found condemning all the measure which he had claimed to support for the previous two years.

The royal party reached [[Ste-Menehould]], where the papers of the party were checked by Drouet, who had been a staunch supporter of the revolution. Despite having seen the servant in the corner and 'struck by the resemblance of his face to the likeness of the King printed on the bank note', in disbelief he allowed the party to continue. Having discussed the incident with his colleague, Guillaume, the two raced to catch up with the party and spread word through the surrounding villages that the Royal family were attempting to flee. The family were captured and returned to Paris, with posters informing the gathering crowd "Whoever applauds the King will be flogged; whoever insults him will be hanged".

Most delegates wished to hold together a compromise, but the Head of State fleeing to lead a hostile invasion of the nation had created difficulties. Many insisted that the King must have been kidnapped. General Bouille wrote a statement confessing his involvement, but many insisted he was lying to implicate the King. While the only punishment towards the King was stripping of his powers of veto on laws and finance, talk began to emerge for the first time of the possibility of a republic. At this point Robespierre and most of the Paris commune strongly opposed the republic, whilst Lafayette rallied to the slogan 'The Revolution is Over'. By then the French Revolution was in full swing.

==Declaration of the Rights of Woman==

In 1791, a French journalist named [[Olympe de Gouges]] proposed a “[[Declaration of the Rights of Woman]],” (inspired by the writings of [[Mary Woolstonecraft]]) but the National Assembly rejected her proposal. She, like many other leaders of that time, was eventually executed by guillotine. Other sans-culotte groups were established including the [[Society of Revolutionary Women]]

==New Start==

Politics in France became divided between the moderate [[Girondins]] and the more radical [[Jacobins]]. At this point the Girondins appeared to be in the stronger position, however the Jacobins were growing in strength. At this point the Jacobins were led by [[Robespierre]], who made a strong speech in favor of a republic.

The French National Assembly established a [[constitutional monarchy]] and, in 1791, adopted a new constitution that created a Legislative Assembly. Three factions quickly formed in the new Legislative Assembly, known as the radicals (liberals), moderates (centrists) and conservatives, similar to those political movements today in the United States. The three factions sat in different sections of the large assembly hall, with the radicals (liberals) sitting on the left, the moderates sitting in the center, and the conservatives sitting on the right. That gave rise to the left-center-right terminology that we still use today in the United States to describe these three political groups.

==German Invasion==

A large number of noblemen had gathered in [[Koblenz]] to form an army to invade France and restore the King to full rule. The emigrants carried stories of atrocities and encouraged reaction against the National Assembly and atrocities associated with lower class democracy. The Duke of Brunswick declared "We will soon be marching on Paris".

This was a matter of some concern in France, as many of the officers that had been in the French army in 1789 had joined the emigrant army in Germany. The Girondins remained confident, but Robespierre saw little cause for initial optimism. The Royal Family strongly supported war with the Prussian and Austrian force in the hope that the French would be defeated and they be restored.

On April 1792, the King declared war on the [[Hapsburg Empire]], who wished to restore his power. The French army suffered a series of defeats along the border, creating optimism in the Royal house. The National Assembly ordered the dispersal of the Kings bodyguard who were supporting the foreign invasion, but this was vetoed by the King. The Assembly then voted for 20,000 French patriots to come from across France to protect Paris, but this was also vetoed by the King.

The use of the royal veto to undermine the defense of France prompted a strong reaction, with demonstrators managing to pour into the royal apartments. The King was forced to wear a red cap while being taunted for several hours with taunts of "Fat Louis" and "Tyrants must Tremble". The time of compromise was nearing an end.

Lafayette planned a coup to restore the old order to as it was in 1787, using the National Guard. This force was resisted by a volunteer group of citizens. Traditionally this latter group are portrayed as ne'er-do-well criminals, however it is questionable whether such groups would march typically 800 miles. The volunteer groups were greeted as heroes in towns they passed through and [[Rouget de Lisle]] composed 'La Marseillaise' as a call to arms.

The war started badly for the French and on 25th July the Duke of Brunswick prepared to March on Paris and pledged to restore the French Royal Family to their original statue, but that he had no intention of meddling in the internal affairs of France. He demanded total surrender or the Prussian and Austrian armies would "take an exemplary and never-to-be-forgotten vengeance, by giving up the town of Paris to military execution..and the guilty rebels to the death they deserve".

==Second Revolution==

Paris was divided, with 20,000 signing a petition to support the full restoration of an absolute monarchy and a foreign army was invading France rapidly. Moderates such as Mme Roland supported withdrawal from Paris, whereas Maton would accept no backward step. On 10th August a larger demonstration marched on the palace demanding the removal of the King.

==Valmy==

The National Assembly called for volunteers to defend the state, with assurances that this army would be different to the one that had gone before and collapsed before the troops of the Duke of Brunswick. The soldiers would sing Les Maseillaise into battle and officers and men would wear similar uniforms. The majority of the officers would be voted for by the soldiers.

The army was formed, and the Duke of Brunswick brought his army round to meet the French on by the village of [[Valmy]]. The French were grouped around a windmill in an area of uncommon tranquillity. The battle involved a day long exchange of cannon fire with little result. The significance of the battle is that the French volunteer troops remained firm.

[[Johann Goethe]] was present at the battle, as one of the troops of the Duke of Brunswick; "In the morning we had been talking of spitting and eating the French. Now everyone was thinking again. Almost everyone remained silent. Only a few men spoke and their reflections seemed illogical or frivolous".

In the opinion of Goethe, what had changed in the French was their spirit. They had won their freedom and did not wish to return to the days before the revolution, they had debated and were politically active. They were therefore able to stand firm. The news of the battle had a strong effect on French national morale, as the French came to believe they could win.

==Republic==

On the day following the [[Battle of Valmy]], the newly elected French Government (the Convention). The Convention declared France to be an 'Indivisible Republic'. The Convention was made of three factions; the [[Girondins]], the [[Montagnards]] (including Robespierre, Danton and Marat) and the [[Grenouilles de la Marais]] or the Plain. Robespierre won an argument to allow a public gallery for debates.

All factions favored deposing the King, but were far from united beyond that point. The Montannards saw this as the first step to greater social equality, as opined by Robespierre, "Royalty has been destroyed, not the reign of equality is beginning". He attacked the wealthiest businessmen "those goods which are necessary to keep people alive as nothing more than an ordinary item of trade" - a sentiment echoed later by [[Karl Marx]]'s assertion that businessmen see objects not for their usefulness but for their value as commodities.

However, the Jocobin position was far from modern [[Socialism]], as they sought a nation of small property owners. The Government would be elected by property owners. Support for a republic was recently and had little idea of how to progress with the power they now found they had.

The Girdondins accused the Montagnards of preparing a dictatorship. However, the Girdondins had lost credibility by suggesting retreat from Paris and furthermore lacked the social roots that enabled the Montagnards to motivate thousands of volunteers. It reflects on the differing social backgrounds of the delegates that it was at this point Robespirre met a cabinet maker, M. Duplay. Duplay invited Robespierre back to his flat to meet his family and, finding that the family had been trying to let a spare room, Robespierre moved in. It is worth considering the contrast between the setting of the reign of Louis XVI to Robespierre who, whilst the most powerful man in France, has to queue behind his landlord to use the toilet in the morning.

==Trial of the King==

The King and family were detained in the Temple prison, but retained the trappings of luxury. The King had a library of 1,500 books, still ordered his shoes from his preferred cobbler and the family was provided with servants. The majority of servants remained utterly devoted to the family, feeling their employment to be a sacred duty.

This loyalty was not universal however, a former locksmith of the King revealed to the Paris Commune that there is secret cupboard containing correspondence between the King and invading powers showing collusion. Mirabeau and Lafayette were also implicated, though Mirabeau had no died and Lafayette had fled to [[Austria]].

The trial was debated by a number of key speakers. [[Louis St-Just]] debated the very validity of Kings, that to try the King as a bad King suggested it was possible to be a good, legal King, which was not acceptable. He was opposed by [[Thomas Paine]] who wished the King to be exiled to the [[USA]]. The vote was won for death by 387 to 334.

Louis XVI was executed in January 1793.

==Dechristianization movement==

The measures taken by the Convention to substitute the Revolutionary calendar for the old Christian calendar, and the decrees ordering the municipalities to seize and melt down the bells and treasures of the churches, proved that certain currents prevailed tending to the [[dechristianization]] of France.

The rest of décadi, every tenth day, replaced the Sunday rest. The "missionary representatives", sent to the provinces, closed churches, hunted down citizens suspected of religious practices. Persecution of all religious ideas began. Many churches were forcibly closed and converted into [[Cult of Reason|Temples of Reason]] <ref>John Hall Stewart, ''A Documentary Survey of the French Revolution'', Macmillan, New York, 1963.</ref>

During the first days of the Republic, provision had been made for dating public documents from "the first year of the French Republic," but no definite plan for a revised calendar had been proposed. A decree of 2 January, 1793, provided for the second year of the Republic to begin on 1 January, 1793. The new calendar took form in October and November, and lasted until 1806.

A vital force intended to sustain the political and economic terror was the creation of an ideology based on love of '' la Patrie'', "the Country" or "fatherland", and the subjugation of the individual to the collective will of whole. The Church of Notre-Dame-de-Paris became a temple of Reason, and the feast of Reason was celebrated on 10 November. The idea of honouring the fatherland, which had its origin in the festival of the Federation in 1790 gave rise to successive cults. Chamber Deputy Laloi commented they had "wiped out eighteen centuries of error".

Robespierre adopted the position that from the religious and Republican standpoint the idea of a Supreme Being was advantageous to the State, that religion should dispense with a priesthood, and that priests were to religion what charlatans were to medicine, and that the true priest of the Supreme Being was Nature. The Convention adopted a decree of which the first article was: "The French people recognize the existence of a Supreme Being and the immortality of the soul". The same decree states that freedom of worship is maintained but adds that in the case of disturbances caused by the exercise of a religion those who "excite them by fanatical preaching or by counter Revolutionary innovations", shall be punished according to the rigour of the law. Thus the condition of the Catholic Church remained equally precarious and the first festival of the Supreme Being was celebrated throughout France on 8 June, 1794. with aggressive splendour. Whereas the Exagérés wished simply to destroy Catholicism, and in the temples of Reason political rather than moral doctrines were taught. Robespierre desired that the civic religion should have a moral code which he based on the two dogmas of God and the immortality of the soul. He was of the opinion that the idea of God had a social value, that public morality depended on it and that Catholics would more readily support the republic under the auspices of a Supreme Being. <ref>Catholic Encyclopdeia, [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13009a.htm French Revolution]</ref>

==Committee of Public Safety==

The [[Committee of Public Safety]] was formed in 1793, and passed a rule that Generals were to live in camp with the army. This had the practical effect of testing the belief in equality of the many Nobles in the army. [[General Dumouriez]] made overtures to the Prince of Coburg for the invasion of France and have Louis XVI's son proclaimed King Louis XVII.

The execution of Louis XVI led almost immediately to the [[Reign of Terror]]. [[Maximilian Robespierre]], head of the Committee of Public Safety, proceeded to guillotine numerous alleged enemies, including Marie Antoinette. In a classic illustration of Jesus’s teaching that “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword,” Jacobin leaders [[Georges Danton]] (a fiery orator) was guillotined, and [[Jean-Paul Marat]] (a scientist) was stabbed to death in his bathtub.

==The Thermidorian Reaction==

By this time many countries, including [[Great Britain]], [[Spain]], the [[Netherlands]], [[Prussia]] and [[Austria]], had formed a First Coalition to invade France and restore monarchy. The National Convention responded by drafting people into an army. Historians claim women were drafted, but such a politically inspired claim is worth investigating before accepting it. The war lasted for several years, on several fronts, but the First Coalition was eventually defeated.

Robespierre made a fatal mistake on 26 July (8 Thermidor on the revolutionary calender) when he made a speech attacking colleagues who he claimed were plotting against his government. He declined to name those he suspected, allowing moderates and terrorists (here used to refer to members of the government who supported the Terror) who felt threatened a chance to act. Had he named anyone they would immediately have been arrested and executed. Instead, the next day, when Robespierre attempted to speak at the Convention he was shouted down. Finally, after a farcical arrest and release due to popular support, Robespierre was arrested a second time, and executed the same day, 28 July.

At last the government of France was in the hands of a legislature, and an executive branch of five men called the Directory. The Directory picked a young, highly successful military genius named [[Napoleon]] to lead the French army. The very next day Napoleon seized all power in France as its [[dictator]], in November 1799.

==Economic controls==

On 29 September, 1793, in the Law of the Maximum was formulated to deal with the steady rise in prices of the necessities of life. Committees of experts had been appointed to study the whole subject. Prices were set at one and one-third its price in 1790, transportation costs were regulated at a fixed rate, a 5 per cent markup was allowed the wholesaler and 10 per cent to the retailer. Bertrand Barrere declared, "The needs of the people will no longer be spied upon in order that the commercial classes may arbitrarily take advantage".

The first result was farmers produced as little as they possibly could. Scarcity increased, and the people of the large cities were put on an rationing. Many shopkeepers went out of business, and the remainder forced buyers to pay enormous charges under the very natural excuse that the seller risked his life in trading at all. That this excuse was valid is easily seen by the daily lists of those condemned to the guillotine, in which not infrequently figure the names of men charged with violating the Maximum laws. Manufactures were crippled and frequently destroyed.

To detect goods concealed by farmers and shopkeepers, a spy system was established with a reward to the informer of one-third of the value of the goods discovered. To spread terror, the Criminal Tribunal at Strassburg was ordered to destroy the dwelling of anyone found guilty of selling goods above the price set by law. The farmer often found that he could not raise his products at anything like the price required by the new law; and when he tried to hold back his crops or cattle, alleging that he could not afford to sell them at the prices fixed by law, they were frequently taken from him by force and he was fortunate if he was paid in the depreciated fiat currency or escaped execution.

The Convention decreed that any person selling gold or silver coin, or making any difference in any transaction between paper banknotes (assignats), and precious metal coin (specie) should be imprisoned in irons for six years; that anyone who refused to accept a payment in assignats, or accepted assignats at a discount, should pay a fine of 3,000 francs; and that anyone committing this crime a second time shou1d pay a fine of 6,000 francs and suffer imprisonment 20 years in irons. Later, on 8 September, 1793, the penalty for such offences was made death, with confiscation of the property of the heirs, and a reward offered to any person informing the authorities regarding any such transaction. The Convention decreed, in May 1794, that the death penalty should be inflicted on any person convicted of 'having asked, before a bargain was concluded, in what money payment was to be made".

Georges Couthon, in August 1793, proposed and won passage of a law punishing any person who should sell assignats at less than their fixed value with imprisonment for 20 years in chains, and later passed a law making investment in foreign countries punishable by death. Prisons, guillotines, enactments inflicting 20 years' imprisonment in chains upon persons twice convicted of buying or selling paper money at less than its nominal value, and death upon investors in foreign securities, still did not stop people from procuring the necessities of life by bargaining and exchange; on 1 August, 1795, the gold louis of 25 francs was worth in paper, 920 francs; on 1 September, 1,200 francs; on 1 November, 2,600 francs; on 1 December, 3,050 francs. In February 1796, it was worth 7,200 francs or one franc in gold was worth 288 francs in paper. Prices of all commodities went up nearly in proportion. <ref>Andrew Dickson White, Fiat Money: Inflation in France, Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, 1959, pp. 75-89; first published in 1912 as revised version of 1876 lecture. Reproduced in ''Choice in Currency'', F. A. Hayek, The Institute of Economic Affairs 1976, "A Note on Government Monopoly of Money in Theory and History", [http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-book409pdf?.pdf France, 1789], pgs. 34 - 38.</ref>

==Legacy of the Revolution==

The influence of the French Revolution was immense throughout the western hemisphere, as other peoples felt that they, too, could rise up against their rulers and defeat them. Historians credit the French Revolution with spreading the ideas of the Enlightenment, limiting the power of nobility and clergy, and ending an absolute monarchy. But many who supported the French Revolution in its beginning were horrified by where it led, including numerous executions and terror. Some would say that France never fully recovered, as the French Revolution unleashed a hostility towards [[Christianity]] that continues to this day in France.

==Biblliography==
* Doyle, William. ''The Oxford History of the French Revolution'' (1989). [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-oxford-history-of-the-french-revolution-by-william-doyle.jsp online complete edition]; also [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-French-Revolution/dp/019925298X/ref=sr_1_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189484963&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search ]
* Doyle, William. ''The French Revolution: A Very Short Introduction.'' (2001), 120pp; [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-french-revolution-a-very-short-introduction-by-william-doyle.jsp online edition]
* Fremont-Barnes, Gregory. ed. ''The Encyclopedia of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars: A Political, Social, and Military History'' (ABC-CLIO: 3 vol 2006)
* Frey, Linda S. and Marsha L. Frey. ''The French Revolution.'' (2004) 190pp [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-french-revolution-by-linda-s-frey-marsha-l-frey.jsp online edition], conservative approach
* Furet, François. ''The French Revolution, 1770-1814'' (1996) [http://www.amazon.com/French-Revolution-1770-1814-History-France/dp/0631202994/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197704970&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search], by the leading French conservative scholars
* Furet, François and Mona Ozouf, eds. ''A Critical Dictionary of the French Revolution'' (1989), 1120pp; long essays by scholars; conservative perspective; stress on history of ideas [http://www.amazon.com/Critical-Dictionary-French-Revolution/dp/0674177282/ref=sr_1_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189497174&sr=8-2 excerpt and online search from Amazon.com], by the leading French conservative scholars
* Jones, Colin. ''The Longman Companion to the French Revolution'' (1989)
* Jones, Colin. ''The Great Nation: France from Louis XV to Napoleon'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Great-Nation-Napoleon-Penguin-History/dp/0140130934/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197705067&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Neely, Sylvia. '' A Concise History of the French Revolution'' (2008)
* Palmer, Robert R. ''The Age of the Democratic Revolution: A Political History of Europe and America, 1760-1800.'' (2 vol 1959), highly influential comparative history; [http://www.questia.com/read/22790906 vol 1 online]
* Paxton, John. ''Companion to the French Revolution'' (1987), hundreds of short entries.
* Schwab, Gail M., and John R. Jeanneney, eds. ''The French Revolution of 1789 and Its Impact'' (1995) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-french-revolution-of-1789-and-its-impact-by-john-r-jeanneney-gail-m-schwab.jsp online edition]
* Scott, Samuel F. and Barry Rothaus. ''Historical Dictionary of the French Revolution, 1789-1799'' (2 vol 1984), short essays by scholars
* Schama, Simon. ''Citizens. A Chronicle of the French Revolution'' (1989), highly readable narrative by scholar [http://www.amazon.com/Citizens-Simon-Schama/dp/0141017279/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197705186&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Sutherland, D.M.G. ''France 1789–1815. Revolution and Counter-Revolution'' (2nd ed. 2003, 430pp [http://www.amazon.com/French-Revolution-Empire-Quest-Civic/dp/0631233636/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189597597&sr=1-1 excerpts and online search from Amazon.com]

==References==
<references/>

== See also ==

*[[Alexis de Tocqueville]]

[[Category:French Revolution| ]]
[[Category:French History]]

Conservapedia talk:Obama straw poll

2008-12-03T02:40:05Z

Bolly: /* My response to compromise proposal */

Battle of Valmy

2008-12-03T02:14:14Z

Bolly: New page: The '''Battle of Valmy''' was fought on 20 September 1792 between the French Revolutionary army and the Prussian army. 52,000 French troops fought to halt the advance of 34,000 Prussians o...

The '''Battle of Valmy''' was fought on 20 September 1792 between the French Revolutionary army and the Prussian army. 52,000 French troops fought to halt the advance of 34,000 Prussians on the capital [[Paris]]. The defeat of the Prussian troops forced their commander-in-chief, Brunswick to retreat to the fronteir. Had the French lost, the [[French Revolution]] would undoubtably have ended and the [[monarchy]] restored.

[[Category:French Revolution]]

Conservapedia talk:Obama straw poll

2008-12-03T02:05:50Z

Bolly: /* Compromise proposals */

We should probably divide it up into several issues. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:31, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:Two that come to mind are religion and birthplace. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:38, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::The number of his gaffes. --[[User:MugiK|MugiK]] 11:39, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::First Black President maybe. It seems that Andy is trying to deny him that title as well. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:Shouldn't the Obama article simply follow the example set by the other articles about politicians both in style and tone? When you compare for example [[John McCain]], [[Bill Clinton]], and [[Barack Obama]], the choice should be clear.
:"Some conservatives" (Who?) say that he's a Muslim, and "some conservatives" (Who?) insist he wasn't born in Hawaii. I'm pretty sure that "some liberals" also insisted on quite a few things when [[George W. Bush]] became President, but you don't see every accusation in the article (judging from a quick look at least). Sarah Palin did drugs, Obama did drugs, but only the Obama article says it (to be fair, at least in Palin's case, it had been legal at the time, but that doesn't make it any better in my eyes). Maybe one standard for all articles would help us more than deciding just how far to move the Obama article away from the standard set by the other articles? --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 11:53, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::Yes...Shouldn't all articles (political or not) stick to the evidence for and against, and leave the speculation and editorializing for talk pages and essays?--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 12:37, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::: Wikipedia has an ignored-when-it-suits policy of not taking sides but presenting the evidence for and against (for example, it takes sides in the creation/evolution debate). Conservapedia, in contrast, is prepared to take a stand on issues; it is concerned with ''truth'' not, (per Wikipedia), ''verifiability''.
::: The issue here as far as I'm concerned is not that Conservapedia is taking a particular view, but that the particular view is without substantiation and even contrary to some of the evidence, and therefore almost certainly untrue.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:24, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Philip, what you've repeatedly deleted (censored) from the [[Obama]] entry is factual information that is undeniably true, such as how he pronounces "Pakistan". Conservapedia never stated that Obama is a Muslim, but presents compelling evidence about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::::: And yet various people deny it, so it is simply wrong to say that it's "undeniably" true. And you have consistently failed to actually provide any substantiation of your claims (including the claim of 'censorship'), which strongly suggests that they are false, especially given that counter-arguments have been given. And given that I've already pointed out that the article ''did'' say that "Obama is a Muslim", your claim that it didn't is tantamount to a lie. (NB: I haven't read your latest posts there, so it's possible that you've recently given evidence I haven't yet seen.)

== Admin only? ==

Can I ask why this is the case? It doesn't seem particularly democratic if enfranchisement is restricted. Be wary if you start [[American Revolution|taxing me]]! [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:40, 27 November 2008 (EST)
*Because inclusive discussion has so far failed to net any agreement, see [[talk:Barack Obama]] --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:42, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:Big difference between inclusive "discussion" (yes that page is a mess) and inclusive ''voting''. But I see your point. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::Straw poll, not inclusive discussion. You all get to see who thinks what. Happy Thanksgiving. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:45, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::How about going with what Andy decides? He is the Leader of Conservapedia and has already ruled on the situation after reading and considering views from both sides. Although the poll was begun with good intentions, there is a danger that it will be misused by Liberals who have already emphatically lost the argument on the Obama talk page to try and wrest the situation back and gain some spurious authority for their plaints. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:07, 27 November 2008 (EST)[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:47, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::::Who are these Liberal administrators? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 13:29, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Oh Henry, look and read. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:54, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::::: Bugler, are you calling Andy and yourself liberals? Because it's him and you (and co.) who have "emphatically lost the argument". I also find it most ironic that you posted "How about going with what Andy decides? He is the Leader of Conservapedia and has already ruled on the situation..." with the edit comment "''Anti-democratic cliquism''"! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::It's funny you should say that. I was under the impression that it is those who deny the truth - both about Obama and the nature of discourse on Conservapedia - and who have to rely on censorship, who have lost the argument. Read what Andy says below. We present the facts, pro and con, and let readers make up their own minds. That is the conservative way, and the Conservapedia way, but it clearly is not the way of the Rayment faction. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:41, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::: Given that your side has not actually ''given'' much of an argument, you cannot possibly claim to have won it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:28, 1 December 2008 (EST)

This is an experiment to see what effect a straw poll will have on, er, 'the situation'. Can't hurt, anyway. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:47, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Rod Weathers, this arose out of a discussion on my talk page. The problem with making it unrestricted is that doing so attracts all sorts of people, including trolls, socks, parodists, and sycophants. Limiting it to those with x number of edits discriminates against those that edit carefully and in depth in favour of those who can't understand the Preview button or who are making lots of trivial changes. Limiting it to administrators is a very blunt-instrument way of limiting it to those who are theoretically more entitled to have a say. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:36, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:I see. That seems rather reasonable. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:17, 28 November 2008 (EST)
::''Limiting it to Philip and his four imaginary Liberal friends is a very blunt-instrument way of limiting it to those who are theoretically more entitled to have a say.'' [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:52, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::: Huh? What "four imaginary Liberal friends"? What are you on? This poll page is limited to administrators. The administrators are not imaginary, number more than four, and are not liberal! You didn't get ''anything'' right! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:28, 1 December 2008 (EST)
:::Are his four imaginary liberal friends supposed to include Conservative, Ed Poor, and Tim? '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 17:17, 28 November 2008 (EST)
Only one of those, Klumpers. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:39, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:Funny, I thought all of those people existed. Learn something new every day. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:31, 28 November 2008 (EST)
::That was a big l "Liberal" in Bugler's post. In Australia a Liberal is a member of a conservative political party. Anyway this is the first hint I've seen that the secret liberal clique is actually imaginary. Excuse me while I go brace myself for another block for disagreeing with Bugler.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:46, 28 November 2008 (EST)

==Great American Tradition==
In the great American democratic tradition, people who were not elected will discuss policy that will be binding on all, while not counting the views of others. {{unsigned|KimSell}}

:Am I really the only non-sysop who thinks this is a good idea? Too often the arguments on talk pages are dragged out to the point of oblivion of reason. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 16:15, 28 November 2008 (EST)

== My comment ==

I've added a comment about his religion. I probably won't be adding anything else, because I haven't looked into the other issues as much.

Contrary to the offensive labelling of me as an "Obama defender", I'm not here to defend Obama, but simply to correct a blatant untruth in calling him a Muslim.

This straw poll is going to be pointless if we don't get a large percentage of the administrators putting comments here, but at the same time, perhaps many don't have too much of an opinion, at least on every issue.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 27 November 2008 (EST)

: The "blatant untruth" is any claim that Conservapedia asserts definitively that Obama is a Muslim. Conservapedia presents the facts and the reader can decide, as with all entries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::: Until Ed Poor changed it recently, that is exactly what it said, which I have already pointed out to you. This looks like "[[liberal denial]]" [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:33, 1 December 2008 (EST)
::''Conservapedia presents the facts and the reader can decide, as with all entries.'' Smething that I have been constantly stating to Philip, only to be met with blank incomprehension and denial. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:38, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::: I wonder why Ed Poor doesn't block ''you'' for "personal remarks". And your comment is simply a false claim. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:33, 1 December 2008 (EST)
:::::And calling me a liar ''isn't'' a personal remark? You really take the biscuit sometimes. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:49, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::::: I never said that calling you a liar wasn't a personal remark. (And I didn't call you a liar.) But again, you don't address the issue, but introduce a red herring. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:05, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::The issue is whether or not the statements about Obama are factual and relevant. Simply saying "Conservapedia presents the facts" begs the question - Philip is disputing that on the Obama page Conservapedia is presenting facts. If some evidence and justification is given for why the statements on the Obama page are factual and relevant, then that should be the end of the argument. So far Philip feels that such evidence and justification has not been given. To repeat, this has nothing to do with whether or not Conservapedia ''should'' present facts and let the reader decide, and everything to do with whether or not Conservapedia ''is'' presenting the facts and letting the reader decide. [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 17:48, 28 November 2008 (EST)
::::"The facts" would include factual evidence to the contrary, as I suggested [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&oldid=571768#Suggestion_for_compromise a week ago], to no avail. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:44, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Conservapedia presents evidence. We are not arrogant dogmatists; we present evidence and facts and let the reader make up his mind. Of course, there are some minds that are too closed to be made up. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:49, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::::: Still repeating the mantra without actually addressing the issue (justifying that the claims ''are'' valid evidence). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:08, 2 December 2008 (EST)

== Nuetral light? ==

Can we not just portray him as we would a white christian republican president? It almost seems like we are just spreading rumors about our future commander and chief. --[[User:Rcollins|Rcollins03]] 19:34, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:Yes, almost. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:02, 28 November 2008 (EST)

== The Poll ==

Ed if you want this to have meaning, then you should solicit all of the active sysops. It would also be good to see that you wish to participate in your own poll. I considered putting in my own thoughts and came back to do so, but apparently I was looking at a different version of the questions. When I looked at it, the reference was to Conservapedia; it has now changed to simply be some conservatives. Shouldn't a straw poll where only admins can respond deal with conservapedia's position and our thoughts on that position? Simply making it an opinion poll doesn't mean much. If it doesn't deal specifically with Conservapedia, then why even limit it to just admins? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:39, 28 November 2008 (EST)

==Non-Sysop Opinions==

I'm adding my two cents. 
*'''Religion:''' I believe Obama is a Christian, but a liberal one who does not take the Bible literally, and who is most comfortable with worship in the Black church. I believe he has been raised in such a way that he is more familiar with the Muslim religion, and with other international things, than most Americans, but this does not make him a Muslim. I believe the concept of Takeyya/Taqiyya is meant for life-threatening situations, similar to the case of Jews in Hitler's Germany who passed as Catholics to survive. The idea that Obama was exposed to Islam as a young child, took it to heart, and then hid it for the next 30 years is not credible to me. I believe that ''any'' president of the US ''needs'' to have an understanding of Islam, as Islamic extremists are a serious threat to Western countries like ours, thus I am glad that our commander-in-chief-elect has chosen to educate himself about this religion.
*'''Birthplace:''' I believe it is most likely that he was born in Hawaii. However, his mother, father, and maternal grandparents, the people most likely to know for sure, are dead. If there was a problem, the Republicans would have found it. We need to let this one go.
*'''Political gaffes:''' I believe that Obama is a human being, just like George Bush and Sarah Palin and me. I personally could not get up there and speak perfectly 100% of the time. Instead of quote-mining and micro-analyzing these sentences, we need to look carefully at context and big-picture to get a sense of what he is all about. When we insist a quote taken out of context means something that the context makes clear was not the intent, we look foolish, and rightfully so.
* In general, as people who are trying to write an encyclopedia, we must insist on the highest standards of documentation/citations/references, and must always make it clear *who* is making these claims, and *what evidence or speculation* the claims are based on. We must be brutally honest about what information we have and where it came from - what we know and what we do not know - what is speculation and what is documented knowledge. Conservatives don't always agree on every detail. In situations where there is conflicting information and conservatives do not agree, we must present both sides (from a conservative point of view). Ultimately, our readers should be given the references to decide for themselves.
--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:57, 29 November 2008 (EST)

== It is time to end this foolish endeavor. Now. ==

*CP has an owner, it is his absolute right to have whatever viewpoint he wants. To ask any questions he wants to, to speculate as to Obama's motives and/or background. If people agree, with even a part, they should stick around and help build this place. If they don't, what other reason, ''other than being obstinate or having malicious intent'', could they have? Disagreement is fine, debate is good. But where does it end, and argument without end begin? The "truth" isn't dependent upon polls, straw or otherwise. Since Conservapedia has officially eschewed a "mobocracy" what in the world is going on here? Can you gentlemen please take this where it belongs, to email? And yes, Philip, I understand ''your idea'' of the wiki format is different from what I think, what Andy thinks, what your fellow Administrators think. But you and Tim have always known that from the very beginning. It isn't like it was sprung on you by surprise, is it?. ''It is time to end this foolish and misguided endeavor.'' --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:18, 1 December 2008 (EST)

::You say: "CP has an owner, it is his absolute right to have whatever viewpoint he wants."
::However, the point of this project is to show the truth, not one particular person's viewpoint. If Andy wants to have a website that is an outlet to display his personal opinions and make his own political commentary and political attacks, that is absolutely fine by me. However, he is portraying Conservapedia as an encyclopedia, supposedly just the truth instead of political bias. Andy has to make a decision. Either he has an encyclopedia, and starts treating it like one, or else he can have a website dedicated to his personal opinion. Either one is fine by me. However, if he wants to have the latter, then he should advertise it as such. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:48, 1 December 2008 (EST)

::(Edit Conflict with CPAdmin1) I am not sure that it is my place to answer you, TK, but I feel some things must be said. Andrew Schlafly is undoubtedly the owner of this website. He does have the absolute right to have whatever viewpoint he wants. He does have the right to ask any questions, to speculate as to Obama's motives and/or background. But he does not have the right to post these viewpoints as facts. He is not infallible. No one is. To leave the truth to any one person's judgement, even if it is Mr. Schlafly's judgement, is faulty.

::You are also absolutely correct in that truth is not dependent upon polls, or "mobocracy" either. But these people who came up with the idea of a straw poll have seen no other way to get their point across. Their point is that any encyclopedic website should treat logic as king. Truth is not necessarily obtainable, but fact is. That is what Conservapedia should strive for: fact. And before anyone says that treating logic as king is atheistic or liberal, do not be too literal, because I hold other, more important things, like God and my faith, above logic. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 00:03, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::What Tim and JArneal have said I concur with. And point out that those opposing us continually misrepresent the situation, by claiming "censorship", the "right to decide what viewpoint to put", etc. Andy has never explicitly claimed that his viewpoint is sacrosanct (although that does seem to be implicit, and that view is supported by various people claiming as much; obviously they understand the thinking behind his actions also), and in fact Andy specifically said to me that truth is decided by logic and evidence. He didn't say that it's decided by what he thinks. But rather than argue logic and evidence, Andy, Bugler, and TK, in particular, are trying to silence the logic and evidence by claiming "censorship" (but never justifying that claim), the right to a viewpoint, that that it's "undeniable" (patently false), that this is supposedly all about how things are done on Wikipedia, and other red herrings that ''don't actually provide logic and evidence''! In doing so, they effectively demonstrate that they are wrong, as providing logically fallacious arguments is the resort of those that don't have good arguments! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:02, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::Philip, Tim, JArneal, what I said was, in addition to the parts you addressed is:

<blockquote>
'''"Since Conservapedia has officially eschewed a "mobocracy" what in the world is going on here? Can you gentlemen please take this where it belongs, to email? And yes, Philip, I understand your idea of the wiki format is different from what I think, what Andy thinks, what your fellow Administrators think. But you and Tim have always known that from the very beginning. It isn't like it was sprung on you by surprise, is it?"'''
</blockquote>

:::Yes, I realize you disagree. And I also realize you wouldn't accept that what you claim Andy (and others) are doing, is exactly what you (and others) did to me, at one time. No proof presented to me, nothing. No right to confront accusers, etc. But it seems to me you have a double standard, depending upon the situation, and if you agree or disagree with it. Can you, Philip, disagree with your employer, or their decisions about schedules? Are you allowed to argue publicly about cut-backs? I don't think so. Taking the job of an Admin, you by necessity forfeit certain rights others have. I think your claim of being able to wear "two hats", be at one turn an Admin, and as it suits you, an editor of equal standing with the majority of CP users, is a fallacy. I am not one of those clamoring for your removal, odd as that might seem to some. I am, however, looking for a resolution, and an end to this public family squabble short of blocking and removal as an Administrator. Someone has to give. IMO, those "someones" should be those who Andy has given his trust to, and endowed them with special rights others don't have, out of common courtesy. Can you guys please take this to email? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:17, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::Again, your analogy fails. If this was a project for Andy's purposes, and Andy's opinion, then it might hold some water. However the object is supposedly advancing the cause of truth. Therefore, truth should come before Andy's opinion, which is all that the Obama thing has become. Also for your analogy of an employer there are 2 definite differences. For one, an employee is bound to do the work of the employer because he is under contract, and being payed to do it. CP is a volunteer project, so editors should have more freedom. Secondly, as I pointed out already, CP is about truth, not about Andy, A business is about making money for the owner/shareholders, therefore all work is done to further their purposes. so your analogy fails. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 07:48, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::: TK, you haven't shown how a discussion about article content "belongs" in e-mail, I reject that it does, and I've seen nobody but you expecting that.
:::: Regarding what I "did" to you, you are wrong. You didn't want to see the proof, and you had every opportunity to confront accusers (and certainly criticised me heavily). Yes, I can disagree with my employers about schedules, and often do, but as Tim said, the situation is not the same, if for no other reason than we are talking about truth here.
:::: I fail to see how wearing two hats is "forfeit[ing] certain rights".
:::: If someone should "give", then why shouldn't it be those who are inserting POV as fact, calling others names, and failing to support their claims?
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:30, 2 December 2008 (EST)

This project is led by Andy, and leadership is necessary. Where disputes occur, he is rightly the arbiter of what constitutes truth. It is our duty to display loyalty to and respect for his judgement. What you are doing, Tim, is not only arrogant (in claiming for yourself the right to adjudicate) and wrong (the 'arguments' put forward by you and your clique hold less water than a broken sieve), but disloyal and subversive. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:56, 2 December 2008 (EST)
: "''...he is rightly the arbiter of what constitutes truth...''": I don't know how many times I've both denied this and also pointed out that not even Andy claims this, but here you go, repeating this mantra yet again, but still not substantiating your claims. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:30, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::There has to be an ultimate arbiter in the case of the endless sterile arguments of the kind that you have been fomenting, and Andy is the Leader of this project. If not him, then who? Certainly not this mysterious clique of yours, and we are most definitely not a mobocracy. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:37, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::And as for TK's comments, he is quite correct. There is such a thing as 'cabinet responsibility'. Be an administrator, or enjoy playing disloyal games (and take the consequences), but not both. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:39, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::: You know, hidden away in that comment there is actually a decent question (which I have an answer for), but until and unless you retract the unjustified slurs associated with it, you don't deserve an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:07, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::::'Injured feelings' make such a useful shield when one is on the ropes! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:53, 2 December 2008 (EST)

== Personal remarks ==

I am getting weary of reading so many personal remarks:

*didn't want to see the proof
*don't deserve an answer
*enjoy playing disloyal games
*exactly what you and others did to me
*retract the unjustified slurs
*this mysterious clique of yours
*trying to silence the logic and evidence

Now I am not suggesting we stop making important policy suggestions; just that we can do so in a more polite way. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:14, 2 December 2008 (EST)

: You missed a few, Ed:
:* you have a double standard
:* What you are doing, Tim, is not only arrogant ... but disloyal and subversive.
:* endless sterile arguments of the kind that you have been fomenting
: And that's just from posts in this section. I've yet to see you take anybody to task for labelling me "liberal".
: But the point remains, as I have pointed out before, that sometimes personal remarks are justified. I'd also dispute that "retract the unjustified slurs" is a personal remark. Rather, it's a justifiable request to retract comments that are both slurs and unjustified.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 2 December 2008 (EST)

== Compromise proposals ==

:This is getting nowhere, why not a deal? Why not something along the lines of: Andy, TK, Bugler and their posse can keep the article as they like it now until Obama is sworn into office. If Obama is sworn in on the Koran then keep the article, if he is sworn in on the Bible, then relegate the accusations/evidence of him being islamic to a lower part of the article and include some counter evidence provided by PJR, conservative, Tim and their posse. Or something along those lines, or some kind of deal. Because a compromise seems to me to be the only way forward that can potentially please both sides of this debate. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 19:02, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:: An interesting thought. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 19:04, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::As the saying goes, "very interesting, but a term that Ed Poor would rightly declare provocative". The scenario is incredible. If he is Muslim, and has been hiding it, he would hardly 'come out' at his inauguration. If he is not, he wouldn't use a Koran anyway. The likelihood - nay, certainty - that he won't use a Koran proves precisely zero. And we - that is, the 'posse' - are already compromising. It is the invisible clique that wishes to censor opposing opinion. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 19:39, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::Ok, that's fine, that's why I added "Or something along those lines". If you don't like those parameters then suggest others. The reason I'm putting this idea forward is that I have seen no attempt at compromise yet and I thought it might be worthwhile. Surely it would be better to come to an arrangement that, while not making the Obama article ideal for either side, would avoid the risk of long term rifts that could damage the future of conservapedia. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 19:46, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::*[http://www.amazon.com/Day-Reckoning-Ideology-Tearing-America/dp/0312376960 The Day of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology, and Greed Are Tearing America Apart] I don't see ''anything good coming from all this'', but then I repeat myself. It will be the doing of the ''False Prophet'' and its assembled Demons, as to the next step. Bolly, I for one, appreciate your effort at some sort of compromise, but I am afraid that Rubicon was crossed long ago, with continued reverts and argument without end. But I live with hope! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:52, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::::I, too, appreciate Bolly's efforts. The Blue Beret, honestly worn, is not dishonourable headgear. But the solution here, the only acceptable compromise, is for the 'clique' to cease their attempts at absolutist censorship and to accept compromise themselves. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 19:57, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::::In that case, regardless of whether 'the clique' agree's with your assessment Bugler, could one of them come forward and offer a potential compromise? Once that's done, we can always debate the terms etc. but the only way forward is a sign that both sides are willing to talk. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 20:00, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::When side A wishes to present '''both''' sides of an argument, and side B wishes to censor all disagreement with its own view, the only possible compromise is for side B to accept the side A position. Anthing else is capitulationism, defeatism and appeasement. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 20:03, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::Do you consider me part of that clique, Bugler? Because I am very opposed to censorship. I just don't want to see opinions posted as facts! I believe that the articles here should be concerned only with the facts, and not opinions. However, I would be willing to compromise. I propose that all opinions and speculations about a topic be placed in a section titled "Opinions" (or something similar) in the article for that topic. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 20:06, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Prime facie evidence is posted as such, not as established fact. It is the 'clique' that is suggesting, very wrongly, that it is. We in the 'posse' just wish to see the two schools of thought presented with equal esteem, something which seems to stick in the craw of the cliquists, and to provoke them to insulting and intemperate language. I don't see you as connected with the clique, btw. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 20:10, 2 December 2008 (EST)

[unindent] Ok another suggestion: It seems, from my viewpoint, that the Obama article doesn't list many objections that the clique (that's how I'm going to refer to you guys from now on) have proposed. Why not keep the list of proof that the posse has assembled and then underneath (or above or wherever can be agreed is the best place for it) allow the clique to have a list of objections or counterclaims to the above evidence. So that way, the list is not censored and both sections receive the same layout and attention to detail etc. so they are truly equal. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 20:16, 2 December 2008 (EST)

: I much admire your efforts, Bolly, but I think that that is what talk pages are for...--'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 20:20, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::Sure, if thats where you think this should go, I only posted here because this was supposed to be a place for resolving the issues that some have with the Obama page. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 20:25, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::Of course. Though I wish you luck in trying to get your ideas across to Philip and his acolytes. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 20:29, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::::Please, Bugler, stop being divisive by labeling groups as 'cliques'. You said that "prime facie evidence is posted as such, not as established fact." You are ''almost'' correct in saying this (I will get to that later), but much of this speculation (we seem to have agreed it is speculation) comes before many undisputed facts about Barack Obama. This is the same as saying these opinions are more important than these facts. Also, the title of the section most opposed by many users, "Barack Obama will likely be the First Muslim President," is an opinion. The opinions should be put at the bottom of the page, in order to promote the importance of undisputed facts. Surely you could agree to this. I have offered multiple compromises now. Please consider them.--'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 20:53, 2 December 2008 (EST)

*I believe the "clique" remark was made by Bolly, the editor who proposed a compromise above. Does everyone need a little cooling off period? I also remind others that it isn't Bugler's decision, it is Andy's. Take a breath, everyone....have a soothing beverage! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:02, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:Yeh my bad! I just used the terms 'clique' and 'posse' to differentiate the two groups, there was absolutely no offence intended at all and I'm more then happy to change either of the names for sake of ease. But I second TK, lets all take a deep breath in and out, and move on. A lot of unpleasantness has gone before in this, why not, purely in the interests of the project, drop all of these name callings and so on. Let's just draw a line through the above and start with a clean slate. Sound good? --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 21:05, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Council of Five Hundred

2008-12-03T02:01:52Z

Bolly: New page: The '''Council of Five Hundred''' was the part of the French Government of the Constitution the Year III (1795) that introduced bills and legislation to be passed on to the [[Council of A...

The '''Council of Five Hundred''' was the part of the French Government of the Constitution the Year III (1795) that introduced bills and legislation to be passed on to the [[Council of Ancients]]. It was comprised of 500 men over the age of 30.

[[Category:French Revolution]]

Council of Ancients

2008-12-03T01:59:12Z

Bolly: New page: The '''Council of Ancients''' was part of the French Government based on the Constitution of the Year III (1795). It was made up of 250 men over the age of 40 years who would approve of or...

The '''Council of Ancients''' was part of the French Government based on the Constitution of the Year III (1795). It was made up of 250 men over the age of 40 years who would approve of or reject bills introduced by the [[Council of Five Hundred]] but they could not change the bills. Along with the Five Hundred, they were the legislative branch of the Government.

[[Category:French Revolution]]

French Revolution

2008-12-03T01:43:26Z

Bolly: /* The Thermidorian Reaction */

[[Image:Delacroix La liberte guidant le peuple.jpg|250px|right|La liberte guidant le peuple]]
'''The French Revolution''' was a 1789 revolution which is oft-quoted as the beginning of the modern era. In fact a set of several revolutions in a period of unprecedented turmoil, it saw the rise of [[Robespierre]] and the [[Reign of Terror]], a chaos wherein thousands were [[guillotine|guillotined]] for political leanings and moderatism.

The French Revolution was very [[atheism|atheistic]] in nature, as radicals outlawed the Church and tried to establish a [[Cult of Reason]] in its place. The Revolution also saw the rise of [[evolution|evolutionary]] thinking, a result of extreme [[rationalism]]. It inspired fear into European moderates like [[Edmund Burke]], who realized it was proof of the danger of [[liberalism]] run amok.

Before the Revolution, [[France]] had three levels in its social system: The First, Second, and Third Estates. The [[First Estate]] was about 1% of the population, but it controlled 10% of the land. The First Estate consisted of the clergy, and they did not pay any taxes. The [[Second Estate]] was about 2% of the population and they controlled 20% of the land. These were the nobility, and they too paid very little taxes. The [[Third Estate]] was everyone else, and they were badly overtaxed by the monarch. This overtaxing was a major cause of the [[French]] Revolution.

The leaders of the Third Estate were the middle class, called the [[bourgeoisie]]. They were educated in the ideas of the [[Enlightenment]], most importantly [[Jean Jacques Rousseau]]. Rousseau's book, "The Social Contract" supported a [[direct democracy]], rather that the republican government that had been adopted in [[America]]. The social contract spoke against titles for nobility and demanded complete equality for all people.

French Revolutionary ideals, especially thanks to Napoleon, later inspired liberal and democratic movements of the 19th Century.

==Chronology of the French Revolution==

Several costly wars, the War of Austrian Succession (1740-8), the Seven Years War (1756-63) and the American War of Independence (1778-83), had reduced the government to the verge of bankruptcy. The deficit for 1786 would be 112 million ''livres'', nearly a quater of total income. Due to the poorly organised taxation system it was impossible for the King and his finance minister to make up the deficit without serious reforms. In 1787 he called a meeting of 144 leading nobles, the Assembly of Notables, to attempt to persuade them to pay tax in return for increased powers. The nobles refused his requests and were supported by the local assembly; the Parlement de Paris.

The King withdrew his demands at this challenge to his authority, which was greeted by thousands taking to the street to celebrate. When troops were ordered to "Get some lead into the bastards' backsides", they fired into the air instead. In hindsight this can be seen as the start of dissent. It is notable that the initiators of this unrest were the upper classes, who had little reason to think there was any thirst for revolution. In April 1787, [[Calonne]] resigned in disgrace and the middle classes, strengthened by the protests, began to demand the Estates-Generale, a Parliament in which they would be represented.

==1789 - Year of Revolution==

With growing unrest and France nearing bankruptcy, the King agreed to call the Estates-Generale in May 1789. The [[Estate-Generale]] was divided into the three estates, with the first two estates (nobility and clergy) electing their representatives. The third estate representation required a series of elections in which all property owners over the age of twenty-five were eligible to take part. They elected a group of electors, who in turn chose delegates. The delegates themselves were overwhelmingly middle class, including the young lawyer [[Maximilien Robespierre]]. Furthermore, the Third Estate was required to produce a list of grievances known as ''cahiers''.

Between 25,000 and 60,000 documents were filled with grievances. Thousands demanded a constitution, reorganization of the clergy, lessening of the tax burden and an end to [[Royal]] waste. Few of these demands could be resolved without challenging the basis of [[Absolute Monarchy]]. However, not one of these document has been found to advocate abolition of the monarchy, with the large majority requesting moderate reform and many including expression of adoration towards the King.

The Estates-General had not met in 175 years and retained many of its former characteristics. Each Estate had one vote in the Assembly, such that the First and Second Estates could always outvote the Third Estate. That was acceptable in the early 1600s, but the Third Estate would not allow this in 1789 after learning the Enlightenment ideas. King Louis XVI responded to the Third Estate's complaints by doubling the number of Third Estate delegates in the Estates-General. By this time the alliance between the nobility and the third estate had broken down; the nobles may have called a march, but they drew the line at burning down tax offices. The Third Estate wanted a system of one vote per delegate, which would have given the Third Estate the same number of votes as the First and Second Estate combined.

The opening of the Estates-Generale did not bode well. The opening session was in an open coach house, which meant that the Third Estate struggled to hear the proceedings as they were on wooden benches at the far end of the room. Upon the entry of the King, the first and second estates were expected to remove their hats and sit down after the King, before replacing their hats. The Third Estate were expected to remain standing until after the first and second estates had replaced their hats, however, they chose to sit at the same time as the first and second estates. The First Estate were to wear glittering robes, the second estate were to wear silk coats, whilst the third estate were required to wear black coats. There was no question at this point of rudeness towards the King himself, and at this point none of the delegates (including Robespierre) was a republican in their beliefs. There then followed a speech by [[Necker]] on possible solutions to the economic crisis, that was of such length and dullness that Necker had to pass it on to a delegate to complete.

The Third Estate began to win votes in the Estates-Generale by attracting poorer clergy to their side. On 17 June the Third Estate, accompanied by the poorer clergy, voted 490 to 90 in favour of a motion to call themselves the [[National Assembly]] and claimed that they now had the right to manage the nations affairs and taxation. In an attempt to reassert his control, the king announced that Estates-Generale was postponed until 23 June where he would announce several reforms in a ''seance royale''. However, news of the postponement did not reach the delegates of the Third Estate, who arrived on the 20 June to find the room locked.

Following a period of confusion, Dr [[Guillotin]] (one of the Third Estate delegates) suggested it might be possible to convene at a nearby indoor tennis court and the group of over 500 delegate proceeded to meet at the court. The session was chaired by Bailly (a celebrity astronomer) and Mirabeau proposed that the delegation should not break up until a constitution was passed, which was opposed by only one delegate (Martin d'Auch). In effect the delegates had declared themselves the Government of France, pending a constitution to be organized by [[Mirabeau]].

The [[National Assembly]] approved the “[[Declaration of the Rights of Man]],” which combined ideas of the [[American Declaration of Independence]] with some Enlightenment concepts. The result of this combination had many debatable claims. The entire document is short and worth reading in full: [http://www.hrcr.org/docs/frenchdec.html] .

The King responded by ordering the delegates to disperse, however this had little effect. The following week the King sent a messenger, the Marquis de Breze, to order the finishing of the session. Mirabeau ordered the messenger to leave.
[[Image:David OathHoratti.jpg|left]]
In the last week of June the royal [[Government]] ordered 20,000 troops to march on Paris. It became apparent that compromise was not working. This was emphasized with the replacement of Necker by the hard line [[Baron de Breteuil]]. Thousands took to the streets to demand the reinstatement of [[Necker]], who was at the height of his popularity and seen as the only man who could solve the taxation crisis. Mirabeau spoke to the assembly, invoking the oath taken at the tennis court. [[Camille Desmoulins]] had ridden to Versailles to report on events and galloped back to Paris to report on the replacement of Necker.

Crowds marched to [[Abbaye]] prison to demand the release of the soldiers who had been arrested for not firing on the crowds. Troops were offered drinks by the crowd if they shouted 'Viva le tiers-etat'. Dummies of [[Necker]] and [[Duc d'Orleans]] were stolen to be paraded as heroes.

The deputies were now faced with a dilemma, requiring a mass movement for defence of the National Assembly, but fearing crowds getting out of control. Militia were therefore established, that excluded all unemployed and vagrants, and many districts demanded employers' references before admission. Admission varied enormously across districts, with 1,200 being recruited in [[Le Petit-St-Antoine]], but [[Les Minimes]] mustering four.

==Storming of the [[Bastille]]==

With the militia formed to repel the royal troops, there was an urgent need for weapons. The royalist [[Swiss Guard]]s had stored 30,000 pounds in the Bastille, to be used against the National Assembly. On the morning of July 14, 1789 (“[[Bastille Day]]”), a crowd of about a thousand people made up predominantly of small tradesmen arrived at the prison to demand the gun powder be handed over. The prison Governor invited a delegation in for breakfast, which proceeded for three and a half hours. Meanwhile, rumours circulated that royalist troops were committing atrocities across Paris.

A demonstrator outside the Bastille realized he would be able to get to the chains of the drawbridge by climbing from a nearby perfume shop. At this point the prison Governor, [[De Launay]], broke off negotiations and late in the afternoon cannon shots were aimed at the crowd. Two companies of French Guards were persuaded to the Bastille to the defend protesters being killed by cannon fire.

A Swiss Guard handed over the keys to the second drawbridge, leading to a moat. A clerk from a pawn office visited a carpenter and returned with eleven pieces of wood, one of which was able to span the moat. Once inside, seven prisoners were freed, though contrary to what is widely though, this did not include the [[Marquis de Sade]] (he had been moved as he had shouting at passers by through a pipe he had been given to urinate through. This took time however, as the keys to release the cells were the same as the keys to open the first draw bridge and the man with the keys had gone home.

In total six defenders of the Bastille were killed, including De launay, and ninety protestors.

The aftermath was one of euphoria throughout much of [[Paris]]. Much of the nobility proclaimed support for the act, realizing that it was not healthy to oppose public opinion on the matter. [[Louis XVI]] recalled Necker to his job and agreed to recognise the National Assembly, which included the Third Estate delegates, poorer clergy and nobility sympathetic to the Third Estate cause. [[Lafayette]] was appointed head of the police and the army, which was to be known as the National Guard. Bailly became the Mayor of Paris.

The King agreed to come to Paris and accept the gift of a cockade that had become a symbol of the revolution, which the king fastened to his hat, whilst the crowd cheered "Vive le Roi!". Whilst the significance of the day was evident, that it would produce a republic was far from clear. The plan of the King to take Paris with 20,000 troops had failed, but he was able to satisfy the populace that it was not intended and a peaceful resolution was reached. The changes that had so far occurred in a brief period of time were so dramatic that the thought that things could change further was difficult to conceive.

==The Great Fear==

During the week following the storming of the Bastille, news of events spread to the rest of France. This led to a panic as to what the response of the nobility would be to the events, The [[Great Fear]] or panic resulted. Many villages defended themselves against imaginary threats by forming peasant militias; riots occurred and peasants proceeded to burn wealthy homes.

The rural uprising prompted the National Assembly to pass a motion to 'destroy the [[feudal]] regime entirely', on August 4th. However, in order to release himself a peasant would have to pay twenty times his annual rent to the landlord, making the measure ineffectual.

==Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen==

The Assembly also passed the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen on the 4th August. This annulled the right of nobles to demand taxes, tithes and labor from peasants working on their family land. The declaration was inspired by the American Revolution and was partially written by LaFayette.

Unlike the American declaration that “all men are created equal,” the French version declared that “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.”

Whilst the American declaration that all men have inalienable rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” the French version declared that all men have natural rights of “liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression.”

Some declarations were troublesome; “Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law” left questions of definition. Also, the rights of French people to rebel were enshrined in the very constitution itself.

The water wheel was abolished as the method of execution in place of the more humane [[guillotine]]. It is notable that the only delegate to vote for the abolition of the [[death penalty]] was [[Robespierre]].

==A New Government==

France remained a republic. Although a republic has been established in North America at this time and a previous English republic, a European republic was still alien to the thoughts of most French people, including revolutionaries. Negotiations over the new constitution continued, with Mirabeau and Lafayette appealing for calm less the King withdraw from negotiation. [[Jean Paul Marat]] took a less moderate line. Marat argued for universal suffrage and for the King to retain only an advisory role, a constitutional monarchy such as those seen in the [[United Kingdom]] or [[Sweden]] to this day.

==Royal Faux Pas==

On 1st October, 1789, a party was thrown at the [[Palace of Versailles]]. Louis XVI took the cap he had been presented with following the storming of the Bastille and trampled it underfoot. The king later denied this, however several witnesses recalled the incident and news of the incident spread to Paris. A contingent of women raided the Town Hall was raided for weapons and set off from Paris to Versailles, becoming a crowd of 10,000, who were later joined by the National Guard to ensure good order.

Upon the arrival for the group at the palace two guards opened fire, but were interrupted by decapitation. A small delegation of women were permitted to meet the Queen, however one fainted upon witnessing the beauty of the Palace of Versailles. The crowd became impatient by six o'clock the following morning and a militant group of fishwives broke in with a cry of "We are going to cut off her head, tear out her heart, fry her liver and that will not be the end of it"(Documents of the French Revolution, page 62). It was a forceful enough argument to force the Royal family back to Paris, where it was felt it would be possible to keep closer watch. It was also clear by now that the King was in no position to demand a veto.

Antoinette is reputed to have responded unsympathetically to the lack of bread for the peasants by declaring, “Let them eat cake!” Historians doubt she ever actually said that.

==Anniversary Pledge==

On the first anniversary of the storming of the Bastille a large ceremony was held in Paris at which members of the Government and the King pledges themselves to uphold the 'law, the nation and the King'. This represents a compromise in that the King was still seen as central, however all pledges had previously been to the King alone, and the King was required to make no pledge.

==1791 - The King Strikes Back==

In the two years following the storming of the Bastille French society had been transformed. There were an estimated 133 political journals in Paris, Parish priests had been dismissed and replaced by elected Priests. Robespierre had advanced plans for the emancipation of [[Jews]] and [[Protestantism|Protestants]], equal treatment of all military ranks and the abolition of the property qualification for the National Guard. Robespierre remained incorruptible at this point, refusing to be the Duc d'Orleans let the luxury affect his judgement.

This situation was intolerable for the Royal Family, who began to organize a foreign force to invade France and restore their power. In December 1790 Louis wrote a secret note to the King of Prussia requesting a European army invade France. Furthermore, the King and Queen (herself Austrian) decided to flee Paris to help organise the invasion force from without France, let their presence in Paris compromise the invasion.

The royal couple decided to disguise themselves and flee across the border, which they did at night setting off at at a seven miles in part due to the weight requirements for the Queen to travel in the least luxury that she expected. The next morning the Kings letter to the National Assembly was found condemning all the measure which he had claimed to support for the previous two years.

The royal party reached [[Ste-Menehould]], where the papers of the party were checked by Drouet, who had been a staunch supporter of the revolution. Despite having seen the servant in the corner and 'struck by the resemblance of his face to the likeness of the King printed on the bank note', in disbelief he allowed the party to continue. Having discussed the incident with his colleague, Guillaume, the two raced to catch up with the party and spread word through the surrounding villages that the Royal family were attempting to flee. The family were captured and returned to Paris, with posters informing the gathering crowd "Whoever applauds the King will be flogged; whoever insults him will be hanged".

Most delegates wished to hold together a compromise, but the Head of State fleeing to lead a hostile invasion of the nation had created difficulties. Many insisted that the King must have been kidnapped. General Bouille wrote a statement confessing his involvement, but many insisted he was lying to implicate the King. While the only punishment towards the King was stripping of his powers of veto on laws and finance, talk began to emerge for the first time of the possibility of a republic. At this point Robespierre and most of the Paris commune strongly opposed the republic, whilst Lafayette rallied to the slogan 'The Revolution is Over'. By then the French Revolution was in full swing.

==Declaration of the Rights of Woman==

In 1791, a French journalist named [[Olympe de Gouges]] proposed a “[[Declaration of the Rights of Woman]],” (inspired by the writings of [[Mary Woolstonecraft]]) but the National Assembly rejected her proposal. She, like many other leaders of that time, was eventually executed by guillotine. Other sans-culotte groups were established including the [[Society of Revolutionary Women]]

==New Start==

Politics in France became divided between the moderate [[Girondins]] and the more radical [[Jacobins]]. At this point the Girondins appeared to be in the stronger position, however the Jacobins were growing in strength. At this point the Jacobins were led by [[Robespierre]], who made a strong speech in favor of a republic.

The French National Assembly established a [[constitutional monarchy]] and, in 1791, adopted a new constitution that created a Legislative Assembly. Three factions quickly formed in the new Legislative Assembly, known as the radicals (liberals), moderates (centrists) and conservatives, similar to those political movements today in the United States. The three factions sat in different sections of the large assembly hall, with the radicals (liberals) sitting on the left, the moderates sitting in the center, and the conservatives sitting on the right. That gave rise to the left-center-right terminology that we still use today in the United States to describe these three political groups.

==German Invasion==

A large number of noblemen had gathered in [[Koblenz]] to form an army to invade France and restore the King to full rule. The emigrants carried stories of atrocities and encouraged reaction against the National Assembly and atrocities associated with lower class democracy. The Duke of Brunswick declared "We will soon be marching on Paris".

This was a matter of some concern in France, as many of the officers that had been in the French army in 1789 had joined the emigrant army in Germany. The Girondins remained confident, but Robespierre saw little cause for initial optimism. The Royal Family strongly supported war with the Prussian and Austrian force in the hope that the French would be defeated and they be restored.

On April 1792, the King declared war on the [[Hapsburg Empire]], who wished to restore his power. The French army suffered a series of defeats along the border, creating optimism in the Royal house. The National Assembly ordered the dispersal of the Kings bodyguard who were supporting the foreign invasion, but this was vetoed by the King. The Assembly then voted for 20,000 French patriots to come from across France to protect Paris, but this was also vetoed by the King.

The use of the royal veto to undermine the defense of France prompted a strong reaction, with demonstrators managing to pour into the royal apartments. The King was forced to wear a red cap while being taunted for several hours with taunts of "Fat Louis" and "Tyrants must Tremble". The time of compromise was nearing an end.

Lafayette planned a coup to restore the old order to as it was in 1787, using the National Guard. This force was resisted by a volunteer group of citizens. Traditionally this latter group are portrayed as ne'er-do-well criminals, however it is questionable whether such groups would march typically 800 miles. The volunteer groups were greeted as heroes in towns they passed through and [[Rouget de Lisle]] composed 'La Marseillaise' as a call to arms.

The war started badly for the French and on 25th July the Duke of Brunswick prepared to March on Paris and pledged to restore the French Royal Family to their original statue, but that he had no intention of meddling in the internal affairs of France. He demanded total surrender or the Prussian and Austrian armies would "take an exemplary and never-to-be-forgotten vengeance, by giving up the town of Paris to military execution..and the guilty rebels to the death they deserve".

==Second Revolution==

Paris was divided, with 20,000 signing a petition to support the full restoration of an absolute monarchy and a foreign army was invading France rapidly. Moderates such as Mme Roland supported withdrawal from Paris, whereas Maton would accept no backward step. On 10th August a larger demonstration marched on the palace demanding the removal of the King.

==Valmy==

The National Assembly called for volunteers to defend the state, with assurances that this army would be different to the one that had gone before and collapsed before the troops of the Duke of Brunswick. The soldiers would sing Les Maseillaise into battle and officers and men would wear similar uniforms. The majority of the officers would be voted for by the soldiers.

The army was formed, and the Duke of Brunswick brought his army round to meet the French on by the village of [[Valmy]]. The French were grouped around a windmill in an area of uncommon tranquillity. The battle involved a day long exchange of cannon fire with little result. The significance of the battle is that the French volunteer troops remained firm.

[[Johann Goethe]] was present at the battle, as one of the troops of the Duke of Brunswick; "In the morning we had been talking of spitting and eating the French. Now everyone was thinking again. Almost everyone remained silent. Only a few men spoke and their reflections seemed illogical or frivolous".

In the opinion of Goethe, what had changed in the French was their spirit. They had won their freedom and did not wish to return to the days before the revolution, they had debated and were politically active. They were therefore able to stand firm. The news of the battle had a strong effect on French national morale, as the French came to believe they could win.

==Republic==

On the day following the [[Battle of Valmy]], the newly elected French Government (the Convention). The Convention declared France to be an 'Indivisible Republic'. The Convention was made of three factions; the [[Girondins]], the [[Montagnards]] Including Robespierre, Danton and Marat) and the [[Grenouilles de la Marais]]. Robespierre won an argument to allow a public gallery for debates.

All factions favored deposing the King, but were far from united beyond that point. The Montannards saw this as the first step to greater social equality, as opined by Robespierre, "Royalty has been destroyed, not the reign of equality is beginning". He attacked the wealthiest businessmen "those goods which are necessary to keep people alive as nothing more than an ordinary item of trade" - a sentiment echoed later by [[Karl Marx]]'s assertion that businessmen see objects not for their usefulness but for their value as commodities.

However, the Jocobin position was far from modern [[Socialism]], as they sought a nation of small property owners. The Government would be elected by property owners. Support for a republic was recently and had little idea of how to progress with the power they now found they had.

The Girdondins accused the Montagnards of preparing a dictatorship. However, the Girdondins had lost credibility by suggesting retreat from Paris and furthermore lacked the social roots that enabled the Montagnards to motivate thousands of volunteers. It reflects on the differing social backgrounds of the delegates that it was at this point Robespirre met a cabinet maker, M. {{Duplay]]. Duplay invited Robespierre back to his flat to meet his family and, finding that the family had been trying to let a spare room, Robespierre moved in. It is worth considering the contrast between the setting of the reign of Louis XVI to Robespierre who, whilst the most powerful man in France, has to queue behind his landlord to use the toilet in the morning.

==Trial of the King==

The King and family were detained in the Temple prison, but retained the trappings of luxury. The King had a library of 1,500 books, still ordered his shoes from his preferred cobbler and the family was provided with servants. The majority of servants remained utterly devoted to the family, feeling their employment to be a sacred duty.

This loyalty was not universal however, a former locksmith of the King revealed to the Paris Commune that there is secret cupboard containing correspondence between the King and invading powers showing collusion. Mirabeau and Lafayette were also implicated, though Mirabeau had no died and Lafayette had fled to [[Austria]].

The trial was debated by a number of key speakers. [[Louis St-Just]] debated the very validity of Kings, that to try the King as a bad King suggested it was possible to be a good, legal King, which was not acceptable. He was opposed by [[Thomas Paine]] who wished the King to be exiled to the [[USA]]. The vote was won for death by 387 to 334.

Louis XVI was executed in January 1793.

==Dechristianization movement==

The measures taken by the Convention to substitute the Revolutionary calendar for the old Christian calendar, and the decrees ordering the municipalities to seize and melt down the bells and treasures of the churches, proved that certain currents prevailed tending to the [[dechristianization]] of France.

The rest of décadi, every tenth day, replaced the Sunday rest. The "missionary representatives", sent to the provinces, closed churches, hunted down citizens suspected of religious practices. Persecution of all religious ideas began. Many churches were forcibly closed and converted into [[Cult of Reason|Temples of Reason]] <ref>John Hall Stewart, ''A Documentary Survey of the French Revolution'', Macmillan, New York, 1963.</ref>

During the first days of the Republic, provision had been made for dating public documents from "the first year of the French Republic," but no definite plan for a revised calendar had been proposed. A decree of 2 January, 1793, provided for the second year of the Republic to begin on 1 January, 1793. The new calendar took form in October and November, and lasted until 1806.

A vital force intended to sustain the political and economic terror was the creation of an ideology based on love of '' la Patrie'', "the Country" or "fatherland", and the subjugation of the individual to the collective will of whole. The Church of Notre-Dame-de-Paris became a temple of Reason, and the feast of Reason was celebrated on 10 November. The idea of honouring the fatherland, which had its origin in the festival of the Federation in 1790 gave rise to successive cults. Chamber Deputy Laloi commented they had "wiped out eighteen centuries of error".

Robespierre adopted the position that from the religious and Republican standpoint the idea of a Supreme Being was advantageous to the State, that religion should dispense with a priesthood, and that priests were to religion what charlatans were to medicine, and that the true priest of the Supreme Being was Nature. The Convention adopted a decree of which the first article was: "The French people recognize the existence of a Supreme Being and the immortality of the soul". The same decree states that freedom of worship is maintained but adds that in the case of disturbances caused by the exercise of a religion those who "excite them by fanatical preaching or by counter Revolutionary innovations", shall be punished according to the rigour of the law. Thus the condition of the Catholic Church remained equally precarious and the first festival of the Supreme Being was celebrated throughout France on 8 June, 1794. with aggressive splendour. Whereas the Exagérés wished simply to destroy Catholicism, and in the temples of Reason political rather than moral doctrines were taught. Robespierre desired that the civic religion should have a moral code which he based on the two dogmas of God and the immortality of the soul. He was of the opinion that the idea of God had a social value, that public morality depended on it and that Catholics would more readily support the republic under the auspices of a Supreme Being. <ref>Catholic Encyclopdeia, [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13009a.htm French Revolution]</ref>

==Committee of Public Safety==

The [[Committee of Public Safety]] was formed in 1793, and passed a rule that Generals were to live in camp with the army. This had the practical effect of testing the belief in equality of the many Nobles in the army. [[General Dumouriez]] made overtures to the Prince of Coburg for the invasion of France and have Louis XVI's son proclaimed King Louis XVII.

The execution of Louis XVI led almost immediately to the [[Reign of Terror]]. [[Maximilian Robespierre]], head of the Committee of Public Safety, proceeded to guillotine numerous alleged enemies, including Marie Antoinette. In a classic illustration of Jesus’s teaching that “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword,” Jacobin leaders [[Georges Danton]] (a fiery orator) was guillotined, and [[Jean-Paul Marat]] (a scientist) was stabbed to death in his bathtub.

==The Thermidorian Reaction==

By this time many countries, including [[Great Britain]], [[Spain]], the [[Netherlands]], [[Prussia]] and [[Austria]], had formed a First Coalition to invade France and restore monarchy. The National Convention responded by drafting people into an army. Historians claim women were drafted, but such a politically inspired claim is worth investigating before accepting it. The war lasted for several years, on several fronts, but the First Coalition was eventually defeated.

Robespierre made a fatal mistake on 26 July (8 Thermidor on the revolutionary calender) when he made a speech attacking colleagues who he claimed were plotting against his government. He declined to name those he suspected, allowing moderates and terrorists (here used to refer to members of the government who supported the Terror) who felt threatened a chance to act. Had he named anyone they would immediately have been arrested and executed. Instead, the next day, when Robespierre attempted to speak at the Convention he was shouted down. Finally, after a farcical arrest and release due to popular support, Robespierre was arrested a second time, and executed the same day, 28 July.

At last the government of France was in the hands of a legislature, and an executive branch of five men called the Directory. The Directory picked a young, highly successful military genius named [[Napoleon]] to lead the French army. The very next day Napoleon seized all power in France as its [[dictator]], in November 1799.

==Economic controls==

On 29 September, 1793, in the Law of the Maximum was formulated to deal with the steady rise in prices of the necessities of life. Committees of experts had been appointed to study the whole subject. Prices were set at one and one-third its price in 1790, transportation costs were regulated at a fixed rate, a 5 per cent markup was allowed the wholesaler and 10 per cent to the retailer. Bertrand Barrere declared, "The needs of the people will no longer be spied upon in order that the commercial classes may arbitrarily take advantage".

The first result was farmers produced as little as they possibly could. Scarcity increased, and the people of the large cities were put on an rationing. Many shopkeepers went out of business, and the remainder forced buyers to pay enormous charges under the very natural excuse that the seller risked his life in trading at all. That this excuse was valid is easily seen by the daily lists of those condemned to the guillotine, in which not infrequently figure the names of men charged with violating the Maximum laws. Manufactures were crippled and frequently destroyed.

To detect goods concealed by farmers and shopkeepers, a spy system was established with a reward to the informer of one-third of the value of the goods discovered. To spread terror, the Criminal Tribunal at Strassburg was ordered to destroy the dwelling of anyone found guilty of selling goods above the price set by law. The farmer often found that he could not raise his products at anything like the price required by the new law; and when he tried to hold back his crops or cattle, alleging that he could not afford to sell them at the prices fixed by law, they were frequently taken from him by force and he was fortunate if he was paid in the depreciated fiat currency or escaped execution.

The Convention decreed that any person selling gold or silver coin, or making any difference in any transaction between paper banknotes (assignats), and precious metal coin (specie) should be imprisoned in irons for six years; that anyone who refused to accept a payment in assignats, or accepted assignats at a discount, should pay a fine of 3,000 francs; and that anyone committing this crime a second time shou1d pay a fine of 6,000 francs and suffer imprisonment 20 years in irons. Later, on 8 September, 1793, the penalty for such offences was made death, with confiscation of the property of the heirs, and a reward offered to any person informing the authorities regarding any such transaction. The Convention decreed, in May 1794, that the death penalty should be inflicted on any person convicted of 'having asked, before a bargain was concluded, in what money payment was to be made".

Georges Couthon, in August 1793, proposed and won passage of a law punishing any person who should sell assignats at less than their fixed value with imprisonment for 20 years in chains, and later passed a law making investment in foreign countries punishable by death. Prisons, guillotines, enactments inflicting 20 years' imprisonment in chains upon persons twice convicted of buying or selling paper money at less than its nominal value, and death upon investors in foreign securities, still did not stop people from procuring the necessities of life by bargaining and exchange; on 1 August, 1795, the gold louis of 25 francs was worth in paper, 920 francs; on 1 September, 1,200 francs; on 1 November, 2,600 francs; on 1 December, 3,050 francs. In February 1796, it was worth 7,200 francs or one franc in gold was worth 288 francs in paper. Prices of all commodities went up nearly in proportion. <ref>Andrew Dickson White, Fiat Money: Inflation in France, Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, 1959, pp. 75-89; first published in 1912 as revised version of 1876 lecture. Reproduced in ''Choice in Currency'', F. A. Hayek, The Institute of Economic Affairs 1976, "A Note on Government Monopoly of Money in Theory and History", [http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-book409pdf?.pdf France, 1789], pgs. 34 - 38.</ref>

==Legacy of the Revolution==

The influence of the French Revolution was immense throughout the western hemisphere, as other peoples felt that they, too, could rise up against their rulers and defeat them. Historians credit the French Revolution with spreading the ideas of the Enlightenment, limiting the power of nobility and clergy, and ending an absolute monarchy. But many who supported the French Revolution in its beginning were horrified by where it led, including numerous executions and terror. Some would say that France never fully recovered, as the French Revolution unleashed a hostility towards [[Christianity]] that continues to this day in France.

==Biblliography==
* Doyle, William. ''The Oxford History of the French Revolution'' (1989). [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-oxford-history-of-the-french-revolution-by-william-doyle.jsp online complete edition]; also [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-French-Revolution/dp/019925298X/ref=sr_1_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189484963&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search ]
* Doyle, William. ''The French Revolution: A Very Short Introduction.'' (2001), 120pp; [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-french-revolution-a-very-short-introduction-by-william-doyle.jsp online edition]
* Fremont-Barnes, Gregory. ed. ''The Encyclopedia of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars: A Political, Social, and Military History'' (ABC-CLIO: 3 vol 2006)
* Frey, Linda S. and Marsha L. Frey. ''The French Revolution.'' (2004) 190pp [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-french-revolution-by-linda-s-frey-marsha-l-frey.jsp online edition], conservative approach
* Furet, François. ''The French Revolution, 1770-1814'' (1996) [http://www.amazon.com/French-Revolution-1770-1814-History-France/dp/0631202994/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197704970&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search], by the leading French conservative scholars
* Furet, François and Mona Ozouf, eds. ''A Critical Dictionary of the French Revolution'' (1989), 1120pp; long essays by scholars; conservative perspective; stress on history of ideas [http://www.amazon.com/Critical-Dictionary-French-Revolution/dp/0674177282/ref=sr_1_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189497174&sr=8-2 excerpt and online search from Amazon.com], by the leading French conservative scholars
* Jones, Colin. ''The Longman Companion to the French Revolution'' (1989)
* Jones, Colin. ''The Great Nation: France from Louis XV to Napoleon'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Great-Nation-Napoleon-Penguin-History/dp/0140130934/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197705067&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Neely, Sylvia. '' A Concise History of the French Revolution'' (2008)
* Palmer, Robert R. ''The Age of the Democratic Revolution: A Political History of Europe and America, 1760-1800.'' (2 vol 1959), highly influential comparative history; [http://www.questia.com/read/22790906 vol 1 online]
* Paxton, John. ''Companion to the French Revolution'' (1987), hundreds of short entries.
* Schwab, Gail M., and John R. Jeanneney, eds. ''The French Revolution of 1789 and Its Impact'' (1995) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-french-revolution-of-1789-and-its-impact-by-john-r-jeanneney-gail-m-schwab.jsp online edition]
* Scott, Samuel F. and Barry Rothaus. ''Historical Dictionary of the French Revolution, 1789-1799'' (2 vol 1984), short essays by scholars
* Schama, Simon. ''Citizens. A Chronicle of the French Revolution'' (1989), highly readable narrative by scholar [http://www.amazon.com/Citizens-Simon-Schama/dp/0141017279/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197705186&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Sutherland, D.M.G. ''France 1789–1815. Revolution and Counter-Revolution'' (2nd ed. 2003, 430pp [http://www.amazon.com/French-Revolution-Empire-Quest-Civic/dp/0631233636/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189597597&sr=1-1 excerpts and online search from Amazon.com]

==References==
<references/>

== See also ==

*[[Alexis de Tocqueville]]

[[Category:French Revolution| ]]
[[Category:French History]]

French Revolution

2008-12-03T01:33:46Z

Bolly: /* Committee of Public Safety */

[[Image:Delacroix La liberte guidant le peuple.jpg|250px|right|La liberte guidant le peuple]]
'''The French Revolution''' was a 1789 revolution which is oft-quoted as the beginning of the modern era. In fact a set of several revolutions in a period of unprecedented turmoil, it saw the rise of [[Robespierre]] and the [[Reign of Terror]], a chaos wherein thousands were [[guillotine|guillotined]] for political leanings and moderatism.

The French Revolution was very [[atheism|atheistic]] in nature, as radicals outlawed the Church and tried to establish a [[Cult of Reason]] in its place. The Revolution also saw the rise of [[evolution|evolutionary]] thinking, a result of extreme [[rationalism]]. It inspired fear into European moderates like [[Edmund Burke]], who realized it was proof of the danger of [[liberalism]] run amok.

Before the Revolution, [[France]] had three levels in its social system: The First, Second, and Third Estates. The [[First Estate]] was about 1% of the population, but it controlled 10% of the land. The First Estate consisted of the clergy, and they did not pay any taxes. The [[Second Estate]] was about 2% of the population and they controlled 20% of the land. These were the nobility, and they too paid very little taxes. The [[Third Estate]] was everyone else, and they were badly overtaxed by the monarch. This overtaxing was a major cause of the [[French]] Revolution.

The leaders of the Third Estate were the middle class, called the [[bourgeoisie]]. They were educated in the ideas of the [[Enlightenment]], most importantly [[Jean Jacques Rousseau]]. Rousseau's book, "The Social Contract" supported a [[direct democracy]], rather that the republican government that had been adopted in [[America]]. The social contract spoke against titles for nobility and demanded complete equality for all people.

French Revolutionary ideals, especially thanks to Napoleon, later inspired liberal and democratic movements of the 19th Century.

==Chronology of the French Revolution==

Several costly wars, the War of Austrian Succession (1740-8), the Seven Years War (1756-63) and the American War of Independence (1778-83), had reduced the government to the verge of bankruptcy. The deficit for 1786 would be 112 million ''livres'', nearly a quater of total income. Due to the poorly organised taxation system it was impossible for the King and his finance minister to make up the deficit without serious reforms. In 1787 he called a meeting of 144 leading nobles, the Assembly of Notables, to attempt to persuade them to pay tax in return for increased powers. The nobles refused his requests and were supported by the local assembly; the Parlement de Paris.

The King withdrew his demands at this challenge to his authority, which was greeted by thousands taking to the street to celebrate. When troops were ordered to "Get some lead into the bastards' backsides", they fired into the air instead. In hindsight this can be seen as the start of dissent. It is notable that the initiators of this unrest were the upper classes, who had little reason to think there was any thirst for revolution. In April 1787, [[Calonne]] resigned in disgrace and the middle classes, strengthened by the protests, began to demand the Estates-Generale, a Parliament in which they would be represented.

==1789 - Year of Revolution==

With growing unrest and France nearing bankruptcy, the King agreed to call the Estates-Generale in May 1789. The [[Estate-Generale]] was divided into the three estates, with the first two estates (nobility and clergy) electing their representatives. The third estate representation required a series of elections in which all property owners over the age of twenty-five were eligible to take part. They elected a group of electors, who in turn chose delegates. The delegates themselves were overwhelmingly middle class, including the young lawyer [[Maximilien Robespierre]]. Furthermore, the Third Estate was required to produce a list of grievances known as ''cahiers''.

Between 25,000 and 60,000 documents were filled with grievances. Thousands demanded a constitution, reorganization of the clergy, lessening of the tax burden and an end to [[Royal]] waste. Few of these demands could be resolved without challenging the basis of [[Absolute Monarchy]]. However, not one of these document has been found to advocate abolition of the monarchy, with the large majority requesting moderate reform and many including expression of adoration towards the King.

The Estates-General had not met in 175 years and retained many of its former characteristics. Each Estate had one vote in the Assembly, such that the First and Second Estates could always outvote the Third Estate. That was acceptable in the early 1600s, but the Third Estate would not allow this in 1789 after learning the Enlightenment ideas. King Louis XVI responded to the Third Estate's complaints by doubling the number of Third Estate delegates in the Estates-General. By this time the alliance between the nobility and the third estate had broken down; the nobles may have called a march, but they drew the line at burning down tax offices. The Third Estate wanted a system of one vote per delegate, which would have given the Third Estate the same number of votes as the First and Second Estate combined.

The opening of the Estates-Generale did not bode well. The opening session was in an open coach house, which meant that the Third Estate struggled to hear the proceedings as they were on wooden benches at the far end of the room. Upon the entry of the King, the first and second estates were expected to remove their hats and sit down after the King, before replacing their hats. The Third Estate were expected to remain standing until after the first and second estates had replaced their hats, however, they chose to sit at the same time as the first and second estates. The First Estate were to wear glittering robes, the second estate were to wear silk coats, whilst the third estate were required to wear black coats. There was no question at this point of rudeness towards the King himself, and at this point none of the delegates (including Robespierre) was a republican in their beliefs. There then followed a speech by [[Necker]] on possible solutions to the economic crisis, that was of such length and dullness that Necker had to pass it on to a delegate to complete.

The Third Estate began to win votes in the Estates-Generale by attracting poorer clergy to their side. On 17 June the Third Estate, accompanied by the poorer clergy, voted 490 to 90 in favour of a motion to call themselves the [[National Assembly]] and claimed that they now had the right to manage the nations affairs and taxation. In an attempt to reassert his control, the king announced that Estates-Generale was postponed until 23 June where he would announce several reforms in a ''seance royale''. However, news of the postponement did not reach the delegates of the Third Estate, who arrived on the 20 June to find the room locked.

Following a period of confusion, Dr [[Guillotin]] (one of the Third Estate delegates) suggested it might be possible to convene at a nearby indoor tennis court and the group of over 500 delegate proceeded to meet at the court. The session was chaired by Bailly (a celebrity astronomer) and Mirabeau proposed that the delegation should not break up until a constitution was passed, which was opposed by only one delegate (Martin d'Auch). In effect the delegates had declared themselves the Government of France, pending a constitution to be organized by [[Mirabeau]].

The [[National Assembly]] approved the “[[Declaration of the Rights of Man]],” which combined ideas of the [[American Declaration of Independence]] with some Enlightenment concepts. The result of this combination had many debatable claims. The entire document is short and worth reading in full: [http://www.hrcr.org/docs/frenchdec.html] .

The King responded by ordering the delegates to disperse, however this had little effect. The following week the King sent a messenger, the Marquis de Breze, to order the finishing of the session. Mirabeau ordered the messenger to leave.
[[Image:David OathHoratti.jpg|left]]
In the last week of June the royal [[Government]] ordered 20,000 troops to march on Paris. It became apparent that compromise was not working. This was emphasized with the replacement of Necker by the hard line [[Baron de Breteuil]]. Thousands took to the streets to demand the reinstatement of [[Necker]], who was at the height of his popularity and seen as the only man who could solve the taxation crisis. Mirabeau spoke to the assembly, invoking the oath taken at the tennis court. [[Camille Desmoulins]] had ridden to Versailles to report on events and galloped back to Paris to report on the replacement of Necker.

Crowds marched to [[Abbaye]] prison to demand the release of the soldiers who had been arrested for not firing on the crowds. Troops were offered drinks by the crowd if they shouted 'Viva le tiers-etat'. Dummies of [[Necker]] and [[Duc d'Orleans]] were stolen to be paraded as heroes.

The deputies were now faced with a dilemma, requiring a mass movement for defence of the National Assembly, but fearing crowds getting out of control. Militia were therefore established, that excluded all unemployed and vagrants, and many districts demanded employers' references before admission. Admission varied enormously across districts, with 1,200 being recruited in [[Le Petit-St-Antoine]], but [[Les Minimes]] mustering four.

==Storming of the [[Bastille]]==

With the militia formed to repel the royal troops, there was an urgent need for weapons. The royalist [[Swiss Guard]]s had stored 30,000 pounds in the Bastille, to be used against the National Assembly. On the morning of July 14, 1789 (“[[Bastille Day]]”), a crowd of about a thousand people made up predominantly of small tradesmen arrived at the prison to demand the gun powder be handed over. The prison Governor invited a delegation in for breakfast, which proceeded for three and a half hours. Meanwhile, rumours circulated that royalist troops were committing atrocities across Paris.

A demonstrator outside the Bastille realized he would be able to get to the chains of the drawbridge by climbing from a nearby perfume shop. At this point the prison Governor, [[De Launay]], broke off negotiations and late in the afternoon cannon shots were aimed at the crowd. Two companies of French Guards were persuaded to the Bastille to the defend protesters being killed by cannon fire.

A Swiss Guard handed over the keys to the second drawbridge, leading to a moat. A clerk from a pawn office visited a carpenter and returned with eleven pieces of wood, one of which was able to span the moat. Once inside, seven prisoners were freed, though contrary to what is widely though, this did not include the [[Marquis de Sade]] (he had been moved as he had shouting at passers by through a pipe he had been given to urinate through. This took time however, as the keys to release the cells were the same as the keys to open the first draw bridge and the man with the keys had gone home.

In total six defenders of the Bastille were killed, including De launay, and ninety protestors.

The aftermath was one of euphoria throughout much of [[Paris]]. Much of the nobility proclaimed support for the act, realizing that it was not healthy to oppose public opinion on the matter. [[Louis XVI]] recalled Necker to his job and agreed to recognise the National Assembly, which included the Third Estate delegates, poorer clergy and nobility sympathetic to the Third Estate cause. [[Lafayette]] was appointed head of the police and the army, which was to be known as the National Guard. Bailly became the Mayor of Paris.

The King agreed to come to Paris and accept the gift of a cockade that had become a symbol of the revolution, which the king fastened to his hat, whilst the crowd cheered "Vive le Roi!". Whilst the significance of the day was evident, that it would produce a republic was far from clear. The plan of the King to take Paris with 20,000 troops had failed, but he was able to satisfy the populace that it was not intended and a peaceful resolution was reached. The changes that had so far occurred in a brief period of time were so dramatic that the thought that things could change further was difficult to conceive.

==The Great Fear==

During the week following the storming of the Bastille, news of events spread to the rest of France. This led to a panic as to what the response of the nobility would be to the events, The [[Great Fear]] or panic resulted. Many villages defended themselves against imaginary threats by forming peasant militias; riots occurred and peasants proceeded to burn wealthy homes.

The rural uprising prompted the National Assembly to pass a motion to 'destroy the [[feudal]] regime entirely', on August 4th. However, in order to release himself a peasant would have to pay twenty times his annual rent to the landlord, making the measure ineffectual.

==Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen==

The Assembly also passed the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen on the 4th August. This annulled the right of nobles to demand taxes, tithes and labor from peasants working on their family land. The declaration was inspired by the American Revolution and was partially written by LaFayette.

Unlike the American declaration that “all men are created equal,” the French version declared that “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.”

Whilst the American declaration that all men have inalienable rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” the French version declared that all men have natural rights of “liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression.”

Some declarations were troublesome; “Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law” left questions of definition. Also, the rights of French people to rebel were enshrined in the very constitution itself.

The water wheel was abolished as the method of execution in place of the more humane [[guillotine]]. It is notable that the only delegate to vote for the abolition of the [[death penalty]] was [[Robespierre]].

==A New Government==

France remained a republic. Although a republic has been established in North America at this time and a previous English republic, a European republic was still alien to the thoughts of most French people, including revolutionaries. Negotiations over the new constitution continued, with Mirabeau and Lafayette appealing for calm less the King withdraw from negotiation. [[Jean Paul Marat]] took a less moderate line. Marat argued for universal suffrage and for the King to retain only an advisory role, a constitutional monarchy such as those seen in the [[United Kingdom]] or [[Sweden]] to this day.

==Royal Faux Pas==

On 1st October, 1789, a party was thrown at the [[Palace of Versailles]]. Louis XVI took the cap he had been presented with following the storming of the Bastille and trampled it underfoot. The king later denied this, however several witnesses recalled the incident and news of the incident spread to Paris. A contingent of women raided the Town Hall was raided for weapons and set off from Paris to Versailles, becoming a crowd of 10,000, who were later joined by the National Guard to ensure good order.

Upon the arrival for the group at the palace two guards opened fire, but were interrupted by decapitation. A small delegation of women were permitted to meet the Queen, however one fainted upon witnessing the beauty of the Palace of Versailles. The crowd became impatient by six o'clock the following morning and a militant group of fishwives broke in with a cry of "We are going to cut off her head, tear out her heart, fry her liver and that will not be the end of it"(Documents of the French Revolution, page 62). It was a forceful enough argument to force the Royal family back to Paris, where it was felt it would be possible to keep closer watch. It was also clear by now that the King was in no position to demand a veto.

Antoinette is reputed to have responded unsympathetically to the lack of bread for the peasants by declaring, “Let them eat cake!” Historians doubt she ever actually said that.

==Anniversary Pledge==

On the first anniversary of the storming of the Bastille a large ceremony was held in Paris at which members of the Government and the King pledges themselves to uphold the 'law, the nation and the King'. This represents a compromise in that the King was still seen as central, however all pledges had previously been to the King alone, and the King was required to make no pledge.

==1791 - The King Strikes Back==

In the two years following the storming of the Bastille French society had been transformed. There were an estimated 133 political journals in Paris, Parish priests had been dismissed and replaced by elected Priests. Robespierre had advanced plans for the emancipation of [[Jews]] and [[Protestantism|Protestants]], equal treatment of all military ranks and the abolition of the property qualification for the National Guard. Robespierre remained incorruptible at this point, refusing to be the Duc d'Orleans let the luxury affect his judgement.

This situation was intolerable for the Royal Family, who began to organize a foreign force to invade France and restore their power. In December 1790 Louis wrote a secret note to the King of Prussia requesting a European army invade France. Furthermore, the King and Queen (herself Austrian) decided to flee Paris to help organise the invasion force from without France, let their presence in Paris compromise the invasion.

The royal couple decided to disguise themselves and flee across the border, which they did at night setting off at at a seven miles in part due to the weight requirements for the Queen to travel in the least luxury that she expected. The next morning the Kings letter to the National Assembly was found condemning all the measure which he had claimed to support for the previous two years.

The royal party reached [[Ste-Menehould]], where the papers of the party were checked by Drouet, who had been a staunch supporter of the revolution. Despite having seen the servant in the corner and 'struck by the resemblance of his face to the likeness of the King printed on the bank note', in disbelief he allowed the party to continue. Having discussed the incident with his colleague, Guillaume, the two raced to catch up with the party and spread word through the surrounding villages that the Royal family were attempting to flee. The family were captured and returned to Paris, with posters informing the gathering crowd "Whoever applauds the King will be flogged; whoever insults him will be hanged".

Most delegates wished to hold together a compromise, but the Head of State fleeing to lead a hostile invasion of the nation had created difficulties. Many insisted that the King must have been kidnapped. General Bouille wrote a statement confessing his involvement, but many insisted he was lying to implicate the King. While the only punishment towards the King was stripping of his powers of veto on laws and finance, talk began to emerge for the first time of the possibility of a republic. At this point Robespierre and most of the Paris commune strongly opposed the republic, whilst Lafayette rallied to the slogan 'The Revolution is Over'. By then the French Revolution was in full swing.

==Declaration of the Rights of Woman==

In 1791, a French journalist named [[Olympe de Gouges]] proposed a “[[Declaration of the Rights of Woman]],” (inspired by the writings of [[Mary Woolstonecraft]]) but the National Assembly rejected her proposal. She, like many other leaders of that time, was eventually executed by guillotine. Other sans-culotte groups were established including the [[Society of Revolutionary Women]]

==New Start==

Politics in France became divided between the moderate [[Girondins]] and the more radical [[Jacobins]]. At this point the Girondins appeared to be in the stronger position, however the Jacobins were growing in strength. At this point the Jacobins were led by [[Robespierre]], who made a strong speech in favor of a republic.

The French National Assembly established a [[constitutional monarchy]] and, in 1791, adopted a new constitution that created a Legislative Assembly. Three factions quickly formed in the new Legislative Assembly, known as the radicals (liberals), moderates (centrists) and conservatives, similar to those political movements today in the United States. The three factions sat in different sections of the large assembly hall, with the radicals (liberals) sitting on the left, the moderates sitting in the center, and the conservatives sitting on the right. That gave rise to the left-center-right terminology that we still use today in the United States to describe these three political groups.

==German Invasion==

A large number of noblemen had gathered in [[Koblenz]] to form an army to invade France and restore the King to full rule. The emigrants carried stories of atrocities and encouraged reaction against the National Assembly and atrocities associated with lower class democracy. The Duke of Brunswick declared "We will soon be marching on Paris".

This was a matter of some concern in France, as many of the officers that had been in the French army in 1789 had joined the emigrant army in Germany. The Girondins remained confident, but Robespierre saw little cause for initial optimism. The Royal Family strongly supported war with the Prussian and Austrian force in the hope that the French would be defeated and they be restored.

On April 1792, the King declared war on the [[Hapsburg Empire]], who wished to restore his power. The French army suffered a series of defeats along the border, creating optimism in the Royal house. The National Assembly ordered the dispersal of the Kings bodyguard who were supporting the foreign invasion, but this was vetoed by the King. The Assembly then voted for 20,000 French patriots to come from across France to protect Paris, but this was also vetoed by the King.

The use of the royal veto to undermine the defense of France prompted a strong reaction, with demonstrators managing to pour into the royal apartments. The King was forced to wear a red cap while being taunted for several hours with taunts of "Fat Louis" and "Tyrants must Tremble". The time of compromise was nearing an end.

Lafayette planned a coup to restore the old order to as it was in 1787, using the National Guard. This force was resisted by a volunteer group of citizens. Traditionally this latter group are portrayed as ne'er-do-well criminals, however it is questionable whether such groups would march typically 800 miles. The volunteer groups were greeted as heroes in towns they passed through and [[Rouget de Lisle]] composed 'La Marseillaise' as a call to arms.

The war started badly for the French and on 25th July the Duke of Brunswick prepared to March on Paris and pledged to restore the French Royal Family to their original statue, but that he had no intention of meddling in the internal affairs of France. He demanded total surrender or the Prussian and Austrian armies would "take an exemplary and never-to-be-forgotten vengeance, by giving up the town of Paris to military execution..and the guilty rebels to the death they deserve".

==Second Revolution==

Paris was divided, with 20,000 signing a petition to support the full restoration of an absolute monarchy and a foreign army was invading France rapidly. Moderates such as Mme Roland supported withdrawal from Paris, whereas Maton would accept no backward step. On 10th August a larger demonstration marched on the palace demanding the removal of the King.

==Valmy==

The National Assembly called for volunteers to defend the state, with assurances that this army would be different to the one that had gone before and collapsed before the troops of the Duke of Brunswick. The soldiers would sing Les Maseillaise into battle and officers and men would wear similar uniforms. The majority of the officers would be voted for by the soldiers.

The army was formed, and the Duke of Brunswick brought his army round to meet the French on by the village of [[Valmy]]. The French were grouped around a windmill in an area of uncommon tranquillity. The battle involved a day long exchange of cannon fire with little result. The significance of the battle is that the French volunteer troops remained firm.

[[Johann Goethe]] was present at the battle, as one of the troops of the Duke of Brunswick; "In the morning we had been talking of spitting and eating the French. Now everyone was thinking again. Almost everyone remained silent. Only a few men spoke and their reflections seemed illogical or frivolous".

In the opinion of Goethe, what had changed in the French was their spirit. They had won their freedom and did not wish to return to the days before the revolution, they had debated and were politically active. They were therefore able to stand firm. The news of the battle had a strong effect on French national morale, as the French came to believe they could win.

==Republic==

On the day following the [[Battle of Valmy]], the newly elected French Government (the Convention). The Convention declared France to be an 'Indivisible Republic'. The Convention was made of three factions; the [[Girondins]], the [[Montagnards]] Including Robespierre, Danton and Marat) and the [[Grenouilles de la Marais]]. Robespierre won an argument to allow a public gallery for debates.

All factions favored deposing the King, but were far from united beyond that point. The Montannards saw this as the first step to greater social equality, as opined by Robespierre, "Royalty has been destroyed, not the reign of equality is beginning". He attacked the wealthiest businessmen "those goods which are necessary to keep people alive as nothing more than an ordinary item of trade" - a sentiment echoed later by [[Karl Marx]]'s assertion that businessmen see objects not for their usefulness but for their value as commodities.

However, the Jocobin position was far from modern [[Socialism]], as they sought a nation of small property owners. The Government would be elected by property owners. Support for a republic was recently and had little idea of how to progress with the power they now found they had.

The Girdondins accused the Montagnards of preparing a dictatorship. However, the Girdondins had lost credibility by suggesting retreat from Paris and furthermore lacked the social roots that enabled the Montagnards to motivate thousands of volunteers. It reflects on the differing social backgrounds of the delegates that it was at this point Robespirre met a cabinet maker, M. {{Duplay]]. Duplay invited Robespierre back to his flat to meet his family and, finding that the family had been trying to let a spare room, Robespierre moved in. It is worth considering the contrast between the setting of the reign of Louis XVI to Robespierre who, whilst the most powerful man in France, has to queue behind his landlord to use the toilet in the morning.

==Trial of the King==

The King and family were detained in the Temple prison, but retained the trappings of luxury. The King had a library of 1,500 books, still ordered his shoes from his preferred cobbler and the family was provided with servants. The majority of servants remained utterly devoted to the family, feeling their employment to be a sacred duty.

This loyalty was not universal however, a former locksmith of the King revealed to the Paris Commune that there is secret cupboard containing correspondence between the King and invading powers showing collusion. Mirabeau and Lafayette were also implicated, though Mirabeau had no died and Lafayette had fled to [[Austria]].

The trial was debated by a number of key speakers. [[Louis St-Just]] debated the very validity of Kings, that to try the King as a bad King suggested it was possible to be a good, legal King, which was not acceptable. He was opposed by [[Thomas Paine]] who wished the King to be exiled to the [[USA]]. The vote was won for death by 387 to 334.

Louis XVI was executed in January 1793.

==Dechristianization movement==

The measures taken by the Convention to substitute the Revolutionary calendar for the old Christian calendar, and the decrees ordering the municipalities to seize and melt down the bells and treasures of the churches, proved that certain currents prevailed tending to the [[dechristianization]] of France.

The rest of décadi, every tenth day, replaced the Sunday rest. The "missionary representatives", sent to the provinces, closed churches, hunted down citizens suspected of religious practices. Persecution of all religious ideas began. Many churches were forcibly closed and converted into [[Cult of Reason|Temples of Reason]] <ref>John Hall Stewart, ''A Documentary Survey of the French Revolution'', Macmillan, New York, 1963.</ref>

During the first days of the Republic, provision had been made for dating public documents from "the first year of the French Republic," but no definite plan for a revised calendar had been proposed. A decree of 2 January, 1793, provided for the second year of the Republic to begin on 1 January, 1793. The new calendar took form in October and November, and lasted until 1806.

A vital force intended to sustain the political and economic terror was the creation of an ideology based on love of '' la Patrie'', "the Country" or "fatherland", and the subjugation of the individual to the collective will of whole. The Church of Notre-Dame-de-Paris became a temple of Reason, and the feast of Reason was celebrated on 10 November. The idea of honouring the fatherland, which had its origin in the festival of the Federation in 1790 gave rise to successive cults. Chamber Deputy Laloi commented they had "wiped out eighteen centuries of error".

Robespierre adopted the position that from the religious and Republican standpoint the idea of a Supreme Being was advantageous to the State, that religion should dispense with a priesthood, and that priests were to religion what charlatans were to medicine, and that the true priest of the Supreme Being was Nature. The Convention adopted a decree of which the first article was: "The French people recognize the existence of a Supreme Being and the immortality of the soul". The same decree states that freedom of worship is maintained but adds that in the case of disturbances caused by the exercise of a religion those who "excite them by fanatical preaching or by counter Revolutionary innovations", shall be punished according to the rigour of the law. Thus the condition of the Catholic Church remained equally precarious and the first festival of the Supreme Being was celebrated throughout France on 8 June, 1794. with aggressive splendour. Whereas the Exagérés wished simply to destroy Catholicism, and in the temples of Reason political rather than moral doctrines were taught. Robespierre desired that the civic religion should have a moral code which he based on the two dogmas of God and the immortality of the soul. He was of the opinion that the idea of God had a social value, that public morality depended on it and that Catholics would more readily support the republic under the auspices of a Supreme Being. <ref>Catholic Encyclopdeia, [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13009a.htm French Revolution]</ref>

==Committee of Public Safety==

The [[Committee of Public Safety]] was formed in 1793, and passed a rule that Generals were to live in camp with the army. This had the practical effect of testing the belief in equality of the many Nobles in the army. [[General Dumouriez]] made overtures to the Prince of Coburg for the invasion of France and have Louis XVI's son proclaimed King Louis XVII.

The execution of Louis XVI led almost immediately to the [[Reign of Terror]]. [[Maximilian Robespierre]], head of the Committee of Public Safety, proceeded to guillotine numerous alleged enemies, including Marie Antoinette. In a classic illustration of Jesus’s teaching that “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword,” Jacobin leaders [[Georges Danton]] (a fiery orator) was guillotined, and [[Jean-Paul Marat]] (a scientist) was stabbed to death in his bathtub.

==The Thermidorian Reaction==

By this time many countries, including [[Great Britain]], [[Spain]], the [[Netherlands]], [[Prussia]] and [[Austria]], had formed a First Coalition to invade France and restore monarchy. The National Convention responded by drafting people into an army. Historians claim women were drafted, but such a politically inspired claim is worth investigating before accepting it. The war lasted for several years, on several fronts, but the First Coalition was eventually defeated.

At last the government of France was in the hands of a legislature, and an executive branch of five men called the Directory. The Directory picked a young, highly successful military genius named [[Napoleon]] to lead the French army. The very next day Napoleon seized all power in France as its [[dictator]], in November 1799.

==Economic controls==

On 29 September, 1793, in the Law of the Maximum was formulated to deal with the steady rise in prices of the necessities of life. Committees of experts had been appointed to study the whole subject. Prices were set at one and one-third its price in 1790, transportation costs were regulated at a fixed rate, a 5 per cent markup was allowed the wholesaler and 10 per cent to the retailer. Bertrand Barrere declared, "The needs of the people will no longer be spied upon in order that the commercial classes may arbitrarily take advantage".

The first result was farmers produced as little as they possibly could. Scarcity increased, and the people of the large cities were put on an rationing. Many shopkeepers went out of business, and the remainder forced buyers to pay enormous charges under the very natural excuse that the seller risked his life in trading at all. That this excuse was valid is easily seen by the daily lists of those condemned to the guillotine, in which not infrequently figure the names of men charged with violating the Maximum laws. Manufactures were crippled and frequently destroyed.

To detect goods concealed by farmers and shopkeepers, a spy system was established with a reward to the informer of one-third of the value of the goods discovered. To spread terror, the Criminal Tribunal at Strassburg was ordered to destroy the dwelling of anyone found guilty of selling goods above the price set by law. The farmer often found that he could not raise his products at anything like the price required by the new law; and when he tried to hold back his crops or cattle, alleging that he could not afford to sell them at the prices fixed by law, they were frequently taken from him by force and he was fortunate if he was paid in the depreciated fiat currency or escaped execution.

The Convention decreed that any person selling gold or silver coin, or making any difference in any transaction between paper banknotes (assignats), and precious metal coin (specie) should be imprisoned in irons for six years; that anyone who refused to accept a payment in assignats, or accepted assignats at a discount, should pay a fine of 3,000 francs; and that anyone committing this crime a second time shou1d pay a fine of 6,000 francs and suffer imprisonment 20 years in irons. Later, on 8 September, 1793, the penalty for such offences was made death, with confiscation of the property of the heirs, and a reward offered to any person informing the authorities regarding any such transaction. The Convention decreed, in May 1794, that the death penalty should be inflicted on any person convicted of 'having asked, before a bargain was concluded, in what money payment was to be made".

Georges Couthon, in August 1793, proposed and won passage of a law punishing any person who should sell assignats at less than their fixed value with imprisonment for 20 years in chains, and later passed a law making investment in foreign countries punishable by death. Prisons, guillotines, enactments inflicting 20 years' imprisonment in chains upon persons twice convicted of buying or selling paper money at less than its nominal value, and death upon investors in foreign securities, still did not stop people from procuring the necessities of life by bargaining and exchange; on 1 August, 1795, the gold louis of 25 francs was worth in paper, 920 francs; on 1 September, 1,200 francs; on 1 November, 2,600 francs; on 1 December, 3,050 francs. In February 1796, it was worth 7,200 francs or one franc in gold was worth 288 francs in paper. Prices of all commodities went up nearly in proportion. <ref>Andrew Dickson White, Fiat Money: Inflation in France, Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, 1959, pp. 75-89; first published in 1912 as revised version of 1876 lecture. Reproduced in ''Choice in Currency'', F. A. Hayek, The Institute of Economic Affairs 1976, "A Note on Government Monopoly of Money in Theory and History", [http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-book409pdf?.pdf France, 1789], pgs. 34 - 38.</ref>

==Legacy of the Revolution==

The influence of the French Revolution was immense throughout the western hemisphere, as other peoples felt that they, too, could rise up against their rulers and defeat them. Historians credit the French Revolution with spreading the ideas of the Enlightenment, limiting the power of nobility and clergy, and ending an absolute monarchy. But many who supported the French Revolution in its beginning were horrified by where it led, including numerous executions and terror. Some would say that France never fully recovered, as the French Revolution unleashed a hostility towards [[Christianity]] that continues to this day in France.

==Biblliography==
* Doyle, William. ''The Oxford History of the French Revolution'' (1989). [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-oxford-history-of-the-french-revolution-by-william-doyle.jsp online complete edition]; also [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-French-Revolution/dp/019925298X/ref=sr_1_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189484963&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search ]
* Doyle, William. ''The French Revolution: A Very Short Introduction.'' (2001), 120pp; [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-french-revolution-a-very-short-introduction-by-william-doyle.jsp online edition]
* Fremont-Barnes, Gregory. ed. ''The Encyclopedia of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars: A Political, Social, and Military History'' (ABC-CLIO: 3 vol 2006)
* Frey, Linda S. and Marsha L. Frey. ''The French Revolution.'' (2004) 190pp [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-french-revolution-by-linda-s-frey-marsha-l-frey.jsp online edition], conservative approach
* Furet, François. ''The French Revolution, 1770-1814'' (1996) [http://www.amazon.com/French-Revolution-1770-1814-History-France/dp/0631202994/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197704970&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search], by the leading French conservative scholars
* Furet, François and Mona Ozouf, eds. ''A Critical Dictionary of the French Revolution'' (1989), 1120pp; long essays by scholars; conservative perspective; stress on history of ideas [http://www.amazon.com/Critical-Dictionary-French-Revolution/dp/0674177282/ref=sr_1_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189497174&sr=8-2 excerpt and online search from Amazon.com], by the leading French conservative scholars
* Jones, Colin. ''The Longman Companion to the French Revolution'' (1989)
* Jones, Colin. ''The Great Nation: France from Louis XV to Napoleon'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Great-Nation-Napoleon-Penguin-History/dp/0140130934/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197705067&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Neely, Sylvia. '' A Concise History of the French Revolution'' (2008)
* Palmer, Robert R. ''The Age of the Democratic Revolution: A Political History of Europe and America, 1760-1800.'' (2 vol 1959), highly influential comparative history; [http://www.questia.com/read/22790906 vol 1 online]
* Paxton, John. ''Companion to the French Revolution'' (1987), hundreds of short entries.
* Schwab, Gail M., and John R. Jeanneney, eds. ''The French Revolution of 1789 and Its Impact'' (1995) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-french-revolution-of-1789-and-its-impact-by-john-r-jeanneney-gail-m-schwab.jsp online edition]
* Scott, Samuel F. and Barry Rothaus. ''Historical Dictionary of the French Revolution, 1789-1799'' (2 vol 1984), short essays by scholars
* Schama, Simon. ''Citizens. A Chronicle of the French Revolution'' (1989), highly readable narrative by scholar [http://www.amazon.com/Citizens-Simon-Schama/dp/0141017279/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197705186&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Sutherland, D.M.G. ''France 1789–1815. Revolution and Counter-Revolution'' (2nd ed. 2003, 430pp [http://www.amazon.com/French-Revolution-Empire-Quest-Civic/dp/0631233636/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189597597&sr=1-1 excerpts and online search from Amazon.com]

==References==
<references/>

== See also ==

*[[Alexis de Tocqueville]]

[[Category:French Revolution| ]]
[[Category:French History]]

Comittee of Public Safety

2008-12-03T01:33:09Z

Bolly: Redirecting to Committee of Public Safety

#REDIRECT [[Committee of Public Safety]]

Committee of Public Safety

2008-12-03T01:32:56Z

Bolly: New page: The '''Committee of Public Safety''' was a post-French Revolution faction that gained near dictatorial control over France during the Reign of Terror. Established on 6 April 1793, it w...

The '''Committee of Public Safety''' was a post-French Revolution faction that gained near dictatorial control over France during the [[Reign of Terror]]. Established on 6 April 1793, it was not intended to have dictatorial powers as it was reapproved every month by the [[Convention]]. However after 2 June of that year, when the [[Girondins]] were forcibly removed from power, the CPS became the tools of the [[Jacobins]] and later [[Maximilien de Robespierre]] who joined on 27 July 1793.

On 4 December 1793, the law of Frimaire established revoltionary government. The CPS was granted full control over ministers and generals, foreign policy and the [[Terror]]. Despite providing a stable government for France and ending the anarchy of the Revolution, rejected the principles of the 1789 Revolution. 1594 people were executed in Paris during the period from 10 June 1794 to 27 July, also known as the Great Terror. After the fall of Robespierre, in which the CPS played a minor role, many of its members joined the [[Thermidorians]] who moved the politics of the Revolution away from the extreme left and towards the centre, unwittingly preparing France for [[Napoleon Bonaparte]] to take over.

[[Category:French Revolution]]

French Revolution

2008-12-03T01:29:52Z

Bolly: /* The Thermidorian Reaction */

[[Image:Delacroix La liberte guidant le peuple.jpg|250px|right|La liberte guidant le peuple]]
'''The French Revolution''' was a 1789 revolution which is oft-quoted as the beginning of the modern era. In fact a set of several revolutions in a period of unprecedented turmoil, it saw the rise of [[Robespierre]] and the [[Reign of Terror]], a chaos wherein thousands were [[guillotine|guillotined]] for political leanings and moderatism.

The French Revolution was very [[atheism|atheistic]] in nature, as radicals outlawed the Church and tried to establish a [[Cult of Reason]] in its place. The Revolution also saw the rise of [[evolution|evolutionary]] thinking, a result of extreme [[rationalism]]. It inspired fear into European moderates like [[Edmund Burke]], who realized it was proof of the danger of [[liberalism]] run amok.

Before the Revolution, [[France]] had three levels in its social system: The First, Second, and Third Estates. The [[First Estate]] was about 1% of the population, but it controlled 10% of the land. The First Estate consisted of the clergy, and they did not pay any taxes. The [[Second Estate]] was about 2% of the population and they controlled 20% of the land. These were the nobility, and they too paid very little taxes. The [[Third Estate]] was everyone else, and they were badly overtaxed by the monarch. This overtaxing was a major cause of the [[French]] Revolution.

The leaders of the Third Estate were the middle class, called the [[bourgeoisie]]. They were educated in the ideas of the [[Enlightenment]], most importantly [[Jean Jacques Rousseau]]. Rousseau's book, "The Social Contract" supported a [[direct democracy]], rather that the republican government that had been adopted in [[America]]. The social contract spoke against titles for nobility and demanded complete equality for all people.

French Revolutionary ideals, especially thanks to Napoleon, later inspired liberal and democratic movements of the 19th Century.

==Chronology of the French Revolution==

Several costly wars, the War of Austrian Succession (1740-8), the Seven Years War (1756-63) and the American War of Independence (1778-83), had reduced the government to the verge of bankruptcy. The deficit for 1786 would be 112 million ''livres'', nearly a quater of total income. Due to the poorly organised taxation system it was impossible for the King and his finance minister to make up the deficit without serious reforms. In 1787 he called a meeting of 144 leading nobles, the Assembly of Notables, to attempt to persuade them to pay tax in return for increased powers. The nobles refused his requests and were supported by the local assembly; the Parlement de Paris.

The King withdrew his demands at this challenge to his authority, which was greeted by thousands taking to the street to celebrate. When troops were ordered to "Get some lead into the bastards' backsides", they fired into the air instead. In hindsight this can be seen as the start of dissent. It is notable that the initiators of this unrest were the upper classes, who had little reason to think there was any thirst for revolution. In April 1787, [[Calonne]] resigned in disgrace and the middle classes, strengthened by the protests, began to demand the Estates-Generale, a Parliament in which they would be represented.

==1789 - Year of Revolution==

With growing unrest and France nearing bankruptcy, the King agreed to call the Estates-Generale in May 1789. The [[Estate-Generale]] was divided into the three estates, with the first two estates (nobility and clergy) electing their representatives. The third estate representation required a series of elections in which all property owners over the age of twenty-five were eligible to take part. They elected a group of electors, who in turn chose delegates. The delegates themselves were overwhelmingly middle class, including the young lawyer [[Maximilien Robespierre]]. Furthermore, the Third Estate was required to produce a list of grievances known as ''cahiers''.

Between 25,000 and 60,000 documents were filled with grievances. Thousands demanded a constitution, reorganization of the clergy, lessening of the tax burden and an end to [[Royal]] waste. Few of these demands could be resolved without challenging the basis of [[Absolute Monarchy]]. However, not one of these document has been found to advocate abolition of the monarchy, with the large majority requesting moderate reform and many including expression of adoration towards the King.

The Estates-General had not met in 175 years and retained many of its former characteristics. Each Estate had one vote in the Assembly, such that the First and Second Estates could always outvote the Third Estate. That was acceptable in the early 1600s, but the Third Estate would not allow this in 1789 after learning the Enlightenment ideas. King Louis XVI responded to the Third Estate's complaints by doubling the number of Third Estate delegates in the Estates-General. By this time the alliance between the nobility and the third estate had broken down; the nobles may have called a march, but they drew the line at burning down tax offices. The Third Estate wanted a system of one vote per delegate, which would have given the Third Estate the same number of votes as the First and Second Estate combined.

The opening of the Estates-Generale did not bode well. The opening session was in an open coach house, which meant that the Third Estate struggled to hear the proceedings as they were on wooden benches at the far end of the room. Upon the entry of the King, the first and second estates were expected to remove their hats and sit down after the King, before replacing their hats. The Third Estate were expected to remain standing until after the first and second estates had replaced their hats, however, they chose to sit at the same time as the first and second estates. The First Estate were to wear glittering robes, the second estate were to wear silk coats, whilst the third estate were required to wear black coats. There was no question at this point of rudeness towards the King himself, and at this point none of the delegates (including Robespierre) was a republican in their beliefs. There then followed a speech by [[Necker]] on possible solutions to the economic crisis, that was of such length and dullness that Necker had to pass it on to a delegate to complete.

The Third Estate began to win votes in the Estates-Generale by attracting poorer clergy to their side. On 17 June the Third Estate, accompanied by the poorer clergy, voted 490 to 90 in favour of a motion to call themselves the [[National Assembly]] and claimed that they now had the right to manage the nations affairs and taxation. In an attempt to reassert his control, the king announced that Estates-Generale was postponed until 23 June where he would announce several reforms in a ''seance royale''. However, news of the postponement did not reach the delegates of the Third Estate, who arrived on the 20 June to find the room locked.

Following a period of confusion, Dr [[Guillotin]] (one of the Third Estate delegates) suggested it might be possible to convene at a nearby indoor tennis court and the group of over 500 delegate proceeded to meet at the court. The session was chaired by Bailly (a celebrity astronomer) and Mirabeau proposed that the delegation should not break up until a constitution was passed, which was opposed by only one delegate (Martin d'Auch). In effect the delegates had declared themselves the Government of France, pending a constitution to be organized by [[Mirabeau]].

The [[National Assembly]] approved the “[[Declaration of the Rights of Man]],” which combined ideas of the [[American Declaration of Independence]] with some Enlightenment concepts. The result of this combination had many debatable claims. The entire document is short and worth reading in full: [http://www.hrcr.org/docs/frenchdec.html] .

The King responded by ordering the delegates to disperse, however this had little effect. The following week the King sent a messenger, the Marquis de Breze, to order the finishing of the session. Mirabeau ordered the messenger to leave.
[[Image:David OathHoratti.jpg|left]]
In the last week of June the royal [[Government]] ordered 20,000 troops to march on Paris. It became apparent that compromise was not working. This was emphasized with the replacement of Necker by the hard line [[Baron de Breteuil]]. Thousands took to the streets to demand the reinstatement of [[Necker]], who was at the height of his popularity and seen as the only man who could solve the taxation crisis. Mirabeau spoke to the assembly, invoking the oath taken at the tennis court. [[Camille Desmoulins]] had ridden to Versailles to report on events and galloped back to Paris to report on the replacement of Necker.

Crowds marched to [[Abbaye]] prison to demand the release of the soldiers who had been arrested for not firing on the crowds. Troops were offered drinks by the crowd if they shouted 'Viva le tiers-etat'. Dummies of [[Necker]] and [[Duc d'Orleans]] were stolen to be paraded as heroes.

The deputies were now faced with a dilemma, requiring a mass movement for defence of the National Assembly, but fearing crowds getting out of control. Militia were therefore established, that excluded all unemployed and vagrants, and many districts demanded employers' references before admission. Admission varied enormously across districts, with 1,200 being recruited in [[Le Petit-St-Antoine]], but [[Les Minimes]] mustering four.

==Storming of the [[Bastille]]==

With the militia formed to repel the royal troops, there was an urgent need for weapons. The royalist [[Swiss Guard]]s had stored 30,000 pounds in the Bastille, to be used against the National Assembly. On the morning of July 14, 1789 (“[[Bastille Day]]”), a crowd of about a thousand people made up predominantly of small tradesmen arrived at the prison to demand the gun powder be handed over. The prison Governor invited a delegation in for breakfast, which proceeded for three and a half hours. Meanwhile, rumours circulated that royalist troops were committing atrocities across Paris.

A demonstrator outside the Bastille realized he would be able to get to the chains of the drawbridge by climbing from a nearby perfume shop. At this point the prison Governor, [[De Launay]], broke off negotiations and late in the afternoon cannon shots were aimed at the crowd. Two companies of French Guards were persuaded to the Bastille to the defend protesters being killed by cannon fire.

A Swiss Guard handed over the keys to the second drawbridge, leading to a moat. A clerk from a pawn office visited a carpenter and returned with eleven pieces of wood, one of which was able to span the moat. Once inside, seven prisoners were freed, though contrary to what is widely though, this did not include the [[Marquis de Sade]] (he had been moved as he had shouting at passers by through a pipe he had been given to urinate through. This took time however, as the keys to release the cells were the same as the keys to open the first draw bridge and the man with the keys had gone home.

In total six defenders of the Bastille were killed, including De launay, and ninety protestors.

The aftermath was one of euphoria throughout much of [[Paris]]. Much of the nobility proclaimed support for the act, realizing that it was not healthy to oppose public opinion on the matter. [[Louis XVI]] recalled Necker to his job and agreed to recognise the National Assembly, which included the Third Estate delegates, poorer clergy and nobility sympathetic to the Third Estate cause. [[Lafayette]] was appointed head of the police and the army, which was to be known as the National Guard. Bailly became the Mayor of Paris.

The King agreed to come to Paris and accept the gift of a cockade that had become a symbol of the revolution, which the king fastened to his hat, whilst the crowd cheered "Vive le Roi!". Whilst the significance of the day was evident, that it would produce a republic was far from clear. The plan of the King to take Paris with 20,000 troops had failed, but he was able to satisfy the populace that it was not intended and a peaceful resolution was reached. The changes that had so far occurred in a brief period of time were so dramatic that the thought that things could change further was difficult to conceive.

==The Great Fear==

During the week following the storming of the Bastille, news of events spread to the rest of France. This led to a panic as to what the response of the nobility would be to the events, The [[Great Fear]] or panic resulted. Many villages defended themselves against imaginary threats by forming peasant militias; riots occurred and peasants proceeded to burn wealthy homes.

The rural uprising prompted the National Assembly to pass a motion to 'destroy the [[feudal]] regime entirely', on August 4th. However, in order to release himself a peasant would have to pay twenty times his annual rent to the landlord, making the measure ineffectual.

==Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen==

The Assembly also passed the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen on the 4th August. This annulled the right of nobles to demand taxes, tithes and labor from peasants working on their family land. The declaration was inspired by the American Revolution and was partially written by LaFayette.

Unlike the American declaration that “all men are created equal,” the French version declared that “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.”

Whilst the American declaration that all men have inalienable rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” the French version declared that all men have natural rights of “liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression.”

Some declarations were troublesome; “Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law” left questions of definition. Also, the rights of French people to rebel were enshrined in the very constitution itself.

The water wheel was abolished as the method of execution in place of the more humane [[guillotine]]. It is notable that the only delegate to vote for the abolition of the [[death penalty]] was [[Robespierre]].

==A New Government==

France remained a republic. Although a republic has been established in North America at this time and a previous English republic, a European republic was still alien to the thoughts of most French people, including revolutionaries. Negotiations over the new constitution continued, with Mirabeau and Lafayette appealing for calm less the King withdraw from negotiation. [[Jean Paul Marat]] took a less moderate line. Marat argued for universal suffrage and for the King to retain only an advisory role, a constitutional monarchy such as those seen in the [[United Kingdom]] or [[Sweden]] to this day.

==Royal Faux Pas==

On 1st October, 1789, a party was thrown at the [[Palace of Versailles]]. Louis XVI took the cap he had been presented with following the storming of the Bastille and trampled it underfoot. The king later denied this, however several witnesses recalled the incident and news of the incident spread to Paris. A contingent of women raided the Town Hall was raided for weapons and set off from Paris to Versailles, becoming a crowd of 10,000, who were later joined by the National Guard to ensure good order.

Upon the arrival for the group at the palace two guards opened fire, but were interrupted by decapitation. A small delegation of women were permitted to meet the Queen, however one fainted upon witnessing the beauty of the Palace of Versailles. The crowd became impatient by six o'clock the following morning and a militant group of fishwives broke in with a cry of "We are going to cut off her head, tear out her heart, fry her liver and that will not be the end of it"(Documents of the French Revolution, page 62). It was a forceful enough argument to force the Royal family back to Paris, where it was felt it would be possible to keep closer watch. It was also clear by now that the King was in no position to demand a veto.

Antoinette is reputed to have responded unsympathetically to the lack of bread for the peasants by declaring, “Let them eat cake!” Historians doubt she ever actually said that.

==Anniversary Pledge==

On the first anniversary of the storming of the Bastille a large ceremony was held in Paris at which members of the Government and the King pledges themselves to uphold the 'law, the nation and the King'. This represents a compromise in that the King was still seen as central, however all pledges had previously been to the King alone, and the King was required to make no pledge.

==1791 - The King Strikes Back==

In the two years following the storming of the Bastille French society had been transformed. There were an estimated 133 political journals in Paris, Parish priests had been dismissed and replaced by elected Priests. Robespierre had advanced plans for the emancipation of [[Jews]] and [[Protestantism|Protestants]], equal treatment of all military ranks and the abolition of the property qualification for the National Guard. Robespierre remained incorruptible at this point, refusing to be the Duc d'Orleans let the luxury affect his judgement.

This situation was intolerable for the Royal Family, who began to organize a foreign force to invade France and restore their power. In December 1790 Louis wrote a secret note to the King of Prussia requesting a European army invade France. Furthermore, the King and Queen (herself Austrian) decided to flee Paris to help organise the invasion force from without France, let their presence in Paris compromise the invasion.

The royal couple decided to disguise themselves and flee across the border, which they did at night setting off at at a seven miles in part due to the weight requirements for the Queen to travel in the least luxury that she expected. The next morning the Kings letter to the National Assembly was found condemning all the measure which he had claimed to support for the previous two years.

The royal party reached [[Ste-Menehould]], where the papers of the party were checked by Drouet, who had been a staunch supporter of the revolution. Despite having seen the servant in the corner and 'struck by the resemblance of his face to the likeness of the King printed on the bank note', in disbelief he allowed the party to continue. Having discussed the incident with his colleague, Guillaume, the two raced to catch up with the party and spread word through the surrounding villages that the Royal family were attempting to flee. The family were captured and returned to Paris, with posters informing the gathering crowd "Whoever applauds the King will be flogged; whoever insults him will be hanged".

Most delegates wished to hold together a compromise, but the Head of State fleeing to lead a hostile invasion of the nation had created difficulties. Many insisted that the King must have been kidnapped. General Bouille wrote a statement confessing his involvement, but many insisted he was lying to implicate the King. While the only punishment towards the King was stripping of his powers of veto on laws and finance, talk began to emerge for the first time of the possibility of a republic. At this point Robespierre and most of the Paris commune strongly opposed the republic, whilst Lafayette rallied to the slogan 'The Revolution is Over'. By then the French Revolution was in full swing.

==Declaration of the Rights of Woman==

In 1791, a French journalist named [[Olympe de Gouges]] proposed a “[[Declaration of the Rights of Woman]],” (inspired by the writings of [[Mary Woolstonecraft]]) but the National Assembly rejected her proposal. She, like many other leaders of that time, was eventually executed by guillotine. Other sans-culotte groups were established including the [[Society of Revolutionary Women]]

==New Start==

Politics in France became divided between the moderate [[Girondins]] and the more radical [[Jacobins]]. At this point the Girondins appeared to be in the stronger position, however the Jacobins were growing in strength. At this point the Jacobins were led by [[Robespierre]], who made a strong speech in favor of a republic.

The French National Assembly established a [[constitutional monarchy]] and, in 1791, adopted a new constitution that created a Legislative Assembly. Three factions quickly formed in the new Legislative Assembly, known as the radicals (liberals), moderates (centrists) and conservatives, similar to those political movements today in the United States. The three factions sat in different sections of the large assembly hall, with the radicals (liberals) sitting on the left, the moderates sitting in the center, and the conservatives sitting on the right. That gave rise to the left-center-right terminology that we still use today in the United States to describe these three political groups.

==German Invasion==

A large number of noblemen had gathered in [[Koblenz]] to form an army to invade France and restore the King to full rule. The emigrants carried stories of atrocities and encouraged reaction against the National Assembly and atrocities associated with lower class democracy. The Duke of Brunswick declared "We will soon be marching on Paris".

This was a matter of some concern in France, as many of the officers that had been in the French army in 1789 had joined the emigrant army in Germany. The Girondins remained confident, but Robespierre saw little cause for initial optimism. The Royal Family strongly supported war with the Prussian and Austrian force in the hope that the French would be defeated and they be restored.

On April 1792, the King declared war on the [[Hapsburg Empire]], who wished to restore his power. The French army suffered a series of defeats along the border, creating optimism in the Royal house. The National Assembly ordered the dispersal of the Kings bodyguard who were supporting the foreign invasion, but this was vetoed by the King. The Assembly then voted for 20,000 French patriots to come from across France to protect Paris, but this was also vetoed by the King.

The use of the royal veto to undermine the defense of France prompted a strong reaction, with demonstrators managing to pour into the royal apartments. The King was forced to wear a red cap while being taunted for several hours with taunts of "Fat Louis" and "Tyrants must Tremble". The time of compromise was nearing an end.

Lafayette planned a coup to restore the old order to as it was in 1787, using the National Guard. This force was resisted by a volunteer group of citizens. Traditionally this latter group are portrayed as ne'er-do-well criminals, however it is questionable whether such groups would march typically 800 miles. The volunteer groups were greeted as heroes in towns they passed through and [[Rouget de Lisle]] composed 'La Marseillaise' as a call to arms.

The war started badly for the French and on 25th July the Duke of Brunswick prepared to March on Paris and pledged to restore the French Royal Family to their original statue, but that he had no intention of meddling in the internal affairs of France. He demanded total surrender or the Prussian and Austrian armies would "take an exemplary and never-to-be-forgotten vengeance, by giving up the town of Paris to military execution..and the guilty rebels to the death they deserve".

==Second Revolution==

Paris was divided, with 20,000 signing a petition to support the full restoration of an absolute monarchy and a foreign army was invading France rapidly. Moderates such as Mme Roland supported withdrawal from Paris, whereas Maton would accept no backward step. On 10th August a larger demonstration marched on the palace demanding the removal of the King.

==Valmy==

The National Assembly called for volunteers to defend the state, with assurances that this army would be different to the one that had gone before and collapsed before the troops of the Duke of Brunswick. The soldiers would sing Les Maseillaise into battle and officers and men would wear similar uniforms. The majority of the officers would be voted for by the soldiers.

The army was formed, and the Duke of Brunswick brought his army round to meet the French on by the village of [[Valmy]]. The French were grouped around a windmill in an area of uncommon tranquillity. The battle involved a day long exchange of cannon fire with little result. The significance of the battle is that the French volunteer troops remained firm.

[[Johann Goethe]] was present at the battle, as one of the troops of the Duke of Brunswick; "In the morning we had been talking of spitting and eating the French. Now everyone was thinking again. Almost everyone remained silent. Only a few men spoke and their reflections seemed illogical or frivolous".

In the opinion of Goethe, what had changed in the French was their spirit. They had won their freedom and did not wish to return to the days before the revolution, they had debated and were politically active. They were therefore able to stand firm. The news of the battle had a strong effect on French national morale, as the French came to believe they could win.

==Republic==

On the day following the [[Battle of Valmy]], the newly elected French Government (the Convention). The Convention declared France to be an 'Indivisible Republic'. The Convention was made of three factions; the [[Girondins]], the [[Montagnards]] Including Robespierre, Danton and Marat) and the [[Grenouilles de la Marais]]. Robespierre won an argument to allow a public gallery for debates.

All factions favored deposing the King, but were far from united beyond that point. The Montannards saw this as the first step to greater social equality, as opined by Robespierre, "Royalty has been destroyed, not the reign of equality is beginning". He attacked the wealthiest businessmen "those goods which are necessary to keep people alive as nothing more than an ordinary item of trade" - a sentiment echoed later by [[Karl Marx]]'s assertion that businessmen see objects not for their usefulness but for their value as commodities.

However, the Jocobin position was far from modern [[Socialism]], as they sought a nation of small property owners. The Government would be elected by property owners. Support for a republic was recently and had little idea of how to progress with the power they now found they had.

The Girdondins accused the Montagnards of preparing a dictatorship. However, the Girdondins had lost credibility by suggesting retreat from Paris and furthermore lacked the social roots that enabled the Montagnards to motivate thousands of volunteers. It reflects on the differing social backgrounds of the delegates that it was at this point Robespirre met a cabinet maker, M. {{Duplay]]. Duplay invited Robespierre back to his flat to meet his family and, finding that the family had been trying to let a spare room, Robespierre moved in. It is worth considering the contrast between the setting of the reign of Louis XVI to Robespierre who, whilst the most powerful man in France, has to queue behind his landlord to use the toilet in the morning.

==Trial of the King==

The King and family were detained in the Temple prison, but retained the trappings of luxury. The King had a library of 1,500 books, still ordered his shoes from his preferred cobbler and the family was provided with servants. The majority of servants remained utterly devoted to the family, feeling their employment to be a sacred duty.

This loyalty was not universal however, a former locksmith of the King revealed to the Paris Commune that there is secret cupboard containing correspondence between the King and invading powers showing collusion. Mirabeau and Lafayette were also implicated, though Mirabeau had no died and Lafayette had fled to [[Austria]].

The trial was debated by a number of key speakers. [[Louis St-Just]] debated the very validity of Kings, that to try the King as a bad King suggested it was possible to be a good, legal King, which was not acceptable. He was opposed by [[Thomas Paine]] who wished the King to be exiled to the [[USA]]. The vote was won for death by 387 to 334.

Louis XVI was executed in January 1793.

==Dechristianization movement==

The measures taken by the Convention to substitute the Revolutionary calendar for the old Christian calendar, and the decrees ordering the municipalities to seize and melt down the bells and treasures of the churches, proved that certain currents prevailed tending to the [[dechristianization]] of France.

The rest of décadi, every tenth day, replaced the Sunday rest. The "missionary representatives", sent to the provinces, closed churches, hunted down citizens suspected of religious practices. Persecution of all religious ideas began. Many churches were forcibly closed and converted into [[Cult of Reason|Temples of Reason]] <ref>John Hall Stewart, ''A Documentary Survey of the French Revolution'', Macmillan, New York, 1963.</ref>

During the first days of the Republic, provision had been made for dating public documents from "the first year of the French Republic," but no definite plan for a revised calendar had been proposed. A decree of 2 January, 1793, provided for the second year of the Republic to begin on 1 January, 1793. The new calendar took form in October and November, and lasted until 1806.

A vital force intended to sustain the political and economic terror was the creation of an ideology based on love of '' la Patrie'', "the Country" or "fatherland", and the subjugation of the individual to the collective will of whole. The Church of Notre-Dame-de-Paris became a temple of Reason, and the feast of Reason was celebrated on 10 November. The idea of honouring the fatherland, which had its origin in the festival of the Federation in 1790 gave rise to successive cults. Chamber Deputy Laloi commented they had "wiped out eighteen centuries of error".

Robespierre adopted the position that from the religious and Republican standpoint the idea of a Supreme Being was advantageous to the State, that religion should dispense with a priesthood, and that priests were to religion what charlatans were to medicine, and that the true priest of the Supreme Being was Nature. The Convention adopted a decree of which the first article was: "The French people recognize the existence of a Supreme Being and the immortality of the soul". The same decree states that freedom of worship is maintained but adds that in the case of disturbances caused by the exercise of a religion those who "excite them by fanatical preaching or by counter Revolutionary innovations", shall be punished according to the rigour of the law. Thus the condition of the Catholic Church remained equally precarious and the first festival of the Supreme Being was celebrated throughout France on 8 June, 1794. with aggressive splendour. Whereas the Exagérés wished simply to destroy Catholicism, and in the temples of Reason political rather than moral doctrines were taught. Robespierre desired that the civic religion should have a moral code which he based on the two dogmas of God and the immortality of the soul. He was of the opinion that the idea of God had a social value, that public morality depended on it and that Catholics would more readily support the republic under the auspices of a Supreme Being. <ref>Catholic Encyclopdeia, [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13009a.htm French Revolution]</ref>

==Committee of Public Safety==

The Committee of Public Safety was formed in 1793, and passed a rule that Generals were to live in camp with the army. This had the practical effect of testing the belief in equality of the many Nobles in the army. [[General Dumouriez]] made overtures to the Prince of Coburg for the invasion of France and have Louis XVI's son proclaimed King Louis XVII.

==The Thermidorian Reaction==

By this time many countries, including [[Great Britain]], [[Spain]], the [[Netherlands]], [[Prussia]] and [[Austria]], had formed a First Coalition to invade France and restore monarchy. The National Convention responded by drafting people into an army. Historians claim women were drafted, but such a politically inspired claim is worth investigating before accepting it. The war lasted for several years, on several fronts, but the First Coalition was eventually defeated.

At last the government of France was in the hands of a legislature, and an executive branch of five men called the Directory. The Directory picked a young, highly successful military genius named [[Napoleon]] to lead the French army. The very next day Napoleon seized all power in France as its [[dictator]], in November 1799.

==Economic controls==

On 29 September, 1793, in the Law of the Maximum was formulated to deal with the steady rise in prices of the necessities of life. Committees of experts had been appointed to study the whole subject. Prices were set at one and one-third its price in 1790, transportation costs were regulated at a fixed rate, a 5 per cent markup was allowed the wholesaler and 10 per cent to the retailer. Bertrand Barrere declared, "The needs of the people will no longer be spied upon in order that the commercial classes may arbitrarily take advantage".

The first result was farmers produced as little as they possibly could. Scarcity increased, and the people of the large cities were put on an rationing. Many shopkeepers went out of business, and the remainder forced buyers to pay enormous charges under the very natural excuse that the seller risked his life in trading at all. That this excuse was valid is easily seen by the daily lists of those condemned to the guillotine, in which not infrequently figure the names of men charged with violating the Maximum laws. Manufactures were crippled and frequently destroyed.

To detect goods concealed by farmers and shopkeepers, a spy system was established with a reward to the informer of one-third of the value of the goods discovered. To spread terror, the Criminal Tribunal at Strassburg was ordered to destroy the dwelling of anyone found guilty of selling goods above the price set by law. The farmer often found that he could not raise his products at anything like the price required by the new law; and when he tried to hold back his crops or cattle, alleging that he could not afford to sell them at the prices fixed by law, they were frequently taken from him by force and he was fortunate if he was paid in the depreciated fiat currency or escaped execution.

The Convention decreed that any person selling gold or silver coin, or making any difference in any transaction between paper banknotes (assignats), and precious metal coin (specie) should be imprisoned in irons for six years; that anyone who refused to accept a payment in assignats, or accepted assignats at a discount, should pay a fine of 3,000 francs; and that anyone committing this crime a second time shou1d pay a fine of 6,000 francs and suffer imprisonment 20 years in irons. Later, on 8 September, 1793, the penalty for such offences was made death, with confiscation of the property of the heirs, and a reward offered to any person informing the authorities regarding any such transaction. The Convention decreed, in May 1794, that the death penalty should be inflicted on any person convicted of 'having asked, before a bargain was concluded, in what money payment was to be made".

Georges Couthon, in August 1793, proposed and won passage of a law punishing any person who should sell assignats at less than their fixed value with imprisonment for 20 years in chains, and later passed a law making investment in foreign countries punishable by death. Prisons, guillotines, enactments inflicting 20 years' imprisonment in chains upon persons twice convicted of buying or selling paper money at less than its nominal value, and death upon investors in foreign securities, still did not stop people from procuring the necessities of life by bargaining and exchange; on 1 August, 1795, the gold louis of 25 francs was worth in paper, 920 francs; on 1 September, 1,200 francs; on 1 November, 2,600 francs; on 1 December, 3,050 francs. In February 1796, it was worth 7,200 francs or one franc in gold was worth 288 francs in paper. Prices of all commodities went up nearly in proportion. <ref>Andrew Dickson White, Fiat Money: Inflation in France, Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, 1959, pp. 75-89; first published in 1912 as revised version of 1876 lecture. Reproduced in ''Choice in Currency'', F. A. Hayek, The Institute of Economic Affairs 1976, "A Note on Government Monopoly of Money in Theory and History", [http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-book409pdf?.pdf France, 1789], pgs. 34 - 38.</ref>

==Legacy of the Revolution==

The influence of the French Revolution was immense throughout the western hemisphere, as other peoples felt that they, too, could rise up against their rulers and defeat them. Historians credit the French Revolution with spreading the ideas of the Enlightenment, limiting the power of nobility and clergy, and ending an absolute monarchy. But many who supported the French Revolution in its beginning were horrified by where it led, including numerous executions and terror. Some would say that France never fully recovered, as the French Revolution unleashed a hostility towards [[Christianity]] that continues to this day in France.

==Biblliography==
* Doyle, William. ''The Oxford History of the French Revolution'' (1989). [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-oxford-history-of-the-french-revolution-by-william-doyle.jsp online complete edition]; also [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-French-Revolution/dp/019925298X/ref=sr_1_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189484963&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search ]
* Doyle, William. ''The French Revolution: A Very Short Introduction.'' (2001), 120pp; [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-french-revolution-a-very-short-introduction-by-william-doyle.jsp online edition]
* Fremont-Barnes, Gregory. ed. ''The Encyclopedia of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars: A Political, Social, and Military History'' (ABC-CLIO: 3 vol 2006)
* Frey, Linda S. and Marsha L. Frey. ''The French Revolution.'' (2004) 190pp [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-french-revolution-by-linda-s-frey-marsha-l-frey.jsp online edition], conservative approach
* Furet, François. ''The French Revolution, 1770-1814'' (1996) [http://www.amazon.com/French-Revolution-1770-1814-History-France/dp/0631202994/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197704970&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search], by the leading French conservative scholars
* Furet, François and Mona Ozouf, eds. ''A Critical Dictionary of the French Revolution'' (1989), 1120pp; long essays by scholars; conservative perspective; stress on history of ideas [http://www.amazon.com/Critical-Dictionary-French-Revolution/dp/0674177282/ref=sr_1_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189497174&sr=8-2 excerpt and online search from Amazon.com], by the leading French conservative scholars
* Jones, Colin. ''The Longman Companion to the French Revolution'' (1989)
* Jones, Colin. ''The Great Nation: France from Louis XV to Napoleon'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Great-Nation-Napoleon-Penguin-History/dp/0140130934/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197705067&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Neely, Sylvia. '' A Concise History of the French Revolution'' (2008)
* Palmer, Robert R. ''The Age of the Democratic Revolution: A Political History of Europe and America, 1760-1800.'' (2 vol 1959), highly influential comparative history; [http://www.questia.com/read/22790906 vol 1 online]
* Paxton, John. ''Companion to the French Revolution'' (1987), hundreds of short entries.
* Schwab, Gail M., and John R. Jeanneney, eds. ''The French Revolution of 1789 and Its Impact'' (1995) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-french-revolution-of-1789-and-its-impact-by-john-r-jeanneney-gail-m-schwab.jsp online edition]
* Scott, Samuel F. and Barry Rothaus. ''Historical Dictionary of the French Revolution, 1789-1799'' (2 vol 1984), short essays by scholars
* Schama, Simon. ''Citizens. A Chronicle of the French Revolution'' (1989), highly readable narrative by scholar [http://www.amazon.com/Citizens-Simon-Schama/dp/0141017279/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197705186&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Sutherland, D.M.G. ''France 1789–1815. Revolution and Counter-Revolution'' (2nd ed. 2003, 430pp [http://www.amazon.com/French-Revolution-Empire-Quest-Civic/dp/0631233636/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189597597&sr=1-1 excerpts and online search from Amazon.com]

==References==
<references/>

== See also ==

*[[Alexis de Tocqueville]]

[[Category:French Revolution| ]]
[[Category:French History]]

French Revolution

2008-12-03T01:28:01Z

Bolly:

[[Image:Delacroix La liberte guidant le peuple.jpg|250px|right|La liberte guidant le peuple]]
'''The French Revolution''' was a 1789 revolution which is oft-quoted as the beginning of the modern era. In fact a set of several revolutions in a period of unprecedented turmoil, it saw the rise of [[Robespierre]] and the [[Reign of Terror]], a chaos wherein thousands were [[guillotine|guillotined]] for political leanings and moderatism.

The French Revolution was very [[atheism|atheistic]] in nature, as radicals outlawed the Church and tried to establish a [[Cult of Reason]] in its place. The Revolution also saw the rise of [[evolution|evolutionary]] thinking, a result of extreme [[rationalism]]. It inspired fear into European moderates like [[Edmund Burke]], who realized it was proof of the danger of [[liberalism]] run amok.

Before the Revolution, [[France]] had three levels in its social system: The First, Second, and Third Estates. The [[First Estate]] was about 1% of the population, but it controlled 10% of the land. The First Estate consisted of the clergy, and they did not pay any taxes. The [[Second Estate]] was about 2% of the population and they controlled 20% of the land. These were the nobility, and they too paid very little taxes. The [[Third Estate]] was everyone else, and they were badly overtaxed by the monarch. This overtaxing was a major cause of the [[French]] Revolution.

The leaders of the Third Estate were the middle class, called the [[bourgeoisie]]. They were educated in the ideas of the [[Enlightenment]], most importantly [[Jean Jacques Rousseau]]. Rousseau's book, "The Social Contract" supported a [[direct democracy]], rather that the republican government that had been adopted in [[America]]. The social contract spoke against titles for nobility and demanded complete equality for all people.

French Revolutionary ideals, especially thanks to Napoleon, later inspired liberal and democratic movements of the 19th Century.

==Chronology of the French Revolution==

Several costly wars, the War of Austrian Succession (1740-8), the Seven Years War (1756-63) and the American War of Independence (1778-83), had reduced the government to the verge of bankruptcy. The deficit for 1786 would be 112 million ''livres'', nearly a quater of total income. Due to the poorly organised taxation system it was impossible for the King and his finance minister to make up the deficit without serious reforms. In 1787 he called a meeting of 144 leading nobles, the Assembly of Notables, to attempt to persuade them to pay tax in return for increased powers. The nobles refused his requests and were supported by the local assembly; the Parlement de Paris.

The King withdrew his demands at this challenge to his authority, which was greeted by thousands taking to the street to celebrate. When troops were ordered to "Get some lead into the bastards' backsides", they fired into the air instead. In hindsight this can be seen as the start of dissent. It is notable that the initiators of this unrest were the upper classes, who had little reason to think there was any thirst for revolution. In April 1787, [[Calonne]] resigned in disgrace and the middle classes, strengthened by the protests, began to demand the Estates-Generale, a Parliament in which they would be represented.

==1789 - Year of Revolution==

With growing unrest and France nearing bankruptcy, the King agreed to call the Estates-Generale in May 1789. The [[Estate-Generale]] was divided into the three estates, with the first two estates (nobility and clergy) electing their representatives. The third estate representation required a series of elections in which all property owners over the age of twenty-five were eligible to take part. They elected a group of electors, who in turn chose delegates. The delegates themselves were overwhelmingly middle class, including the young lawyer [[Maximilien Robespierre]]. Furthermore, the Third Estate was required to produce a list of grievances known as ''cahiers''.

Between 25,000 and 60,000 documents were filled with grievances. Thousands demanded a constitution, reorganization of the clergy, lessening of the tax burden and an end to [[Royal]] waste. Few of these demands could be resolved without challenging the basis of [[Absolute Monarchy]]. However, not one of these document has been found to advocate abolition of the monarchy, with the large majority requesting moderate reform and many including expression of adoration towards the King.

The Estates-General had not met in 175 years and retained many of its former characteristics. Each Estate had one vote in the Assembly, such that the First and Second Estates could always outvote the Third Estate. That was acceptable in the early 1600s, but the Third Estate would not allow this in 1789 after learning the Enlightenment ideas. King Louis XVI responded to the Third Estate's complaints by doubling the number of Third Estate delegates in the Estates-General. By this time the alliance between the nobility and the third estate had broken down; the nobles may have called a march, but they drew the line at burning down tax offices. The Third Estate wanted a system of one vote per delegate, which would have given the Third Estate the same number of votes as the First and Second Estate combined.

The opening of the Estates-Generale did not bode well. The opening session was in an open coach house, which meant that the Third Estate struggled to hear the proceedings as they were on wooden benches at the far end of the room. Upon the entry of the King, the first and second estates were expected to remove their hats and sit down after the King, before replacing their hats. The Third Estate were expected to remain standing until after the first and second estates had replaced their hats, however, they chose to sit at the same time as the first and second estates. The First Estate were to wear glittering robes, the second estate were to wear silk coats, whilst the third estate were required to wear black coats. There was no question at this point of rudeness towards the King himself, and at this point none of the delegates (including Robespierre) was a republican in their beliefs. There then followed a speech by [[Necker]] on possible solutions to the economic crisis, that was of such length and dullness that Necker had to pass it on to a delegate to complete.

The Third Estate began to win votes in the Estates-Generale by attracting poorer clergy to their side. On 17 June the Third Estate, accompanied by the poorer clergy, voted 490 to 90 in favour of a motion to call themselves the [[National Assembly]] and claimed that they now had the right to manage the nations affairs and taxation. In an attempt to reassert his control, the king announced that Estates-Generale was postponed until 23 June where he would announce several reforms in a ''seance royale''. However, news of the postponement did not reach the delegates of the Third Estate, who arrived on the 20 June to find the room locked.

Following a period of confusion, Dr [[Guillotin]] (one of the Third Estate delegates) suggested it might be possible to convene at a nearby indoor tennis court and the group of over 500 delegate proceeded to meet at the court. The session was chaired by Bailly (a celebrity astronomer) and Mirabeau proposed that the delegation should not break up until a constitution was passed, which was opposed by only one delegate (Martin d'Auch). In effect the delegates had declared themselves the Government of France, pending a constitution to be organized by [[Mirabeau]].

The [[National Assembly]] approved the “[[Declaration of the Rights of Man]],” which combined ideas of the [[American Declaration of Independence]] with some Enlightenment concepts. The result of this combination had many debatable claims. The entire document is short and worth reading in full: [http://www.hrcr.org/docs/frenchdec.html] .

The King responded by ordering the delegates to disperse, however this had little effect. The following week the King sent a messenger, the Marquis de Breze, to order the finishing of the session. Mirabeau ordered the messenger to leave.
[[Image:David OathHoratti.jpg|left]]
In the last week of June the royal [[Government]] ordered 20,000 troops to march on Paris. It became apparent that compromise was not working. This was emphasized with the replacement of Necker by the hard line [[Baron de Breteuil]]. Thousands took to the streets to demand the reinstatement of [[Necker]], who was at the height of his popularity and seen as the only man who could solve the taxation crisis. Mirabeau spoke to the assembly, invoking the oath taken at the tennis court. [[Camille Desmoulins]] had ridden to Versailles to report on events and galloped back to Paris to report on the replacement of Necker.

Crowds marched to [[Abbaye]] prison to demand the release of the soldiers who had been arrested for not firing on the crowds. Troops were offered drinks by the crowd if they shouted 'Viva le tiers-etat'. Dummies of [[Necker]] and [[Duc d'Orleans]] were stolen to be paraded as heroes.

The deputies were now faced with a dilemma, requiring a mass movement for defence of the National Assembly, but fearing crowds getting out of control. Militia were therefore established, that excluded all unemployed and vagrants, and many districts demanded employers' references before admission. Admission varied enormously across districts, with 1,200 being recruited in [[Le Petit-St-Antoine]], but [[Les Minimes]] mustering four.

==Storming of the [[Bastille]]==

With the militia formed to repel the royal troops, there was an urgent need for weapons. The royalist [[Swiss Guard]]s had stored 30,000 pounds in the Bastille, to be used against the National Assembly. On the morning of July 14, 1789 (“[[Bastille Day]]”), a crowd of about a thousand people made up predominantly of small tradesmen arrived at the prison to demand the gun powder be handed over. The prison Governor invited a delegation in for breakfast, which proceeded for three and a half hours. Meanwhile, rumours circulated that royalist troops were committing atrocities across Paris.

A demonstrator outside the Bastille realized he would be able to get to the chains of the drawbridge by climbing from a nearby perfume shop. At this point the prison Governor, [[De Launay]], broke off negotiations and late in the afternoon cannon shots were aimed at the crowd. Two companies of French Guards were persuaded to the Bastille to the defend protesters being killed by cannon fire.

A Swiss Guard handed over the keys to the second drawbridge, leading to a moat. A clerk from a pawn office visited a carpenter and returned with eleven pieces of wood, one of which was able to span the moat. Once inside, seven prisoners were freed, though contrary to what is widely though, this did not include the [[Marquis de Sade]] (he had been moved as he had shouting at passers by through a pipe he had been given to urinate through. This took time however, as the keys to release the cells were the same as the keys to open the first draw bridge and the man with the keys had gone home.

In total six defenders of the Bastille were killed, including De launay, and ninety protestors.

The aftermath was one of euphoria throughout much of [[Paris]]. Much of the nobility proclaimed support for the act, realizing that it was not healthy to oppose public opinion on the matter. [[Louis XVI]] recalled Necker to his job and agreed to recognise the National Assembly, which included the Third Estate delegates, poorer clergy and nobility sympathetic to the Third Estate cause. [[Lafayette]] was appointed head of the police and the army, which was to be known as the National Guard. Bailly became the Mayor of Paris.

The King agreed to come to Paris and accept the gift of a cockade that had become a symbol of the revolution, which the king fastened to his hat, whilst the crowd cheered "Vive le Roi!". Whilst the significance of the day was evident, that it would produce a republic was far from clear. The plan of the King to take Paris with 20,000 troops had failed, but he was able to satisfy the populace that it was not intended and a peaceful resolution was reached. The changes that had so far occurred in a brief period of time were so dramatic that the thought that things could change further was difficult to conceive.

==The Great Fear==

During the week following the storming of the Bastille, news of events spread to the rest of France. This led to a panic as to what the response of the nobility would be to the events, The [[Great Fear]] or panic resulted. Many villages defended themselves against imaginary threats by forming peasant militias; riots occurred and peasants proceeded to burn wealthy homes.

The rural uprising prompted the National Assembly to pass a motion to 'destroy the [[feudal]] regime entirely', on August 4th. However, in order to release himself a peasant would have to pay twenty times his annual rent to the landlord, making the measure ineffectual.

==Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen==

The Assembly also passed the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen on the 4th August. This annulled the right of nobles to demand taxes, tithes and labor from peasants working on their family land. The declaration was inspired by the American Revolution and was partially written by LaFayette.

Unlike the American declaration that “all men are created equal,” the French version declared that “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.”

Whilst the American declaration that all men have inalienable rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” the French version declared that all men have natural rights of “liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression.”

Some declarations were troublesome; “Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law” left questions of definition. Also, the rights of French people to rebel were enshrined in the very constitution itself.

The water wheel was abolished as the method of execution in place of the more humane [[guillotine]]. It is notable that the only delegate to vote for the abolition of the [[death penalty]] was [[Robespierre]].

==A New Government==

France remained a republic. Although a republic has been established in North America at this time and a previous English republic, a European republic was still alien to the thoughts of most French people, including revolutionaries. Negotiations over the new constitution continued, with Mirabeau and Lafayette appealing for calm less the King withdraw from negotiation. [[Jean Paul Marat]] took a less moderate line. Marat argued for universal suffrage and for the King to retain only an advisory role, a constitutional monarchy such as those seen in the [[United Kingdom]] or [[Sweden]] to this day.

==Royal Faux Pas==

On 1st October, 1789, a party was thrown at the [[Palace of Versailles]]. Louis XVI took the cap he had been presented with following the storming of the Bastille and trampled it underfoot. The king later denied this, however several witnesses recalled the incident and news of the incident spread to Paris. A contingent of women raided the Town Hall was raided for weapons and set off from Paris to Versailles, becoming a crowd of 10,000, who were later joined by the National Guard to ensure good order.

Upon the arrival for the group at the palace two guards opened fire, but were interrupted by decapitation. A small delegation of women were permitted to meet the Queen, however one fainted upon witnessing the beauty of the Palace of Versailles. The crowd became impatient by six o'clock the following morning and a militant group of fishwives broke in with a cry of "We are going to cut off her head, tear out her heart, fry her liver and that will not be the end of it"(Documents of the French Revolution, page 62). It was a forceful enough argument to force the Royal family back to Paris, where it was felt it would be possible to keep closer watch. It was also clear by now that the King was in no position to demand a veto.

Antoinette is reputed to have responded unsympathetically to the lack of bread for the peasants by declaring, “Let them eat cake!” Historians doubt she ever actually said that.

==Anniversary Pledge==

On the first anniversary of the storming of the Bastille a large ceremony was held in Paris at which members of the Government and the King pledges themselves to uphold the 'law, the nation and the King'. This represents a compromise in that the King was still seen as central, however all pledges had previously been to the King alone, and the King was required to make no pledge.

==1791 - The King Strikes Back==

In the two years following the storming of the Bastille French society had been transformed. There were an estimated 133 political journals in Paris, Parish priests had been dismissed and replaced by elected Priests. Robespierre had advanced plans for the emancipation of [[Jews]] and [[Protestantism|Protestants]], equal treatment of all military ranks and the abolition of the property qualification for the National Guard. Robespierre remained incorruptible at this point, refusing to be the Duc d'Orleans let the luxury affect his judgement.

This situation was intolerable for the Royal Family, who began to organize a foreign force to invade France and restore their power. In December 1790 Louis wrote a secret note to the King of Prussia requesting a European army invade France. Furthermore, the King and Queen (herself Austrian) decided to flee Paris to help organise the invasion force from without France, let their presence in Paris compromise the invasion.

The royal couple decided to disguise themselves and flee across the border, which they did at night setting off at at a seven miles in part due to the weight requirements for the Queen to travel in the least luxury that she expected. The next morning the Kings letter to the National Assembly was found condemning all the measure which he had claimed to support for the previous two years.

The royal party reached [[Ste-Menehould]], where the papers of the party were checked by Drouet, who had been a staunch supporter of the revolution. Despite having seen the servant in the corner and 'struck by the resemblance of his face to the likeness of the King printed on the bank note', in disbelief he allowed the party to continue. Having discussed the incident with his colleague, Guillaume, the two raced to catch up with the party and spread word through the surrounding villages that the Royal family were attempting to flee. The family were captured and returned to Paris, with posters informing the gathering crowd "Whoever applauds the King will be flogged; whoever insults him will be hanged".

Most delegates wished to hold together a compromise, but the Head of State fleeing to lead a hostile invasion of the nation had created difficulties. Many insisted that the King must have been kidnapped. General Bouille wrote a statement confessing his involvement, but many insisted he was lying to implicate the King. While the only punishment towards the King was stripping of his powers of veto on laws and finance, talk began to emerge for the first time of the possibility of a republic. At this point Robespierre and most of the Paris commune strongly opposed the republic, whilst Lafayette rallied to the slogan 'The Revolution is Over'. By then the French Revolution was in full swing.

==Declaration of the Rights of Woman==

In 1791, a French journalist named [[Olympe de Gouges]] proposed a “[[Declaration of the Rights of Woman]],” (inspired by the writings of [[Mary Woolstonecraft]]) but the National Assembly rejected her proposal. She, like many other leaders of that time, was eventually executed by guillotine. Other sans-culotte groups were established including the [[Society of Revolutionary Women]]

==New Start==

Politics in France became divided between the moderate [[Girondins]] and the more radical [[Jacobins]]. At this point the Girondins appeared to be in the stronger position, however the Jacobins were growing in strength. At this point the Jacobins were led by [[Robespierre]], who made a strong speech in favor of a republic.

The French National Assembly established a [[constitutional monarchy]] and, in 1791, adopted a new constitution that created a Legislative Assembly. Three factions quickly formed in the new Legislative Assembly, known as the radicals (liberals), moderates (centrists) and conservatives, similar to those political movements today in the United States. The three factions sat in different sections of the large assembly hall, with the radicals (liberals) sitting on the left, the moderates sitting in the center, and the conservatives sitting on the right. That gave rise to the left-center-right terminology that we still use today in the United States to describe these three political groups.

==German Invasion==

A large number of noblemen had gathered in [[Koblenz]] to form an army to invade France and restore the King to full rule. The emigrants carried stories of atrocities and encouraged reaction against the National Assembly and atrocities associated with lower class democracy. The Duke of Brunswick declared "We will soon be marching on Paris".

This was a matter of some concern in France, as many of the officers that had been in the French army in 1789 had joined the emigrant army in Germany. The Girondins remained confident, but Robespierre saw little cause for initial optimism. The Royal Family strongly supported war with the Prussian and Austrian force in the hope that the French would be defeated and they be restored.

On April 1792, the King declared war on the [[Hapsburg Empire]], who wished to restore his power. The French army suffered a series of defeats along the border, creating optimism in the Royal house. The National Assembly ordered the dispersal of the Kings bodyguard who were supporting the foreign invasion, but this was vetoed by the King. The Assembly then voted for 20,000 French patriots to come from across France to protect Paris, but this was also vetoed by the King.

The use of the royal veto to undermine the defense of France prompted a strong reaction, with demonstrators managing to pour into the royal apartments. The King was forced to wear a red cap while being taunted for several hours with taunts of "Fat Louis" and "Tyrants must Tremble". The time of compromise was nearing an end.

Lafayette planned a coup to restore the old order to as it was in 1787, using the National Guard. This force was resisted by a volunteer group of citizens. Traditionally this latter group are portrayed as ne'er-do-well criminals, however it is questionable whether such groups would march typically 800 miles. The volunteer groups were greeted as heroes in towns they passed through and [[Rouget de Lisle]] composed 'La Marseillaise' as a call to arms.

The war started badly for the French and on 25th July the Duke of Brunswick prepared to March on Paris and pledged to restore the French Royal Family to their original statue, but that he had no intention of meddling in the internal affairs of France. He demanded total surrender or the Prussian and Austrian armies would "take an exemplary and never-to-be-forgotten vengeance, by giving up the town of Paris to military execution..and the guilty rebels to the death they deserve".

==Second Revolution==

Paris was divided, with 20,000 signing a petition to support the full restoration of an absolute monarchy and a foreign army was invading France rapidly. Moderates such as Mme Roland supported withdrawal from Paris, whereas Maton would accept no backward step. On 10th August a larger demonstration marched on the palace demanding the removal of the King.

==Valmy==

The National Assembly called for volunteers to defend the state, with assurances that this army would be different to the one that had gone before and collapsed before the troops of the Duke of Brunswick. The soldiers would sing Les Maseillaise into battle and officers and men would wear similar uniforms. The majority of the officers would be voted for by the soldiers.

The army was formed, and the Duke of Brunswick brought his army round to meet the French on by the village of [[Valmy]]. The French were grouped around a windmill in an area of uncommon tranquillity. The battle involved a day long exchange of cannon fire with little result. The significance of the battle is that the French volunteer troops remained firm.

[[Johann Goethe]] was present at the battle, as one of the troops of the Duke of Brunswick; "In the morning we had been talking of spitting and eating the French. Now everyone was thinking again. Almost everyone remained silent. Only a few men spoke and their reflections seemed illogical or frivolous".

In the opinion of Goethe, what had changed in the French was their spirit. They had won their freedom and did not wish to return to the days before the revolution, they had debated and were politically active. They were therefore able to stand firm. The news of the battle had a strong effect on French national morale, as the French came to believe they could win.

==Republic==

On the day following the [[Battle of Valmy]], the newly elected French Government (the Convention). The Convention declared France to be an 'Indivisible Republic'. The Convention was made of three factions; the [[Girondins]], the [[Montagnards]] Including Robespierre, Danton and Marat) and the [[Grenouilles de la Marais]]. Robespierre won an argument to allow a public gallery for debates.

All factions favored deposing the King, but were far from united beyond that point. The Montannards saw this as the first step to greater social equality, as opined by Robespierre, "Royalty has been destroyed, not the reign of equality is beginning". He attacked the wealthiest businessmen "those goods which are necessary to keep people alive as nothing more than an ordinary item of trade" - a sentiment echoed later by [[Karl Marx]]'s assertion that businessmen see objects not for their usefulness but for their value as commodities.

However, the Jocobin position was far from modern [[Socialism]], as they sought a nation of small property owners. The Government would be elected by property owners. Support for a republic was recently and had little idea of how to progress with the power they now found they had.

The Girdondins accused the Montagnards of preparing a dictatorship. However, the Girdondins had lost credibility by suggesting retreat from Paris and furthermore lacked the social roots that enabled the Montagnards to motivate thousands of volunteers. It reflects on the differing social backgrounds of the delegates that it was at this point Robespirre met a cabinet maker, M. {{Duplay]]. Duplay invited Robespierre back to his flat to meet his family and, finding that the family had been trying to let a spare room, Robespierre moved in. It is worth considering the contrast between the setting of the reign of Louis XVI to Robespierre who, whilst the most powerful man in France, has to queue behind his landlord to use the toilet in the morning.

==Trial of the King==

The King and family were detained in the Temple prison, but retained the trappings of luxury. The King had a library of 1,500 books, still ordered his shoes from his preferred cobbler and the family was provided with servants. The majority of servants remained utterly devoted to the family, feeling their employment to be a sacred duty.

This loyalty was not universal however, a former locksmith of the King revealed to the Paris Commune that there is secret cupboard containing correspondence between the King and invading powers showing collusion. Mirabeau and Lafayette were also implicated, though Mirabeau had no died and Lafayette had fled to [[Austria]].

The trial was debated by a number of key speakers. [[Louis St-Just]] debated the very validity of Kings, that to try the King as a bad King suggested it was possible to be a good, legal King, which was not acceptable. He was opposed by [[Thomas Paine]] who wished the King to be exiled to the [[USA]]. The vote was won for death by 387 to 334.

Louis XVI was executed in January 1793.

==Dechristianization movement==

The measures taken by the Convention to substitute the Revolutionary calendar for the old Christian calendar, and the decrees ordering the municipalities to seize and melt down the bells and treasures of the churches, proved that certain currents prevailed tending to the [[dechristianization]] of France.

The rest of décadi, every tenth day, replaced the Sunday rest. The "missionary representatives", sent to the provinces, closed churches, hunted down citizens suspected of religious practices. Persecution of all religious ideas began. Many churches were forcibly closed and converted into [[Cult of Reason|Temples of Reason]] <ref>John Hall Stewart, ''A Documentary Survey of the French Revolution'', Macmillan, New York, 1963.</ref>

During the first days of the Republic, provision had been made for dating public documents from "the first year of the French Republic," but no definite plan for a revised calendar had been proposed. A decree of 2 January, 1793, provided for the second year of the Republic to begin on 1 January, 1793. The new calendar took form in October and November, and lasted until 1806.

A vital force intended to sustain the political and economic terror was the creation of an ideology based on love of '' la Patrie'', "the Country" or "fatherland", and the subjugation of the individual to the collective will of whole. The Church of Notre-Dame-de-Paris became a temple of Reason, and the feast of Reason was celebrated on 10 November. The idea of honouring the fatherland, which had its origin in the festival of the Federation in 1790 gave rise to successive cults. Chamber Deputy Laloi commented they had "wiped out eighteen centuries of error".

Robespierre adopted the position that from the religious and Republican standpoint the idea of a Supreme Being was advantageous to the State, that religion should dispense with a priesthood, and that priests were to religion what charlatans were to medicine, and that the true priest of the Supreme Being was Nature. The Convention adopted a decree of which the first article was: "The French people recognize the existence of a Supreme Being and the immortality of the soul". The same decree states that freedom of worship is maintained but adds that in the case of disturbances caused by the exercise of a religion those who "excite them by fanatical preaching or by counter Revolutionary innovations", shall be punished according to the rigour of the law. Thus the condition of the Catholic Church remained equally precarious and the first festival of the Supreme Being was celebrated throughout France on 8 June, 1794. with aggressive splendour. Whereas the Exagérés wished simply to destroy Catholicism, and in the temples of Reason political rather than moral doctrines were taught. Robespierre desired that the civic religion should have a moral code which he based on the two dogmas of God and the immortality of the soul. He was of the opinion that the idea of God had a social value, that public morality depended on it and that Catholics would more readily support the republic under the auspices of a Supreme Being. <ref>Catholic Encyclopdeia, [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13009a.htm French Revolution]</ref>

==Committee of Public Safety==

The Committee of Public Safety was formed in 1793, and passed a rule that Generals were to live in camp with the army. This had the practical effect of testing the belief in equality of the many Nobles in the army. [[General Dumouriez]] made overtures to the Prince of Coburg for the invasion of France and have Louis XVI's son proclaimed King Louis XVII.

==The Thermidorian Reaction==

By this time many countries, including [[Great Britain]], [[Spain]], the [[Netherlands]], [[Prussia]] and [[Austria]], had formed a First Coalition to invade France and restore monarchy. The National Convention responded by drafting people into an army. Historians claim women were drafted, but such a politically inspired claim is worth investigating before accepting it. The war lasted for several years, on several fronts, but the First Coalition was eventually defeated.

The execution of Louis XVI led almost immediately to the [[Reign of Terror]]. [[Maximilian Robespierre]], head of the Committee of Public Safety, proceeded to guillotine numerous alleged enemies, including Marie Antoinette. In a classic illustration of Jesus’s teaching that “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword,” Jacobin leaders [[Georges Danton]] (a fiery orator) was guillotined, and [[Jean-Paul Marat]] (a scientist) was stabbed to death in his bathtub. Eventually Robespierre himself was guillotined in 1794, and the Reign of Terror ended with his death.

At last the government of France was in the hands of a legislature, and an executive branch of five men called the Directory. The Directory picked a young, highly successful military genius named [[Napoleon]] to lead the French army. The very next day Napoleon seized all power in France as its [[dictator]], in November 1799.

==Economic controls==

On 29 September, 1793, in the Law of the Maximum was formulated to deal with the steady rise in prices of the necessities of life. Committees of experts had been appointed to study the whole subject. Prices were set at one and one-third its price in 1790, transportation costs were regulated at a fixed rate, a 5 per cent markup was allowed the wholesaler and 10 per cent to the retailer. Bertrand Barrere declared, "The needs of the people will no longer be spied upon in order that the commercial classes may arbitrarily take advantage".

The first result was farmers produced as little as they possibly could. Scarcity increased, and the people of the large cities were put on an rationing. Many shopkeepers went out of business, and the remainder forced buyers to pay enormous charges under the very natural excuse that the seller risked his life in trading at all. That this excuse was valid is easily seen by the daily lists of those condemned to the guillotine, in which not infrequently figure the names of men charged with violating the Maximum laws. Manufactures were crippled and frequently destroyed.

To detect goods concealed by farmers and shopkeepers, a spy system was established with a reward to the informer of one-third of the value of the goods discovered. To spread terror, the Criminal Tribunal at Strassburg was ordered to destroy the dwelling of anyone found guilty of selling goods above the price set by law. The farmer often found that he could not raise his products at anything like the price required by the new law; and when he tried to hold back his crops or cattle, alleging that he could not afford to sell them at the prices fixed by law, they were frequently taken from him by force and he was fortunate if he was paid in the depreciated fiat currency or escaped execution.

The Convention decreed that any person selling gold or silver coin, or making any difference in any transaction between paper banknotes (assignats), and precious metal coin (specie) should be imprisoned in irons for six years; that anyone who refused to accept a payment in assignats, or accepted assignats at a discount, should pay a fine of 3,000 francs; and that anyone committing this crime a second time shou1d pay a fine of 6,000 francs and suffer imprisonment 20 years in irons. Later, on 8 September, 1793, the penalty for such offences was made death, with confiscation of the property of the heirs, and a reward offered to any person informing the authorities regarding any such transaction. The Convention decreed, in May 1794, that the death penalty should be inflicted on any person convicted of 'having asked, before a bargain was concluded, in what money payment was to be made".

Georges Couthon, in August 1793, proposed and won passage of a law punishing any person who should sell assignats at less than their fixed value with imprisonment for 20 years in chains, and later passed a law making investment in foreign countries punishable by death. Prisons, guillotines, enactments inflicting 20 years' imprisonment in chains upon persons twice convicted of buying or selling paper money at less than its nominal value, and death upon investors in foreign securities, still did not stop people from procuring the necessities of life by bargaining and exchange; on 1 August, 1795, the gold louis of 25 francs was worth in paper, 920 francs; on 1 September, 1,200 francs; on 1 November, 2,600 francs; on 1 December, 3,050 francs. In February 1796, it was worth 7,200 francs or one franc in gold was worth 288 francs in paper. Prices of all commodities went up nearly in proportion. <ref>Andrew Dickson White, Fiat Money: Inflation in France, Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, 1959, pp. 75-89; first published in 1912 as revised version of 1876 lecture. Reproduced in ''Choice in Currency'', F. A. Hayek, The Institute of Economic Affairs 1976, "A Note on Government Monopoly of Money in Theory and History", [http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-book409pdf?.pdf France, 1789], pgs. 34 - 38.</ref>

==Legacy of the Revolution==

The influence of the French Revolution was immense throughout the western hemisphere, as other peoples felt that they, too, could rise up against their rulers and defeat them. Historians credit the French Revolution with spreading the ideas of the Enlightenment, limiting the power of nobility and clergy, and ending an absolute monarchy. But many who supported the French Revolution in its beginning were horrified by where it led, including numerous executions and terror. Some would say that France never fully recovered, as the French Revolution unleashed a hostility towards [[Christianity]] that continues to this day in France.

==Biblliography==
* Doyle, William. ''The Oxford History of the French Revolution'' (1989). [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-oxford-history-of-the-french-revolution-by-william-doyle.jsp online complete edition]; also [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-French-Revolution/dp/019925298X/ref=sr_1_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189484963&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search ]
* Doyle, William. ''The French Revolution: A Very Short Introduction.'' (2001), 120pp; [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-french-revolution-a-very-short-introduction-by-william-doyle.jsp online edition]
* Fremont-Barnes, Gregory. ed. ''The Encyclopedia of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars: A Political, Social, and Military History'' (ABC-CLIO: 3 vol 2006)
* Frey, Linda S. and Marsha L. Frey. ''The French Revolution.'' (2004) 190pp [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-french-revolution-by-linda-s-frey-marsha-l-frey.jsp online edition], conservative approach
* Furet, François. ''The French Revolution, 1770-1814'' (1996) [http://www.amazon.com/French-Revolution-1770-1814-History-France/dp/0631202994/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197704970&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search], by the leading French conservative scholars
* Furet, François and Mona Ozouf, eds. ''A Critical Dictionary of the French Revolution'' (1989), 1120pp; long essays by scholars; conservative perspective; stress on history of ideas [http://www.amazon.com/Critical-Dictionary-French-Revolution/dp/0674177282/ref=sr_1_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189497174&sr=8-2 excerpt and online search from Amazon.com], by the leading French conservative scholars
* Jones, Colin. ''The Longman Companion to the French Revolution'' (1989)
* Jones, Colin. ''The Great Nation: France from Louis XV to Napoleon'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Great-Nation-Napoleon-Penguin-History/dp/0140130934/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197705067&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Neely, Sylvia. '' A Concise History of the French Revolution'' (2008)
* Palmer, Robert R. ''The Age of the Democratic Revolution: A Political History of Europe and America, 1760-1800.'' (2 vol 1959), highly influential comparative history; [http://www.questia.com/read/22790906 vol 1 online]
* Paxton, John. ''Companion to the French Revolution'' (1987), hundreds of short entries.
* Schwab, Gail M., and John R. Jeanneney, eds. ''The French Revolution of 1789 and Its Impact'' (1995) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-french-revolution-of-1789-and-its-impact-by-john-r-jeanneney-gail-m-schwab.jsp online edition]
* Scott, Samuel F. and Barry Rothaus. ''Historical Dictionary of the French Revolution, 1789-1799'' (2 vol 1984), short essays by scholars
* Schama, Simon. ''Citizens. A Chronicle of the French Revolution'' (1989), highly readable narrative by scholar [http://www.amazon.com/Citizens-Simon-Schama/dp/0141017279/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197705186&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Sutherland, D.M.G. ''France 1789–1815. Revolution and Counter-Revolution'' (2nd ed. 2003, 430pp [http://www.amazon.com/French-Revolution-Empire-Quest-Civic/dp/0631233636/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189597597&sr=1-1 excerpts and online search from Amazon.com]

==References==
<references/>

== See also ==

*[[Alexis de Tocqueville]]

[[Category:French Revolution| ]]
[[Category:French History]]

Conservapedia talk:Obama straw poll

2008-12-03T01:25:26Z

Bolly: /* It is time to end this foolish endeavor. Now. */

We should probably divide it up into several issues. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:31, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:Two that come to mind are religion and birthplace. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:38, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::The number of his gaffes. --[[User:MugiK|MugiK]] 11:39, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::First Black President maybe. It seems that Andy is trying to deny him that title as well. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:Shouldn't the Obama article simply follow the example set by the other articles about politicians both in style and tone? When you compare for example [[John McCain]], [[Bill Clinton]], and [[Barack Obama]], the choice should be clear.
:"Some conservatives" (Who?) say that he's a Muslim, and "some conservatives" (Who?) insist he wasn't born in Hawaii. I'm pretty sure that "some liberals" also insisted on quite a few things when [[George W. Bush]] became President, but you don't see every accusation in the article (judging from a quick look at least). Sarah Palin did drugs, Obama did drugs, but only the Obama article says it (to be fair, at least in Palin's case, it had been legal at the time, but that doesn't make it any better in my eyes). Maybe one standard for all articles would help us more than deciding just how far to move the Obama article away from the standard set by the other articles? --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 11:53, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::Yes...Shouldn't all articles (political or not) stick to the evidence for and against, and leave the speculation and editorializing for talk pages and essays?--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 12:37, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::: Wikipedia has an ignored-when-it-suits policy of not taking sides but presenting the evidence for and against (for example, it takes sides in the creation/evolution debate). Conservapedia, in contrast, is prepared to take a stand on issues; it is concerned with ''truth'' not, (per Wikipedia), ''verifiability''.
::: The issue here as far as I'm concerned is not that Conservapedia is taking a particular view, but that the particular view is without substantiation and even contrary to some of the evidence, and therefore almost certainly untrue.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:24, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Philip, what you've repeatedly deleted (censored) from the [[Obama]] entry is factual information that is undeniably true, such as how he pronounces "Pakistan". Conservapedia never stated that Obama is a Muslim, but presents compelling evidence about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::::: And yet various people deny it, so it is simply wrong to say that it's "undeniably" true. And you have consistently failed to actually provide any substantiation of your claims (including the claim of 'censorship'), which strongly suggests that they are false, especially given that counter-arguments have been given. And given that I've already pointed out that the article ''did'' say that "Obama is a Muslim", your claim that it didn't is tantamount to a lie. (NB: I haven't read your latest posts there, so it's possible that you've recently given evidence I haven't yet seen.)

== Admin only? ==

Can I ask why this is the case? It doesn't seem particularly democratic if enfranchisement is restricted. Be wary if you start [[American Revolution|taxing me]]! [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:40, 27 November 2008 (EST)
*Because inclusive discussion has so far failed to net any agreement, see [[talk:Barack Obama]] --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:42, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:Big difference between inclusive "discussion" (yes that page is a mess) and inclusive ''voting''. But I see your point. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::Straw poll, not inclusive discussion. You all get to see who thinks what. Happy Thanksgiving. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:45, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::How about going with what Andy decides? He is the Leader of Conservapedia and has already ruled on the situation after reading and considering views from both sides. Although the poll was begun with good intentions, there is a danger that it will be misused by Liberals who have already emphatically lost the argument on the Obama talk page to try and wrest the situation back and gain some spurious authority for their plaints. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:07, 27 November 2008 (EST)[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:47, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::::Who are these Liberal administrators? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 13:29, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Oh Henry, look and read. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:54, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::::: Bugler, are you calling Andy and yourself liberals? Because it's him and you (and co.) who have "emphatically lost the argument". I also find it most ironic that you posted "How about going with what Andy decides? He is the Leader of Conservapedia and has already ruled on the situation..." with the edit comment "''Anti-democratic cliquism''"! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::It's funny you should say that. I was under the impression that it is those who deny the truth - both about Obama and the nature of discourse on Conservapedia - and who have to rely on censorship, who have lost the argument. Read what Andy says below. We present the facts, pro and con, and let readers make up their own minds. That is the conservative way, and the Conservapedia way, but it clearly is not the way of the Rayment faction. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:41, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::: Given that your side has not actually ''given'' much of an argument, you cannot possibly claim to have won it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:28, 1 December 2008 (EST)

This is an experiment to see what effect a straw poll will have on, er, 'the situation'. Can't hurt, anyway. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:47, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Rod Weathers, this arose out of a discussion on my talk page. The problem with making it unrestricted is that doing so attracts all sorts of people, including trolls, socks, parodists, and sycophants. Limiting it to those with x number of edits discriminates against those that edit carefully and in depth in favour of those who can't understand the Preview button or who are making lots of trivial changes. Limiting it to administrators is a very blunt-instrument way of limiting it to those who are theoretically more entitled to have a say. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:36, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:I see. That seems rather reasonable. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:17, 28 November 2008 (EST)
::''Limiting it to Philip and his four imaginary Liberal friends is a very blunt-instrument way of limiting it to those who are theoretically more entitled to have a say.'' [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:52, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::: Huh? What "four imaginary Liberal friends"? What are you on? This poll page is limited to administrators. The administrators are not imaginary, number more than four, and are not liberal! You didn't get ''anything'' right! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:28, 1 December 2008 (EST)
:::Are his four imaginary liberal friends supposed to include Conservative, Ed Poor, and Tim? '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 17:17, 28 November 2008 (EST)
Only one of those, Klumpers. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:39, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:Funny, I thought all of those people existed. Learn something new every day. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:31, 28 November 2008 (EST)
::That was a big l "Liberal" in Bugler's post. In Australia a Liberal is a member of a conservative political party. Anyway this is the first hint I've seen that the secret liberal clique is actually imaginary. Excuse me while I go brace myself for another block for disagreeing with Bugler.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:46, 28 November 2008 (EST)

==Great American Tradition==
In the great American democratic tradition, people who were not elected will discuss policy that will be binding on all, while not counting the views of others. {{unsigned|KimSell}}

:Am I really the only non-sysop who thinks this is a good idea? Too often the arguments on talk pages are dragged out to the point of oblivion of reason. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 16:15, 28 November 2008 (EST)

== My comment ==

I've added a comment about his religion. I probably won't be adding anything else, because I haven't looked into the other issues as much.

Contrary to the offensive labelling of me as an "Obama defender", I'm not here to defend Obama, but simply to correct a blatant untruth in calling him a Muslim.

This straw poll is going to be pointless if we don't get a large percentage of the administrators putting comments here, but at the same time, perhaps many don't have too much of an opinion, at least on every issue.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 27 November 2008 (EST)

: The "blatant untruth" is any claim that Conservapedia asserts definitively that Obama is a Muslim. Conservapedia presents the facts and the reader can decide, as with all entries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::: Until Ed Poor changed it recently, that is exactly what it said, which I have already pointed out to you. This looks like "[[liberal denial]]" [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:33, 1 December 2008 (EST)
::''Conservapedia presents the facts and the reader can decide, as with all entries.'' Smething that I have been constantly stating to Philip, only to be met with blank incomprehension and denial. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:38, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::: I wonder why Ed Poor doesn't block ''you'' for "personal remarks". And your comment is simply a false claim. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:33, 1 December 2008 (EST)
:::::And calling me a liar ''isn't'' a personal remark? You really take the biscuit sometimes. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:49, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::::: I never said that calling you a liar wasn't a personal remark. (And I didn't call you a liar.) But again, you don't address the issue, but introduce a red herring. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:05, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::The issue is whether or not the statements about Obama are factual and relevant. Simply saying "Conservapedia presents the facts" begs the question - Philip is disputing that on the Obama page Conservapedia is presenting facts. If some evidence and justification is given for why the statements on the Obama page are factual and relevant, then that should be the end of the argument. So far Philip feels that such evidence and justification has not been given. To repeat, this has nothing to do with whether or not Conservapedia ''should'' present facts and let the reader decide, and everything to do with whether or not Conservapedia ''is'' presenting the facts and letting the reader decide. [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 17:48, 28 November 2008 (EST)
::::"The facts" would include factual evidence to the contrary, as I suggested [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&oldid=571768#Suggestion_for_compromise a week ago], to no avail. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:44, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Conservapedia presents evidence. We are not arrogant dogmatists; we present evidence and facts and let the reader make up his mind. Of course, there are some minds that are too closed to be made up. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:49, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::::: Still repeating the mantra without actually addressing the issue (justifying that the claims ''are'' valid evidence). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:08, 2 December 2008 (EST)

== Nuetral light? ==

Can we not just portray him as we would a white christian republican president? It almost seems like we are just spreading rumors about our future commander and chief. --[[User:Rcollins|Rcollins03]] 19:34, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:Yes, almost. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:02, 28 November 2008 (EST)

== The Poll ==

Ed if you want this to have meaning, then you should solicit all of the active sysops. It would also be good to see that you wish to participate in your own poll. I considered putting in my own thoughts and came back to do so, but apparently I was looking at a different version of the questions. When I looked at it, the reference was to Conservapedia; it has now changed to simply be some conservatives. Shouldn't a straw poll where only admins can respond deal with conservapedia's position and our thoughts on that position? Simply making it an opinion poll doesn't mean much. If it doesn't deal specifically with Conservapedia, then why even limit it to just admins? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:39, 28 November 2008 (EST)

==Non-Sysop Opinions==

I'm adding my two cents. 
*'''Religion:''' I believe Obama is a Christian, but a liberal one who does not take the Bible literally, and who is most comfortable with worship in the Black church. I believe he has been raised in such a way that he is more familiar with the Muslim religion, and with other international things, than most Americans, but this does not make him a Muslim. I believe the concept of Takeyya/Taqiyya is meant for life-threatening situations, similar to the case of Jews in Hitler's Germany who passed as Catholics to survive. The idea that Obama was exposed to Islam as a young child, took it to heart, and then hid it for the next 30 years is not credible to me. I believe that ''any'' president of the US ''needs'' to have an understanding of Islam, as Islamic extremists are a serious threat to Western countries like ours, thus I am glad that our commander-in-chief-elect has chosen to educate himself about this religion.
*'''Birthplace:''' I believe it is most likely that he was born in Hawaii. However, his mother, father, and maternal grandparents, the people most likely to know for sure, are dead. If there was a problem, the Republicans would have found it. We need to let this one go.
*'''Political gaffes:''' I believe that Obama is a human being, just like George Bush and Sarah Palin and me. I personally could not get up there and speak perfectly 100% of the time. Instead of quote-mining and micro-analyzing these sentences, we need to look carefully at context and big-picture to get a sense of what he is all about. When we insist a quote taken out of context means something that the context makes clear was not the intent, we look foolish, and rightfully so.
* In general, as people who are trying to write an encyclopedia, we must insist on the highest standards of documentation/citations/references, and must always make it clear *who* is making these claims, and *what evidence or speculation* the claims are based on. We must be brutally honest about what information we have and where it came from - what we know and what we do not know - what is speculation and what is documented knowledge. Conservatives don't always agree on every detail. In situations where there is conflicting information and conservatives do not agree, we must present both sides (from a conservative point of view). Ultimately, our readers should be given the references to decide for themselves.
--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:57, 29 November 2008 (EST)

== It is time to end this foolish endeavor. Now. ==

*CP has an owner, it is his absolute right to have whatever viewpoint he wants. To ask any questions he wants to, to speculate as to Obama's motives and/or background. If people agree, with even a part, they should stick around and help build this place. If they don't, what other reason, ''other than being obstinate or having malicious intent'', could they have? Disagreement is fine, debate is good. But where does it end, and argument without end begin? The "truth" isn't dependent upon polls, straw or otherwise. Since Conservapedia has officially eschewed a "mobocracy" what in the world is going on here? Can you gentlemen please take this where it belongs, to email? And yes, Philip, I understand ''your idea'' of the wiki format is different from what I think, what Andy thinks, what your fellow Administrators think. But you and Tim have always known that from the very beginning. It isn't like it was sprung on you by surprise, is it?. ''It is time to end this foolish and misguided endeavor.'' --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:18, 1 December 2008 (EST)

::You say: "CP has an owner, it is his absolute right to have whatever viewpoint he wants."
::However, the point of this project is to show the truth, not one particular person's viewpoint. If Andy wants to have a website that is an outlet to display his personal opinions and make his own political commentary and political attacks, that is absolutely fine by me. However, he is portraying Conservapedia as an encyclopedia, supposedly just the truth instead of political bias. Andy has to make a decision. Either he has an encyclopedia, and starts treating it like one, or else he can have a website dedicated to his personal opinion. Either one is fine by me. However, if he wants to have the latter, then he should advertise it as such. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:48, 1 December 2008 (EST)

::(Edit Conflict with CPAdmin1) I am not sure that it is my place to answer you, TK, but I feel some things must be said. Andrew Schlafly is undoubtedly the owner of this website. He does have the absolute right to have whatever viewpoint he wants. He does have the right to ask any questions, to speculate as to Obama's motives and/or background. But he does not have the right to post these viewpoints as facts. He is not infallible. No one is. To leave the truth to any one person's judgement, even if it is Mr. Schlafly's judgement, is faulty.

::You are also absolutely correct in that truth is not dependent upon polls, or "mobocracy" either. But these people who came up with the idea of a straw poll have seen no other way to get their point across. Their point is that any encyclopedic website should treat logic as king. Truth is not necessarily obtainable, but fact is. That is what Conservapedia should strive for: fact. And before anyone says that treating logic as king is atheistic or liberal, do not be too literal, because I hold other, more important things, like God and my faith, above logic. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 00:03, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::What Tim and JArneal have said I concur with. And point out that those opposing us continually misrepresent the situation, by claiming "censorship", the "right to decide what viewpoint to put", etc. Andy has never explicitly claimed that his viewpoint is sacrosanct (although that does seem to be implicit, and that view is supported by various people claiming as much; obviously they understand the thinking behind his actions also), and in fact Andy specifically said to me that truth is decided by logic and evidence. He didn't say that it's decided by what he thinks. But rather than argue logic and evidence, Andy, Bugler, and TK, in particular, are trying to silence the logic and evidence by claiming "censorship" (but never justifying that claim), the right to a viewpoint, that that it's "undeniable" (patently false), that this is supposedly all about how things are done on Wikipedia, and other red herrings that ''don't actually provide logic and evidence''! In doing so, they effectively demonstrate that they are wrong, as providing logically fallacious arguments is the resort of those that don't have good arguments! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:02, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::Philip, Tim, JArneal, what I said was, in addition to the parts you addressed is:

<blockquote>
'''"Since Conservapedia has officially eschewed a "mobocracy" what in the world is going on here? Can you gentlemen please take this where it belongs, to email? And yes, Philip, I understand your idea of the wiki format is different from what I think, what Andy thinks, what your fellow Administrators think. But you and Tim have always known that from the very beginning. It isn't like it was sprung on you by surprise, is it?"'''
</blockquote>

:::Yes, I realize you disagree. And I also realize you wouldn't accept that what you claim Andy (and others) are doing, is exactly what you (and others) did to me, at one time. No proof presented to me, nothing. No right to confront accusers, etc. But it seems to me you have a double standard, depending upon the situation, and if you agree or disagree with it. Can you, Philip, disagree with your employer, or their decisions about schedules? Are you allowed to argue publicly about cut-backs? I don't think so. Taking the job of an Admin, you by necessity forfeit certain rights others have. I think your claim of being able to wear "two hats", be at one turn an Admin, and as it suits you, an editor of equal standing with the majority of CP users, is a fallacy. I am not one of those clamoring for your removal, odd as that might seem to some. I am, however, looking for a resolution, and an end to this public family squabble short of blocking and removal as an Administrator. Someone has to give. IMO, those "someones" should be those who Andy has given his trust to, and endowed them with special rights others don't have, out of common courtesy. Can you guys please take this to email? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:17, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::Again, your analogy fails. If this was a project for Andy's purposes, and Andy's opinion, then it might hold some water. However the object is supposedly advancing the cause of truth. Therefore, truth should come before Andy's opinion, which is all that the Obama thing has become. Also for your analogy of an employer there are 2 definite differences. For one, an employee is bound to do the work of the employer because he is under contract, and being payed to do it. CP is a volunteer project, so editors should have more freedom. Secondly, as I pointed out already, CP is about truth, not about Andy, A business is about making money for the owner/shareholders, therefore all work is done to further their purposes. so your analogy fails. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 07:48, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::: TK, you haven't shown how a discussion about article content "belongs" in e-mail, I reject that it does, and I've seen nobody but you expecting that.
:::: Regarding what I "did" to you, you are wrong. You didn't want to see the proof, and you had every opportunity to confront accusers (and certainly criticised me heavily). Yes, I can disagree with my employers about schedules, and often do, but as Tim said, the situation is not the same, if for no other reason than we are talking about truth here.
:::: I fail to see how wearing two hats is "forfeit[ing] certain rights".
:::: If someone should "give", then why shouldn't it be those who are inserting POV as fact, calling others names, and failing to support their claims?
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:30, 2 December 2008 (EST)

This project is led by Andy, and leadership is necessary. Where disputes occur, he is rightly the arbiter of what constitutes truth. It is our duty to display loyalty to and respect for his judgement. What you are doing, Tim, is not only arrogant (in claiming for yourself the right to adjudicate) and wrong (the 'arguments' put forward by you and your clique hold less water than a broken sieve), but disloyal and subversive. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:56, 2 December 2008 (EST)
: "''...he is rightly the arbiter of what constitutes truth...''": I don't know how many times I've both denied this and also pointed out that not even Andy claims this, but here you go, repeating this mantra yet again, but still not substantiating your claims. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:30, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::There has to be an ultimate arbiter in the case of the endless sterile arguments of the kind that you have been fomenting, and Andy is the Leader of this project. If not him, then who? Certainly not this mysterious clique of yours, and we are most definitely not a mobocracy. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:37, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::And as for TK's comments, he is quite correct. There is such a thing as 'cabinet responsibility'. Be an administrator, or enjoy playing disloyal games (and take the consequences), but not both. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:39, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::: You know, hidden away in that comment there is actually a decent question (which I have an answer for), but until and unless you retract the unjustified slurs associated with it, you don't deserve an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:07, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::::'Injured feelings' make such a useful shield when one is on the ropes! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:53, 2 December 2008 (EST)

I am getting weary of reading so many personal remarks:

*didn't want to see the proof
*don't deserve an answer
*enjoy playing disloyal games
*exactly what you and others did to me
*retract the unjustified slurs
*this mysterious clique of yours
*trying to silence the logic and evidence

Now I am not suggesting we stop making important policy suggestions; just that we can do so in a more polite way. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:14, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:This is getting nowhere, why not a deal? Why not something along the lines of: Andy, TK, Bugler and their posse can keep the article as they like it now until Obama is sworn into office. If Obama is sworn in on the Koran then keep the article, if he is sworn in on the Bible, then relegate the accusations/evidence of him being islamic to a lower part of the article and include some counter evidence provided by PJR, conservative, Tim and their posse. Or something along those lines, or some kind of deal. Because a compromise seems to me to be the only way forward that can potentially please both sides of this debate. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 19:02, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:: An interesting thought. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 19:04, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::As the saying goes, "very interesting, but a term that Ed Poor would rightly declare provocative". The scenario is incredible. If he is Muslim, and has been hiding it, he would hardly 'come out' at his inauguration. If he is not, he wouldn't use a Koran anyway. The likelihood - nay, certainty - that he won't use a Koran proves precisely zero. And we - that is, the 'posse' - are already compromising. It is the invisible clique that wishes to censor opposing opinion. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 19:39, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::Ok, that's fine, that's why I added "Or something along those lines". If you don't like those parameters then suggest others. The reason I'm putting this idea forward is that I have seen no attempt at compromise yet and I thought it might be worthwhile. Surely it would be better to come to an arrangement that, while not making the Obama article ideal for either side, would avoid the risk of long term rifts that could damage the future of conservapedia. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 19:46, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::*[http://www.amazon.com/Day-Reckoning-Ideology-Tearing-America/dp/0312376960 The Day of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology, and Greed Are Tearing America Apart] I don't see ''anything good coming from all this'', but then I repeat myself. It will be the doing of the ''False Prophet'' and its assembled Demons, as to the next step. Bolly, I for one, appreciate your effort at some sort of compromise, but I am afraid that Rubicon was crossed long ago, with continued reverts and argument without end. But I live with hope! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:52, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::::I, too, appreciate Bolly's efforts. The Blue Beret, honestly worn, is not dishonourable headgear. But the solution here, the only acceptable compromise, is for the 'clique' to cease their attempts at absolutist censorship and to accept compromise themselves. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 19:57, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::::In that case, regardless of whether 'the clique' agree's with your assessment Bugler, could one of them come forward and offer a potential compromise? Once that's done, we can always debate the terms etc. but the only way forward is a sign that both sides are willing to talk. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 20:00, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::When side A wishes to present '''both''' sides of an argument, and side B wishes to censor all disagreement with its own view, the only possible compromise is for side B to accept the side A position. Anthing else is capitulationism, defeatism and appeasement. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 20:03, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::Do you consider me part of that clique, Bugler? Because I am very opposed to censorship. I just don't want to see opinions posted as facts! I believe that the articles here should be concerned only with the facts, and not opinions. However, I would be willing to compromise. I propose that all opinions and speculations about a topic be placed in a section titled "Opinions" (or something similar) in the article for that topic. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 20:06, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Prime facie evidence is posted as such, not as established fact. It is the 'clique' that is suggesting, very wrongly, that it is. We in the 'posse' just wish to see the two schools of thought presented with equal esteem, something which seems to stick in the craw of the cliquists, and to provoke them to insulting and intemperate language. I don't see you as connected with the clique, btw. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 20:10, 2 December 2008 (EST)

[unindent] Ok another suggestion: It seems, from my viewpoint, that the Obama article doesn't list many objections that the clique (that's how I'm going to refer to you guys from now on) have proposed. Why not keep the list of proof that the posse has assembled and then underneath (or above or wherever can be agreed is the best place for it) allow the clique to have a list of objections or counterclaims to the above evidence. So that way, the list is not censored and both sections receive the same layout and attention to detail etc. so they are truly equal. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 20:16, 2 December 2008 (EST)

: I much admire your efforts, Bolly, but I think that that is what talk pages are for...--'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 20:20, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::Sure, if thats where you think this should go, I only posted here because this was supposed to be a place for resolving the issues that some have with the Obama page. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 20:25, 2 December 2008 (EST)

French Revolution

2008-12-03T01:18:45Z

Bolly: /* 1789 - Year of Revolution */

[[Image:Delacroix La liberte guidant le peuple.jpg|250px|right|La liberte guidant le peuple]]
'''The French Revolution''' was a 1789 revolution which is oft-quoted as the beginning of the modern era. In fact a set of several revolutions in a period of unprecedented turmoil, it saw the rise of [[Robespierre]] and the [[Reign of Terror]], a chaos wherein thousands were [[guillotine|guillotined]] for political leanings and moderatism.

The French Revolution was very [[atheism|atheistic]] in nature, as radicals outlawed the Church and tried to establish a [[Cult of Reason]] in its place. The Revolution also saw the rise of [[evolution|evolutionary]] thinking, a result of extreme [[rationalism]]. It inspired fear into European moderates like [[Edmund Burke]], who realized it was proof of the danger of [[liberalism]] run amok.

Before the Revolution, [[France]] had three levels in its social system: The First, Second, and Third Estates. The [[First Estate]] was about 1% of the population, but it controlled 10% of the land. The First Estate consisted of the clergy, and they did not pay any taxes. The [[Second Estate]] was about 2% of the population and they controlled 20% of the land. These were the nobility, and they too paid very little taxes. The [[Third Estate]] was everyone else, and they were badly overtaxed by the monarch. This overtaxing was a major cause of the [[French]] Revolution.

The leaders of the Third Estate were the middle class, called the [[bourgeoisie]]. They were educated in the ideas of the [[Enlightenment]], most importantly [[Jean Jacques Rousseau]]. Rousseau's book, "The Social Contract" supported a [[direct democracy]], rather that the republican government that had been adopted in [[America]]. The social contract spoke against titles for nobility and demanded complete equality for all people.

French Revolutionary ideals, especially thanks to Napoleon, later inspired liberal and democratic movements of the 19th Century.

==Chronology of the French Revolution==

Several costly wars, the War of Austrian Succession (1740-8), the Seven Years War (1756-63) and the American War of Independence (1778-83), had reduced the government to the verge of bankruptcy. The deficit for 1786 would be 112 million ''livres'', nearly a quater of total income. Due to the poorly organised taxation system it was impossible for the King and his finance minister to make up the deficit without serious reforms. In 1787 he called a meeting of 144 leading nobles, the Assembly of Notables, to attempt to persuade them to pay tax in return for increased powers. The nobles refused his requests and were supported by the local assembly; the Parlement de Paris.

The King withdrew his demands at this challenge to his authority, which was greeted by thousands taking to the street to celebrate. When troops were ordered to "Get some lead into the bastards' backsides", they fired into the air instead. In hindsight this can be seen as the start of dissent. It is notable that the initiators of this unrest were the upper classes, who had little reason to think there was any thirst for revolution. In April 1787, [[Calonne]] resigned in disgrace and the middle classes, strengthened by the protests, began to demand the Estates-Generale, a Parliament in which they would be represented.

==1789 - Year of Revolution==

With growing unrest and France nearing bankruptcy, the King agreed to call the Estates-Generale in May 1789. The [[Estate-Generale]] was divided into the three estates, with the first two estates (nobility and clergy) electing their representatives. The third estate representation required a series of elections in which all property owners over the age of twenty-five were eligible to take part. They elected a group of electors, who in turn chose delegates. The delegates themselves were overwhelmingly middle class, including the young lawyer [[Maximilien Robespierre]]. Furthermore, the Third Estate was required to produce a list of grievances known as ''cahiers''.

Between 25,000 and 60,000 documents were filled with grievances. Thousands demanded a constitution, reorganization of the clergy, lessening of the tax burden and an end to [[Royal]] waste. Few of these demands could be resolved without challenging the basis of [[Absolute Monarchy]]. However, not one of these document has been found to advocate abolition of the monarchy, with the large majority requesting moderate reform and many including expression of adoration towards the King.

The Estates-General had not met in 175 years and retained many of its former characteristics. Each Estate had one vote in the Assembly, such that the First and Second Estates could always outvote the Third Estate. That was acceptable in the early 1600s, but the Third Estate would not allow this in 1789 after learning the Enlightenment ideas. King Louis XVI responded to the Third Estate's complaints by doubling the number of Third Estate delegates in the Estates-General. By this time the alliance between the nobility and the third estate had broken down; the nobles may have called a march, but they drew the line at burning down tax offices. The Third Estate wanted a system of one vote per delegate, which would have given the Third Estate the same number of votes as the First and Second Estate combined.

The opening of the Estates-Generale did not bode well. The opening session was in an open coach house, which meant that the Third Estate struggled to hear the proceedings as they were on wooden benches at the far end of the room. Upon the entry of the King, the first and second estates were expected to remove their hats and sit down after the King, before replacing their hats. The Third Estate were expected to remain standing until after the first and second estates had replaced their hats, however, they chose to sit at the same time as the first and second estates. The First Estate were to wear glittering robes, the second estate were to wear silk coats, whilst the third estate were required to wear black coats. There was no question at this point of rudeness towards the King himself, and at this point none of the delegates (including Robespierre) was a republican in their beliefs. There then followed a speech by [[Necker]] on possible solutions to the economic crisis, that was of such length and dullness that Necker had to pass it on to a delegate to complete.

The Third Estate began to win votes in the Estates-Generale by attracting poorer clergy to their side. On 17 June the Third Estate, accompanied by the poorer clergy, voted 490 to 90 in favour of a motion to call themselves the [[National Assembly]] and claimed that they now had the right to manage the nations affairs and taxation. In an attempt to reassert his control, the king announced that Estates-Generale was postponed until 23 June where he would announce several reforms in a ''seance royale''. However, news of the postponement did not reach the delegates of the Third Estate, who arrived on the 20 June to find the room locked.

Following a period of confusion, Dr [[Guillotin]] (one of the Third Estate delegates) suggested it might be possible to convene at a nearby indoor tennis court and the group of over 500 delegate proceeded to meet at the court. The session was chaired by Bailly (a celebrity astronomer) and Mirabeau proposed that the delegation should not break up until a constitution was passed, which was opposed by only one delegate (Martin d'Auch). In effect the delegates had declared themselves the Government of France, pending a constitution to be organized by [[Mirabeau]].

The [[National Assembly]] approved the “[[Declaration of the Rights of Man]],” which combined ideas of the [[American Declaration of Independence]] with some Enlightenment concepts. The result of this combination had many debatable claims. The entire document is short and worth reading in full: [http://www.hrcr.org/docs/frenchdec.html] .

The King responded by ordering the delegates to disperse, however this had little effect. The following week the King sent a messenger, the Marquis de Breze, to order the finishing of the session. Mirabeau ordered the messenger to leave.
[[Image:David OathHoratti.jpg|left]]
In the last week of June the royal [[Government]] ordered 20,000 troops to march on Paris. It became apparent that compromise was not working. This was emphasized with the replacement of Necker by the hard line [[Baron de Breteuil]]. Thousands took to the streets to demand the reinstatement of [[Necker]], who was at the height of his popularity and seen as the only man who could solve the taxation crisis. Mirabeau spoke to the assembly, invoking the oath taken at the tennis court. [[Camille Desmoulins]] had ridden to Versailles to report on events and galloped back to Paris to report on the replacement of Necker.

Crowds marched to [[Abbaye]] prison to demand the release of the soldiers who had been arrested for not firing on the crowds. Troops were offered drinks by the crowd if they shouted 'Viva le tiers-etat'. Dummies of [[Necker]] and [[Duc d'Orleans]] were stolen to be paraded as heroes.

The deputies were now faced with a dilemma, requiring a mass movement for defence of the National Assembly, but fearing crowds getting out of control. Militia were therefore established, that excluded all unemployed and vagrants, and many districts demanded employers' references before admission. Admission varied enormously across districts, with 1,200 being recruited in [[Le Petit-St-Antoine]], but [[Les Minimes]] mustering four.

==Storming of the [[Bastille]]==

With the militia formed to repel the royal troops, there was an urgent need for weapons. The royalist [[Swiss Guard]]s had stored 30,000 pounds in the Bastille, to be used against the National Assembly. On the morning of July 14, 1789 (“[[Bastille Day]]”), a crowd of about a thousand people made up predominantly of small tradesmen arrived at the prison to demand the gun powder be handed over. The prison Governor invited a delegation in for breakfast, which proceeded for three and a half hours. Meanwhile, rumours circulated that royalist troops were committing atrocities across Paris.

A demonstrator outside the Bastille realized he would be able to get to the chains of the drawbridge by climbing from a nearby perfume shop. At this point the prison Governor, [[De Launay]], broke off negotiations and late in the afternoon cannon shots were aimed at the crowd. Two companies of French Guards were persuaded to the Bastille to the defend protesters being killed by cannon fire.

A Swiss Guard handed over the keys to the second drawbridge, leading to a moat. A clerk from a pawn office visited a carpenter and returned with eleven pieces of wood, one of which was able to span the moat. Once inside, seven prisoners were freed, though contrary to what is widely though, this did not include the [[Marquis de Sade]] (he had been moved as he had shouting at passers by through a pipe he had been given to urinate through. This took time however, as the keys to release the cells were the same as the keys to open the first draw bridge and the man with the keys had gone home.

In total six defenders of the Bastille were killed, including De launay, and ninety protestors.

The aftermath was one of euphoria throughout much of [[Paris]]. Much of the nobility proclaimed support for the act, realizing that it was not healthy to oppose public opinion on the matter. [[Louis XVI]] recalled Necker to his job and agreed to recognise the National Assembly, which included the Third Estate delegates, poorer clergy and nobility sympathetic to the Third Estate cause. [[Lafayette]] was appointed head of the police and the army, which was to be known as the National Guard. Bailly became the Mayor of Paris.

The King agreed to come to Paris and accept the gift of a cockade that had become a symbol of the revolution, which the king fastened to his hat, whilst the crowd cheered "Vive le Roi!". Whilst the significance of the day was evident, that it would produce a republic was far from clear. The plan of the King to take Paris with 20,000 troops had failed, but he was able to satisfy the populace that it was not intended and a peaceful resolution was reached. The changes that had so far occurred in a brief period of time were so dramatic that the thought that things could change further was difficult to conceive.

==The Great Fear==

During the week following the storming of the Bastille, news of events spread to the rest of France. This led to a panic as to what the response of the nobility would be to the events, The [[Great Fear]] or panic resulted. Many villages defended themselves against imaginary threats by forming peasant militias; riots occurred and peasants proceeded to burn wealthy homes.

The rural uprising prompted the National Assembly to pass a motion to 'destroy the [[feudal]] regime entirely', on August 4th. However, in order to release himself a peasant would have to pay twenty times his annual rent to the landlord, making the measure ineffectual.

==Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen==

The Assembly also passed the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen on the 4th August. This annulled the right of nobles to demand taxes, tithes and labor from peasants working on their family land. The declaration was inspired by the American Revolution and was partially written by LaFayette.

Unlike the American declaration that “all men are created equal,” the French version declared that “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.”

Whilst the American declaration that all men have inalienable rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” the French version declared that all men have natural rights of “liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression.”

Some declarations were troublesome; “Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law” left questions of definition. Also, the rights of French people to rebel were enshrined in the very constitution itself.

The water wheel was abolished as the method of execution in place of the more humane [[guillotine]]. It is notable that the only delegate to vote for the abolition of the [[death penalty]] was [[Robespierre]].

==A New Government==

France remained a republic. Although a republic has been established in North America at this time and a previous English republic, a European republic was still alien to the thoughts of most French people, including revolutionaries. Negotiations over the new constitution continued, with Mirabeau and Lafayette appealing for calm less the King withdraw from negotiation. [[Jean Paul Marat]] took a less moderate line. Marat argued for universal suffrage and for the King to retain only an advisory role, a constitutional monarchy such as those seen in the [[United Kingdom]] or [[Sweden]] to this day.

==Royal Faux Pas==

On 1st October, 1789, a party was thrown at the [[Palace of Versailles]]. Louis XVI took the cap he had been presented with following the storming of the Bastille and trampled it underfoot. The king later denied this, however several witnesses recalled the incident and news of the incident spread to Paris. A contingent of women raided the Town Hall was raided for weapons and set off from Paris to Versailles, becoming a crowd of 10,000, who were later joined by the National Guard to ensure good order.

Upon the arrival for the group at the palace two guards opened fire, but were interrupted by decapitation. A small delegation of women were permitted to meet the Queen, however one fainted upon witnessing the beauty of the Palace of Versailles. The crowd became impatient by six o'clock the following morning and a militant group of fishwives broke in with a cry of "We are going to cut off her head, tear out her heart, fry her liver and that will not be the end of it"(Documents of the French Revolution, page 62). It was a forceful enough argument to force the Royal family back to Paris, where it was felt it would be possible to keep closer watch. It was also clear by now that the King was in no position to demand a veto.

Antoinette is reputed to have responded unsympathetically to the lack of bread for the peasants by declaring, “Let them eat cake!” Historians doubt she ever actually said that.

==Anniversary Pledge==

On the first anniversary of the storming of the Bastille a large ceremony was held in Paris at which members of the Government and the King pledges themselves to uphold the 'law, the nation and the King'. This represents a compromise in that the King was still seen as central, however all pledges had previously been to the King alone, and the King was required to make no pledge.

==1791 - The King Strikes Back==

In the two years following the storming of the Bastille French society had been transformed. There were an estimated 133 political journals in Paris, Parish priests had been dismissed and replaced by elected Priests. Robespierre had advanced plans for the emancipation of [[Jews]] and [[Protestantism|Protestants]], equal treatment of all military ranks and the abolition of the property qualification for the National Guard. Robespierre remained incorruptible at this point, refusing to be the Duc d'Orleans let the luxury affect his judgement.

This situation was intolerable for the Royal Family, who began to organize a foreign force to invade France and restore their power. In December 1790 Louis wrote a secret note to the King of Prussia requesting a European army invade France. Furthermore, the King and Queen (herself Austrian) decided to flee Paris to help organise the invasion force from without France, let their presence in Paris compromise the invasion.

The royal couple decided to disguise themselves and flee across the border, which they did at night setting off at at a seven miles in part due to the weight requirements for the Queen to travel in the least luxury that she expected. The next morning the Kings letter to the National Assembly was found condemning all the measure which he had claimed to support for the previous two years.

The royal party reached [[Ste-Menehould]], where the papers of the party were checked by Drouet, who had been a staunch supporter of the revolution. Despite having seen the servant in the corner and 'struck by the resemblance of his face to the likeness of the King printed on the bank note', in disbelief he allowed the party to continue. Having discussed the incident with his colleague, Guillaume, the two raced to catch up with the party and spread word through the surrounding villages that the Royal family were attempting to flee. The family were captured and returned to Paris, with posters informing the gathering crowd "Whoever applauds the King will be flogged; whoever insults him will be hanged".

Most delegates wished to hold together a compromise, but the Head of State fleeing to lead a hostile invasion of the nation had created difficulties. Many insisted that the King must have been kidnapped. General Bouille wrote a statement confessing his involvement, but many insisted he was lying to implicate the King. While the only punishment towards the King was stripping of his powers of veto on laws and finance, talk began to emerge for the first time of the possibility of a republic. At this point Robespierre and most of the Paris commune strongly opposed the republic, whilst Lafayette rallied to the slogan 'The Revolution is Over'. By then the French Revolution was in full swing.

==Declaration of the Rights of Woman==

In 1791, a French journalist named [[Olympe de Gouges]] proposed a “[[Declaration of the Rights of Woman]],” (inspired by the writings of [[Mary Woolstonecraft]]) but the National Assembly rejected her proposal. She, like many other leaders of that time, was eventually executed by guillotine. Other sans-culotte groups were established including the [[Society of Revolutionary Women]]

==New Start==

Politics in France became divided between the moderate [[Girondins]] and the more radical [[Jacobins]]. At this point the Girondins appeared to be in the stronger position, however the Jacobins were growing in strength. At this point the Jacobins were led by [[Robespierre]], who made a strong speech in favor of a republic.

The French National Assembly established a [[constitutional monarchy]] and, in 1791, adopted a new constitution that created a Legislative Assembly. Three factions quickly formed in the new Legislative Assembly, known as the radicals (liberals), moderates (centrists) and conservatives, similar to those political movements today in the United States. The three factions sat in different sections of the large assembly hall, with the radicals (liberals) sitting on the left, the moderates sitting in the center, and the conservatives sitting on the right. That gave rise to the left-center-right terminology that we still use today in the United States to describe these three political groups.

==German Invasion==

A large number of noblemen had gathered in [[Koblenz]] to form an army to invade France and restore the King to full rule. The emigrants carried stories of atrocities and encouraged reaction against the National Assembly and atrocities associated with lower class democracy. The Duke of Brunswick declared "We will soon be marching on Paris".

This was a matter of some concern in France, as many of the officers that had been in the French army in 1789 had joined the emigrant army in Germany. The Girondins remained confident, but Robespierre saw little cause for initial optimism. The Royal Family strongly supported war with the Prussian and Austrian force in the hope that the French would be defeated and they be restored.

On April 1792, the King declared war on the [[Hapsburg Empire]], who wished to restore his power. The French army suffered a series of defeats along the border, creating optimism in the Royal house. The National Assembly ordered the dispersal of the Kings bodyguard who were supporting the foreign invasion, but this was vetoed by the King. The Assembly then voted for 20,000 French patriots to come from across France to protect Paris, but this was also vetoed by the King.

The use of the royal veto to undermine the defense of France prompted a strong reaction, with demonstrators managing to pour into the royal apartments. The King was forced to wear a red cap while being taunted for several hours with taunts of "Fat Louis" and "Tyrants must Tremble". The time of compromise was nearing an end.

Lafayette planned a coup to restore the old order to as it was in 1787, using the National Guard. This force was resisted by a volunteer group of citizens. Traditionally this latter group are portrayed as ne'er-do-well criminals, however it is questionable whether such groups would march typically 800 miles. The volunteer groups were greeted as heroes in towns they passed through and [[Rouget de Lisle]] composed 'La Marseillaise' as a call to arms.

The war started badly for the French and on 25th July the Duke of Brunswick prepared to March on Paris and pledged to restore the French Royal Family to their original statue, but that he had no intention of meddling in the internal affairs of France. He demanded total surrender or the Prussian and Austrian armies would "take an exemplary and never-to-be-forgotten vengeance, by giving up the town of Paris to military execution..and the guilty rebels to the death they deserve".

==Second Revolution==

Paris was divided, with 20,000 signing a petition to support the full restoration of an absolute monarchy and a foreign army was invading France rapidly. Moderates such as Mme Roland supported withdrawal from Paris, whereas Maton would accept no backward step. On 10th August a larger demonstration marched on the palace demanding the removal of the King.

==Valmy==

The National Assembly called for volunteers to defend the state, with assurances that this army would be different to the one that had gone before and collapsed before the troops of the Duke of Brunswick. The soldiers would sing Les Maseillaise into battle and officers and men would wear similar uniforms. The majority of the officers would be voted for by the soldiers.

The army was formed, and the Duke of Brunswick brought his army round to meet the French on by the village of [[Valmy]]. The French were grouped around a windmill in an area of uncommon tranquillity. The battle involved a day long exchange of cannon fire with little result. The significance of the battle is that the French volunteer troops remained firm.

[[Johann Goethe]] was present at the battle, as one of the troops of the Duke of Brunswick; "In the morning we had been talking of spitting and eating the French. Now everyone was thinking again. Almost everyone remained silent. Only a few men spoke and their reflections seemed illogical or frivolous".

In the opinion of Goethe, what had changed in the French was their spirit. They had won their freedom and did not wish to return to the days before the revolution, they had debated and were politically active. They were therefore able to stand firm. The news of the battle had a strong effect on French national morale, as the French came to believe they could win.

==Republic==

On the day following the [[Battle of Valmy]], the newly elected French Government (the Convention). The Convention declared France to be an 'Indivisible Republic'. The Convention was made of three factions; the [[Girondins]], the [[Montagnards]] Including Robespierre, Danton and Marat) and the [[Grenouilles de la Marais]]. Robespierre won an argument to allow a public gallery for debates.

All factions favored deposing the King, but were far from united beyond that point. The Montannards saw this as the first step to greater social equality, as opined by Robespierre, "Royalty has been destroyed, not the reign of equality is beginning". He attacked the wealthiest businessmen "those goods which are necessary to keep people alive as nothing more than an ordinary item of trade" - a sentiment echoed later by [[Karl Marx]]'s assertion that businessmen see objects not for their usefulness but for their value as commodities.

However, the Jocobin position was far from modern [[Socialism]], as they sought a nation of small property owners. The Government would be elected by property owners. Support for a republic was recently and had little idea of how to progress with the power they now found they had.

The Girdondins accused the Montagnards of preparing a dictatorship. However, the Girdondins had lost credibility by suggesting retreat from Paris and furthermore lacked the social roots that enabled the Montagnards to motivate thousands of volunteers. It reflects on the differing social backgrounds of the delegates that it was at this point Robespirre met a cabinet maker, M. {{Duplay]]. Duplay invited Robespierre back to his flat to meet his family and, finding that the family had been trying to let a spare room, Robespierre moved in. It is worth considering the contrast between the setting of the reign of Louis XVI to Robespierre who, whilst the most powerful man in France, has to queue behind his landlord to use the toilet in the morning.

==Trial of the King==

The King and family were detained in the Temple prison, but retained the trappings of luxury. The King had a library of 1,500 books, still ordered his shoes from his preferred cobbler and the family was provided with servants. The majority of servants remained utterly devoted to the family, feeling their employment to be a sacred duty.

This loyalty was not universal however, a former locksmith of the King revealed to the Paris Commune that there is secret cupboard containing correspondence between the King and invading powers showing collusion. Mirabeau and Lafayette were also implicated, though Mirabeau had no died and Lafayette had fled to [[Austria]].

The trial was debated by a number of key speakers. [[Louis St-Just]] debated the very validity of Kings, that to try the King as a bad King suggested it was possible to be a good, legal King, which was not acceptable. He was opposed by [[Thomas Paine]] who wished the King to be exiled to the [[USA]]. The vote was won for death by 387 to 334.

Louis XVI was executed in January 1793.

==Dechristianization movement==

The measures taken by the Convention to substitute the Revolutionary calendar for the old Christian calendar, and the decrees ordering the municipalities to seize and melt down the bells and treasures of the churches, proved that certain currents prevailed tending to the [[dechristianization]] of France.

The rest of décadi, every tenth day, replaced the Sunday rest. The "missionary representatives", sent to the provinces, closed churches, hunted down citizens suspected of religious practices. Persecution of all religious ideas began. Many churches were forcibly closed and converted into [[Cult of Reason|Temples of Reason]] <ref>John Hall Stewart, ''A Documentary Survey of the French Revolution'', Macmillan, New York, 1963.</ref>

During the first days of the Republic, provision had been made for dating public documents from "the first year of the French Republic," but no definite plan for a revised calendar had been proposed. A decree of 2 January, 1793, provided for the second year of the Republic to begin on 1 January, 1793. The new calendar took form in October and November, and lasted until 1806.

A vital force intended to sustain the political and economic terror was the creation of an ideology based on love of '' la Patrie'', "the Country" or "fatherland", and the subjugation of the individual to the collective will of whole. The Church of Notre-Dame-de-Paris became a temple of Reason, and the feast of Reason was celebrated on 10 November. The idea of honouring the fatherland, which had its origin in the festival of the Federation in 1790 gave rise to successive cults. Chamber Deputy Laloi commented they had "wiped out eighteen centuries of error".

Robespierre adopted the position that from the religious and Republican standpoint the idea of a Supreme Being was advantageous to the State, that religion should dispense with a priesthood, and that priests were to religion what charlatans were to medicine, and that the true priest of the Supreme Being was Nature. The Convention adopted a decree of which the first article was: "The French people recognize the existence of a Supreme Being and the immortality of the soul". The same decree states that freedom of worship is maintained but adds that in the case of disturbances caused by the exercise of a religion those who "excite them by fanatical preaching or by counter Revolutionary innovations", shall be punished according to the rigour of the law. Thus the condition of the Catholic Church remained equally precarious and the first festival of the Supreme Being was celebrated throughout France on 8 June, 1794. with aggressive splendour. Whereas the Exagérés wished simply to destroy Catholicism, and in the temples of Reason political rather than moral doctrines were taught. Robespierre desired that the civic religion should have a moral code which he based on the two dogmas of God and the immortality of the soul. He was of the opinion that the idea of God had a social value, that public morality depended on it and that Catholics would more readily support the republic under the auspices of a Supreme Being. <ref>Catholic Encyclopdeia, [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13009a.htm French Revolution]</ref>

==Committee of Public Safety==

The Committee of Public Safety was formed in 1793, and passed a rule that Generals were to live in camp with the army. This had the practical effect of testing the belief in equality of the many Nobles in the army. [[General Dumouriez]] made overtures to the Prince of Coburg for the invasion of France and have Louis XVI's son proclaimed King Louis XVII.

By this time many countries, including [[Great Britain]], [[Spain]], the [[Netherlands]], [[Prussia]] and [[Austria]], had formed a First Coalition to invade France and restore monarchy. The National Convention responded by drafting people into an army. Historians claim women were drafted, but such a politically inspired claim is worth investigating before accepting it. The war lasted for several years, on several fronts, but the First Coalition was eventually defeated.

The execution of Louis XVI led almost immediately to the [[Reign of Terror]]. [[Maximilian Robespierre]], head of the Committee of Public Safety, proceeded to guillotine numerous alleged enemies, including Marie Antoinette. In a classic illustration of Jesus’s teaching that “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword,” Jacobin leaders [[Georges Danton]] (a fiery orator) was guillotined, and [[Jean-Paul Marat]] (a scientist) was stabbed to death in his bathtub. Eventually Robespierre himself was guillotined in 1794, and the Reign of Terror ended with his death.

At last the government of France was in the hands of a legislature, and an executive branch of five men called the Directory. The Directory picked a young, highly successful military genius named [[Napoleon]] to lead the French army. The very next day Napoleon seized all power in France as its [[dictator]], in November 1799.

==Economic controls==

On 29 September, 1793, in the Law of the Maximum was formulated to deal with the steady rise in prices of the necessities of life. Committees of experts had been appointed to study the whole subject. Prices were set at one and one-third its price in 1790, transportation costs were regulated at a fixed rate, a 5 per cent markup was allowed the wholesaler and 10 per cent to the retailer. Bertrand Barrere declared, "The needs of the people will no longer be spied upon in order that the commercial classes may arbitrarily take advantage".

The first result was farmers produced as little as they possibly could. Scarcity increased, and the people of the large cities were put on an rationing. Many shopkeepers went out of business, and the remainder forced buyers to pay enormous charges under the very natural excuse that the seller risked his life in trading at all. That this excuse was valid is easily seen by the daily lists of those condemned to the guillotine, in which not infrequently figure the names of men charged with violating the Maximum laws. Manufactures were crippled and frequently destroyed.

To detect goods concealed by farmers and shopkeepers, a spy system was established with a reward to the informer of one-third of the value of the goods discovered. To spread terror, the Criminal Tribunal at Strassburg was ordered to destroy the dwelling of anyone found guilty of selling goods above the price set by law. The farmer often found that he could not raise his products at anything like the price required by the new law; and when he tried to hold back his crops or cattle, alleging that he could not afford to sell them at the prices fixed by law, they were frequently taken from him by force and he was fortunate if he was paid in the depreciated fiat currency or escaped execution.

The Convention decreed that any person selling gold or silver coin, or making any difference in any transaction between paper banknotes (assignats), and precious metal coin (specie) should be imprisoned in irons for six years; that anyone who refused to accept a payment in assignats, or accepted assignats at a discount, should pay a fine of 3,000 francs; and that anyone committing this crime a second time shou1d pay a fine of 6,000 francs and suffer imprisonment 20 years in irons. Later, on 8 September, 1793, the penalty for such offences was made death, with confiscation of the property of the heirs, and a reward offered to any person informing the authorities regarding any such transaction. The Convention decreed, in May 1794, that the death penalty should be inflicted on any person convicted of 'having asked, before a bargain was concluded, in what money payment was to be made".

Georges Couthon, in August 1793, proposed and won passage of a law punishing any person who should sell assignats at less than their fixed value with imprisonment for 20 years in chains, and later passed a law making investment in foreign countries punishable by death. Prisons, guillotines, enactments inflicting 20 years' imprisonment in chains upon persons twice convicted of buying or selling paper money at less than its nominal value, and death upon investors in foreign securities, still did not stop people from procuring the necessities of life by bargaining and exchange; on 1 August, 1795, the gold louis of 25 francs was worth in paper, 920 francs; on 1 September, 1,200 francs; on 1 November, 2,600 francs; on 1 December, 3,050 francs. In February 1796, it was worth 7,200 francs or one franc in gold was worth 288 francs in paper. Prices of all commodities went up nearly in proportion. <ref>Andrew Dickson White, Fiat Money: Inflation in France, Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, 1959, pp. 75-89; first published in 1912 as revised version of 1876 lecture. Reproduced in ''Choice in Currency'', F. A. Hayek, The Institute of Economic Affairs 1976, "A Note on Government Monopoly of Money in Theory and History", [http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-book409pdf?.pdf France, 1789], pgs. 34 - 38.</ref>

==Legacy of the Revolution==

The influence of the French Revolution was immense throughout the western hemisphere, as other peoples felt that they, too, could rise up against their rulers and defeat them. Historians credit the French Revolution with spreading the ideas of the Enlightenment, limiting the power of nobility and clergy, and ending an absolute monarchy. But many who supported the French Revolution in its beginning were horrified by where it led, including numerous executions and terror. Some would say that France never fully recovered, as the French Revolution unleashed a hostility towards [[Christianity]] that continues to this day in France.

==Biblliography==
* Doyle, William. ''The Oxford History of the French Revolution'' (1989). [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-oxford-history-of-the-french-revolution-by-william-doyle.jsp online complete edition]; also [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-French-Revolution/dp/019925298X/ref=sr_1_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189484963&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search ]
* Doyle, William. ''The French Revolution: A Very Short Introduction.'' (2001), 120pp; [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-french-revolution-a-very-short-introduction-by-william-doyle.jsp online edition]
* Fremont-Barnes, Gregory. ed. ''The Encyclopedia of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars: A Political, Social, and Military History'' (ABC-CLIO: 3 vol 2006)
* Frey, Linda S. and Marsha L. Frey. ''The French Revolution.'' (2004) 190pp [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-french-revolution-by-linda-s-frey-marsha-l-frey.jsp online edition], conservative approach
* Furet, François. ''The French Revolution, 1770-1814'' (1996) [http://www.amazon.com/French-Revolution-1770-1814-History-France/dp/0631202994/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197704970&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search], by the leading French conservative scholars
* Furet, François and Mona Ozouf, eds. ''A Critical Dictionary of the French Revolution'' (1989), 1120pp; long essays by scholars; conservative perspective; stress on history of ideas [http://www.amazon.com/Critical-Dictionary-French-Revolution/dp/0674177282/ref=sr_1_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189497174&sr=8-2 excerpt and online search from Amazon.com], by the leading French conservative scholars
* Jones, Colin. ''The Longman Companion to the French Revolution'' (1989)
* Jones, Colin. ''The Great Nation: France from Louis XV to Napoleon'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Great-Nation-Napoleon-Penguin-History/dp/0140130934/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197705067&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Neely, Sylvia. '' A Concise History of the French Revolution'' (2008)
* Palmer, Robert R. ''The Age of the Democratic Revolution: A Political History of Europe and America, 1760-1800.'' (2 vol 1959), highly influential comparative history; [http://www.questia.com/read/22790906 vol 1 online]
* Paxton, John. ''Companion to the French Revolution'' (1987), hundreds of short entries.
* Schwab, Gail M., and John R. Jeanneney, eds. ''The French Revolution of 1789 and Its Impact'' (1995) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-french-revolution-of-1789-and-its-impact-by-john-r-jeanneney-gail-m-schwab.jsp online edition]
* Scott, Samuel F. and Barry Rothaus. ''Historical Dictionary of the French Revolution, 1789-1799'' (2 vol 1984), short essays by scholars
* Schama, Simon. ''Citizens. A Chronicle of the French Revolution'' (1989), highly readable narrative by scholar [http://www.amazon.com/Citizens-Simon-Schama/dp/0141017279/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197705186&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Sutherland, D.M.G. ''France 1789–1815. Revolution and Counter-Revolution'' (2nd ed. 2003, 430pp [http://www.amazon.com/French-Revolution-Empire-Quest-Civic/dp/0631233636/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189597597&sr=1-1 excerpts and online search from Amazon.com]

==References==
<references/>

== See also ==

*[[Alexis de Tocqueville]]

[[Category:French Revolution| ]]
[[Category:French History]]

Conservapedia talk:Obama straw poll

2008-12-03T01:16:22Z

Bolly: /* It is time to end this foolish endeavor. Now. */

We should probably divide it up into several issues. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:31, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:Two that come to mind are religion and birthplace. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:38, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::The number of his gaffes. --[[User:MugiK|MugiK]] 11:39, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::First Black President maybe. It seems that Andy is trying to deny him that title as well. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:Shouldn't the Obama article simply follow the example set by the other articles about politicians both in style and tone? When you compare for example [[John McCain]], [[Bill Clinton]], and [[Barack Obama]], the choice should be clear.
:"Some conservatives" (Who?) say that he's a Muslim, and "some conservatives" (Who?) insist he wasn't born in Hawaii. I'm pretty sure that "some liberals" also insisted on quite a few things when [[George W. Bush]] became President, but you don't see every accusation in the article (judging from a quick look at least). Sarah Palin did drugs, Obama did drugs, but only the Obama article says it (to be fair, at least in Palin's case, it had been legal at the time, but that doesn't make it any better in my eyes). Maybe one standard for all articles would help us more than deciding just how far to move the Obama article away from the standard set by the other articles? --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 11:53, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::Yes...Shouldn't all articles (political or not) stick to the evidence for and against, and leave the speculation and editorializing for talk pages and essays?--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 12:37, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::: Wikipedia has an ignored-when-it-suits policy of not taking sides but presenting the evidence for and against (for example, it takes sides in the creation/evolution debate). Conservapedia, in contrast, is prepared to take a stand on issues; it is concerned with ''truth'' not, (per Wikipedia), ''verifiability''.
::: The issue here as far as I'm concerned is not that Conservapedia is taking a particular view, but that the particular view is without substantiation and even contrary to some of the evidence, and therefore almost certainly untrue.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:24, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Philip, what you've repeatedly deleted (censored) from the [[Obama]] entry is factual information that is undeniably true, such as how he pronounces "Pakistan". Conservapedia never stated that Obama is a Muslim, but presents compelling evidence about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::::: And yet various people deny it, so it is simply wrong to say that it's "undeniably" true. And you have consistently failed to actually provide any substantiation of your claims (including the claim of 'censorship'), which strongly suggests that they are false, especially given that counter-arguments have been given. And given that I've already pointed out that the article ''did'' say that "Obama is a Muslim", your claim that it didn't is tantamount to a lie. (NB: I haven't read your latest posts there, so it's possible that you've recently given evidence I haven't yet seen.)

== Admin only? ==

Can I ask why this is the case? It doesn't seem particularly democratic if enfranchisement is restricted. Be wary if you start [[American Revolution|taxing me]]! [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:40, 27 November 2008 (EST)
*Because inclusive discussion has so far failed to net any agreement, see [[talk:Barack Obama]] --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:42, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:Big difference between inclusive "discussion" (yes that page is a mess) and inclusive ''voting''. But I see your point. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::Straw poll, not inclusive discussion. You all get to see who thinks what. Happy Thanksgiving. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:45, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::How about going with what Andy decides? He is the Leader of Conservapedia and has already ruled on the situation after reading and considering views from both sides. Although the poll was begun with good intentions, there is a danger that it will be misused by Liberals who have already emphatically lost the argument on the Obama talk page to try and wrest the situation back and gain some spurious authority for their plaints. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:07, 27 November 2008 (EST)[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:47, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::::Who are these Liberal administrators? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 13:29, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Oh Henry, look and read. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:54, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::::: Bugler, are you calling Andy and yourself liberals? Because it's him and you (and co.) who have "emphatically lost the argument". I also find it most ironic that you posted "How about going with what Andy decides? He is the Leader of Conservapedia and has already ruled on the situation..." with the edit comment "''Anti-democratic cliquism''"! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::It's funny you should say that. I was under the impression that it is those who deny the truth - both about Obama and the nature of discourse on Conservapedia - and who have to rely on censorship, who have lost the argument. Read what Andy says below. We present the facts, pro and con, and let readers make up their own minds. That is the conservative way, and the Conservapedia way, but it clearly is not the way of the Rayment faction. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:41, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::: Given that your side has not actually ''given'' much of an argument, you cannot possibly claim to have won it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:28, 1 December 2008 (EST)

This is an experiment to see what effect a straw poll will have on, er, 'the situation'. Can't hurt, anyway. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:47, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Rod Weathers, this arose out of a discussion on my talk page. The problem with making it unrestricted is that doing so attracts all sorts of people, including trolls, socks, parodists, and sycophants. Limiting it to those with x number of edits discriminates against those that edit carefully and in depth in favour of those who can't understand the Preview button or who are making lots of trivial changes. Limiting it to administrators is a very blunt-instrument way of limiting it to those who are theoretically more entitled to have a say. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:36, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:I see. That seems rather reasonable. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:17, 28 November 2008 (EST)
::''Limiting it to Philip and his four imaginary Liberal friends is a very blunt-instrument way of limiting it to those who are theoretically more entitled to have a say.'' [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:52, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::: Huh? What "four imaginary Liberal friends"? What are you on? This poll page is limited to administrators. The administrators are not imaginary, number more than four, and are not liberal! You didn't get ''anything'' right! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:28, 1 December 2008 (EST)
:::Are his four imaginary liberal friends supposed to include Conservative, Ed Poor, and Tim? '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 17:17, 28 November 2008 (EST)
Only one of those, Klumpers. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:39, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:Funny, I thought all of those people existed. Learn something new every day. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:31, 28 November 2008 (EST)
::That was a big l "Liberal" in Bugler's post. In Australia a Liberal is a member of a conservative political party. Anyway this is the first hint I've seen that the secret liberal clique is actually imaginary. Excuse me while I go brace myself for another block for disagreeing with Bugler.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:46, 28 November 2008 (EST)

==Great American Tradition==
In the great American democratic tradition, people who were not elected will discuss policy that will be binding on all, while not counting the views of others. {{unsigned|KimSell}}

:Am I really the only non-sysop who thinks this is a good idea? Too often the arguments on talk pages are dragged out to the point of oblivion of reason. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 16:15, 28 November 2008 (EST)

== My comment ==

I've added a comment about his religion. I probably won't be adding anything else, because I haven't looked into the other issues as much.

Contrary to the offensive labelling of me as an "Obama defender", I'm not here to defend Obama, but simply to correct a blatant untruth in calling him a Muslim.

This straw poll is going to be pointless if we don't get a large percentage of the administrators putting comments here, but at the same time, perhaps many don't have too much of an opinion, at least on every issue.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 27 November 2008 (EST)

: The "blatant untruth" is any claim that Conservapedia asserts definitively that Obama is a Muslim. Conservapedia presents the facts and the reader can decide, as with all entries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::: Until Ed Poor changed it recently, that is exactly what it said, which I have already pointed out to you. This looks like "[[liberal denial]]" [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:33, 1 December 2008 (EST)
::''Conservapedia presents the facts and the reader can decide, as with all entries.'' Smething that I have been constantly stating to Philip, only to be met with blank incomprehension and denial. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:38, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::: I wonder why Ed Poor doesn't block ''you'' for "personal remarks". And your comment is simply a false claim. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:33, 1 December 2008 (EST)
:::::And calling me a liar ''isn't'' a personal remark? You really take the biscuit sometimes. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:49, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::::: I never said that calling you a liar wasn't a personal remark. (And I didn't call you a liar.) But again, you don't address the issue, but introduce a red herring. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:05, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::The issue is whether or not the statements about Obama are factual and relevant. Simply saying "Conservapedia presents the facts" begs the question - Philip is disputing that on the Obama page Conservapedia is presenting facts. If some evidence and justification is given for why the statements on the Obama page are factual and relevant, then that should be the end of the argument. So far Philip feels that such evidence and justification has not been given. To repeat, this has nothing to do with whether or not Conservapedia ''should'' present facts and let the reader decide, and everything to do with whether or not Conservapedia ''is'' presenting the facts and letting the reader decide. [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 17:48, 28 November 2008 (EST)
::::"The facts" would include factual evidence to the contrary, as I suggested [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&oldid=571768#Suggestion_for_compromise a week ago], to no avail. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:44, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Conservapedia presents evidence. We are not arrogant dogmatists; we present evidence and facts and let the reader make up his mind. Of course, there are some minds that are too closed to be made up. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:49, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::::: Still repeating the mantra without actually addressing the issue (justifying that the claims ''are'' valid evidence). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:08, 2 December 2008 (EST)

== Nuetral light? ==

Can we not just portray him as we would a white christian republican president? It almost seems like we are just spreading rumors about our future commander and chief. --[[User:Rcollins|Rcollins03]] 19:34, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:Yes, almost. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:02, 28 November 2008 (EST)

== The Poll ==

Ed if you want this to have meaning, then you should solicit all of the active sysops. It would also be good to see that you wish to participate in your own poll. I considered putting in my own thoughts and came back to do so, but apparently I was looking at a different version of the questions. When I looked at it, the reference was to Conservapedia; it has now changed to simply be some conservatives. Shouldn't a straw poll where only admins can respond deal with conservapedia's position and our thoughts on that position? Simply making it an opinion poll doesn't mean much. If it doesn't deal specifically with Conservapedia, then why even limit it to just admins? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:39, 28 November 2008 (EST)

==Non-Sysop Opinions==

I'm adding my two cents. 
*'''Religion:''' I believe Obama is a Christian, but a liberal one who does not take the Bible literally, and who is most comfortable with worship in the Black church. I believe he has been raised in such a way that he is more familiar with the Muslim religion, and with other international things, than most Americans, but this does not make him a Muslim. I believe the concept of Takeyya/Taqiyya is meant for life-threatening situations, similar to the case of Jews in Hitler's Germany who passed as Catholics to survive. The idea that Obama was exposed to Islam as a young child, took it to heart, and then hid it for the next 30 years is not credible to me. I believe that ''any'' president of the US ''needs'' to have an understanding of Islam, as Islamic extremists are a serious threat to Western countries like ours, thus I am glad that our commander-in-chief-elect has chosen to educate himself about this religion.
*'''Birthplace:''' I believe it is most likely that he was born in Hawaii. However, his mother, father, and maternal grandparents, the people most likely to know for sure, are dead. If there was a problem, the Republicans would have found it. We need to let this one go.
*'''Political gaffes:''' I believe that Obama is a human being, just like George Bush and Sarah Palin and me. I personally could not get up there and speak perfectly 100% of the time. Instead of quote-mining and micro-analyzing these sentences, we need to look carefully at context and big-picture to get a sense of what he is all about. When we insist a quote taken out of context means something that the context makes clear was not the intent, we look foolish, and rightfully so.
* In general, as people who are trying to write an encyclopedia, we must insist on the highest standards of documentation/citations/references, and must always make it clear *who* is making these claims, and *what evidence or speculation* the claims are based on. We must be brutally honest about what information we have and where it came from - what we know and what we do not know - what is speculation and what is documented knowledge. Conservatives don't always agree on every detail. In situations where there is conflicting information and conservatives do not agree, we must present both sides (from a conservative point of view). Ultimately, our readers should be given the references to decide for themselves.
--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:57, 29 November 2008 (EST)

== It is time to end this foolish endeavor. Now. ==

*CP has an owner, it is his absolute right to have whatever viewpoint he wants. To ask any questions he wants to, to speculate as to Obama's motives and/or background. If people agree, with even a part, they should stick around and help build this place. If they don't, what other reason, ''other than being obstinate or having malicious intent'', could they have? Disagreement is fine, debate is good. But where does it end, and argument without end begin? The "truth" isn't dependent upon polls, straw or otherwise. Since Conservapedia has officially eschewed a "mobocracy" what in the world is going on here? Can you gentlemen please take this where it belongs, to email? And yes, Philip, I understand ''your idea'' of the wiki format is different from what I think, what Andy thinks, what your fellow Administrators think. But you and Tim have always known that from the very beginning. It isn't like it was sprung on you by surprise, is it?. ''It is time to end this foolish and misguided endeavor.'' --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:18, 1 December 2008 (EST)

::You say: "CP has an owner, it is his absolute right to have whatever viewpoint he wants."
::However, the point of this project is to show the truth, not one particular person's viewpoint. If Andy wants to have a website that is an outlet to display his personal opinions and make his own political commentary and political attacks, that is absolutely fine by me. However, he is portraying Conservapedia as an encyclopedia, supposedly just the truth instead of political bias. Andy has to make a decision. Either he has an encyclopedia, and starts treating it like one, or else he can have a website dedicated to his personal opinion. Either one is fine by me. However, if he wants to have the latter, then he should advertise it as such. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:48, 1 December 2008 (EST)

::(Edit Conflict with CPAdmin1) I am not sure that it is my place to answer you, TK, but I feel some things must be said. Andrew Schlafly is undoubtedly the owner of this website. He does have the absolute right to have whatever viewpoint he wants. He does have the right to ask any questions, to speculate as to Obama's motives and/or background. But he does not have the right to post these viewpoints as facts. He is not infallible. No one is. To leave the truth to any one person's judgement, even if it is Mr. Schlafly's judgement, is faulty.

::You are also absolutely correct in that truth is not dependent upon polls, or "mobocracy" either. But these people who came up with the idea of a straw poll have seen no other way to get their point across. Their point is that any encyclopedic website should treat logic as king. Truth is not necessarily obtainable, but fact is. That is what Conservapedia should strive for: fact. And before anyone says that treating logic as king is atheistic or liberal, do not be too literal, because I hold other, more important things, like God and my faith, above logic. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 00:03, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::What Tim and JArneal have said I concur with. And point out that those opposing us continually misrepresent the situation, by claiming "censorship", the "right to decide what viewpoint to put", etc. Andy has never explicitly claimed that his viewpoint is sacrosanct (although that does seem to be implicit, and that view is supported by various people claiming as much; obviously they understand the thinking behind his actions also), and in fact Andy specifically said to me that truth is decided by logic and evidence. He didn't say that it's decided by what he thinks. But rather than argue logic and evidence, Andy, Bugler, and TK, in particular, are trying to silence the logic and evidence by claiming "censorship" (but never justifying that claim), the right to a viewpoint, that that it's "undeniable" (patently false), that this is supposedly all about how things are done on Wikipedia, and other red herrings that ''don't actually provide logic and evidence''! In doing so, they effectively demonstrate that they are wrong, as providing logically fallacious arguments is the resort of those that don't have good arguments! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:02, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::Philip, Tim, JArneal, what I said was, in addition to the parts you addressed is:

<blockquote>
'''"Since Conservapedia has officially eschewed a "mobocracy" what in the world is going on here? Can you gentlemen please take this where it belongs, to email? And yes, Philip, I understand your idea of the wiki format is different from what I think, what Andy thinks, what your fellow Administrators think. But you and Tim have always known that from the very beginning. It isn't like it was sprung on you by surprise, is it?"'''
</blockquote>

:::Yes, I realize you disagree. And I also realize you wouldn't accept that what you claim Andy (and others) are doing, is exactly what you (and others) did to me, at one time. No proof presented to me, nothing. No right to confront accusers, etc. But it seems to me you have a double standard, depending upon the situation, and if you agree or disagree with it. Can you, Philip, disagree with your employer, or their decisions about schedules? Are you allowed to argue publicly about cut-backs? I don't think so. Taking the job of an Admin, you by necessity forfeit certain rights others have. I think your claim of being able to wear "two hats", be at one turn an Admin, and as it suits you, an editor of equal standing with the majority of CP users, is a fallacy. I am not one of those clamoring for your removal, odd as that might seem to some. I am, however, looking for a resolution, and an end to this public family squabble short of blocking and removal as an Administrator. Someone has to give. IMO, those "someones" should be those who Andy has given his trust to, and endowed them with special rights others don't have, out of common courtesy. Can you guys please take this to email? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:17, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::Again, your analogy fails. If this was a project for Andy's purposes, and Andy's opinion, then it might hold some water. However the object is supposedly advancing the cause of truth. Therefore, truth should come before Andy's opinion, which is all that the Obama thing has become. Also for your analogy of an employer there are 2 definite differences. For one, an employee is bound to do the work of the employer because he is under contract, and being payed to do it. CP is a volunteer project, so editors should have more freedom. Secondly, as I pointed out already, CP is about truth, not about Andy, A business is about making money for the owner/shareholders, therefore all work is done to further their purposes. so your analogy fails. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 07:48, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::: TK, you haven't shown how a discussion about article content "belongs" in e-mail, I reject that it does, and I've seen nobody but you expecting that.
:::: Regarding what I "did" to you, you are wrong. You didn't want to see the proof, and you had every opportunity to confront accusers (and certainly criticised me heavily). Yes, I can disagree with my employers about schedules, and often do, but as Tim said, the situation is not the same, if for no other reason than we are talking about truth here.
:::: I fail to see how wearing two hats is "forfeit[ing] certain rights".
:::: If someone should "give", then why shouldn't it be those who are inserting POV as fact, calling others names, and failing to support their claims?
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:30, 2 December 2008 (EST)

This project is led by Andy, and leadership is necessary. Where disputes occur, he is rightly the arbiter of what constitutes truth. It is our duty to display loyalty to and respect for his judgement. What you are doing, Tim, is not only arrogant (in claiming for yourself the right to adjudicate) and wrong (the 'arguments' put forward by you and your clique hold less water than a broken sieve), but disloyal and subversive. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:56, 2 December 2008 (EST)
: "''...he is rightly the arbiter of what constitutes truth...''": I don't know how many times I've both denied this and also pointed out that not even Andy claims this, but here you go, repeating this mantra yet again, but still not substantiating your claims. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:30, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::There has to be an ultimate arbiter in the case of the endless sterile arguments of the kind that you have been fomenting, and Andy is the Leader of this project. If not him, then who? Certainly not this mysterious clique of yours, and we are most definitely not a mobocracy. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:37, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::And as for TK's comments, he is quite correct. There is such a thing as 'cabinet responsibility'. Be an administrator, or enjoy playing disloyal games (and take the consequences), but not both. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:39, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::: You know, hidden away in that comment there is actually a decent question (which I have an answer for), but until and unless you retract the unjustified slurs associated with it, you don't deserve an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:07, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::::'Injured feelings' make such a useful shield when one is on the ropes! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:53, 2 December 2008 (EST)

I am getting weary of reading so many personal remarks:

*didn't want to see the proof
*don't deserve an answer
*enjoy playing disloyal games
*exactly what you and others did to me
*retract the unjustified slurs
*this mysterious clique of yours
*trying to silence the logic and evidence

Now I am not suggesting we stop making important policy suggestions; just that we can do so in a more polite way. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:14, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:This is getting nowhere, why not a deal? Why not something along the lines of: Andy, TK, Bugler and their posse can keep the article as they like it now until Obama is sworn into office. If Obama is sworn in on the Koran then keep the article, if he is sworn in on the Bible, then relegate the accusations/evidence of him being islamic to a lower part of the article and include some counter evidence provided by PJR, conservative, Tim and their posse. Or something along those lines, or some kind of deal. Because a compromise seems to me to be the only way forward that can potentially please both sides of this debate. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 19:02, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:: An interesting thought. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 19:04, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::As the saying goes, "very interesting, but a term that Ed Poor would rightly declare provocative". The scenario is incredible. If he is Muslim, and has been hiding it, he would hardly 'come out' at his inauguration. If he is not, he wouldn't use a Koran anyway. The likelihood - nay, certainty - that he won't use a Koran proves precisely zero. And we - that is, the 'posse' - are already compromising. It is the invisible clique that wishes to censor opposing opinion. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 19:39, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::Ok, that's fine, that's why I added "Or something along those lines". If you don't like those parameters then suggest others. The reason I'm putting this idea forward is that I have seen no attempt at compromise yet and I thought it might be worthwhile. Surely it would be better to come to an arrangement that, while not making the Obama article ideal for either side, would avoid the risk of long term rifts that could damage the future of conservapedia. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 19:46, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::*[http://www.amazon.com/Day-Reckoning-Ideology-Tearing-America/dp/0312376960 The Day of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology, and Greed Are Tearing America Apart] I don't see ''anything good coming from all this'', but then I repeat myself. It will be the doing of the ''False Prophet'' and its assembled Demons, as to the next step. Bolly, I for one, appreciate your effort at some sort of compromise, but I am afraid that Rubicon was crossed long ago, with continued reverts and argument without end. But I live with hope! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:52, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::::I, too, appreciate Bolly's efforts. The Blue Beret, honestly worn, is not dishonourable headgear. But the solution here, the only acceptable compromise, is for the 'clique' to cease their attempts at absolutist censorship and to accept compromise themselves. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 19:57, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::::In that case, regardless of whether 'the clique' agree's with your assessment Bugler, could one of them come forward and offer a potential compromise? Once that's done, we can always debate the terms etc. but the only way forward is a sign that both sides are willing to talk. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 20:00, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::When side A wishes to present '''both''' sides of an argument, and side B wishes to censor all disagreement with its own view, the only possible compromise is for side B to accept the side A position. Anthing else is capitulationism, defeatism and appeasement. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 20:03, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::Do you consider me part of that clique, Bugler? Because I am very opposed to censorship. I just don't want to see opinions posted as facts! I believe that the articles here should be concerned only with the facts, and not opinions. However, I would be willing to compromise. I propose that all opinions and speculations about a topic be placed in a section titled "Opinions" (or something similar) in the article for that topic. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 20:06, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Prime facie evidence is posted as such, not as established fact. It is the 'clique' that is suggesting, very wrongly, that it is. We in the 'posse' just wish to see the two schools of thought presented with equal esteem, something which seems to stick in the craw of the cliquists, and to provoke them to insulting and intemperate language. I don't see you as connected with the clique, btw. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 20:10, 2 December 2008 (EST)

[unindent] Ok another suggestion: It seems, from my viewpoint, that the Obama article doesn't list many objections that the clique (that's how I'm going to refer to you guys from now on) have proposed. Why not keep the list of proof that the posse has assembled and then underneath (or above or wherever can be agreed is the best place for it) allow the clique to have a list of objections or counterclaims to the above evidence. So that way, the list is not censored and both sections receive the same layout and attention to detail etc. so they are truly equal. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 20:16, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-12-03T01:10:39Z

Bolly: /* Muslim AND Communist? */

{{Controversial}}
Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]]
[[/archive4|4]]
[[/archive5|5]]
[[/archive6|6]]

== Jesusland at it's worst ==
Every source on here is either extremly questionable or completly false. The writer gets aroundfact checks by using MAY and MIGHT to desplay the fact there is a chance Obama can save his mortal soul before he dies and goes to hell for being a muslim. He is a good christian, and while that is not my religion, I respect him greatly. {{unsigned|RCEN}}--20:30, 30 November 2008

== Lenin Poster ==

The statement about the Lenin-like poster is informative. We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 10 November 2008 (EST)
:Andy, did you happen to take a look at the reference? The article claims that "Obama also ''revealed'' his ''deep Marxist/Leninist roots''" and that "clear parallels between the poster design and Lenin's earlier poster was ''obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint'' to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and beliefs" (emphasis mine). The citation, which was a blog, by the way, and not in any way a trustworthy source of informative information, gives no evidence to back up these statements. It shows a poster of Lenin and a poster of Obama, both of which show profiles of the figures. Assuming these pictures weren't entirely made up, do you really think that this slight similarity is Obama's way of confessing closet Marxism? Not to mention the fact that Obama likely didn't make the posters anyway -- maybe we should accuse his (very expensive!!) marketing designer of being a Marxist/Leninist. 15:45, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama and beer ==

There are several stories (with photos) of Obama drinking beer, which as an intoxicant is banned by Muslim sharia. <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/05/06/20/125-6web-Obama_Beer-minor.standalone.prod_affiliate.91.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/36055.html&h=325&w=485&sz=47&hl=en&start=28&um=1&usg=__ShpWdieNIwhr4Rp3jHtLe7U9MB8=&tbnid=Se90xFLBo6rNQM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bdrinks%26start%3D18%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN </ref> <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156_t.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156.html&h=332&w=400&sz=16&hl=en&start=15&um=1&usg=__Yubc0nmus36Cf4Rrf7BL7-33-0g=&tbnid=xuWGKQ1Sl8_bQM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bbeer%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG</ref> No rational person can say that a practicing Muslim wouldn't violate the law in such a blatant, repeated manner. Another strike against the goofy Muslim charge. And remember, we don't censor here. Godspeed. [[User:Thecount|Thecount]] 12:52, 11 November 2008 (EST)

: I think many American Muslims drink beer. Nice try, though.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:57, 11 November 2008 (EST)

::And how many "dangerous" American Muslims are there that have loose enough morals to blatantly disrespect their own religious law, but are still a threat to Americans? (Of course this is all granted that he IS a secret Muslim, which I have given up trying to discuss) So I see nothing wrong if Obama turns out to be a secret Muslim. Nice try, though. [[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 23:54, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::He also smokes cigarettes, to complete his subterfuge. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:42, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== Hussein reference ==

It's factual and it's informative. If there is reasoned basis for deleting it, let's see it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 11 November 2008 (EST)

: Again, no reason has been given for deleting the Hussein reference, and there is none.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:: Andy, this is false. Reasons have been given on this talk page numerous times before. I just had a quick look, and found reasons being given in all archives except the first, as well as other places on this talk page. So you are wrong to say that no reason has been given, and wrong to say that there is no reason. And, as I have pointed out in the edit comments, five senior administrators have said that they disagree with it being there. Is your view on this somehow superior to those five put together? Do you want this to be a collaborative encyclopaedia or your blog? The former demands that you not impose your opinion regardless of who is disagreeing. Imposing your opinion regardless suggests that this is your blog. I know you don't consider it to be the latter, but that's the way it's looking. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:21, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::Not a blog but an encylopedia. If it were a blog, your opinion would carry as much weight as anyone else's. Let's put this one in [[Conservapedia:Debate Topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:24, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::: If it were a blog, the blog owner's opinion would carry the most weight. Almost all blogs are the opinions of an ''individual'', not a group of people. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::: Philip, the truth is not dependent on consensus, and 5 out of several dozen is not a consensus anyway. Give your best reason for deleting this information here. Since the beginning we have had a policy not to delete factual, informative material, particularly when it is liberal ideology that motivates the demand for censorship of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:29, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::: I said five of the ''senior'' administrators, which numbers about eleven. So that's five out of eleven, not dozens. Further, that's five against and one (yourself) for, as the remainder have not offered an opinion that I'm aware of. (One perhaps did support you, but because they wanted to support you, not because they considered it a valid argument.)
:::: My reason is relevance, not (primarily) accuracy. I'm not disputing that his middle name is Hussein. The claim that "most Christians would not retain" their (former/Muslim/Arabic?; it's not clear) name is not supported by the references, and even if it is true, means little in individual cases. That is, even if 99% changed their name, Obama not changing his name might mean no more than him being in the other 1%.
:::: And this is just one of the points in that section. The entire argument that Obama is a Muslim is built on very circumstantial evidence, selective evidence, and logical fallacy, and is rejected by other conservatives.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Philip, it obviously is relevant, which you say is your primary objection. We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it. Wikipedia does that. We provide the information and let the reader decide. If some readers want to conclude that someone with a Muslim name is actually a Christian, even though less than 1% of those raised as Muslims convert, so be it. We're not going to censor this factual information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:37, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: "''...it obviously is relevant...''": Because ''you'' say so? If it was so "obvious", then you wouldn't have five senior administrators disagreeing with you. No, it's not obviously relevant at all, and you've not demonstrated the relevance.
::::::: "''We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it. Wikipedia does that.''": Given that I and the other senior administrators are not "liberals", and the rejection is based on relevance, not "dislike", why are you introducing red herrings like this? Has your argument got no more substance than irrelevancies like that?
::::::: "'' We provide the information and let the reader decide.''": Only if it's relevant. Otherwise we are just introducing padding for readers to wade through and discourage them getting to the relevant stuff.
::::::: "''We're not going to censor this factual information.''": It is not censorship to remove irrelevant information, and I'd appreciate you not implying that I'm trying to censor anything.
::::::: In summary, you have failed to produce any reasons substance as to why it should be retained.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:26, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Exactly. The point of Conservapedia is ''not'' to censor information, but to leave it to our readers to decide. The MSM has tried to push this under the rug, so the least we can do is offer these arguments to the intelligent public. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 11:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: The problem is that these points are fallacious and lead to a conclusion based on specious arguments. That is neither "trustworthy" nor encyclopedic. Obama may not be your brand of xian, but he's certianly no brand of muslim. Your inability to accept that this is incorrect despite repeated arguments wherein you have shown nothing but fallacious arguments drawing poor conclusions hurts the credibility of all Conservapedia. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 11:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:Did anyone notice how ASchlafly posited the question at or near closing time Tuesday night and declared that he recieved no answer at or near opening time on Wednesday? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:49, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Keep the reference, but 2 examples of people having changed their names for religious reasons does not mean "most" people would change their names as stated in the article. A good reference on this topic would list a percentage (presumably greater than 50%) of people who have switched religions also changing their names.
::I am sure we could come up with a very long list, but this article would not be the place for it. A sample of a couple of names to illustrate the point being made is surely adequate for all except those who wish to undermine the accuracy of the piece. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Based on the idea that a "[[Muslim]]" is someone who is "[[submission|submissive]]" to the will of God, I would say that many Christians and Jews can therefore (loosely) be described as Muslim. Why do you make it sound like being Muslim is a bad thing?

Don't play on fears that all Muslims are terrorists; that is illogical, even if it is true that most recent anti-Western terrorists are part of the [[Islamic civilization]].

I object to anyone trying to impose a single view on matters of controversy. It would be wrong, Philip, to insist that "it is not true that Obama is a Muslim". I helped to champion Wikipedia's NPOV policy (until liberals decided to abandon it), and it would be a good idea to try it out here - instead of making bad-tempered personal attacks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:28, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:"''Why do you make it sound like being Muslim is a bad thing?'': It's nonsense to suggest that that is ''all'' "being a Muslim" entails.
:"''It would be wrong, Philip, to insist that "it is not true that Obama is a Muslim".''": Ignoring for the moment that I'm not actually making that claim, why would it be wrong to insist that, ''if it '''is''' wrong''?
: Now back to the point that I'm not actually making that claim. Has it escaped your attention that it is Andy, not me, that is making the absolutist claim? Until your last edit to the article, it said unequivocally that "Obama is a Muslim". It is ''me'' who has being trying to remove that claim, and ''Andy'' who has been insisting on it. So why are you directing your comments at ''me''? I am ''not'' claiming that "Obama is not a Muslim". Rather, I'm claiming that there's no good evidence that he is a Muslim, and a fair bit of evidence that he is not, so therefore the article should not claim that he is. You seem to agree, having (at least twice, I think) changed the article to remove that absolute statement, yet you are directing you criticisms at me, rather than the person insisting that a particular view ''is'' true. Why the double standard?
: "''...instead of making bad-tempered personal attacks.''": Along the same line, how about you direct your comments to the person/people calling me names ("liberal") and repeatedly side-stepping the argument with irrelevancies instead of (or even as well as, if you prefer) criticising me who is being repeatedly ignored, misrepresented, and called names?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:55, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::Philip, I never made an "absolutist" claim in the entry that "Obama is a Muslim." There is compelling factual evidence that Obama is a Muslim. But your deletions (censorship) were of factual evidence, not of an absolutist claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::: Andy, until Ed Poor edited it very recently, the article said "Obama is a Muslim", without any qualification. At least some of the "compelling factual evidence" listed in the article is false, not compelling, and/or logically invalid, particularly the ones that I have been removing. Andy why do you keep calling my deletions "censorship" when I have repeatedly denied that they are and explained why they are not, and you've not justified how they are? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Philip, you've repeated your same claim again and again, yet I see no evidence of it. I don't think the entry ever said that "Obama is a Muslim" without qualification. If it did, then you could easily quote it. You haven't.

:::: Your insistence on deleting facts from the entry, such as Obama's non-American pronunciation of "Pakistan", can properly be described as censorship.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:37, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Why don't we let each reader decide for himself how believable each source is? I'd hate to see a claim deleted simply because one party in a dispute doubts it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:58, 27 November 2008 (EST)

==Debate On Obama's Religion==

The debate is continuing at [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?‎]] It may be best to continue arguing the point there with the aim of reaching a conclusion which can then be utilised in the article, and leave this talk page for discussing other improvements. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 22:22, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed. http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:09, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Reference ==

<references/>

Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed. http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:08, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action? Untrue. ==

I am no fan of Obama. I do plan on respectfully opposing him via various channels on the internet. However, I believe I should state my opposition to this sentence of the article: "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action."

I have not read the rest of the article because I believed months ago and for good reasons that Obama was going to win this election. For example, the unpopular war and poor economy that was partly caused by a guns and lots of butter spending strategy (Bush should have learned from LBJ committing us to a war and the Great Society programs at the same time). I also thought that it would have been easy for the Republicans to win 12 years in a row given the low quality of the Democratic party. I think the Republicans snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory. I also think Americans have too much debt (last time I heard the average American had lots of credit card debt). One of the reasons for the great depression is that American's had too much debt at the time. I think Bush's call for Americans to do to do more shopping mall spending was a joke. If anything, Americans need to increase their skills to be more productive (The libraries are open but you might have to watch less TV. Last time I checked the average American watches 3 hours of television a day) and work harder to pay off their debt. American's are going to get out of the hole by increasing their productivity. It seems as if Bush did not want to learn from economic history and was only looking out for short term fixes. Well sooner or later, common sense says you have to pay the piper.

Getting back to Obama, obviously, Obama's marital success in terms of not getting divorced compared to Ronald Reagan is not the result of affirmative action. I am sure I could come up with others. I have not read the article for the most part because this sentence turned me off to the whole article. Judging from the ""He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action." sentence, I believe a lot of time is probably being spent to defend an article rather than improve it where obvious improvements could be made. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 06:04, 12 November 2008 (EST)

: Staying married is laudable but in this context it would not be considered a "clear personal achievement." If you would like to add a footnote exception to the remark along the lines of, "he has been married for x years," I'm not opposed but I would expect that to caveat to seem off-topic, or even sarcastic, for most readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::One CP writer told me he equates divorce with adultery, and he accused Reagan of adultery on this basis. Is this the consensus view of Conservatives? Or just his own idea? Or what?

::We ought to be clear on the standards by which we judge public figures. And consistent, too. I mean, which is worse, committing actual adultery (JFK, Clinton) or getting divorced and then remarrying? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::: Biblically, divorce is not adultery. However, divorce is wrong unless the spouse has been unfaithful. Remarriage after a legitimate divorce is okay. The question is whether remarriage after a wrong divorce is okay. Many believe, I think that although the act of divorce may be wrong, that is a forgivable sin like any other sin, and remarriage is not a further sin. And I'd tend to agree that committing "actual" adultery is worse than divorce and remarriage. However, the point that Conservative was raising was not between those two cases, but between divorce and remarriage compared to marriage without divorce.
::: I'm not convinced that Obama's marriage does not constitute a "clear personal achievement". Given the divorce rate these days, especially among prominent people, I would think that it ''was'' a clear personal achievement. In fact I'd consider staying marriage a "clear personal achievement" for anybody these days, given all the pressures on marriage, including the peer pressure that divorce is okay.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:35, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::I rarely disagree with you, Philip, as I find your comments to be some of the more considered on this board, but here I would have to disagree. Jesus makes it quite clear that divorce *is* adultery, not *like* adultery. More then any other text, especially OT text, I take Jesus's words to heart. Mark 10
::::2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
::::3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied.
::::4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
::::5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.
::::6 "But at the beginning of creation God `made them male and female.'
::::7 `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
::::8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one.
::::9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
::::10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.
::::11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.
::::12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 09:41, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::: I didn't say that divorce is "like" adultery. I said that it's ''not'' adultery. And the evidence you've offered to refute that doesn't refute that. The Bible says that someone who divorces ''and remarries'' commits adultery, not that someone who ''divorces'' commits adultery. You can't have adultery without sexual intercourse, which would be taken as given with someone remarrying, but not a given with someone just divorcing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama spiruality interview ==
http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html a interview from a pretty religous website about Obama. Should it be mentioned? Or since it kinda contradicts abit of the article should it be ommitted? --[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:What one might say in an interview really means very little, Vmember, particularly if one is seeking to achieve a position by hiding one's essential nature or beliefs. So really what he says when seeking to impress is irrelevant. It is what he does and has done, and what he says in unguarded moments, that matters. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:16, 12 November 2008 (EST)
*um then shouldn't it atleast be mentioned somewhere in the article about this interview maybe as a response to questions about his faith section? And why is him maybe being a muslim all the way at the top of the article? Shouldn't be be somewhere towards the middle? I've never seen in all my time part of a article pushed into the intro section. Also the article contradicts itself by stating that Obama is most likely a muslim while at the same time pointing at that he was a member of a radical Christian church. That doesn't make any sense. You can't have it both ways.--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:25, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::You can if you're a sleeper for radical Islam. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)
**Wait you seriously think that? Hmm fringe ideas and theories on any subject is detrimental to a discussion let alone a encyclopedia. It's dangerous thinking like that is why us conservatives lost the election and alienated so many moderates and weak liberals. Would there be any objection if I were to move the muslim part to the middle and add a section with his response to questions of his faith?--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:34, 12 November 2008 (EST)
***Does this look better? http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Help:Practice_Page&oldid=555527 Hmm I kinda think instead of giving facts supporting the theory Obama is a muslim editors are trying to push it off as straight fact even though theres been evidence against it. Isn't that a tactic only liberals use and a form of deceit?--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:45, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Poster ==

Don't delete the insight about the poster. I learned from the insight, and I'm sure others have also. We don't censor here. We let the readers decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:I already explained (above) why the "insight" is not actually an insight, is not supported by the source, and is likely false. Believe me, I would love it if Obama really did intentionally model his posters after those of Lenin in a subliminal message to Europeans, but there's simply no evidence of that.

:You reverted both of my edits. Do you have problems with both of them, or just the first one? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:42, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:: Sorry, I just have a problem with the deletion of the poster edit. Your other edit looked fine, but it came right after the controversial one and there was no easy way to separate the too.

:: The similarities between Obama's poster and the famous Lenin image is too obvious for words. We don't need a citation for observing, for example, that 2+2=4. If a reader wants to reject the obvious similarity between the images, then the reader is welcome to do so. Censorship is not a preferred approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::I'm not denying that they are similar, I'm denying that their similarity "[reveals] his deep Marxist/Leninist roots" and "was obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and belief". Can I change the text to reflect that, while the two posters are similar, there's no way to know that it's a confession? (I pointed out before that if anyone is imitating Lenin here, it's probably the over-priced poster designer). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:59, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::: I'm fine with rewording, as long as it doesn't inject liberal spin or make it look like Obama didn't approve it with the similarity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:12, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::::I'll try my best. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:40, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Your revised wording is great. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:05, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:Is anyone else put off by the fact that the Germans really hated Lennin? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:25, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Fun poster [http://img.skitch.com/20080723-pbt7dkk5ksgbystrri5px6s9fr.jpg] --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST) The imagery is more common that you might expect. Nothing new under the sun as they say --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Disgusted==

Mr Schlafly this page is absolutely disgusting. I am totally against Obama as you know, this is the most sorry excuse for an encyclopedia entry I have ever seen. We should leave this page as information about him as a individual, not about why we hate him and you should too. 90% of the page is opinion, and is totally innapropriate. I suggest making it into two pages. One about Obama with just simple facts about him and his backround, and you can make another about everything we hate about him. Pages like this are why we are losing our trustworthyness.
Thanks, --[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]

:Here here. At times I find this article amusing as an ironic hate piece, but at best it degrades this site and conservatives in general. Liberal or conservative, poor logic is poor logic. Because Obama and Lenin each had monochromatic posters featuring a pose directed toward the right it is evidence of Marxist intentions. Because Obama said the words "my muslim faith", irregardless of any context, it used as evidence of being a muslim. I don't even know what to say about the mind control thing, it's really amazing to me because as a religious person it reminds of the feelings I had when I discovered the truth of Jesus Christ: "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany" [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 19:31, 13 November 2008 (EST)

==Disgusted Conservative too==

I did not vote for Senator Obama for political reasons, but I believe he is a good man; this article is simple character assassination; you do not go into his views and show how those are disagreeable (his views on abortion, and his want to make a hasty withdrawal from Iraq) and instead you simply accuse him of being a Muslim, and anti-American etc. also a blog is not a credible source; a blog is someone's opinion. Anyway the accusations levied upon him are for the most part completely inaccurate. He was born in The United States, he wrote his autobiography, he is not a Muslim, he is not anti-American. Please keep the disagreements political.--[[user:Rpond|Rpond]]

I don't know who wrote this, but it shouldn't have been deleted. --[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]

: The odds are less than 1% that "Rpond's" posting is genuine, in light of his misspelling of "conservative" and his other rants. It is appropriate to delete insincere or deceptive postings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:: It is an interesting experience living life each day getting verbally attacked for being a conservative then coming here and getting persecuted (justified edits to factual and encyclopedic wording) for being a liberal. You seem to be very fond of the less than 1% statistic, and have used it many times in many places, but I've never seen any solid reasoning or studies behind it (although in this case your gut instinct does seem to be credited implicitly) I think perhaps you live in a highly conservative eco chamber and aren't getting out enough to notice how little resonance this sort of thing has out in the real world. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:58, 13 November 2008 (EST)
::: Way to show your liberal stripes, BrendanW. Ad hominem attacks are not appreciated here, so please keep it civil. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 19:01, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Would that be an ad hominem attack like calling someone a liberal? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:24, 13 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Are you insulted by being described as a "liberal"? Or are you angry that you're not fooling anyone?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:39, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Either Way its still an Ad Hominem. However I am a little "l" libertarian, and strict constitutionalist (excluding the racist portions that is) which makes me pleanty conservative, I'm also an objectivist in the Ayn Rand model, highly capitalistic and against socialism. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 09:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::Liberal is not an ad hominem, it's a statement of your political views (whether accurate or not), which is completely valid to make in a political arena such as this. Calling someone sarcastic, or making sarcastic remarks about how they live is certainly ad hominem. My two cents--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:27, 19 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::: "Liberal" ''is'' an ''ad hominem'', for two reasons:
::::::::* "''ad hominem''" refers to an argument about the ''person'' rather than about the ''issue''. So even if it is accurate and descriptive, it's still about the ''person'' rather than the ''issue''.
::::::::* An '''''abusive''' ad hominem'' is when you say something ''nasty'' about the person. If "liberal" is an accurate description, or even if it's not but it's said in the reasonable belief that it is, then it's not an '''''abusive''' ad hominem''. But when it's said without any grounds other than disagreeing with a single point of view, then I'd classify as abusive.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:16, 19 November 2008 (EST)

==Cool it==

I've protected this page; only admins can edit it for the moment. Many of us have strong feelings, and we have used this page to express them.

But I would hope that we all confine our comments here to specific suggestions on how to improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:45, 13 November 2008 (EST)

== Did you read that reference? ==

The claim is that OBama might be a Muslim and that he might swear in on a koran. The reference -ref- Obama hoped to become President when he was sworn in as U.S. Senator in 2004, and did not use a Koran at that time. Subsequently Democratic House member Keith Ellison established the precedent for being sworn in using the Koran, and there is no guarantee that Obama would not do likewise if sworn in as President. [http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_obama.html FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, ''Sliming Obama'', January 10, 2008, retrieved on 10/16/2008]-/ref- is about how Obamma is not a Muslim and did not use the Koran to be sworn in as a senator. I simply do not see how it belongs. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Welcome to Conservapedia. Truth is relative to Andy. -[[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 15:04, 15 November 2008 (EST)

== Code name ==

The article plainly says that Obama did have a role in picking it. Hence the reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:My article clearly says that the White House Communications Agency chose the name for him. Hence the original edit.
:I tried to find a source directly fromt he Secret Service or the White House Communications Agency, but neither of their search functions were working. I'll keep looking. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:06, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::"President-Elect Barack Obama – 'Renegade' – had a say in choosing the code name that his guards use when they are whispering into their microphones." From the article cited on our Main Page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:11, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:::''These not-so-secret names are chosen by officials at the White House Communications Agency, which was not inclined to comment on the selection process. In a previous news report, an agency spokesman said the names are assigned by "sheer whim."'' -- From my (stateside) source. You can see why I was confused.
:::I did further research (hence my half-hour long absence) According to [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/11/13/pssst_renegade_and_renaissance_are_in_the_house/ this] source, the WHCA chooses a list of names, and the President decides which one he likes best. So we were both right! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:40, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::::Everybody wins! Yay! -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 22:41, 17 November 2008 (EST)

A "renegade" is a ''deserter'' of a cause, so '''if''' Obama was actually raised as a muslim, and '''if''' the codename has any non-arbitrary significance, it would be evidence that he is '''not''' a muslim, rather than the other way around.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 18:27, 26 November 2008 (EST)

== For the love of God!! ==
HE IS NOT A MUSLIM. I donated 500$ to support McCain and voted for him but this beyond retarded. Please remove that info, because right now nobody in their right mind can take this seriously. Also take out the Koran thing he used the bible in the senate. [[User:Nig89|Nig89]] 20:17, 15 November 2008 (EST)

: Your comment is long on your dubious assertion of a credential, but short on substance. Give us your reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:28, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Why does Obama's religion matter so much? 18:57, 15 November 2008 {{unsigned|JamesZ}}

: Good question. I hope your fellow liberals will answer it for you. They are the ones having unexplained hysteria about a simple observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 15 November 2008 (EST)

::The word you are looking for is "accusation" not "observation". An observation would be stating that he has some traits similar to Muslims. An accusation is claiming that he is a Muslim, regardless of his own protests. On the accusation note, great job assuming anyone who doesn't believe you is a liberal Aschfly. [[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 00:01, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Was Barack Obama truly raised a Muslim or is he a Muslim? ==

Previously I wrote the following: Here is a well written and scholarly piece that examines Obama's religious views and it was written by the National Clergy Council: http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm The evidence does not support Obama being a muslim. The evidence also does not support Obama embracing biblical Christianity.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 09:19, 10 November 2008 (EST) Mr. Schlafly wrote the following: " I skimmed it and don't see where it concludes that Obama is not a Muslim. The article fails to recognize that less than 1% of people raised Muslim (as Obama was) ever leave the religion. The article says Obama is a member of a Christian church, but he left that many months ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:24, 10 November 2008 (EST)"

Here is my response to Mr. Schlafly's reply to my previous post on the Obama/Muslim issue:

I am not a fan of "Liberal Christianity" as I believe it often fails to fall into the realm of biblical/orthodox Christianity and when it does so it is not Christianity at all. With that being said, the article does give compelling evidence that Obama is a member of the camp of "liberal Christianity" and not biblical Christianity. If Obama is a "liberal Christian" he is not a Muslim. There are two logical fallacies called the [http://www.pnl-nlp.org/download/propaganda/page2.htm#sloth slothful inductive fallacy] and [http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm fallacy of exclusion] whereby "Relevant evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the "principle of total evidence"."[http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm] '''Andy, I believe you are committing these two logical fallacies as can be seen by the material in the above cited work by the National Clergy Council. I would strongly suggest not skimming the material as it gives compelling evidence that Obama is a "liberal Christian" and therefore not a Muslim.'''

'''Next, was Obama truly raised a Muslim and therefore does the less than 1% of people raised Muslim ever leave the religion statistic apply. I don't think a compelling case can be made for the 1% argument being applied to Obama. I cite the following:
'''

"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.

Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for secular humanism, a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]

Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm]

'''I will end this post by respectfully asking Mr. Schlafly a few reasonable questions''':

1. How many Muslim men are you aware of that go to a "liberal Christian church" for 20 years, get married in a "liberal Christian' church, and have their children baptized in a "liberal Christian" church, and call a Reverend of "liberal Christianity "my pastor" while living in a relatively free and democratic country like the United States? I ask this question because it appears as if all these apply to Obama.[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/04/29/2008-04-29_obama_expresses_outrage_over_former_past.html][http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58954][http://volokh.com/posts/1209531850.shtml] Accordingly, '''How many similar historical examples can you give of Muslim men who did these type of things when they lived in a relatively free and democratic society like the United States?
'''

2. According to the press, Obama has visited churches and synagogues but has not visited a mosque while running for president.[http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/25/opinion/edcohen.php] Can you show me a single instance of Obama ever visiting a mosque while he has been an adult?

3. '''Is the case for Obama being a "liberal Christian" stronger or is the case of Obama being a Muslim stronger when the principle of total evidence being weighed is applied?''' If you state the case is stronger for Obama being a Muslim, please defend your position by truly negating the strong evidence that he is a member of "liberal Christianity" and giving compelling evidence that he is a Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:I thought the two of you might enjoy reading [http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html this 2004 interview with Obama], where he discusses his faith, his baptism, and so forth. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:04, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::Both of you miss the point. It's not what Obama '''says''' - that has no relevance whatsoever. It's what he '''is''' and what he '''will do'''. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::: If what he ''says'' has no relevance, why is one of the supposed evidences for him being a Muslim something he ''said'' (the bit about "my Muslim faith")? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::::Bugler, I know I mentioned what Obama did and said which certainly has bearing on what Obama "is". Therefore, you did not in any way provide a counter argument. I also suggest you answer the reasonable questions I posed to Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:16, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Conservative, the roots of Al Quaeda lie in the 1940s and 50s, if not before; radical terroristic Islamic fundamentalism is not a recent phenomenon. Much of its mindset and organisational apperatus was borrowed from Leninist Communism: the notion of cell, of enrtyism, of deep penetration. Now, how difficult is it to imagine that an intelligent child, of American parentage, schooled in the Islamic environment of 1960s Indonesia and vulnerable to the influences swirling around in that environment, might be schooled and indoctrinated as the sleeper to end all sleepers, given extreme dispensations to protect his cover, allowed to eat pork, drink alcohol, marry out, attend and indeed profess to be a Christian, even to publicly renounce (on the face of it) the Islamic faith? Surely the prize would merit the game. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:24, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::So you're honestly speculating that Obama might be a member of Al Qaeda, and we're expected to believe that you're ''not'' a parodist? Riiiiiiight. [[User:MarkB|MarkB]] 09:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::Oh, that old tune yet again. Can't you Liberals find a less boring stick to beat me with? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:17, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Oh, don't get me wrong, I think you're doing a great job. Keep it up. [[User:MarkB|MarkB]] 09:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Bugler, in light of the evidence I gave above concerning Obama's supposedly being raised a Muslim '''and the lack of evidence to support it''' plus the evidence I gave above to support Obama being a member of "liberal Christianity" , your post is at best a Hail Mary pass. Secondly, I noticed you did not answer my questions or give any solid historical parallels for your far fetched speculation. If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades I would certainly be indebted to you if you could give it. But I would add, since you never gave any compelling evidence he was raised a Muslim, this Leninist parallel speculation is a non starter anyways. Thirdly, you refer to "the prize". What prize? If you going to embrace conjecture that is contra evidence certainly you should tell your audience what the supposed prize is supposedly going to be. Should I fear I am imminently going to be put under Sharia law? Lastly, I am not stating your a parodist, but I certainly believe it is more likely that you are a parodist than it is likely that Obama is a Muslim. Your somewhat eloquent but empty defense of the indefensible proposition that Obama is likely a Muslim, certainly provides a reasonable reader to suspect you are a parodist. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:41, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::I've not heard the term 'hail Mary pass' before, despite being a good Catholic boy: please enlighten! ''If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades'' Not a president, but the private secretary of the West German Chancellor Willy Brandt was a Communist plant: how many were undetected? Certainly therer remain suspicions about the 1960s/70s UK Prime Minister Harold Wilson. ''What prize?'' Surely that is obvious. As to the objections you raise, I think it unlikely that he will use the ceremony on January 20 to declare a United states Caliphate. However, the prospect of an Islamic radical sleeper in the Oval Office raises any number of possibilities. And finally: your open suggestion that I am a parodist is welcome: a refreshing change from others here who smear me by innuendo without your honesty and openness. I assure you in all sincerity that I act with the best interests of God, Conservapedia, Freedom and Democracy always at heart. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:58, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Bugler, [http://www.wisegeek.com/in-football-what-is-a-hail-mary.htm Hail Mary pass]. Secondly, your Willy Brandt attempted historical parallel falls flat. I did a quick search on the internet and this is what CNN states about Brandt: "As a teen-ager Brandt first joined the Socialist Party of Germany (SPD) in 1930, but one year later switched to a more radical spin-off, the SAP."[http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/kbank/profiles/brandt/] Brandt apparently was a socialist early on (teenager to be precise), but you have not give a compelling argument that Obama was raised as a Muslim and given the information I gave above regarding there being a lack of evidence for this proposition and evidence against it, your Leninism supposed historical parallel is still a non starter. You are certainly not applying the principle of using the total evidence. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Henry Wallace, FDR's Vice President, was a "sleeper" communist and replaced by FDR for that reason. Alger Hiss, a top aide to presidents, was a proven "sleeper" communist. A big lie is often easier to pull off than a little lie.

What's remarkable is how strenuously people deny that Obama is a Muslim. His fathers (real and stepfather) were Muslims. There's no denying that Obama was raised a Muslim, and his conduct as an adult underscores that he, like 99% of others raises as Muslims, did not leave that religion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:02, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:: What's remarkable is how strenuously you claim that Obama is a Muslim without any evidence of substance, and in opposition to other conservatives, including five of your own senior administrators, who disagree with you, despite being opposed to Obama. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:An interesting question is ''why'' people try so hard to deny it to ''themselves'' when the evidence is so clearly there. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 20:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::Andy, Wallace appears to have had been a one time Republican who later had openly leftist views. [http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARwallace.htm] Wallace cannot be counted as a long time "sleeper agent" who was a very high ranking public official through infiltration. Secondly, Alger Hiss never achieved a high ranking government official status like a president, Vice President, Secretary of State, etc.[http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/who.html] I do think that when someone goes for a very important government position, such as a President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, a higher degree of scrutiny often occurs. For this reason, I believe you are having trouble coming up with a historical instance of a very high ranked official in the Western World being a sleeper agent. Furthermore, by the time Hiss was charged who had been two years out of government and was working for the Carnegie Foundation. I believe it is invalid to use Hiss as an example of an ambitious sleeper agent who had gotten to the top of government when he had resigned from government 2 years before he was charged. Next, I do think my questions in my previous post were quite reasonable that you left unanswered. Also, and this is really at the heart of the issue, you never really countered this information which makes the idea of Obama being a sleeper agent a non-starter because it appears as if he was never truly raised a Muslim:

"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.

Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for '''secular humanism''', a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]

Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:57, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: In response to your indented general comment above, there's nothing magical or divine about presidential politics that ensures honesty. Woodrow Wilson was paralyzed by a stroke for more than a year while president, and the public did not know. Your argument that it is impossible to keep such things from the public is simply wrong. Wallace was not widely known to be a communist or else Roosevelt would never have been elected with Wallace on the ticket. Roosevelt finally figured it out (or was tipped off), and without explanation replaced Wallace. The leftists were dumbfounded by this move, as they were on the verge of making Wallace president when Roosevelt died. Oh, and the sickness of Roosevelt was also kept from the public. He died from his illness within a mere weeks of becoming president for the fourth time. The public didn't expect that either.

: In response to your specific questions, you're quoting self-serving and implausible statements. Obama was raised by a Muslim stepfather. He learned to view the Muslim call to prayer as the most beautiful thing in the word. There is no real indication any change by Obama, and his keeping of the name "Hussein" illustrates that he did not have a rare adult conversion from Muslim to Christianity. All indications are that such conversion was politically motivated to persuade the public, and one might say that was obviously successful with some! But I doubt Obama will continue his charade indefinitely. Watch for aid to impose Islam on more foreign countries, and watch for inclusion of the Koran at official ceremonies, if not on Jan. 20th itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:: No, Andy, it is ''you'' who is "quoting self-serving and implausible statements". Even five of your own senior administrators disagree with you, but, like Wikipedia, you persist with imposing your own view on this article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Andy, I don't think you can give me a single piece of evidence of Obama's mother being a Muslim and given there is evidence against this matter that is not surprising. It also appears as if Obama has a great influence in his life which is not surprising since she was his biological mother. In addition, Obama appeared to have received some Catholic education when he was young. Therefore, your supposed case that Obama was raised a Muslim is certainly not built on a bedrock of solid evidence. Accordingly, the Obama article should not state that Obama is likely a Muslim. Next, I never stated that it is impossible for someone to get to a top political office as a sleeper agent but merely improbable and historical determinations should be reached probabilistically. Also, while it may have not been known that Wallace was a communist (if indeed he was a communist which is a matter I have not investigated but which could certainly be true), there does appear to be indications that he had openly strong leftist views for even the Democrats.[http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARwallace.htm] Therefore, you historical precedent argument in this case is certainly not a stronger one in terms of Wallace being a "sleeper agent". It does not sound plausible to me that a Communist sleeper agent would have openly strong leftist views that even the Democrats found distasteful. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: In Muslim families, like the one Obama was raised in, the father dictates the religious upbringing of the boys. Please learn more about the Muslim traditions. With so little awareness of it by Christians, it's no wonder Islam is trouncing Christianity around the world.

: Alger Hiss was later proved to be a communist and read up on how he was the TOP adviser to FDR at the key WWII conference carving up Europe. Not only was he a sleeper communist agent, but the liberals denied it for decades even after Hiss was convicted in court. Only in the last few years did one of his co-agents admit the truth. Please learn about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::: Islam is "trouncing" Christianity? In what way? Greater population growth, perhaps, but that's not relevant here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:::Andy, have you made the case that Obama's stepfather was a staunch Muslim? I know you have not because it appears as if Obama attended a Catholic school when he was young. Therefore, you still not have made the case that Obama was raised a Muslim. Next, Hiss may have been a top advisor at one point in his life, however, an advisor is not a very top government official (President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, etc.) who certainly often faces much more scrutiny. Andy, given historical precedence and the greater scrutiny that is often given to people ascending to the very peaks of government power, I do think the case for a sleeper agent rising to the pinnacle of power in a government institution is very tenuous to say the least. I think this principle of sleeper agents not ascending to the pinnacles of large organizations is true of institutions outside of government as well. For example, people when being sarcastic in replying to a yes or no question, will sometimes say, "Is the Pope Jewish?" meaning that the pope is not likely an adherent of Judaism. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, it appears as if there is strong evidence that Obama attended a Catholic school but there may not be evidence that he attended a school that truly could be called a Muslim school. Please read [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp this article.]

Regardless of whether or not CNN or the AP did their work with diligence, there appears to be no controversy regarding that Obama did in fact attend a Catholic school. Therefore, I still maintain that the claim he was raised a Muslim does not have strong support. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:22, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: Catholic schools welcome Muslim students. They still do. The Muslim students virtually never convert.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Catholic schools may very welcome Muslim students but what staunchly Muslim father sends his son to a Catholic school? Andy, you still have not jumped over the evidential bar that Osama was raised a Muslim. The so called Muslim school was apparently not strongly Islamic or possibly not even Islamic at all ( [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp read this article.] ) and the stepfather appears to not have had a strong Muslim faith as evidenced by the fact that he sent Obama to a Catholic school. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)

In the Unification Church, it is not unusual for parents to send their children to a Catholic grade school. So what if they come home, crossing themselves when they pray? Overall, the education is better there than in public schools, so if they can afford it the practice makes senses. I daresay mainstream Christians likewise don't mind the sectarian differences. Any way out of secular humanism is often fine with them.

It appears likely that as president, Obama will be more sympathetic to Islamic countries in his foreign policy. Maybe he'll even be able to get them to lighten up on their "destruction of Israel" goals, or allow [[religious freedom]] for Christians and Jews. Are [[Turkey]] and [[Indonesia]] good examples of this?

I see good in all religions, and I don't see Islam as irredeemably evil. So what if Obama is or was Muslim? There is [[no religious test for office]], and he can't be impeached for it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==Another case for Obama being Muslim==
During a campaign rally, two Muslim women in Muslim garb, were removed from prominent camera view. The reason is A) Obama doesn't want his image assoc. with Muslims B) or doesn't like Muslims (we know the opposite is true). Now, he doesn't want images of Muslim assoc with him because he is A) secret Muslim or B) the American people will think he is a Muslim. (Which 27% already do). Did Obama try to hide his Muslim background and is that plan still in progress?--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:52, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Are A and B the only choices on why Obama does not want himself associated with Islam? Is a false dilemma being proposed? For example, setting aside whether it was right or wrong which is a whole other discussion, did 9/11 drive up the American public's negative beliefs and/or attitudes regarding Islam? Would the American public look less favorably upon a candidate who received some Muslim religious education (Obama also received Catholic training in his youth. And there is certainly reason to believe that a certain degree of philosophical skepticism was imparted to Obama via his mother). In short, I think the above post fails to use the principle of using the total evidence (see my posts above) plus contains a false dilemma. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:09, 16 November 2008 (EST)

== “Less than 1% Muslims convert” – Prosecutor error? ==

OK, time for something new and I direct this particularly to Aschlafly. There is a logical fallacy called the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is very subtle but real enough to send innocent people to the execution chamber. In fact, many lawyers and judges don’t understand it. It works like this. Please concentrate: this isn't all that easy.

Let us suppose that it is true that Barack Obama was at one time a Muslim, even if this was at an immature age when he really had no say in his faith. And let us grant that only 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity. The argument which Aschflafly uses time and again is to deduce that that this means that, notionally at least, that there is a 99% chance that Obama is a Muslim.

The fallacy of the argument is that it does not recognize that the IF Obama was in that 99% of Muslims who did not convert, there would be no practicable way he could have run for President. Therefore the chances that he is one of those who DID convert are raised far beyond the mathematically obvious one of 1%.

Let me give you a real-life example. A woman had three children and each expired early in infancy of “cot death”. The prosecutor did his math and advised the court that there was a “one in 70 million” chance of this happening by accident. Therefore, the jury was heavily disposed to assume that she was guilty of the serial murder of her children. But the fallacy of the case is that she was ONLY arrested because of the rareness of the 3 children dying of cot death in the one family. But even if this only happens one in 70 million families, in a large country such as the U.K or U.S.A, and over a period of decades, it is BOUND to occur, purely by accident. If we then tell a courtroom that there is only a 1 in 70 million chance that she is innocent, we are guilty of the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is tantamount to arresting a man who comes into a lot of money suddenly and is arrested under suspicion of larceny. He explains that he won it on a lottery, but the Prosecutor says he has looked into the “Lottery” business, and there is only a 1 in 20 million chance of winning it, therefore there is only a 1 in 20 million chance the indicted man is telling the truth.

In Obama’s case, once again, EVEN if it is true that only 1% of Muslims convert, AND ALSO true that he was born into the Muslim faith, the fact that his circumstances allowed him to run for the Presidency argues that he was one of those Muslims who DID convert, and thus makes his chances of being a non-Muslim substantially greater that 1%. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:05, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:I understand your math, but your reasoning does not convince me. The lottery example was the most unfortunate attempt.

:Although in any given lottery, the chances may be 1 in 20 million for one person to win - the fact is that '''every''' lottery has a winner.

:The problem with Obama's religion is not so much ''Which is it?'' but, "How shall the electorate now regard its new president elect?" Will Obama be pro-Muslim (because he's Muslim or was raised Muslim)?

:A related question is, "Will Obama be pro-Black because he is black?"

:I get along equally well with black Christians as with white Christians, so this is not an issue for me. I've also found Muslims personally just as honest, reliable and hard-working as Christians. What's all the fuss about? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: The lottery example was valid. Apart from the fact that not every lottery ''does'' have a winner (the prize then jackpots to the following draw), the point is that the 100% certainty (every lottery has a winner) applies to the lottery as a whole, whereas the 1 in 20 million odds applies to any ''given'' individual. The issue here is about a ''given'' individual, Barack Obama.
:: I hope that you are asking that last question ("What's all the fuss about") to Andy, as he is the one insisting on the claim against almost everybody else other than a few acolytes.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:20, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::I like maths and logic, so good section. This isn't arguing for the prosecution error, but just about statistical sampling. I suppose you could ask how many muslims convert, but it might be more accurate to ask how many American born muslims convert, or how many muslims that have had a Christian baptism have genuinely converted (I hope there's a special place in hell for those that were faking their baptism)--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:45, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::::In [[Dante's Inferno]], I don't think there is. Any kind of liar goes to the bottom of the eighth circle though. I wonder whether covert apostacy was known in Dante's time.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:51, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::::MylesP, have you been reading [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Science-Ben-Goldacre/dp/0007240198/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227138689&sr=8-1 Bad Science?]

== Awesome article ==
Just wanted to say, finally a good resource about obama. Fantastic research about the muslim piece, it really shows him as the closet muslim like he is. Shame the libs just don't get it !! [[happymoon|happymoon]]

== Great comedy article ==

It's a shame people don't get the jokes. Just wanted to pop in and say keep up the good work! Was referred here by a friend who also got a kick out of this article. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 11:08, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:Read the article properly before you start calling it a joke. You've been looking at Obama from a left wing viewpoint; try looking at him from a right wing viewpoint. It'll do you good.--[[User:WHurst|WHurst]]

The article is full of fiction. Stuff like this is part of the reason why Conservapedia is a joke to everyone who isn't a member here.
[[User:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]] 16:31, 22 November 2008 (EST)

==This will be a hit on stormfront==

America reaches a milestone in his history and all you guys can do is peddle false lies which have been repudiated by just about everyone in the political business. The comment about 'possibly been sworn in by the koran' is not only false, but a terrifying example of what racism and ignorance is capable of. You may not be white nationalists, but your inability to reasonably discuss this man's faith without resorting to the most despicable acts of scaremongering is typical of the tripe we see on racist websites.

Keep this crap up and you'll make sure to keep the black vote away from your party for the forseeable future. [[User:JCharlton|JCharlton]] 17:50, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::Race and religion are two different things. Why do liberals always resort to racism? Maybe its becaus you don't have any real arguments against the issues raised here? This isn't wikipedia, we deal in facts here. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 20:20, 17 November 2008 (EST)

"Facts" as in already repeatedly proven falsehoods such as Obama being a Muslim? This page is filled with outright lies. [[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

== Reply ==

Don't know where to start. Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim. What's it to someone who (1) is an atheist, (2) is an Australian, (3) is a Christian, or (4) would support him regardless? Frankly, the opposition by some is puzzling.

Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here. Perhaps we can all agree that it's worth learning more about what many say has quickly become the world's largest religion, and the strongest religion in Europe today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:49, 17 November 2008 (EST)

If you are going to repeat a proven lie, you shouldn't be surprised when people call you on it-[[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

:It really shouldn't be that puzzling Andy. They are calling out what they believe to be falsehood. When people made spurious, questionable claims about Bush, how did Conservapedia respond? Did you include the information or remove it? Its the exact same thing. You tried to keep the spurious information out of it. The name "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" implies intellectual honesty, and on this particular aspect most people here (myself included) find this pile of circumstantial evidence to be based on poor conclusions, false arguments, and illogical reasoning to be an absurdity without any solid claims that say he is a Muslim. The burden of proof is on you to -prove- that he is, not provide a loaded mountain of evidence that is obviously taylored to imply that he is with no proof whatsoever other than bad logic. I can't believe this topic is still going. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 22:17, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:: There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood. Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim. Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%.

:: Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%. Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:52, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::When you promote someone over yourself here, the beef can be over censorship. Until then, it's just people saying they think you're wrong. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 23:16, 17 November 2008 (EST) ''<-like me, for example...''

Don't fall for the devil's tricks. These "conservatives" are not true Christians. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 23:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)

"''Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim.''": Yes, I would like you to explain that. Because ''you'' are the one enraged at that. I, on the other hand, am "enraged" that he is being accused of being a Muslim on the basis of logical fallacy, lousy arguments, and false claims.

"''What's it to someone who ... is a Christian''": As a Christian, my concern is for the ''truth''. Why do you continually try and misrepresent this as censorship, liberal lies, or whatever?

"''... some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here...''": That is not the issue I'm arguing. You are again raising red herrings. The issue is the claim that he is a Muslim, which claim is not supported by the evidence.

"''There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood.''": No, Andy, it '''is''' spurious, and ''you'' lose credibility with ''your'' baseless claims that he is a Muslim.

"''Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim.''": On what grounds? Certainly not those in this article.

"''Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%.''": "That" is not given. Rather, it's bizarre how ''you'' adamantly insist that he ''is'' a Muslim given the lack of evidence.

"''Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.''": I'm going to shout because you obviously didn't hear me before: "IT IS NOT CENSORSHIP TO REMOVE IRRELEVANT INFORMATION, AND I'D APPRECIATE YOU NOT IMPLYING THAT I'M TRYING TO CENSOR ANYTHING."

I've pointed out a number of problems, and your response has been to slander the criticism as censorship and liberal, to introduce red herrings, and to assert your opinion as fact. What you have ''not'' done is actually address the issue.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:57, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:How dare you accuse Andy of slander. And what hypocricy. The only slanderer, Philip, is you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 03:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: Yet you make no attempt to refute that it was slanderous, nor to substantiate your accusation against me. In other words, a substanceless response. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, regarding "''(Islam being) the strongest religion in Europe today''": you never cease to amaze us with your wealth of knowledge of the world outside the USA, be it UK, the whole of Europe or Australia. Kudos to you! --[[User:Europeo|Europeo]] 07:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::''Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here.'' I think that's a statement with which anyone would agree. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==Four Questions For The Trojan Candidate==
{{QuoteBox|1=It has taken the better part of a year, and specifically the last six months of this election season, for committed citizen journalists at TexasDarlin and many other blogs to conduct the solid, investigative research that the media, the democratic national committee, agencies of the federal government, Barack Obama himself, and Congress should have done on the eligibility and qualifications of Barack Obama. The first serious look at Barack Obama ’s Constitutional eligibility began on this blog, with the exposure of the birth certificate mystery, Obama-Soetoro’s Indonesian citizenship, and analysis of the constitutional problems with Obama’s multiple citizenship status irrespective of birthplace.
 
Although our collective knowledge of Barack Obama and the concerns of his candidacy came too late to change the outcome of the Democratic nomination and the election—especially in light of the MSM bias, the Obama campaign’s tactics, and DNC shenanigans– for all our hard work, we were successful in shedding some light on the content of his character: his associations, his deeds, his family relations, his friends, his lack of experience, stewardship, his patriotism, his potential agenda ([http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/] ) and the startling depth of his secrecy.
 
Now that we have “un-muddied” the water…..we stand on the edge of a caldera* with no idea of the complexity, depth, explosiveness, or unpredictability of this phenomenon we have witnessed in the rise of Barack Obama ! We as a country have never actually been here before, standing at the edge of possible dissolution of our country, except perhaps in the election of 1860. One realizes at once the perils of both diving into that hot pool of water, or running away to avoid the explosion….either scenario leads to serious burns!
 
While there seems to be little evidence that we will ever fully know Obama, nor avoid the explosive change he will bring, there is a way we can learn from this experience such that our Country will never again be faced with someone who is truly unknown, inexperienced, untested, and feels (to me anyway) uncommitted to America. We can use the 2008 experiences to also highlight and then design strategies to ensure that every political party is responsive to its constituents, and that our Constitution is really a living document.
 
The Constitution is by and for “we the people”; therefore “we the people” must make it work and not rely on any political party to sell America to the highest bidder.
 
'''Four Questions'''
 
I bring forward four questions that get to the heart of our rights, as American citizens, to ensure that our government and its leaders are indeed qualified to lead our great country. By extension, these questions can be used as windows to other potential areas where we the people do not yet have redress.
 
These questions are miraculously (given procedural errors and the existing lower court dismissal) before the Supreme Court with the requirement that President-elect Obama respond by December 1, 2008. It is also disturbing that these questions are before the U.S. Supreme Court when the candidate himself or the DNC could easily have dispelled any speculation by providing simple documentation.
 
While I have not kept track of the Berg v. Obama case for many reasons, it truly is miraculous that Justice Souter required Obama to respond to Berg’s writ of certiorari. Even if, as some have said, Souter ’s action is not significant and procedural only, how Obama responds will reveal much about his view of the Constitution, and will determine if the full Supreme Court decides to hear the case. In responding, Obama will be essentially arguing why the writ of certiorari should not be granted.
 
In my opinion, the questions raised by Berg in the lower Court should not have been thrown out entirely based on standing alone, or by the notion that the injury to a voter is “vague”. But some Judges do actually realize the question may be beyond their jurisdiction and ‘ask for help’ by clearly making appealable and reversible errors that a higher court can rule on. The Supreme Court Rules permit the grant of a writ of certiorari only under specific circumstances.
 
The questions presented for review are:
 
*1. Whether a citizen of the United States has standing to challenge the Constitutional qualifications of a Presidential nominee under the “natural born citizen clause” [Article II of the U.S. Constitution] when deprivation of the right to such a challenge would result in the infringement of a citizen’s Constitutional right to vote?
*2. Isn’t it true that no one has the responsibility to ensure a United States Presidential candidate is eligible to serve as President of the United States?
*3. Are there proper steps for a voter to ensure a Presidential Candidate is qualified and eligible to serve as President of the United States?
*4. Isn’t it true that there are not any checks and balances to ensure the qualifications and eligibility of a Presidential Candidate to serve as President of the United States?
 
The “questions presented for review” in the writ require Obama’ response. Notice that answering these questions does not require Obama to produce a birth certificate, but instead to answer why he does not have to prove himself eligible.
 
Although we cannot predict Obama’s answers, based on his past legal motions submitted in the lower court case, Obama may indeed respond that the writ should not be granted because (1) a citizen does not have standing, (2) that no one has responsibility to ensure eligibility, (3) that there are no proper steps for a citizen to ensure qualifications, and (4) that there are no checks and balances that exist today to ensure a candidate is qualified. Notice he is in a position of arguing technicalities here, and completely misses his own obligation to prove himself.
 
Although doubtful, it is also possible Obama would try to argue that the 14th Amendment says that “naturalized citizens” and “dual citizens” are “American citizens”, thereby satisfying the requirements of Article II. I really can’t imagine he would bring this up, unless asked in a hearing, as the question of the 14th Amendment’s modification of Article II is a constitutional matter that only the Supreme Court can decide. Recall that on Obama’s own website he claims that he is a U.S. Citizen under the 14th amendment.
 
I think these questions may have Obama boxed in. If he intends not to release his COLB, citizenship records, passport files, etc, Obama would then practically argue a big “FU” to the U.S. Supreme Court and say in effect “I don’t have to respond to this because there is no law, no avenue for citizens, and no checks and balances that require me to do so.” He will argue technicalities in how to disregard the Constitution, including, as above, that the 14th Amendment applies to Article II. I wonder how the Supreme Court might respond?
 
If Obama responds in any other way, he could be forced to disclose and/or identify when, how, and what steps citizens can take, or what steps are taken, to assure the POTUS’ eligibility. Using the process he acknowledges—for example, the “DNC vetting process”–he may then be forced to prove his eligibility to serve as POTUS under Article II by showing the documentation he provided to the DNC, if he provided anything to the DNC. Alternatively he could concede that there are no procedures to ensure eligibility of a person for POTUS, and that “America has to take his word for it”. Would the Supreme Court then order him to produce his documentation according to the original suit filed by Berg?
 
One item of interest is how Obama responds to Question 4, on the existence of checks and balances to assure the POTUS’ eligibility. “Checks and balances” can mean procedures, legislative processes, acts, bills, agencies, or resolutions. Here is where Obama could argue that the Senate Resolution promoted by Senators Leahy, Obama, and McCatskill on John McCain’s eligibility applies. In other words, Obama could argue that the checks and balances already exist and this resolution suffices (notice this is not a bill). The Senate resolution was developed in April, 2008 to “validate” John McCain ’s natural born citizen status when it was unnecessary, and in some ways the resolution’s language can be seen as an attempt by the three Senators to create a blanket provision for a naturalized citizen to be eligible to serve as POTUS. Looking at the text of the resolution and supporting statements, Senator Leahy has the following curious exchange with Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff (emphasis mine):
 
Chairman Leahy. Let me just ask this: I believe–and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President….You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind–I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?
 
Secretary Chertoff. My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.
 
As Berg’s case has evolved, he refined the scope of defendants who now must also respond to the writ, including the DNC, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and its Chair, Senator Dianne Feinstein , the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and several Pennsylvania government officials.
 
With the exception of the DNC, who also joined in Obama’s initial motion to dismiss the lower case on lack of standing, I think the other defendants’ responses might be decidedly different. The FEC could claim that it actually has no jurisdiction in the matter by way of its charter and organizing documents, and that even if it did, it is far too understaffed to perform investigatory functions, as cited by Senator Feinstein in testimony before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration on May 28, 2008 (link to http://rules.senate..gov/hearings/2008/052108feinsteinopen.pdf). And will Senator Feinstein blame the Bush administration, or will she admit that she too just assumed the DNC vetted Obama and that he was eligible?
 
After reviewing Obama’s legal argument against granting the writ of certiorari and the other defendants’ responses, Justice Souter will then review Berg’s response before deciding where the case goes next, including whether the full Supreme Court will hear the case. Remember that Souter’s clerks have all the lower court material and reviewed it before Souter required Obama to respond to the writ of certiorari. In my opinion, Justice Souter would not have granted this appeal from Berg if he thought the issues were irrelevant and not worthy of the Court’s attention.
 
How does the Supreme Court react? Will it order the production of Obama’s documents? Will it order the lower Courts to resolve the matter expeditiously, requiring the release of documents? Will it order the FEC, Electoral College, or Congress to verify his eligibility, or develop verification procedures? Will they agree with Obama, if he mentions it, that the 14th Amendment really did modify Article II criteria? Will they dismiss the case?
 
Although the Supreme Court will not want to be seen as determining the outcome of another election—even for the perception of “fairness”– the questions presented in the writ are completely different than presented in Bush v. Gore. Under Article III of the Constitution, the Supreme Court clearly has the jurisdiction to decide the matter. Legal scholars will point to Marbury v. Madison ( link to http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=19) as precedent if the full Supreme Court accepts the writ, orders the lower Court in error, directs it to secure Obama’s documentation, and chastises the DNC, FEC, the PA state agencies, the Senate, and Senator Obama for not doing their job, and not forcing the production of documents itself, while still retaining jurisdiction.
 
If this is the outcome, a motion could be made by Berg to stay the vote of the Electoral College pending the outcome of the case. If the Justices are concerned about the matter and integrity of the 2008 election, that motion could be granted. The expedited discovery of documents would proceed. Yes, I understand this is a long-shot and speculation on my part.
 
And how, in the meantime, are we to ever know about Barack Obama? Is the burden of proof really on America (Berg), or on Barack Obama ? Is it up to your employer to find out who you are, or is it up to you as an employee to provide your documentation? Isn’t Obama supposed to be working for America? I believe that the burden of proof on eligibility rests solely and unconditionally on Barack Obama’s shoulders. I am not alone in this belief (link http://americamustknow.com/Documents/OBAMA%20LAWSUIT,%20Class%20Action.doc).
 
Alinsky Returns?
 
As I sit in disbelief and alarm even writing this article—that something as basic as citizenship status of the potential POTUS is in front of the Supreme Court at this late date—I am reminded of a framework set forth in an earlier article, The Trojan Candidate (link to http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/), and the use of Alinsky-style community organizing techniques to advance an agenda of revolutionary change. In this article I posited that Barack Obama has a hidden agenda and part of implementing his agenda involves the use of techniques developed by Saul Alinsky and discussed in such books as Rules for Radicals (http://www.semcosh.org/AlinskyTactics.htm).
 
'''From the Trojan Candidate:'''
 
Alinsky laid out a set of basic principles to guide the actions and decisions of radical organizers [community organizers] and the People’s Organizations they established. The organizer, he said, ‘must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.’ The organizer’s function, he added, was ‘to agitate to the point of conflict ’and ‘to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy.” ‘The word ‘enemy,’ said Alinsky, ‘is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people’; i.e., to convince members of the community that he is so eager to advocate on their behalf, that he has willingly opened himself up to condemnation and derision.
 
What could be the reason for withholding his citizenship papers and birth status, especially if he has nothing to hide? Does he plan to use this in some way to “rub raw the resentments of the people” [and] “fan the latent hostilities to the point of over expression”? The concerns about Obama’s Constitutional eligibility will be met with accusations of “racism”; that the “system” wouldn’t do this to a white man, and that the republicans or others are trying to ‘take Obama out’ on a “technicality”. And worse.
 
If Obama is ineligible, he could rightly be called a ‘dangerous enemy’ and forced to stand down. It is at this point that “the word ‘enemy’ is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people…” and the maneuvering and baiting of the establishment forces it to back down, with Obama prevailing whether having shown his documentation or not. As you contemplate this, think of all the money, the inevitability narrative, the shutting down of dissent, the timing of events, the threat of violence and insurrection, the establishment of the office of the president elect, and the simply overwhelming of America with all things Obama. This certainly pulls the light from shining on the real Barack Obama ’s Trojan candidacy.
 
If Obama is proven ineligible, does not stand down or even if he does stand down, it is not unreasonable to expect some “in-your-face” hostile reactions and calls for immediate changes that permit Obama to stay. How ironic: in defense of liberty and the Constitution, we will be called ‘racists’.
 
'''Implications for the Future'''
 
The four questions presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 will have a lasting and enduring effect on the course of the American Constitution in the next decade or more and will continue to feed the growing doubts about Obama’s qualifications and intentions in the next four years.. Currently there are 17 different legal actions in various state and federal courts, which now challenge the validity of the electoral process across the country, regardless of outcome (see http://www.soundinvestments.us/files/final_writ_keyes_v_bowen.pdf) .
 
Just my suspicion, but I am beginning to get a more complete picture of why Obama has sealed all of his records, including college financial aid applications, papers, and coursework. I believe his financial aid applications reveal his foreign status; and I now see that his Columbia and Harvard papers could reveal his examination of the “weaknesses” of the U.S. Constitution and ways to “remedy” them using “administrative procedures” as discussed in this 2001 radio interview. (link to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VctiYQplw8)
 
As I look at the scope of research on the issue of eligibility during this election season, I note that nearly all have concluded that there are no checks and balances to assure the eligibility of a Presidential Candidate, that no one is responsible, that the DNC did not do its job, and that indeed citizens and voters have very little recourse to ask these questions. The Supreme Court has never been presented with this question before on Article II eligibility. I personally doubt that they will duck their responsibilities to protect the Constitution.
 
Up until this time, it has been assumed that every candidate and POTUS has met Article II qualifications. We assume that in fact no one would dare to run for and claim the Presidency if he/she didn’t meet the qualifications of the Constitution. Looks like our age of innocence is over.
 
It appears that we will have to craft legislation to assure eligibility criteria are met for the POTUS, and to assign appropriate responsibilities to assure so.. If the country wants to amend the Constitution to allow naturalized or dual citizens to serve as POTUS, then we have that mechanism, which ¾ of the states have to ratify. None of this can happen before the January 20th inauguration.
 
The four questions to the Supreme Court also remind me of other areas in which we voters do not have redress when something goes wrong. Although I am now an “unaffiliated” voter, having left the democratic party after November 4th, it also appears that democrats do not have an avenue of redress when the DNC and RBC violate party rules as they did in this case to deny Hillary Clinton the nomination. In addition, we now know that caucuses can be gamed, and do not serve the interests of democracy nor do they provide a fair representation of the strength of our party’s candidates. Because of the DNC, RBC and Obama’s gaming of the system with caucus fraud, and the blatant use of race and misogyny to silence critics, we are witnessing the democrats begin the disintegration of the “democratic brand”. I am sure there are issues in the Republican party after GWB destroyed the “republican brand”. We all need a detox from our respective koolaid brands in order to really see clearly.
 
What is next for our country? Well, if we don’t want to dive into that hot pool, and we’re not going to run away, then we’d better start creating an alternative vision. A line in one of my favorite movies, The Shawshank Redemption, sums it up for me:
 
“…get busy livin’, or get busy dyin’…” [http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/four-questions-for-the-trojan-candidate/]}}
{{unsigned|TK}}

==Andy, if it can perhaps be quibbled that there is merely a 20% chance of Obama being a Muslim, then why is the Obama article stating that he is likely a Muslim? ==

Dear Andy,

You wrote above regarding the probability of Obama being a Muslim the following:

"Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%."

Andy, if it can be perhaps be quibbled that the likelihood of Obama being a Muslim is merely 20%, then why is the article still stating that Obama is likely a Muslim? Second, Andy do you think that a reference work should use scholarly caution and that scholarly caution helps make a reference work authoritative? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:01, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:In this case, what you describe as 'scholarly caution' means knuckling under to Liberal suppression of facts and discussion. The scholarly option is to seek out the truth, no matter how disturbing that truth or the process of uncovering it might be to those on the left. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:43, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Andy I also fear we are not doing our site any favors in this area. If Obama is a Muslim, he is certainly keeping that under wraps. There is no indication that he would suddenly take the oath of office on a Koran. Such a turnabout that he lied about his Christianity would destroy his ability to govern. It is more likely, if he is a Muslim, that he would support Muslim causes without making a profession of his own faith. We should also realize, based upon his policies, that if he does have Islamic ties that they would be akin to the type of ties that John Kerry has to Catholicism, very poor. His views on abortion alone would be considered extreme Western decadence within the greater Islamic world view. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Bugler, I purposely chose Andy's words that "perhaps one can quibble that the probability is 20%". Therefore, if Andy is correct about the 20% issue then the statement that Obama is likely a Muslim should be removed from the article. I am just following Andy's statement where the logic leads if his statement is true and no knuckling under is necessary. I do think it is fair to say that people come to an encyclopedia to read facts and not speculation. Speculation weighs down an encyclopedia by eroding its credibility. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 08:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Saying "One could argue that X is 20%" doesn't in any way mean accepting that that X '''is''' 20%. It merely allows the existence of theoretically possible grounds of debate. If I said there were grounds for arguing that the planet Jupiter was made of cheese, likewise it doesn't mean that I think it is reasonably possible that such is the case. Andy is (in my interpretation of his words) admitting grounds for debate; it does not mean that he (or anyone else who takes a rational view of the issue) accepts only a 20% likelihood. The whole point of the point at issue is that it disproves the blinkered dogmatism and naivety of Liberals who say "Oh, Obama has said he's a Christian so he '''can't possibly''' be a Moslem." Liberals cling to dogma like an unweaned child to its blanket; we conservatives prefer debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, not from wish-fulfillment fantasies. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:14, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::: Admitting that 20% is ''possible'' means that you've destroyed your argument that it ''is'' more than 50%.
::::::: And no, the whole point is ''not'' to support liberal views. That's a false claim. And if you as a conservative prefers debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, why are you reversing my edits without offering any rebuttal to my points?
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)
''Admitting that 20% is ''possible'' means that you've destroyed your argument that it ''is'' more than 50%.'' You haven't read it, have you? Read it again, nice and slowly, take your time, and especially consider the Jupiter analogy. As for the vulgar abuse in your edit summary, I will let that speak for itself. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)
: Bugler, I will concede that point. Instead I'll say that Andy's point that this was a response to was rather unclear as to its aim, and I was reading his comments differently.
: However, I will add another response to your previous post. You say that "the whole point of the point at issue is that it disproves the blinkered dogmatism and naivety of Liberals who say "Oh, Obama has said he's a Christian so he can't possibly be a Moslem." The problem with this claim of yours is that it's ''not'' the way the argument is being used. That is, the arguments are not being used to ''oppose'' the claim that he couldn't possibly be a Muslim; the arguments are being used to ''support'' the claim that he ''is'' a Muslim. If they were being used the way that you say, then at least some of them would have some legitimacy. But being used the way they are is invalid.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:33, 18 November 2008 (EST)

It might be good to create a subarticle, with [[Barack Obama]] as the main article. We have templates for this; Philip is our template custodian and can place whatever we need.

I protected the article, because edit wars don't serve our readers; and they don't help us contributors much either.

I didn't look at Andy's last version. I just guessed it might make a good starting point.

Let's discuss, rather than trying to "get our way". Wiki collaboration should result in stability. Let none of us rock the boat. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: The problem, Ed, is that these things have already been discussed at length. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Thanks, Ed. I agree that edit wars are undesirable. I don't consider that I was edit warring. I was trying to protect this article, which has been arrived at in its current form after much debate, from unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism. In the course of doing so I have yet again been accused of mendacity. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:51, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: They are ''not'' "unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism". When you stoop to misrepresenting the situation, it shows that your argument is shaky. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

: Thanks, Ed, for bringing stability. As Bugler points out, there is nothing in my observation that "perhaps one" can quibble whether the likelihood Obama is a Muslim is 20%, 60% or 90% that justifies censoring the evidence and statement that he is likely a Muslim. Juries make such determinations based on the evidence all the time; so do encyclopedias. The evidence is compelling and will not be censored or downplayed here, despite some (for unknown reasons) disliking it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::: Andy, I have repeatedly pointed out that it is ''not'' censorship. Why do you keep repeating that false claim? Also, I have explained ''why'' the claims are "disliked", why do you falsely say that the reasons are unknown? As I said to Bugler above, when you stoop to misrepresenting the situation, it shows that your argument is shaky. And the evidence is not only not compelling, some of it is false and some is logically fallacious. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::Yes, of course there is evidence. And being a Muslim is not a punishable in the US, so the jury need not use the standard of "[[beyond any reasonable doubt]]". It's more like a lawsuit, I guess, where you need only be 51% sure to vote one way or the other.

::Personally, I'd like CP to make some indication that some conservatives are still in doubt about [[my Muslim faith|"his Muslim faith"]], but that desire does not outweigh the need for editorial harmony.

::It is liberals - rather than conservatives - who insist on censoring all views contrary to theirs, in the US. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::: Ed, when the issue is the president of the United States, then even less than a 51% chance is often sufficient to be influential, just as less than 51% chance is enough to deny someone an important job.

::: Someone is missing the the point about [[my Muslim faith]], which omits the telling phrase: "Muslim faith." No Christian would use that specific phrase so casually in reference to himself. How about someone saying "Allah the Creator"?! Christians don't use the phrase.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Falsifiability & "My Muslim Faith" ==

Aschlafly, Ed Poor, etc. -

Is there any piece of evidence that, assuming it existed, would convince you that Barack Obama is NOT a Muslim? You've now admitted there's a chance he's not a Muslim, so what piece of evidence would convince you that he's not? As it stands, your argument seems unfalsifiable, and ridiculously conspiratorial: everytime someone offers evidence that Obama's not a Muslim, you just reply with, "oooh, he's a tricky one! He must have worked to cover that up!" That's not a respectable, logical argument: it's an inability to recognize fact when it's put before your eyes. What piece of evidence could convince you of that, if any?

Further, if I go through the George W. Bush talk page I bet I'll find a million examples of you apologizing for Bush's rhetorical missteps, and arguing that when he says something incorrectly, it doesn't mean he's stupid. Why, then, are you not willing to take Obama's slip of the tongue as the same thing - unconscious error, not indicative of any deeper meaning?

The fact is, you have no principled basis for the distinction. Nor are you going to accept any evidence that Obama's a Christian. You're just clinging to a pet theory when even your own administrative staff tells you you're wrong.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 10:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Towards stability via discussion ==

:''unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism''

Vandalism is replacing the page with "Stinky loves Myrtle". Unilateral editing is doing your own thing, even when you know someone else will just want to revert (see [[Editing etiquette]]).

Let's come closer together, rather than battle it out on the page itself. Talk pages are for talking. Let's hear some more talk! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:29, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:The problem with that, is that if people talk about it, and say almost anything to disagree with the current state of the article, they are likely to get blocked for the "90/10 Rule against talk talk talk" or "liberal namecalling" or some other excuse. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Tim, that's simply not true. The [[90/10 rule]] guards against nothing but talk. It's easy to make substantive contributions to comply with the rule, and it's easy to refrain from namecalling in discussions. In fact, both are essential to keep the level of discourse and learning here at a high level.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::The [[90/10 rule]] might guard against nothing but talk, but it sure seems to guard against some kinds of talk a lot more than others. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 10:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::If so, there's nothing wrong with that. Jaywalking is not prosecuted as much as petty shoplifting either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Aschlafly, you can tell yourself that all you want, but this much is clear; the 90/10 rule is a content-neutral rule applied in a manner that amounts to viewpoint discrimination. You only apply it against liberals. You've long since abandoned the stance that you "don't block ideologically."
:::::This site has survived for two years ''only'' by ruthlessly persecuting anyone who disagrees with your worldview. Tim is right, but I'll take it one step farther: I think the reason you censor people who disagree with you is because you know you'll lose in a fair fight. The Barack Obama article is just one more example of that. Except now, even your own sysops disagree with you, so you devolve into insulting Philip and dodging the question.
:::::Of course you can block me, and prove Tim right.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 11:02, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::@Aschlafly: I don't get your analogy. Jaywalking and petty shoplifting are different crimes. Excessive talk by a liberal and excessive talk by a conservative is the same "crime". So the "prosecution" ought to be applied equally against both, right? Otherwise it isn't a ''rule'', it's just an ''excuse'' to make people you don't agree with go away. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 11:04, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Rob, within the same crimes prosecutorial patterns are different. It's called "prosecutorial discretion." It is used every day by law enforcement and it is obvious why it is needed. I'm not going to waste my morning spelling this out for you. Take a basic course on criminal justice, or simply follow the news.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Andy, you're misunderstanding "prosecutorial discretion." You're right that policemen have the right to decide which crimes to prosecute, but if they differentially allow white criminals to get away with murder, and seek the death penalty for black shoplifters, it would give rise to a disparate impact lawsuit and be illegitimate, racist, and wrong. We're arguing that your actions here are closer to abuse of prosecutorial discretion to kick out your enemies, than to the case of using prosecutorial discretion to preserve resources.
::::::It strikes me that what you're missing is the difference between "content neutral" and "viewpoint discrimination." Take a course in the First Amendment, or read a book on it; it might help your understanding of the word "censorship," too.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I would say you are partially correct, RobNewberry. Sometimes people need to be "invited" to leave, much like a dinner guest who overstays their welcome. If a person comes to Conservapedia knowing full well it is a conservative/Christian friendly wiki-encyclopedia, and is a liberal, the question is why? If the answer is they support Andy Schlafly's idea of an conservative alternative to the decidedly left-of-center editor dominated Wikipedia, that's great! All voices should be represented on the Net. But if their intentions are merely to argue and dispute conservative or Christian points of view, that becomes a subtle form of vandalism, inasmuch as it is a great time waster for those who genuinely want to contribute their conservative/Christian POV, and build this encyclopedia. My own opinion is that those who obsessively create new user names, only to argue against conservative values, and disrupt/time waste, are actually terrorists of the Internet kind. What other reason would they have to stick around? Any board or wiki does and should have the absolute right of association.

This would hold true for a conservative joining a known liberal board or wiki, and spend all their time disputing the members, arguing without end, and seeking to put their conservative point of view into their discussions or articles. I am not for truncating free speech automatically, but after weeks and weeks of disputing everything, knowing you are not going to change CP into Wikipedia's more liberal world-view, or have CP adopt all of Wikipedia's member conventions, a person's efforts then cross over into something more, what I have taken to calling Internet Terrorism. CP has an owner, it is his right to have whatever viewpoint he wants. If people agree, with even a part, they stick around and help build this place. If they don't, what other reason, other than being obstinate or having malicious intent, could they have? Disagreement is fine, debate is good. But where does it end, and the ability of like-minded individuals to associate with those they agree with, without constant disagreement begin? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 11:41, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Please don't refer to anything that isn't terrorism as terrorism. It might be censorship or vandalism or disruption. But terrorism is something else entirely. There is no terror involved in what you describe above and associating the term with it helps to undermine fear of the real kind. Terrorism should not be taken lightly. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::TK, I agree with you completely that people probably need to be "invited" to leave. My only problem is that this is done under the guise of 90/10 rule. I think this is done so that Andy can still claim something like "We don't ask editors to leave because they have a certain viewpoint, only Wikipedia does that." Make too many liberal edits, though, and you'll find that you have somehow violated the 90/10 rule. I say drop the deceit and just ban people with the comment "We don't like your viewpoint. Goodbye." It's about being honest about what kind of place this wiki really is. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 11:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::Ajkgordon, one definition of "terrorism" is "intimidating gang activity". Regardless of your rather parochial idea of its meaning, kindly refrain from saying something I clearly labeled as my own opinion, invention, is wrong usage. Organized activity, like from ''certain groups'', to disrupt other boards or wiki's, no matter how loosely organized, if it is at all coordinated, is intimidation, ergo, "terrorism".

:::RobNewberry, I know that when I was an administrator, I often followed Andy's lead in doing just that, block with the comment "Bye". As Schlafly often says, it isn't very hard to copy edit, add a source a few times a day, especially if one is spending hours and hours debating on talk pages. A person doing that, and not being obnoxious, they shouldn't be blocked. But I mostly see people with absolutely no contributions to CP, and looking at their history see only talk page posts, being blocked. Someone constantly reverting an article because of idealogical disagreement, and making no other contributions, should be blocked, or have the good grace to leave. There is more than one way to run a wiki. That's why they come with settings. Some wiki's require review of submissions before going live. Some require registration in order to edit, others do not. You sound fairly reasonable, obviously an informed person. Surely you can understand how people would grow tired of debating a topic without end. If you don't go to Wikipedia and try to insert something favorable about George W. Bush, Dick Cheney or Ann Coulter. Then when you are reverted, change it back. I don't think your experience will be a pleasant one. ;-) ----[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 12:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::RobNewberry, your own comments are misleading and illustrate the problem, because now I have to waste my time correcting them. The [[90/10 rule]] applies to people who talk, talk, talk without redeeming value in the way of substantive contributions. Nothing could be simpler. Talk is a time-waster. Different viewpoints, if logical, are welcome here. Incessant talk as can be seen on countless other sites, is not. The talkers can rant elsewhere. We're here to learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Andy, you're being very dishonest about the application of the rule. Your explanation of it includes several value judgments - "different viewpoints, if logical" - all we're arguing is that your definition of "logical" is "that which agrees with you." That's where the discrimination we're talking about comes from.
:::::Interestingly, while you spend some time characterizing anyone disagreeing with you as "liberal censorship," in a somewhat dishonest definition of "censorship," you seem unable to recognize that what you're doing is REAL censorship, the use of power (rather than argument & debate) to squelch uncomfortable beliefs. Open your mind.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 12:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::TK, if your definition is from Mirriam-Webster's, then it's '''''violent and''' intimidating gang activity''.
::::My request was but a courteous plea for proper usage of the term for a current and dangerous phenomenon. Scattering the term around and using it to define childish, irreverent and irritating vandalism degrades the purity of the term and lessens its impact when correctly using it. If that's parochial, so be it. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::TK and Andy, let me ask you a question. If you visited Wikipedia, and saw that, say, the Dick Cheney article contained an unreferenced assertion or an unfounded attack, you would initially try to edit and fix that problem, correct? Then, if another WP editor reverted your edit (which you believed was completely correct), you might either undo the reversion, or you might make a comment on the Talk Page, right? Now, here on CP, those of us who see something that ''we'' believe is incorrect or unfounded usually face a few problems. (Do not assume that all of us have evil intent against you - I'm entirely happy for you to have a conservative-leaning encyclopedia, and simply wish the information be factually correct and credibly referenced). First, the article may be locked, as this article is. In which case, there's nowhere to make the complaint except on the Talk Page. Second, if we can make them, our edits are often reverted, often with no supporting data provided (cf the Muslim debate here), so we usually have to make a comment on the Talk Page about that fact. It only takes one back and forth comment as we debate our position before a 90/10 block is usually enacted. Finally, those of us who frequent CP in an attempt to monitor the extreme forms of distortion that crop up now and again (as per any online community) may be shy of actually editing the articles, since bans are so often administered, so we instead first make our comments on the Talk Page. Frequently, a new user's single comment on a Talk Page is enough for a 90/10 ban. So it's pretty hard to believe that 90/10 is really about 90/10 when there are often no other options but Talk. And it's pretty hard to believe you're interested in establishing 'trustworthyness' if you aren't prepared to listen to evidence from other perspectives. [[User:FredX|FredX]] 12:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: FredX, users can talk all they want, as long as they contribute substance at the same time. It's easy to contribute substance. It's the reason we're here. No project can succeed if the participants do nothing but talk. Try it at work sometime if you don't believe me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::Andy, consider this: "talk talk talk" is useful if it's being done to convince you, the only person with control over the article, that you're wrong. Talk towards the truth is not useless talk: it's incredibly substantive. As it stands now, it's you, Bugler, and TK versus everyone else on the site. It might be time to recognize that all this talk has the "substance" of proving your error.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:08, 18 November 2008 (EST)

FredX, having a Conservative/Christian - friendly encyclopedia does not obligate CP to prostitute those beliefs by allowing people who are not Christians, who are not Conservatives, to alter articles or their tone, to fit their outlook. The truth is the truth, but truth is always in the eye of the beholder, no? You and I could argue 24/7, over the existence of God, to use an example. No matter how many "facts" you presented me with, it would not alter my ''knowing'' he exists. Political and religious thought is highly subjective. One mans "distortion" is another mans valid "truth". To repeatedly try to alter someone's beliefs is a form of bullying. Read what you are saying. No one has the obligation to appoint himself "Internet Monitor of Truth". Your conventions of how a wiki-encyclopedia come from where? It is totally lacking in logic to think the conventions of one place should be used at another. If I go to the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post, and appoint myself the "truth" monitor there, what would happen?

If you have a complaint, you can always avail yourself the email links to other users. Or post your objection on the author's talk page. We aren't talking here about people objecting. We are talking about people who will not take "no" for an answer, and demand that their truth is better than another's. Once your point is made, posted, doing it again and again, without end, accomplishes what, other than you being able to vent? I don't spend time arguing with liberals at the Kos or HuffPo, because I know they do not agree with me, never will. I am not a YEC, yet I am here. What would be accomplished for me to argue, without end, with Philip Rayment (to use a known example of a YEC member here) over the age of the Earth? His "facts" as to Earth's age, are his. Mine are mine. In building an encyclopedia, or in any project, the trick is to focus on the areas we can agree on, and not let those we don't bog us down. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Actually, TK, I couldn't disagree with any of your comments, but for this one - "the truth is the truth, but truth is always in the eye of the beholder, no?". That's certainly true when it comes to matters of dogma or belief - it's true, we might never agree on what is "true". But there is much here on Conservapedia that is ''not'' dogma-related, and is simply factually untrue. To take this particular article as an example, might I ask if you believe the Muslim-related material might not be better presented if gathered into one section, entitled "Speculation on Obama's Muslim beliefs", instead of being scattershot throughout the article, unreferenced, misquoted, and asserted with no validity. That would actually HELP this debate, yet is certain to be disallowed under a threat of "we don't hide the truth here", yet who's truth is that? And my mere suggestion of disagreement with this thesis likely marks me as a candidate for a ban. Certainly it's likely that if I answer one more time in this reasonable debate with you, I will likely be blocked by ASchalfly, Bugler or others - simply for debating. But how else would I debate my suggestion - the article is locked? [[User:FredX|FredX]] 14:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Perhaps worth pointing out here that FredX did indeed, as he had predicted, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AFredX&year=&month=-1 receive a 90/10 ban] while trying to debate the content of this article. I imagine he rests his case. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 16:25, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Talking with enemies ==

In the section '''"statements"''' Obama is criticised for claiming Roosevelt spoke to our enemies. Now it is true that Roosevelt did not talk to Hitler, but he certainly ''did'' talk to Stalin, who most Americans consider (and hesitantly considered back then) an enemy, and it is Stalin that Obama is presumably referring to. Rather than letting Hitler conquer Russia while the United States kept to its own war effort, or letting Patton continue on to Warsaw and Moscow after victory against Germany, Roosevelt was willing to talk to the Communist Enemy to co-ordinate action and to ultimately permit the Bolshevik conquest of eastern Europe. Naturally there are divergent opinions over whether in this particular case compromise was the best course of action, but what Obama is obviously expressing when he refers to Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy, all of whom negotiated with the Soviet enemy, is that it's better to come to talk with and possibly compromise with an opponent we may feel ideologically at polar opposites with instead of just blindly fighting whenever the oppurtunity presents itself.

For that reason it is advisable that the section is removed as it relies on the assumption that Obama was referring exclusively to Truman and Roosevelt's relationship with Hitler rather than with Stalin. [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 12:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Your reasoning is confused, and your conclusion makes no sense at all.

:Compromising with an enemy is often the wrong thing to do. Your [[all or nothing]] analysis doesn't support it: it's rarely a case of "give in or fight blindly". Perhaps you have assumed that America only '''felt''' it was ideologically at a polar opposite from atheism and totalitarianism. This is [[liberal dogma]], not CP editorial policy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::You misunderstand completely. ''I'' didn't say anything about whether or not America should compromise - Obama did. Whether or not it should has absolutely nothing to do with the issue I was raising.

::What I was saying was that the section is trying to make it seem that Obama has no grasp of history, that he was claiming that Roosevelt and Truman talked to our enemies (assumed to be Hitler, Mussolini and Hideki) when those Presidents didn't. However, Roosevelt and Truman did talk to our enemies, namely Stalin. Obama was referring to the talks Roosevelt and Truman had with ''Stalin'', not Hitler, and thus he was right to claim that Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy talked to our enemies. Therefore the section is false, not because we should compromise with our enemies, but because Obama did not make a mistake as the section apparently claims.

::Hopefully I have made myself more clear. But I will repeat to make sure: I am not saying anything about whether or not it is right to compromise with enemies. I am not saying that the communists were only apparently our enemies - in fact by suggesting that Roosevelt did not talk with enemies when he clearly talked with Stalin the section in the ''article'' implies that Stalin was not really an enemy. What I am saying is that Obama was perfectly justified in saying that Roosevelt and Truman talked and compromised with our enemies. This means exactly what it says, ''not'' that compromising with our enemies was perfectly justified. I apologise if I was not clear the first time, that's why I've rephrased the same point a second and third time.[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 13:30, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Well? Am I understood now? Is the section going to be removed? [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 18:56, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== compared to wikipedia article ==

It is interesting that the wikipedia articles on Obama does not mention Pakistan. In fact, his three week trip to Pakistan was documented in a New York Times article, but metion of it was removed at wikipedia with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama&diff=252397639&oldid=252397137 this edit]. It looks like some wiki contributors are running interferance at wikipedia. The conservapedia article is a nice balance to that article, though the part that he "may be sworn into office at his inauguration ... using the Koran" is dodgy, and sounds almost National Enquirer-ish. I think the wording could be improved, though I haven't looked into it. It would not surprise me if Barack Obama were a Muslim, and it would not surprise me if he were a liberal Christian with weakly held beliefs and a fondness for his early teachings. At wikipedia, I also didn't see any mention of Bill Ayers on Obama pages. That is very strange. The sad part is, if President Obama appointed Bill Ayers to be the head of the Department of Education, I don't think we would see much difference in the American education system--at least in the public schools--as people that think like him are already in control. Anyway, keep up the good work. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 12:58, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Good points, BigMike! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:24, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::Thanks. Here is a quote "If there is an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process of law, that threatens my civil liberties."--Barack Obama, 2004 DNC speech. (Yes, it is what some would call a quote mine, but it is a direct quote of a complete sentence.) That being said, I agree with others that the article would be better if it were to document the fact that many people are speculating about whehter or not Barack Obama is a Muslim, including adding their reasoning. But trying to make a case that he is a Muslim in this article isn't turning out too well in my opinion. It's good to see some changes have been made. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 22:50, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Suggestion for compromise ==

Since it's clear that none of the editors involved are going to be able to agree, why don't we take Mr. Schlafly's advice [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=554261&oldid=554228 earlier on this talk page] where he says "We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide." How about, instead of going back and forth, back and forth, we instead allow the inclusion of evidence ''against'' Obama being a Muslim. The reader can read the evidence on both sides, and decide for themselves. Good idea? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:Practically, I think that's a workable compromise. Theoretically, of course, it's problematic: neutrality towards an incorrect idea is not objectivity. The idea that Obama is a Muslim is objectively wrong, and should be excised. But, practically, I'm willing to go with that compromise. Great idea from a helpful sysop!-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:32, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::Not a sysop, but every now and then I have a good idea ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::I think this is a very sensible idea. I don't agree with any of the arguments that Obama is a Muslim, but obviously a few people here are determined to cling to them, so including the counterarguments as well would be a good way to balance this part of the article & end the conflicts over this. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 13:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::Also, if the argument would take up a great deal of the article, it could be moved to a separate page. What's the policy on linking to debates from regular pages? I know there are two Obama/Muslim debates going, and I think linking to them from the article might not be a bad idea. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 13:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::(/signed) Totally agree, if all the arguments are presented then anyone who is open minded can make up their own mind. Those with closed minds won't be convinced either way, no matter what arguments are presented..--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Set forth your "evidence" here first, for consideration. Self-serving statements by politicians don't carry much weight here, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:''"Set forth your "evidence" here first, for consideration. Self-serving statements by politicians don't carry much weight here, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)"''[http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=7882247&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.11.1 as required]. This was one source found in 5 minutes work and if anyone doubts the quality of the source [http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/InsideFox/AboutUs?pageId=5.1 please look here]. This is just a single source found at 00:25am after being out all night doing charity work. As I find others I will post. I will also point out that I do not consider this, or subsequent evidence put forth, as 'talk' as I am responding to a direct request for information by the creator of this site--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:Another, same conditions, contributor makes clear that he thinks that Obama is at best [http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/06/02/barack-obama-is-not-a-christian/ a deist], at worst an atheist, but at no point offers an argument for Obama being of an Islamic faith.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:31, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:As above, [http://www.jewsonfirst.org/08a/obama_religion_attacked.html 'Minnery, who served as Dobson's interlocutor on the program yesterday said during the broadcast that Obama was "deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology."'] Again, at best the argument says that Obama is a deist, at worst is trying to set up his own sect of 'christianity', but no evidence to show that Obama is of Islamic faith.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:And again, [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317031,00.html "....to baseless e-mailed rumors that he is a Muslim and poses a threat to the security of the United States."]--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:41, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:Logic argument: I believe it has been mentioned that Obama may be a Muslim because of his lack of dancing or dancing skills. If that belief is true then every man lives in the UK and is either i) not out of his head on 'e' or ii) over the age of 25 is muslim, as no man in the UK that does not fit the two previous definitions ''ever'' dances seriously with full use of his arms, at least, not outside of ballroom dancing. I admitted that is observational evidence, not just of myself but numerous others, but observational evidence is still evidence, and considerably better than suppostition and hearsay, two lower classes of 'evidence' ('that is which is seen').--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:More. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/22/AR2007012201322.html Washington Post, but hey, ''I'm'' not going to be the person who raises objections as to their factual accuracies], I'll leave that to the lawyers, my knowledge of libel laws just ain't that good. Of course, there are always those that will argue on the point of "Classes in Islam are offered to the predominantly Muslim students at the school....", but then that requires proving that Obama was a Muslim with a level of evidence above supposition and hearsay.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:58, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:And now it is 01:00 and I need my sleep. Page 2 of Google tomorrow.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 20:00, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Since CP is the Conservative/Christian-friendly encyclopedia it is, while other points of view should be included, it is wrong to bully it into providing the equivalent of "equal time" to those who are not Christian and/or Conservative. Those who disagree should stop wasting time with this and move on to places that are more accommodating of [[liberal deceit]], Atheist [[deceit]]. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:56, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:You are absolutely right. This is the Christian encyclopedia, at least one of the online ones. That means the Word is God, and God is truth. Let no argument be hidden, for that is the path of the Fallen, the jealous and the wicked. For those with God are armoured with Faith and armed with the Truth and are truly capable of determining the gleanings of Truth from argument and do not need protection, for the Word that is Truth guides their path--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 20:05, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Accusations of Homosexuality ==

The story is starting to spread that Obama is a homosexual or bisexual and may have been involved in the deaths of some of his past lovers<ref>http://chgocutie.blogspot.com/2007/12/nathaniel-nate-spencer-tucc-sanctuary.html</ref>. In shades of a Vince Foster type scandal I'm wondering if any mention of this development should go into the main page. Larry Sinclair<ref>http://larrysinclair0926.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/chicago-packet.pdf</ref> was the initial source, but evidence seems to be mounting<ref>http://redinktexas.blogspot.com/2008/07/larry-sinclair-obamas-bad-penny.html</ref> that Obama has a gay past he's been hiding.
::I really wish someone with authority to edit the article would add some mention of Obama's homosexual leanings. There's evidence of murder, harassment and extensive political corruption and the article makes no mention of it. Isn't it the responsibility of a reliable source to present all the facts, negative and positive, about the soon to be President?--[[User:AlexC|AlexC]] 11:46, 20 November 2008 (EST)

== A better approach to highlighting Obama's negatives - Highlight More Best Arguments against Obama vs. the throw a lot of spaghetti against the wall approach ==

Instead of the article focusing more on claims that are certainly not undisputable (Obama being a Muslim) I think the article could do a better job of pointing out the negative things about Obama that have a much higher degree of certainty.

Examples of things which could be highlighted more:

1. Other than a footnote which few people will read, does the article highlight sufficiently '''his extremely liberal voting record''' as a Senator?[http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/] Perhaps, some of his more extreme votes could be highlighted.

2. There is the '''Obama/infantcide''' issue which might be highlighted more if it is mentioned or mentioned if it is not currently mentioned: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYRpIf2F9NA and http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

===Consequences of the current state of the article===

It seems like the article takes a throw a lot of negative spaghetti against the wall and hopefully some sticks approach. That is not how you create a compelling article in terms of when it highlights some of the negative aspects about Obama. Dubious claims in the article make the valid claims less prominent. Also, it is not surprising that the Obama article is not ranked high by the search engines like the Conservapedia [[Bill Clinton]] article is (I have not read the Bill Clinton article but I suspect it is better than the Obama article. I do know that Conservapedia's Bill Clinton article is ranked #6 by Google). I think that is because it is difficult to get conservatives to link to the article and the article is easily dismissed by liberals and they do not see it as a threat. If you want the article to be informative and influential any dubious claims have to be weeded out and the legitimate matters have to be highlighted more. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:24, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== First Black President? ==

Should we have an article on the [[First Black President]]? I had created one, but [[User_talk:Ed_Poor#First_Black_president|Ed said we should talk about it here first]].

The citations I found that indicated Obama is not the first were [http://www.diversityinc.com/public/1461.cfm], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&curid=65751&diff=561761&oldid=561751], and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=534592&oldid=534582]. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 16:11, 18 November 2008 (EST)

*I would suggest "Bi-Racial" as the most accurate term. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:13, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Please do create an entry. Thanks for the insight. Of course, the other reason for omitting the liberal claim that Obama is the first black president (aside from its likely inaccuracy) is the dubious significance of the assertion. By now our society is long past judging people by their race, and Obama's election illustrates how exaggerated the liberal claims about continued racism really are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Gee, your right, I mean how do we know he is the first black president. I mean they didn't have photgraphs back then, so maybe John Adams was really a brother! For that matter, how do we know he is the first muslim president? Maybe Iran-contra was Reagan's way of helping his fellow Islamists!
:Seriously though, is it really a liberal claim that he is the first black president? Other than you, who is claiming he isn't? [[User:TTerm|TTerm]] 18:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::TTerm, perhaps you don't know how to click on a link yet. BHarlan provided several of them above for you. Also, TTerm, this isn't a blog. Contribute substantively, or rant elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::Two of those links just link back to conservapedia. The third references "research" by a man named Leroy Vaughn. The claims and evidence seem dubious to say the least. Whatever the veracity of these claims, it is wrong to call this a "liberal" claim since most conservatives believe him to be the first black president as well. [[User:TTerm|TTerm]] 20:59, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Great. Would you mind undeleting [[First Black president]], if the software allows it? [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Done, without yet reading it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I for one find it hard to believe that you would have agreed with that research two years ago Schlafly. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 23:49, 19 November 2008 (EST)

==How to collaborate==

If you'll notice, me last few edits to this article were sweepingly changed back by [[User:Aschlafly]]. However, neither my initial round of edits, nor his response, has resulted in animosity. On my part, at least, I have nothing but unbounded respect for my co-editor here.

We are not against each other, although our approach is different. We are finding a synthesis which is (probably) better than each of us could do alone. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:15, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::The Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States are collabrative efforts that him withstood the test of time, among others! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:29, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Good for you, Ed (seriously - I wouldn't have been nearly as sanguine about it). The facts, however, remain that:
:#'''DanH''' - a strong editor and respected sysop - '''quit this project in disgust''' at what he saw as an attempt to "smear" Obama as a Muslim.
:#'''PJR''' - the most patient and eloquent defender of YEC I have ever encountered - '''categorically refutes''' the idea that there is any credible evidence that Obama is a Muslim.
:#'''Conservative''' - principal author of several of Conservapedia's defining articles - remains '''wholly unconvinced''' of the strength of the Obama/Muslim case, and is concerned that its inclusion in the article could '''damage Conservapedia's credibility'''.
:#'''Tim/CPAdmin1''' - one of the original members of this project - has '''repeatedly objected''' to its inclusion.
:#And finally, '''ChrisS''' - again, one of the original Conservapedians - even felt moved to describe this article as '''the most sorry excuse for an encyclopedia entry I have ever seen'''. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=556523]
:What kind of synthesis do you hope to achieve in the face of such ''demonstrably principled'' opposition? These are not lone, liberal voices. These are long-standing contributors who collectively insist that '''this is plain wrong and must be removed'''.

:Good night (and good luck). --[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] 17:39, 18 November
::: And that's not all of it. At least two other administrators have also made known their opposition, via e-mail (which Andy got copies of at the time). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::We respect the views of a minority among us (and note that the minority you cite has displayed almost no experience with Islam and/or Islamic education). Regardless, obviously logic prevails over even the opinion of a majority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::: Andy, it is ''your'' view that is in the minority; JohnZ was citing the ''majority''. It seems that Ed (inadvertently) recognised that by his comment below. Hopefully logic would prevail, but unfortunately you are trying to make ''your'' minority and illogical view prevail.
::: And this yet again highlights a major problem here. You are throwing around these personal opinions as though they are factual, denigrating the opposing view and the people that put them, but not actually engaging the arguments and providing a logical response.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

The late Michael Crichton said, "The Nazis got 200 German scientists to say that Einstein was wrong, and then somebody asked Einstein, 'How does it feel to have 200 scientists against you?' And he said, 'It takes only one to prove me wrong.' " [http://www.perc.org/articles/article894.php] We don't go by majority vote around here, because the majority are (as our [[Founding Fathers]] indicated) simply not trustworthy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: So are you saying that the administrators who are in the majority on this issue are not trustworthy? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Hi Ed,

:I'm not usually known for my poor reading comprehension, but I can't tell which side of this thing your statement above is supporting. Is Andy vs. the 5 listed sysops the minority, or are the five listed sysops the minority as described by Andy ("[w]e respect the views of a minority among us)...")? Merci, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:02, 18 November 2008 (EST) ''<-honh honh...''

:: Ed's comment seems clear enough to me. Logic is not the result of majority vote, and even less so the product of a consensus among the minority. Ed is opposing relying on the view of a minority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:04, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Good grief, man, must I spell it out? I'm on the side of finding out what is true! As J.M. Keynes said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" It is to the principle of truth-seeking which I express my devotion here, as well as to the collaborative process of its discovery. Stop trying to cover this story like a sportswriter trying to figure out which horse won the race. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:And what do ''you'' see as being the facts here, Ed? How do you hope to achieve your synthesis? --[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] 18:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::Yes, Ed, I'm sorry but I need it spelled out for me. This isn't a vague question for late night dorm hall meanderings. It's pretty concrete: the Obama-is-Muslim material, as Andy wants it presented, belongs in the article, or it doesn't. I can paint those two statements on horses and run them around a track if an over-extended metaphor will help here - only one of those horses can win. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:31, 18 November 2008 (EST) ''<- will, however, need to learn to play the bugle (if not the bugler)...''

:Wow, Ed, that's extremely well put!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:21, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:ASchalfly - you said, "We...note that the minority you cite has displayed almost no experience with Islam and/or Islamic education". Might I ask what your own qualifications are in this regard, since you are clearly 'over-ruling' their opinions? [[User:FredX|FredX]] 18:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I'm going to write an article about [[the real horse whisperer]]. I have no more time to entertain you here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:33, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Amazing. A simple question, with only two possible answers, that could be answered in fewer characters than you just used to beg off. And if you think I'm entertained you probably do think those horses are talking to you. ''Anybody'' who sticks with the "this conversation is a dragged-out waste of time" is missing the point that the time is being wasted by the continued and false defenses presented. It's only a continuing waste of time because the people in the wrong unfortunately wield all the clout, so they are in fact allowed to say "nuh unh" and ''have it stick''. If SteveRandomperson had inserted this stuff, other regular users could remove it, and when Steve got into an edit war over it any of the five sysops listed above could simply end this thing. It's only dragging on because none of them can pull rank on the proponent of this material.

:''That'' is the source of wasted time here. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Aziraphale, your long-winded comment is incoherent, and your list of contributions is a remarkable violation of the [[90/10 rule]] against talk, talk, talk.[[Special:Contributions/Aziraphale]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::: I'm afraid he can't respond Andy. He's been blocked. --[[User:WOwen|WOwen]] 19:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::: I had no problem understanding Aziraphale's comment, so it is quite coherent, and he makes a very good point. It would make more sense to take notice of the problem than to brush it aside and silence him with a block. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==You're All Missing the Point==

Ok I've said this once before, but nobody seems to understand so I'll try to make it clearer.

'''YOU ARE ALL MISSNIG THE POINT'''

Sitting around debating whether or not Obama is a Muslim is doing nothing to discredit him, instead it just reflects badly on conservatives. If you stopped using circumstantial evidence to "prove" that he may have told one lie on the campaign trail (which inevitably does not affect his politics) then you would realise there are plenty of valid fronts you can criticise him on:

*Abortion
*Stem cell research
*War on Terror
*Criminal rights
*Lack of substance in policy
*Economic regulation

and so on... If you examined these in detail and explained why they would be bad for America, rather than dedicating copious amounts of the article to a farfetched claim that he's a Muslim in disguise, then you would not only convince conservatives that he is the wrong candidate, but also show politically neutral parties why they should not have voted for him. Instead, the article at the moment reads like a cross between a parody and a far right-wing blog entry, and will do nothing to convince anyone other than the most conservative voter. One of your own sources in the article clearly demonstrates that these attacks actually made people vote FOR Obama, and I can definitely say that if I saw this as the ideology of McCain I would have changed sides for the election.

In debating there is a argument known as an ad homenin attack, where you attack the debator and not his/her arguments. This is weak, because it demonstrates an inability to critically analyse the opposition's position. This is exactly what is happening here, you are ''trying'' to attack Obama's character rather than his politics. If you tried more of the latter, you'll find that you will convince many more people that Obama is not an appropriate president for the United States, and win much more credibility in the process. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 20:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== obama, Muslim or "liberal Christian" with a skeptical streak - The duck test ==

Andy, you claim that you are better educated regarding Islam than the oppposing sysops and that gives you deeper understanding of the issue. In response, I will first say that you have not shown that Lolo Soetoro was a staunch Muslim and given that Obama was sent to a Catholic school at some point I don't think you can show that his father had a great influence in his life. Furthermore, it appears as if Obama's mother was not married to the stepfather Lolo Soetoro long. In addition, his skeptical mother appears to have had the most influence in his life. Given that I have spent sometime studying Islam and had a Muslim housemate when I was younger and lived in a area highly concentrated with Muslims in the past, I don't think it is fair to say that I have great ignorance about Islam. I am well aware that patriarchy is present in Islamic families, but I am also aware that Obama's fathers did not appear to have great influence in his life.

I really think at this point that Obama's behavior is key in terms of the likelihood of him being a Muslim.

Most American Muslims are not rabidly pro-abortion, have great antipathy to the homosexual agenda, and abstain from alcohol. On the other hand, most "liberal Christians" who have a philosophical skepticism streak favor the "pro-choice" position and most do not have great antipathy toward the homosexual lifestyle. In addition, most "liberal Christians" have no problem drinking alcohol. Also, there is the fact that Obama's daughters were baptised.

Given the above, if Obama walks like a duck and talks like a duck, he is probably a duck. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)'

Obama's nominally Muslim father was not religious in the first place.[[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

== Reversion ==

All three items of evidence that Philip deleted are fully supported and hardly deniable. I don't know why Philip wants to delete them. The entries are educational also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:I'm afraid not one of them is "supported" in any way and all are deniable. None of them are educational, and all are merely unfounded assertion and speculation. The first accusation (for that is what they are) about him not changing his name is dependent on him being Muslim to begin with. If he is not Muslim, then he has no need to change his name, and you haven't provided any evidence he's Muslim. The second accusation, about taqiyya, depends upon him being a Muslim, and you have not provided any evidence to that. The third, about the pronunciation of Pakistan, is irrelevant, as that is the correct pronunciation of that country's name. [[User:FredX|FredX]] 23:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

: As FredX says, they are ''not'' supported, and they are most definitely deniable. Simply making those assertions is not a supporting argument. And how can you continue to claim that you don't know why I want to delete them when I've told you several times? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:18, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:: Philip, you have to do better than that before deleting factual and informative material. All three points are enlightening and undeniable, and I doubt you knew any of them before reading them here. We let the readers decide here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:32, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::: Okay Andy, I'll try and lay it out as simply as I can for you.
::: For something to be included in this (or any) article, it needs to be both ''factual'' and ''relevant''. We could put in the article that Obama eats breakfast every morning, and that would (presumably) be quite ''factual'', but it would not be ''relevant''. Agreed?
::: So when you say that I should not delete ''factual'' information, as long as it is ''relevant'', I agree.
::: The problem is, however, that the claim about Obama using a Muslim pronunciation of "Pakistan", for example is '''not factual'''. This is because there is no such thing as a Muslim pronunciation of "Pakistan". We thrashed this out ages ago on the Main Talk page, so it's not as though this is new information to you.
::: So when you keep repeating ad nauseam that "we don't delete factual information", '''you are avoiding the point that it is ''not factual'''''. That's why I keep deleting it—because it is ''not'' factual—and you repeatedly claiming that it is factual '''is not a valid argument''', because it is merely an assertion, not evidence or reason. If you want the claim kept, you have to show that it is ''factual''. That is the very thing that you avoid doing.
::: I don't know how this can be explained any more simply. It is beyond my comprehension that you cannot understand this, which leaves outright deceit on your part as the only other explanation. But then I can't comprehend that you would be outright deceitful either, so I'm at a loss to understand what's going through your mind.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:42, 19 November 2008 (EST)

"Letting the readers decide" would ring more true if you simply laid out the facts about Obama instead of riddling the article with unsubstantiated, repeatedly disproven falsehoods to skewer it toward your personal political viewpoint. Do you not realize that simply highlighting the positions he supports that conservatives are opposed to (his support of gay rights and abortion rights as just two examples) would do a better job turning conservatives against Obama than telling easily proven lies about him? The fact that you feel you have to resort to lies makes you look like you are guilty of the very thing you accuse liberals of: not having any actual factual argument to make. [[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

== Unbelievable ==

It's understandable that conservatives disapprove of Obama and much of this article reflects that. Smearing is nothing new to politics, but the poor logic shamelessly employed here is an embarrassment to American conservatives. As this site becomes a "de facto" conservative reference, more and more people will begin believing this is how conservatives reason and come up with their ideas. With great power comes great responsibility, and Conservapedia and Aschlafly fail disastrously as representatives of the conservative movement.

Under the pretense of "not censoring" and "letting the readers decide" the article is allowed to introduce deceptive evidence toward building weak and ultimately unproven hypotheses. Simultaneously, the exact opposite policy is used when contradictory evidence is presented.

This stunning hypocrisy can be best illustrated by how the "Obama is likely a Muslim" section is moderated. Several times myself and others have attempted to delete the statement "Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith." Yes he said the words "My Muslim Faith" but this is utterly meaningless as no context for the statement is provided. I could say "I approve of the killing of babies coming to an end" and using the logic here I could be quoted as saying "I approve of the killing of babies"

However, we cannot escape the fact he said the words "My Muslim Faith" and since Conservapedia doesn't censor information, it must remain in the article. Furthermore, it must remain in a section attempting to show secret Muslim faith, however misleading it may be.

Where the hypocrisy comes in is that there is an overwhelming body of information that suggests Obama is not a Muslim and in fact a Christian. For example, he was sworn into the Senate using a bible in 2005, he attended a (albeit controversial) christian church for decades, no one has ever observed him performing Muslim rituals (ie, praying 5 times a day). Even the "My Muslim Faith" comment is evidence of him being a christian when viewed in full context, as it's more than clear he meant to say "My Christan Faith". Attempting to mention any of this in the article will result in an almost immediate undo and block.

The intentions of this section are transparent: to pander to modern American distrust of Muslims to build distrust of Obama. The irony of this and the article as a whole is obvious and almost comedic, as even a semi-informed reader can see through the deception and will likely end up with a reduced opinion of Conservatives.

I expect to immediately be labeled a liberal for posting this. I need to say for the record, I voted for McCain. I attend Church. I have an American flag outside my house. However I cannot stomach this article and quite frankly am ashamed that such cheap hate tactics are being used by people calling themselves conservative.

[[User:Conservamike|Conservamike]] 23:14, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::Your best arguments against Obama being Muslim amount to unsourced opinion on your part. You gave no evidence just expressed opinions. Personally, I would hope this encyclopedia would hold itself to a higher standard and demand sources. There is ample evidence that Obama is Muslim pretending to be a Christian. Arguing that he can't be Muslim because no one has seen him bowing to Mecca is an appeal to ignorance. The Koran permits Muslims to lie about being Muslim if it advances the Muslim faith.--[[User:AlexC|AlexC]] 11:42, 20 November 2008 (EST)

==Counter Evidence==

If we are letting the readers decide (as written above) then in order to keep this article fair and balanced we should add a section detailing the evidence that Obama is not a Muslim (such as his positions on abortion and stem cell research, his religious history, his Catholic schooling etc). If the evidence is truly overwhelming that Obama is a Muslim then there should be no problem with adding such a section, as readers will quickly be able to see that it is insufficient to counter the claim. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 08:57, 19 November 2008 (EST)

: Fine, post your best stuff here first. But claiming that Obama went to Catholic school is counter evidence is, of course, absurd. Stop by your local Catholic school and you'll see Muslims students who never convert.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:15, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:: And Jewish students. In many areas the public schools are pathetic. In the absence of a good Protestant school, many parents are forced to choose between overly liberal public schools with poor curriculum, home schooling or a Catholic school. Many choose Catholic schools. The Jesuits tend to be in charge of the Catholic schools and they're actually pretty even handed in their treatment of non-Christian students. Saying someone attended a Catholic school or sent their children to one as "evidence" of their being Christian is absurd and betrays a deep ignorance of how the schools are actually run.--[[User:AlexC|AlexC]] 11:54, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Dunno if this is counter evidence, but my two cents about the misguided motivations of Obama's Lenin poster.

Most Europeans, East and West, would be severely alienated by any hidden or subliminal message that Obama was Leninist. Eastern Europe suffered under the communist iron heel for 45 years after WW2, including East Berlin. And Western Europe feared invasion. West Berlin was nearly starved by the communist blockade of the late 40s. Eastern Europe's rush to join NATO and the EU to ensure their free economies and societies is testament to this hatred of Soviet Leninist domination. Of course none of this goes to whether the poster was Leninist, only that if it was it was a serious mistake on Obama's part.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:54, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== My innocuous talk page contribution removed? ==

The Lenin poster one. Just wondered why.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:49, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Oh figured it out now, sorry --[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:51, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== About the Muslim allegations ==

Allow me to play devil's advocate. I am lost. As a conservative, bordering on a paleo-conservative, with a streak of classical liberal in the John Locke/Jeffersonian sense, who also fears the coming administration greatly (I keep thinking Jimmy Carter, stagflation, FDR, Civilian Conservation Corps, prolongation of the depression, and a world war), a man's religion is his own business.

This is the United States. Our forefathers fought and died for the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

In those rights are the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion.

The freedom of speech does give Conservapedia the right to impune the president elect for his supposed Muslim faith (backed by what looks to me to be evidence that is neither conclusive nor wholly circumstantial). But that doesn't mean Conservapedia should squander that right in an attempt to prove what is ultimately between him and God.

The first amendment also gives every man in this country the right to hold whatever spiritual beliefs he wants, and to share, or not share, those beliefs with others.

While I do think it is appropriate to mention speculation that President elect Barack Obama may be a Muslim, to the extent that such allegations exist and are notable, as I think they are, I do not think it is proper for this encyclopedia to attempt to make the case that he is a closet Muslim. The Muslim speculation should be relegated to later parts of the article, and reworked.

Juxtaposing a reference early on in the article, which, if you scroll to the references, indicates that Keith Ellison used a Koran in his swearing in ceremony, with the statement that Obama is an "apparent Muslim" is tawdry at best, and beneath a serious conservative encyclopedia.

Certainly, President elect Obama's political views deserve much more scrutiny from a conservative perspective, than whether or not he is a closet Muslim.

Senator Barack Obama was rated the most liberal senator, left of a self-declared socialist. I think we should focus on that.

President elect Barack Obama seems to hold political views that go against our Constitution. This raises the question about whether or not he can honestly affirm to protect and defend the Constitution.

President elect Barack Obama may institute nationalized health care, requiring children to be vaccinated in order to receive benefits, while bankrupting the private health care system for middle and lower class Americans. Where will this leave such children?

Barack Obama may very likely work to reduce or control home schooling and private schools.

Barack Obama may work to erode or eviscerate the second amendment.

There is plenty of political evidence for these other fears, and it is more appropriate to focus on these, and not his supposed secret Muslim belief system.

I recommend focusing on his easily provable liberal and possibly anti-American political views, and not waste too much time trying to prove he has some religious belief system. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 10:15, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:BigMike, I take it you're not an historian. People's beliefs matter greatly, and you can bet a real historian would not tolerate censorship of inquiry into someone's beliefs. Our other entries likewise provide information about the beliefs of other presidents, great scientists, and others. The insistence on censoring a similar inquiry about Obama's beliefs is misplaced and inappropriate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:09, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::I didn't mean to censor it, I just suggested a shift in focus. I meant to focus on extreme liberal political views first, as they are, to me, the most important. Change the prominence within the article, and change the tone. But you're right, I am not a historian. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 11:12, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::OK, your point is well-taken then. But the reality is that many of Obama's positions to date were posturing to win the presidency, and not necessarily indicative of his priorities as president. His beliefs matter more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:16, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::::No problem. I know this site takes a lot of pointless flack, and it is hard to seperate the wheat from the chaf. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 11:20, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Perhaps a template would help ==

The discussion on this page keeps covering the same ground over and over again. Aside from the wasted time and effort, a major problem is that new users often edit the page and become instantly embroiled in the controversy, sometimes leading to bad feeling and thus driving away potentially valuable contributors.

As a solution, I suggest a template is created and added to the top of the page and any others in this situation. The wording could be something like:

:''This article deals with a controversial topic and has already been the subject of lengthy discussion. Your input is welcome, but '''please check the talk page carefully''' to make sure that the issues you raise have not been dealt with already. New users in particular are advised to start by editing less controversial pages to get a feel for the site.''

Thoughts and suggestions very welcome.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 15:48, 19 November 2008 (EST)

*We do have such. Template "Controversial". But it has problems, and needs some fixing. use the {{ and type in Controversial, and see what I mean. I have read it noted several places it is broken. If you or anyone else knows what is needed, fix the template, and if it is locked, contact Philip Rayment or Ed Poor and let them know. Thanks, good suggestion. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:03, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::Thanks - I've asked Mr Rayment. If that template's ever going to be used, I think this article could do with it, though the wording could be more diplomatic in my opinion.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 16:36, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::Perhaps it would be better slapped here, on this page? If anyone is going to change the article, hopefully they will look here first? Assuming this page is ever partially archived! :D --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:51, 19 November 2008 (EST)

I've fixed the bug, although I don't think putting the template on the article page is going to solve much. And by the way, it's designed for article pages, not talk pages; the link in it to the talk page won't work if placed on a talk page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:56, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== "Captured the White House" ==

Is it just me, or does this memorable line conjure up images of Barry and Joe, the special forces operatives, sneaking across the White House lawn under cover of darkness before launching a daring assault, creating a beach head in the kitchen before ensnaring their ultimate goal: the Oval Office.

Would the phrase "won the presidential election" be more encyclopedic?

[[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 16:32, 19 November 2008 (EST)

: Your phrase would be an improvement. Go ahead, and thanks--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:37, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::It would indeed be an improvement, but he cannot make it, as the article is locked. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 16:41, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Religious Affiliation ==

OK, I do not want to get involved in the whole debate about whether Obama is a covert (or even overt) Muslim. (Although the statistically savvy amongst you can probably predict with 99.9999% certainty what my view is on that matter.)

However, the article currently has two sections dealing with religion. The first ("Obama will likely become the first Muslim President") comes as part of the introduction. It provides a list of evidence supporting the author's view that Obama is a Muslim. The second ("Religious Affiliation") describes various issues to do with Obama's connections in the Christian church, and provides some quotes about his history relating to the Islamic faith. Nobody reading just the second section would come away beleiving the author thinks Obama is a Muslim.

The two seem a little contradictory - either the article does take the view that he is a Muslim, in which case the second piece needs re-writing, or the article takes the view that he is not a Muslim, in which case the first piece needs re-writing, or the article presents the issue as unresolved, in which case both pieces need re-writing.

Given that the subject is so controversial, I do not want to volunteer to do the writing. It would appear that Ed Poor is Appeaser-in-Chief - maybe someone should ask him to have a go?

[[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 17:01, 19 November 2008 (EST)

: So are you now saying both sides should not be presented??? The liberal opposition to the observation that Obama is likely a Muslim is as self-contradictory as it is unjustified.

: By the way, I don't think Obama has had any Christian affiliation for many months.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::::Andy, there is plenty of conservative opposition to the notion that Obama is a secret Muslim as evidenced by this talk page. Andy, what conservative news organizations are still wedded to the idea that Obama is a secret Muslim? I have not checked but I am guessing that [[Cybercast News Service]] which runs plenty of hard hitting and reasonable conservative pieces does not currently promote the idea that Obama is a secret Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:36, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::::I think all I'm saying is the two bits are inconsistent, in that the first leaves no room for the possibility of the second being true and vice versa. I think it's fine to present both views if that's what the authors want to do - but it has to be done consistently. [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 06:37, 20 November 2008 (EST)

== Another shocked conservative here ==

I came to Conservapedia hoping to find a valuable resource on the internet for people like me but to tell the truth I have been shocked and disappointed by some of the content, and this article seems absurd to me. How can we be taken seriously if some of us are peddling nonsense like this? Any right thinking person knows Obama isn't a Muslim. I can't stand the guy but it's clear he's a family man and a Christian. This is just gutter politics, nothing more or less, and it reflects incredibly badly on us.

Most of the stuff in this article has been easily refuted on Snopes at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp. For instance, this shows pictures of Obama with his hand on his heart at the national anthem: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/anthem.asp which makes that picture featured on this page, without his hand on his heart, just another smear.

This is the kind of reason folks didn't vote for McCain - because it's just ugly smear tactics. I despair. [[User:MrCoulter|MrCoulter]]

:The thing that scares me is that the tactics continue even after the election. I dislike them, but during an election, I can at least understand them; that's politics. But now, with the "Muslim" and the "not born in the US" charges (most likely among others I can't think right now), it's like people are trying to de-legitimize the election, declaring him a false president before he's even sworn in. In the eyes of people who believe those allegations, Barack Obama's election was no more legal than a military coup.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 10:08, 20 November 2008 (EST)

:*The election officially lost its validity for many, with the ''fraud'' committed by the Obama campaign in the caucuses [http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/caucus-fraud-proof/] which stole the nomination from Hillary Clinton. That was months before this article appeared. There are many pictures, all real, that show Obama with his hand on his heart, and without, so this photo was not altered. I suggest you at least open your mind, do some proper research, and perhaps you will learn of some valid questions, and the total lack of vetting by the media of their favorite candidate. The media has special rights granted in the Constitution. The real question is if they should continue to have those special rights or not, given their continued[[deceit]] in helping with Obama's leftist agenda. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:31, 20 November 2008 (EST)

::Rather off topic, but what are these special rights constitutionally granted to the media? [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 15:27, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Those rights are included within the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States:

<blockquote>
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of '''speech''', or of '''the press'''; or the right of the people '''peaceably to assemble''', and to '''petition the Government''' for a redress of grievances."
</blockquote>

You can read more about this [http://www.consource.org/index.asp?sid=28&taxlist=180 here.] --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:36, 20 November 2008 (EST)

== The Truth is not always popular ==

In response to all the "dismayed conservatives" upset about the muslim section. One of the stated goals of CP is to highlight facts and stories that are suppressed by the liberal media. Obama's muslim heritage is one of the best examples of this right now. The mainstream liberal media refuses to even broach the topic! I commend Mr. Schlafly and Conservapedia for not censoring these facts for the sake of political correctness (in the eyes of liberals). Try to have a more open mind. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 13:55, 20 November 2008 (EST)
:Here here. It saddens me to see how incredibly effective the deceit of the liberal media has been. Many upstanding, conservative contributors to this site have been thoroughly insulated from the facts of Obama's muslim heritage. As Aschlafly has repeatedly pointed out, the evidence for it is extremely strong and, even if you don't agree that he ''is'' a muslim, the evidence is strong enough and so thoroughly censored that it should be presented on Conservapedia. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 15:26, 20 November 2008 (EST)
:I don't suppose it's occured to you that a person could have an open mind, evaluate the evidence, and still come to a different conclusion than you?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 15:30, 20 November 2008 (EST)
::Draw whatever conclusions you want, but don't expect the article to be changed or have facts removed to support the conclusion that you come to. The facts are the facts, they exist independant of popular opinion.[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 16:39, 20 November 2008 (EST)
::: It ispossible that Obama is a Muslim, what is not possible is that this evidence that we have here on this page is worthy of an encyclopedia entry. It is not good enough. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:06, 20 November 2008 (EST)
:::: Correct. Andy and a few others here have repeatedly ''claimed'' that the evidence is strong. The problem is that they have yet to produce ''any'' strong evidence, and some of the evidence produced is actually either wrong or logically fallacious. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:28, 20 November 2008 (EST)

::::: No, Philip, the evidence speaks for itself and should not be censored. Conservapedia exists precisely because of such censorship on liberal sites and the media. I'm restoring the facts yet again.

::::: At bottom, liberal beliefs inevitably lead to demands for censorship. We're seeing an illustration of that here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:::::: '''ANDY, I AM NOT A LIBERAL. STOP CALLING ME ONE AND APOLOGISE FOR DOING SO.'''
:::::: '''Deleting false and irrelevant information is not "censorship". The "facts" are not facts, and you declaring them to be so does not make them so. You have ''not'' shown them to be facts.''' [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:06, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::Philip. your post demonstrates how not to communicate properly on a project of this nature. Aggressive posts like that undermine collaborative efforts, quite apart from th want of courtesy. Your demand for an apology - even were it justifiable, and even were it not directed at the Founder and Leader of Conservapedia, who deserves your respect - is couched in unacceptable terms. And that is just the style. Turning to the 'substance' of your post, you are attempting to impose your subjective views on Conservapedia. The information deleted is not 'false' and 'irrelevant' except in your personal opinion. This is not Raymentapedia. The information has been deemed sufficiently relevant and raises sufficient questions to have a place here. That argument is incontrovertable. As for ''You have ''not'' shown them to be facts'', well, let us apply a little test here. You are so sure of your case. Can you ''prove'' them to be false? And please, ''manners makyth man''. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:29, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::: Bugler, I wonder if there's any point in responding to you, as you appear to have a closed mind on this issue. But I'll assume for the moment that you are open to civil discussion.
:::::::: You accuse me of various faults, but totally ignore the faults on the other side. You say that posts like mine "undermine collaborative efforts", but totally igore that Andy imposing his will on the article ''in direct opposition to many other reputable editors'' is doing exactly that—undermining collaborative efforts.
:::::::: You question whether my demand for an apology is justifiable, but offer not the slightest reason to think that it's not. And somehow seem to think that a person name-calling someone else is above having to apologise for that simply because they are a site owner. Are you saying that Andy doesn't have to observe common courtesy?
:::::::: You say that "The information deleted is not 'false' and 'irrelevant' except in your personal opinion. This is not Raymentapedia.", but offer nothing but your personal opinion as support. And wilfully ignore that it's not just my opinion, but the opinion of a large number of the senior administrators. And also ignore that my claims are ''not'' opinion, but testable.
:::::::: "''The information has been deemed sufficiently relevant...''": By whom? Most senior administrators disagree. And that's the point—it's been ''deemed'' sufficiently relevant, it hasn't been ''demonstrated'' to be relevant. You accuse me of basing it on my personal opinion, but ignore that its relevance is nothing more than the ''personal opinion'' of Andy. Although Andy started this encyclopaedia, he called it ''Conservapedia'', not "Aschlaflypedia". Contrary to your unfounded implication, I'm not expecting it to conform to my personal opinion, but to ''logic and evidence'' and beyond that to the opinions of a majority of the reputable editors. You, on the other hand, are expecting it to conform to the personal opinion of Andy, who as site founder has the right to decide the commandments and who can have what privileges, but can't ''decide'' (as distinct from ''determine'') the truth of such things as whether Obama is a Muslim.
:::::::: "''The information ... raises sufficient questions to have a place here.'': The questions are only relevant if the information is correct, so that objection begs the question.
:::::::: The onus is on those making the claims in the first place to demonstrate them to be correct, not on me to demonstrate their falsity. In any case, the three points are slightly different. One (regarding his name) involves a correct fact making a point that is of little relevance and what relevance it has is based on another claim that hasn't been demonstrated. The second (taqiyya) is a logical fallacy, as it's not actually an argument that Obama is a Muslim. Do you, Bugler, deny that you are a Muslim? Then you must be according to this point, because Muslims deny that they are if it suits their purpose! The third (pronunciation) has been argued at length previously on the main talk page, not only without the claim being supported, but with good counter evidence.
:::::::: In summary, the arguments ''have'' been refuted, but Andy keeps reinserting them anyway, and when he does justify it, it's on the basis of "the evidence speaks for itself" or similar (if it did, then we wouldn't have so many disagreeing), that it's undeniable (if so, we wouldn't have so many denying it), that removal is liberal censorship (it's being removed by a conservative, and removal of incorrect or irrelevant information is not censorship), and so on. The one line of argument glaringly absent is any argument actually ''showing'' (as distinct from asserting) that the information ''is'' both accurate and relevant. This is true both from Andy and from the others such as you supporting him. If the information is so obviously correct and relevant, why is it so hard to actually show that?
:::::::: But I do thank you for one small point, Bugler. Unlike Andy, you did actually raise the point of testing the claims. Now can you demonstrate that they ''are'' correct and relevant? Please support your implied claim that if I speak nicely I will get proper answers, by giving me proper answers.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:06, 24 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::''I wonder if there's any point in responding to you, as you appear to have a closed mind on this issue'' Ah, the old 'when did you stop beating your wife?' tactic, an old Liberal trick. Yagain, Philip, you fail to get the point. You claim that all your assertions are 'proved' and that no-one else's ideas are. This is both arrogant and wrong. You are the only one making assertions that 'X is fact',a nd you fail to provide any satisfactory evidence. Your further claims of legitimacy through supported from a shadowy clique of 'senior administrators' (unnamed) is an attempt to muddy the waters. Those who disagree with you, including Andy, also have support, from senior people here. And we are not saying 'X is fact'; we are saying 'here is a case to answer'. You have not answered it, and you actions in constantly reverting these passages amounts to an attempt to censor opinions with which you disagree. Saying that we 'have not proved our point' is disingenuous, and you know that. We cannot 'prove' our beliefs; proof will only come should our fears bbe realised. Is that a reason to remain silent? Had I believed that the Japanese might attack Pearl Harbor, based on an educated reading of the situation in November 1941, should I have remained silent because a proto-Rayment demanded written proof in triplicate? We are not dogmatic. We are raising fears based on a prime facie assessment of Obama's record and behaviour; we are not claiming that these are facts carbved in granite slabs. But you, Philip, are displaying liberal dogmatism. You say that your beliefs are not beliefs, but facts. And such an attitude is insupportable; especially insupportable as arrogance of belief is leading you into arrogance of behaviour. Throw slurs at me, by all means. But do not insult Andy, who is the founder of this project and our respected leader in this great endeavour. Learn discipline, as you should have learned it in your youth. The question has been debated ''ad nauseam''. Andy has quite correctly made a decision, to stop the ceaseless argument. And it would be seemly for you to accept and comply with this decision; and if you cannot bring yourself to back it openly, then to leave this topic and work on other matters in which you are interested. Display loyalty and work hard. Do not display defiance, do not keep attacking and undermining the leadership. Remember the objectives of Conservapedia, read the Commandments, and do your best to support Conservapedia and support Andy Schlafly. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:03, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::: "''Ah, the old 'when did you stop beating your wife?' tactic''": No, it's not, actually. That is a question with no correct answer. I didn't ask a question.
::::::::::::: "''You claim that all your assertions are 'proved' and that no-one else's ideas are. ''": Incorrect. I said that my 'assertions' have been backed by logic and evidence, whereas the opposing ideas haven't been. That's not to say that there is no evidicence that can be used to support them; it's saying that such evidence has not been offered.
::::::::::::: "''This is both arrogant and wrong.''": It's not arrogant if it's true, and you've not shown it to be wrong.
::::::::::::: "''You are the only one making assertions that 'X is fact',a nd you fail to provide any satisfactory evidence.''": On the contrary, as I've just posted to Ed above, it is Andy and people such as you who are claiming that 'x is a fact' (Obama is a Muslim), whereas I'm saying that 'there's little or no evidence that x is a fact'.
::::::::::::: "''Your further claims of legitimacy through supported from a shadowy clique of 'senior administrators' (unnamed)...''": You asked for their names, and I pointed out to you that many of them had been named on this page, so you have no good excuse for this false statement.
::::::::::::: "''Those who disagree with you, including Andy, also have support, from senior people here.''": I guess it depends on how you define "senior", but apart from editors with block rights, I haven't seen one.
::::::::::::: "''And we are not saying 'X is fact'; we are saying 'here is a case to answer'.''": Blatantly wrong. As I just said to Ed above, until his last edit, the article said "Obama is a Muslim". That ''is'' saying 'x is a fact'.
::::::::::::: "''You have not answered it...''": I have, a number of times.
::::::::::::: "''...you actions in constantly reverting these passages amounts to an attempt to censor opinions with which you disagree.''": I have pointed out numerous times that it is incorrect to call it censorship (and nobody has refuted that), and I've also pointed out that we are talking about truth claims, not ''opinions''. This is the sort of reason that you appear to have a closed mind. These sorts of things have been explained before, without being refuted, yet you keep repeating these discredited claims.
::::::::::::: "''Saying that we 'have not proved our point' is disingenuous, and you know that.''": Incorrect.
::::::::::::: "''We cannot 'prove' our beliefs;...''": These are ''truth claims'', not just "beliefs". And if they were just "beliefs", then they should be presented as such, not as truth claims.
::::::::::::: "''Had I believed that the Japanese might attack Pearl Harbor, based on an educated reading of the situation in November 1941, should I have remained silent because a proto-Rayment demanded written proof in triplicate?''": False analogy, because that's nothing like what I'm claiming, nor is the comparison the same.
::::::::::::: "''We are not dogmatic.''": Saying that "Obama is a Muslim", and resisting all attempts to remove bad evidence ''is'' being dogmatic.
::::::::::::: "''...we are not claiming that these are facts carbved in granite slabs.''": Essentially you are.
::::::::::::: "''But you, Philip, are displaying liberal dogmatism.''": Oh, so the dogmatism (that ''you'' are displaying) is "liberal", is it?
::::::::::::: "'' You say that your beliefs are not beliefs, but facts.''": Where exactly did I say that?
::::::::::::: "''But do not insult Andy, who is the founder of this project and our respected leader in this great endeavour.''": Even though he is insulting me, calling me names? Are you suggesting that I should not follow his example?
::::::::::::: "''The question has been debated ''ad nauseam''.''": Yes, with the only substantial evidence being ''against'' Obama being a Muslim.
::::::::::::: "'' And it would be seemly for you to accept and comply with this decision...''": Ignoring Commandment 1?
::::::::::::: In summary, yet again another long claim that your side is supported, yet with no actual support offered at all, despite you raising the point of testing the claims. You've mostly avoided answering the points I raised with you, instead launching into another lengthy criticism. Yes, that "closed mind" comment seems to have been justified.
::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:22, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::: Philip, I'd like to ask you a question (without wading into your arguments with Bugler). Are you accusing ASchlafly of bias or deceit? You seem to be inferring so and, if that isn't your intention, perhaps you should reconsider your phrasing. If it ''is'' your intention, perhaps you should be explicit. On a side note, a number of editors, myself included, have backed the inclusion of this information. Naturally, our opinions seem to be valued less, not being senior administrators, but they're still worth consideration. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 21:11, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: RodWeathers, I assume that you are not asking about accusations such as of Andy calling me a "liberal", but about the disputed content of the article. That being so, see my post on this page with a timestamp of "20:42, 19 November". And despite someone in the Sock Drawer suggesting that I wasn't being totally honest in those comments, they were totally honest.
:::::::::: Yes, I realise that a number of editors such as you have backed the inclusion; I referred to that in my reply to Bugler. But as I said, none of you have produced any ''argument'' for their inclusion; merely repeating Andy's unsupported ''claim'' that they are correct. So no, unsupported ''opinions'' are ''not'' worth consideration when logic and the evidence say otherwise.
:::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:31, 24 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::::: Philip, I must respond in no uncertain terms, even if it means risking getting banned for saying my piece to an admin. I find your comments highly offensive, and indeed reprehensible. When you accuse my opinions of being illogical and unevidenced, you attack my character and attack my intelligence. You do '''not''' have a monopoly on logic, and what conclusions you consider logical are '''not''' universal. You can dance around it all you like, but what you are accusing ASchlafly, myself, and others of is no less than stupidity (inability to reach ''your'' conclusions through reasoning) or malice (intent to deceive through including this information). Many users on this site have reached different conclusions than you on this matter. We may not be administrators, but our reasoning is no less solid. Obama's religious past is suspect, and riddled with episodes that cast serious doubt on his alleged "christianity." We conclude from this, and his "gaffes" (to quote Picasso, "there are no accidents") that he is quite possibly a Muslim. There is no certainty of this, but the evidence is enough to necessitate the evidence's inclusion (along with its associated conclusions) on this website, further as the liberal media is adamant in its hiding of this evidence. You may disagree, but that does not give you the right to treat us with condescension. Obama's potential muslim heritage is '''not conjecture''' and it is '''not POV.''' It represents a broadly, if not universally held conservative view. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 22:37, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::: RodWeathers, unlike some you support here, I don't ban people for "saying [your] piece to an admin", as long as that is done civilly.
:::::::::::: I did not, however, say what you accused me of. That is, I did not accuse your opinions of being illogical. Rather, I said that you'd only offered opinions, not logical argument nor evidence. That is not an attack on your character nor intelligence; merely stating facts that all you have offered is opinion. I never claimed to have a monopoly on logic, but logic is not whatever we want it to be; logic is a reasoned way of arguing, and simply offering the opinion that something is correct is ''not'' logic. And no, I'm not accusing you or anyone else of stupidity. I'm accusing you of only offering opinion, not logic nor evidence. I will qualify that a little by saying that I haven't analysed ''your'' comments in particular, but I have read them (any that have been posted in reply to discussions I've had), and I've noted that nobody has actually offered logical argument nor evidence supporting the claims that I've repeatedly removed from the article. And neither have you in this response.
:::::::::::: You accuse me of accusing Andy (and others) of deception, yet I ''specifically'' said in the earlier post that I directed you to that I don't believe Andy would deliberately deceive!
:::::::::::: As for casting doubt on his Christianity, if you were following this debate you would realise that I've never disputed that there is some doubt about his Christianity. What I'm disputing is that he is a Muslim. You also say that "we" conclude that he is "quite possibly" a Muslim, yet the article states that he ''is'' a Muslim; no "quite possibly" about it.
:::::::::::: At the end of your post you repeat the claims that the claims about Obama being a Muslim are "not conjecture and it is not POV", yet ''still'' do nothing to substantiate that!
:::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:05, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::: Philip, you're welcome to "disput[e] that [Obama] is a Muslim." But we're not going to censor evidence that you and other Obama defenders are wrong about that. [[Liberal]]s inevitably demand censorship of ideas that challenge their views. You say you're not a liberal, but you do support gun control and you have insisted that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, an atheistic view. I'd be hard-pressed to think of a single politically conservative position that you've taken in nearly two years here, but perhaps there are some. Regardless, we're not going to censor here evidence about the beliefs of a president.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:18, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::::: "''But we're not going to censor evidence that you and other Obama defenders are wrong about that''": First, I'm not an "Obama defender". I have a number of objections to him. Second, in what way are we wrong?
:::::::::::::: "''[[Liberal]]s inevitably demand censorship of ideas that challenge their views.''": Maybe so, but that doesn't mean that everyone who demands censorship is a liberal, and I've already rejected that removing false and irrelevant information is censorship.
:::::::::::::: "''You say you're not a liberal...''": Yes, I do, but more importantly, how is that relevant? Talking about ''my beliefs'' rather than ''the issue at hand'' is an ''ad hominem'' argument—a ''logically invalid'' argument. An argument typically used by people who have no valid argument. Why don't you stick to the issue?
:::::::::::::: So let's get back to the real question: In what way are we wrong?
:::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::Philip, I said that "liberal beliefs inevitably lead to demands for censorship." That is not calling you "a liberal" as you claim (with inappropriate bolding). Perhaps you still maintain that supporting gun control is not a "liberal belief"; perhaps you also think that insisting that "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder" is not atheistic. The evidence is otherwise. Regardless, information about the actual beliefs of the president will not be censored here to appease someone's dislike of it.

:::::::::::Historians and encyclopedias do examine the beliefs of presidents, and do not simply fall for self-serving comments by presidents. An independent inquiry is appropriate and will continue to provide the evidence for readers to decide, demands for censorship notwithstanding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::: As LowKey correctly points out below, by saying "We're seeing an illustration of that here...", then you ''are'' calling me a liberal, which is a lot more inappropriate than some bolding to grab your attention. Further, if you didn't mean it, you could have simply said "I didn't mean to call you a liberal; I don't think you are", but no, instead you try and justify the name-calling that you also attempt to deny! So I still expect an apology. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:42, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::: Philip, see point 55 in [[liberal style]] about demands for apologies, which was written long ago.

::::::::::::: You're more than welcome to your views and we welcome many liberals to this site. But you've advocated for [[gun control]] here and insisted that beauty is in the eye of the beholder (which is an atheistic viewpoint). So I don't doubt that you hold some liberal beliefs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:53, 25 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::: As BRichtigen says below, the page refers to ''silly'' demands for apologies, which mine isn't. So I still expect an apology for calling me a liberal. (Incidentally, that point 55 is referenced to an article which doesn't mention apologies!)
::::::::::::::: Contrary to the way that BRichtigen read your comment, I think that "here" referred to ''on Conservapedia'', not ''in the U.S.''. But I'm not sure that I've even done that. I've said that I ''support'' gun control, and argued against many of the arguments put against gun control, but I don't think I've ever "advocated for" it. Neither did I "insist" that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But again, you are discussing ''me'' rather than the ''issue'', and worse, ''speculating'' about my beliefs, rather than being prepared to say, "Philip, I accept that you are a conservative". You seem to be implying that I'm a conservative who holds a few liberal beliefs, but you keep emphasising the speculated liberal beliefs and never acknowledge that I'm a conservative, which makes me wonder if you really do consider me a liberal.
::::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:56, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::::::: Philip, you support gun control, and admit it. That is clearly a fundamental liberal belief, from which other liberal beliefs inevitably flow. You also repeatedly deleted a point in another entry based on your view that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That is a view espoused by atheists. I don't think I ever called you a liberal but I am convinced you hold some liberal beliefs. I'm not going to lie and say otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:59, 27 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::::*point 55 in [[liberal style]] refers to ''silly demands for apologies.'' I can't see anything silly on Philip J. Rayment's demand.
::::::::::::::*AFAIK, Philip J. Rayment never advocated [[gun control]] '''in the U.S.'''. However, as an Australian conservative, he's for gun control '''in Australia'''.
::::::::::::::*I don't know how aesthetics come into play here, but for the record: yes, there may be absolute beauty, but for the sake of the fashion industry, our view of the beauty of a lot of things changes
::::::::::::::*And for the record: I'm not a liberal, neither, though I'm for gun control in my home country - but I don't want to export this model to the U.S. Have a look on the stance of the Catholic Church against capital punishment. Does this make the pope a liberal? --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 07:24, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, you are veering quite far off-topic here, a very liberal trait. You also are resorting to personal attacks, another liberal trait. You are also denying that PJR's evidence is intrinsically valuable, which is apparently an atheistic viewpoint. Are you a closet liberal?--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 22:02, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:JZim was blocked for this comment. Does anyone else see a problem? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:12, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::No, and anyone who does should have the personal integrity to resign. Talk, talk, talk, without contributing isn't allowed, never has been. That user signed up this month, and constantly engaged in argument and time wasting. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:31, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::: Personal attacks and accusations, troublemaking, mimicry, and absurd suggestions of atheism. I gave him 3 days to cool off. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 22:24, 25 November 2008 (EST)
:::But do you plan to give Schlafly a three day block also? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:26, 25 November 2008 (EST)
::::When he starts mimicing other users, making trouble while contributing nothing to discussion, and I'm capable of doing so, I'll consider it. Can we please leave it at that?[[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 22:29, 25 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Maybe only 2 days as there was no mimicry from Andy, and "troublemaking" would be stretch. The rest applies, though.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]]
::::::Hmm. Mimicing others is really not a valid block reason per se. You also said he was blocked for personal attacks, accusations and absurd suggestions of atheism. Can you just unblock JZim? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:34, 25 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::Done. I'll leave it to the discretion of highers-up, but if you have a problem with Aschlafly, bring it up with ''him'', not me. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 22:42, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, why disclaim calling Phillip a liberal, and only provide half of the statement (only the latest) you made which did exaclty that. You said "At bottom, liberal beliefs inevitably lead to demands for censorship. We're seeing an illustration of that here," in response to Phillip's post. You are directly ascribing liberal beliefs - which you had already made clear means political liberal beliefs - to Phillip. So yes you are calling him a liberal. If you wish to back away from that, the way to do it is to retract and apologise, not qualify and dilute.

Also, when you claim that pronouncing Pakistan the '''correct''' way is evidence that one is muslim, objections based on truth and relevance are not calls for censorship. They are merely calls for truth and relevance. (Really, such "evidence" is absurd) I notice a late addition to the "evidence" deals with Obama's popularity with muslim voters. If we saw a similar pattern amongst female voters, that would not be evidence that Obama is a woman. None of this is evidence that leads to a conclusion; these factoids (i.e. they are shaped kind like of facts) read as little more than exhibits for the prosecution.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 23:37, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:Many would say that the only way we can arrive at a true and complete picture of any politician is to take a look at their life before gaining elected office. Once running for office, or on that merry-go-round of always running for re-election, how is anyone to gain a glimpse of the real person? Every bit of information, once elected (especially as President) is so managed, so structured, a true picture can never be painted. With President-elect Obama, there are more unanswered questions than anyone I can think of elected President in modern times. Life isn't fair, and no matter if Obama's supporters dislike the continued inquiry, they should blame Obama and his people, not those seeking answers. If they had categorically answered answered, or permitted the release of his personal information, this all might have been put to rest. But they have continued to stone-wall. Isn't it odd, and indicative of [[liberal deceit]] that personal [[privacy]] is very important to liberals in their own personal lives, but they cherish that of the citizens much less! The reliance upon birth announcements in newspapers, and generic record of live birth, instead of releasing the actual, unaltered birth certificate to prove citizenship, differs from the records available on other modern presidents. The fact that Barack Obama didn't ask the Department of State to make public the travel records of his mom and dad is also cause for concern. Unless and until all information is made available by Mr. Obama, the inquiries Andy speaks of will continue, as that is the responsible course for encyclopedias and scholars who always take the long view, rather than focus on the passions of the here and now. This whole tempest is about those who don't want to hear or think about the possibilities, people willing to sell the truth short because of their political or world view bias. Scholars, and scholarly encyclopedias ask questions, and don't state as factual anything that lacks full disclosure, like Obama's religious instruction and training, his place of true birth, and his questionable associations. Conservatives fight for the truth, [[liberals]] seek to obsfucate and dismiss intellectual curiosity, always demanding "facts" that cannot be readily produced because the subject of the questions refuses to own up. Look at what your position is, and if the (liberal) shoe fits, wear it. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:46, 24 November 2008 (EST)

::Sweeping assertions do not make themselves true. "Inquiry" is seeming less and less appropriate for this. "Inquisition" would be more accurate, for one knowing the Spanish Inquisition's main objective (finding closet infidels). I have looked at my position (truth and relevance) and the conservative shoe is rather a nice fit, thank you. Presenting pronunciation, birth name, parental beliefs and voting patterns as evidence of any person's current belief is not presenting information in any useful way at all. It is demonstrating a conclusion that is looking for support. If the facts are not readily available, do not present irrelevant factoids in their place. I ''believe'' Obama's stated Christianity to be "liberal" and largely nominal, and probably politically motivated. But none of the "evidence" presented here has led (or would led) me to that conclusion, it is too weak and strident. There is much more concrete evidence to question Rudd's (PM of Australia) Christianity, but I do not see any of that on his CP article. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 00:10, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:::[http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_logic|"Claiming that their viewpoints are being censored, while actually they are the ones censoring their opponents."] is #3 on the list of [[Liberal logic]] When it was about Sarah Palin or John McCain, where were the calls to end inquiry, being less and less "appropriate"? By United States standards, even self-proclaimed conservatives wouldn't be regarded as conservatives here. Asking questions, raising questions, is what an encyclopedia does, or as Andy stated: ''"Historians and encyclopedias do examine the beliefs of presidents, and do not simply fall for self-serving comments by presidents. An independent inquiry is appropriate and will continue to provide the evidence for readers to decide, demands for censorship notwithstanding."'' This isn't a debating society, it is a project to build an encyclopedia. The fact that supposedly "trusted editors" won't end this revert war, nor step back from this issue, is yet another sign (for most of us) of [[Liberal Deceit]]. Being a conservative also means respecting the authority of the powers that be. In being Christians, we are taught to submit to authority on earthly matters. I consider Andy Schlafly a trusted friend. Do we ever disagree? Anyone who has been around CP knows we have! But I have never repeatedly (or otherwise) reverted his work, instructed him on how my opinion made his wrong, how my thinking was logical, and his was not. The fact that so much of this time-wasting by an Administrator is allowed is more than proof as to how open-minded and indulgent Andy is, and the continued opposition, in repeated public displays of disrespect is unseemly, and certainly not reflective of American conservative values. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:16, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:::::Your first sentence just confuses me, as the claims of "censorship" here are claims of "liberal censorship". So apart from being a hand-waving sweeping generalisation, it also seems to be a malapropism. Also, you seem to have misunderstood my "inquiry" comment. I am not saying that inquiry is inappropriate (intelligent inquiry, at any rate). I am saying that "inquiry" is an inappropriate term for what is going on here. I suggest "inquisition" as the correct term, referring to the fact the the Spanish Inquisition was undertaken to identify and prosecute secret infidels claiming to be Christian. Are you accusing Andy or PJR of liberal deceit? They are the two editors reverting, that I can see, so it must be one of them. Given that PJR gives reasons for removal and ''asks for'' reasons for inclusions, but Andy generally keeps claiming "liberal censorship" (but insists that he is ''not'' calling PJR a liberal), and your earlier observation about liberal logic one could conclude that you are refering to Andy. Now I don't think that that is the correct conclusion, but it ''is'' the conclusion that most closely matches the facts (i.e. every other conclusion makes '''less''' sense). Let's build an encyclopedia; let the inquiry be ''intelligent'' and factual; let real, relevant facts speak for themselves; avoid prosecutorial exhibits, avoid insisting on the most condemnatory interpretations when other interpretations are far more likely. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 21:51, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:::: "''Being a conservative also means respecting the authority of the powers that be. In being Christians, we are taught to submit to authority on earthly matters.''": Whose authority does Andy submit to? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:48, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::::*Philip, Andy Schlafly is the owner of this site. ''Here, he submits to no one''. And that is how it should be. If you are meaning generally, in his life, as a Christian, he submits, offers up to Jesus Christ and his Father In Heaven, who has the final "say" on everything. While one can appeal to Andy, one has absolutely no right to continue to question (or dispute) his will as to CP, especially as an Administrator, and publicly. Contrary to your false and misleading assertion on your talk page, ''"As administrators, we enforce the rules, we don't decide the truth. That is exceeding our authority."'' you have constantly done so, and continue to do so on this page. Please don't tempt me to present evidence of such, okay? I think Andy has been more than a good sport on this issue, but it is long past the time you should walk away from this, because your [[liberal]] opinion is not going to prevail. Perhaps you could concentrate on presenting scientific, or even good & irrefutable empirical evidence for the age of Earth? You have been using (trading on) your position as an Administrator of Conservapedia to continue to argue beyond the point any "normal" editor would be allowed to without being blocked by you or one of the other administrators. Your lack of humility, which is a Christian trait, has become an embarrassment. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:21, 25 November 2008 (EST)
::::::: TK, you say that ''as a Christian'', he submits to Jesus, which is true, but your point was that as Christians we should "submit to authority ''on earthly matters''". Yet now you sidestep that by saying that Andy doesn't have to. Further, I (and others) would suggest that Andy sees Conservapedia as something that God has called him to do, in which case it is wrong to say that he "submits to no one" regarding Conservapedia.
::::::: To clarify my admittedly-ambiguous comments on my talk page, as editors (which hat I also wear), we need to try and ''determine'' truth, but we can't, as editors ''or administrators'', ''decide'' truth, in the sense of ''decreeing'' something to be so. As editors ''or administrators'', we can only attempt to ''determine'' the truth by the use of logic and evidence (as Andy agrees). But Andy is effectively here ''decreeing'' truth, because he's not been using logic and evidence to ''determine'' truth, but simply ''asserting'' that certain things are true. If you have evidence of me doing ''that'', then please present it.
::::::: My opinion is not a "liberal" one, and I'd thank you to not malign me that way.
::::::: Yes, I have been trading on my position as administrator to argue this point, because Andy is trading on ''his'' position as site owner to insert his POV into the article, contrary to the evidence ''and the views of other administrators''.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:03, 28 November 2008 (EST)
::::::And what happened to Matthew 7:1, which certainly can be applied hear in the same way that you yourself have applied it? [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:33, 26 November 2008 (EST)

:::::And the accusations continue. How is objecting to repeated condescending false accusations a lack of humility? Phillip attempted to keep this about the content of the article, but Andy's responses have either been to repeat assertions without support (or even argument) or (even worse) to use ad hominem dismissals to avoid addressing the objections. And you call that being a good sport? As to your comment about humility: speck, meet plank.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 18:00, 26 November 2008 (EST)

*Philip seems to have retired from his stubborn insistence to revert the owner of this encyclopedia, and my suggestion to you, LowKey is that you should now become just that: low key. CP's toleration of argument-without-end is becoming lower and lower because of non-discussions like this one. If you want to continue as you have been, why not go to Wikipedia and endeavor to engage Mr. Wells as you have Mr. Schlafly here? I very much doubt you would still be an editor there after so doing! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:08, 26 November 2008 (EST)
:*I ''am'' an editor on WP and my evangelical Christian (and hence conservative) standards - including my insistence on truth and relevance - get me labelled a fringe lunatic. It's interesting that '''the same''' standards get one labelled a liberal on CP. The difference is that on WP my Christian views are at least dismissed because they are Christian views, while on CP it seems that disagreement need only be labelled "liberal" do be dismissed regardless of the facts. I have seen almost as much prejudice and bigotry here as on WP, and considering the comparative sizes of the two sites, that's a serious indictment of the general enviromnent on CP. It's depressing that in this confessedly Christian environment fellow Christians are treated worse than they are treated by the misotheists on WP. I think I need a break (and here I though CP would be ''refreshing''.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:33, 26 November 2008 (EST)

::Funny you should put it like that, because most of us can't quite believe that you're still an editor here after your SDG shenanigans. --[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] 18:22, 26 November 2008 (EST)

::*While liberals have proved to be interested in retribution, attacking people personally and [[deceit]], JohnZ, Christians and conservatives believe in forgiveness. I understand why you "can't quite believe", because you just don't believe in anything other than material things. And while conservatives believe in ''facts'', from your comments, being on the outside looking in, liberals offer comments and supposition about things they cannot possibly know about first-hand. God's speed to you! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:37, 26 November 2008 (EST)

::::Hmm. Even if it's forgiven, my money's on it not being forgotten. You speak to TerryH much these days, TK? --[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] 18:50, 26 November 2008 (EST)

== ==

Not that it should make a difference in the first place to one's opinion of him, but the claim that Barack Obama is a Muslim has been repeatedly disproven. Not only is he a lifelong Christian, but his nominally Muslim father was in fact an atheist, and not a practicing Muslim himself. I find it unfortunate that people who call themselves Christians, conservatives, and patriots perpetuate repeatedly disproven falsehoods under the cover of truth, and blame any criticism of their lies on the "liberal media" and political correctness. It is not "liberal" or "conservative" to tell the truth. There are plenty of issues for conservatives to oppose Obama on without manufacturing information about him, and were you to do so, it would make mainstream America take you more seriously. This does not help the cause in the least.
[[User:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]] November 18 2008

: The above editor was blocked for 5 years for infractions that included editing someone else's comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 24 November 2008 (EST)

::Thanks. I was rather shocked to see someone editing my comments to make me look like a racist, for no conceivable reason. That's a real low of deceit. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 00:09, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:*To [[liberals]], the end always justifies the means, sadly. We used to have a pretty good political discourse in America. Then the Bill Maher's, the George Soros's infected the [[MSM} and the colleges, and what we see at CP is happening everywhere. A woman has a Down's baby, rather than abort it, as the liberals demand she should have, and they must endure all the slime Hell has to offer, like Sarah Palin did. Here they wait day and night to sneak bad info into CP, so they can brag about it elsewhere. They edit comments, change user names or just their sigs to appear to be someone else, to start fights. Where in the world are there Christians and/or conservatives doing that? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:50, 24 November 2008 (EST)

::''To liberals, the end always justifies the means, sadly''. The irony of this comment being placed on this page in particular is truly remarkable. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:33, 24 November 2008 (EST)

==Mr.Schlafly, take heart!==

Mr. Schlafly,

I commend you on joining a long list of great minds who, despite all the superficial [[Liberal]] based evidence, managed to see the truth and purged his mind of all pernecious and evil [[Liberalism]]. It is undeniable that Obama is a Muslim, and thanks to you, millions of people around the world have embraced the truth of conservatism, and its spectacular ability to find the truth, even when the [[Liberal]] based evidence distorts and twists the truth. The only thing I can say to you Mr. Schlafly is to take heart! These [[Liberals]], who would take and twist our infallibable country and out impenatrable conservative hearts and minds will never allow their 'evidence' to supersede the truth! We shall win this culture war Mr. Schlafly, with great minds like yours! [[User:MarkBaley|MarkBaley]] 22:23, 20 November 2008 (EST)
::Is it wrong that I find this amusing?--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 21:28, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:::Liberals often are easily amused. Or at least they pretend to be.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::::Andy, you are quite quick to assume that anyone you either disagree with or simply do not understand is a liberal. You display a profound inability to read user pages (read mine), at the very least. What I find amusing is that this obvious parody has not been deleted, as parodies usually are. And are you claiming that I am pretending to be amused? Why would I pretend? I have no reason to lie, and I have no wish to assume that anyone else is, either. I would, instead, examine the evidence. I would advise you to do the same. I believe, as well, that I recently read something written by someone who apparently opposed you, in which he exhorted you to refrain from bearing false witness against others. Please do not disrespect the teachings of Jesus; I respect them very much and would like to see them respected by others. Lastly, I apologise for my long-winded reply, but I think it is necessary.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 21:46, 25 November 2008 (EST)

== Islam ==

You've gotta be kidding me. Obama is not a muslim, you tools. The thing about "his Muslim faith" was taken out of context, and you damn well know it. Also, someone who knows Arabic, and has heard the call to prayer and considers it to be pleasant-sounding does not a Muslim make. I was deployed to Iraq in 2005, and appreciated the musical quality of the morning call to prayer, and I am by no means a Muslim. I'm sure Malcolm X's fight for racial equality inspired plenty of non-Muslims too. And holy crap, someone read a book written by a Muslim, they too must be a dastardly terrorist. And yes, I'm sure Obama chose his SS code name based on the several hundred-year old etymology of "renegade".

But, I should have known that you hacks wouldn't actually write a legitimate article on Obama. None of you have even an inkling of what actual, scholarly research, and unbiased writing is all about. [[User:Ottotanaka|Ottotanaka]] 09:23, 22 November 2008 (EST)

:Oh, and unless the guy above me is trying to be sarcastic, he should probably be locked up for having the mental age of a 3 year old. [[User:Ottotanaka|Ottotanaka]] 09:25, 22 November 2008 (EST)

::I think he was being sarcastic, but I could be wrong. I've seen similar attitudes put forth in complete seriousness.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 12:11, 22 November 2008 (EST)

== Formatting? ==
I understand the reason why this page is locked, but could a sysop fix the formatting? Every other page on this site that has a table of contents has it right after the introduction. This should too. The first section should come after the table of contents. I know this is minor, but for some reason, it's really bugging me. Thanks [[User:JANorton|JANorton]] 14:16, 22 November 2008 (EST)

: Why is it bugging you? No, not "every other page on this site" has a table of contents up front, and even if every other one did, consistency is not something to be worshiped.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:19, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::Clever, JANorton, clever. By moving the table of contents, you'd bury the information about Obama's muslim faith further down the page, reducing the number of people who would see it. Nice try. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 14:30, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:::That wasn't actually my goal, but now that I understand why the table of contents is below the first section. I was really just going for consistency here, but I withdraw my request. [[User:JANorton|JANorton]] 14:36, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::Consistency is the hallmark of excellence. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:12, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:::''Truth'' is the hallmark of excellence. You've proven yourself to be a liberal through your edits to this wiki, and your attempt to [[Placement bias|hide this information]] under the name of 'consistency' will not do. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 16:16, 22 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Very well put, Rod. Truth matters far more than consistency does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:21, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::::: I noted two years ago in studying American history that the college-level textbooks we used would present liberal presidents in a consistent fashion: general information, positives, then negatives (typically glossed over, especially in the cases of FDR, Carter, and Clinton), while the conservative presidents were presented in the ''opposite'' order. Reagan's description jumped right into Iran-Contra and accusing him of threatening nuclear war. I guess the only consistency is consistent bias. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 16:31, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Aschafly, who are you trying to kid saying lines like "truth matters more than consistency"? You care nothing whatsoever about truth, as evidenced by you erroneously calling Obama a Muslim and then devoting a paragraph to his CHRISTIAN pastor Wright. Pick a story and stick with it.
[[User:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]] 16:31, 23 November 2008

:::::: That's an excellent observation: "the only consistency is consistent bias." I recall Jesus had a parable about laborers in the vineyard that pointed out how wrong an insistence on a foolish consistency can be. In that parable, the owner pays inconsistently as he likes. From the other end of the spectrum, Emerson criticized worship of a foolish consistency.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:42, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Since you bring up Jesus, the 10 Commandments include "thou shalt not lie". Maybe if you actually knew more about Christianity, you would know this.
[[User:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]] 16:31, 22 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: I suspect it's the simple fact that a closed mind ''always'' needs to fit information into strict, predetermined categories. New and different knowledge scares such a person, as it breaks the boundaries they're so used to. But I digress. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 16:44, 22 November 2008 (EST)

(Unindent) Why is the TOC at the top of all the other biographical articles then? Is its purpose to be useful in getting at the truth or to be untruthful? As I see it the rest of the article is more accessible if the TOC is within the first page view, and that is an opinion informed by a number of books and articles I have read on the subject. As for me being liberal I'm just more centrist than you, I still lean right, my edits just lean towards the middle mark because I am more liberal than the average conservapedian. My edits typically do not land on a pov issue however, they are typically issues of format and factual issues, but this is not a blog so I'll stop there. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 21:02, 22 November 2008 (EST)

==Template==
Is it about time to put the president infobox up on this page? [[User:JY23|JY23]] 15:02, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:Maybe when he actually becomes the president. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 16:09, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::Do you think that will not happen? Why not be proactive? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 20:52, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:::I think there is a hysteria with acting like Obama is already president. Our president is still George W. Bush and it's and insult to him to downplay the remainder of his presidency by focusing everything on Obama. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 21:00, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::::That is why they call the president a lame duck during this period, if in four years a conservative takes it the format will be changed late Tuesday election night. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 21:04, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Has Barack Obama been sworn is as president? No. Has he at any time held the title of 'president'? No. Do we have a 44th president yet? No. These are simple facts. He's not the president. When he becomes the president, THEN give him an info box. Stop trying to make this a partisan issue...they're just facts.[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 21:50, 22 November 2008 (EST)

== Muslim/Rev. Wright==

Ashafly endlessly repeats the demonstrative falsehood that Obama is a Muslim, yet devotes a paragraph to the controversy surrounding Obama's CHRISTIAN Reverend Wright. Pick a version of the truth and stick with it. .[[User:ChristianBlade1|ChristianBlade1]] 21:50, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:This has already been discussed ''ad nauseam'', and a decision reached. Please see the archives for this page (links at the top).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:30, 24 November 2008 (EST)
::I'm not sure there's a point in even responding to these register-only-to-whine type liberals. If they're not going to contribute or ask meaningful questions, we should just ignore and move on to more important matters. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:55, 24 November 2008 (EST)

As per Aschafly's instruction, I recreated my account with the proper username. In response to being labeled a "register-only-to-whine type liberal", why is that anyone who points out blatant inaccuracies in articles is labeled a whining liberal? Shouldn't conservative Christians care about telling the truth in their articles? I am not saying this trying to pick fights, I am simply commenting that the most effective way for conservatives to oppose Obama is with his own proven record.
[[User:CBrown|- CBrown]] 11:55, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:Thanks for re-registering, and please don't take the 'whining' comment to heart. I'm sure you'll appreciate that the Obama article is controversial, so I'd suggest you check the archives before commenting as there is a good chance the points you made have been made and discussed before (as in this case). Really, an emotive subject like Obama isn't an ideal place for a new user to begin.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:11, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:::90/10 applies, especially if you take it literally. A newbie would have to make 10 substantial edits before making an ideological comment. It's like the rule against loitering, though. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:59, 24 November 2008 (EST)
::::: No, Ed, and it's unfortunate that you, a senior administrator, don't appear to understand the rule. The rule ([[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandment 7]]), if taken literally, would require a newbie making at least ''one'' quality edit for each ''nine'' talk-page comments. So unless that was a simply typo on your part, perhaps you should review blocks you have made on this faulty understanding and unblock all those who ''didn't'' break the rule? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:16, 24 November 2008 (EST)

::::You both have a point, but I'm a great believer in trying to be civil to new users if there's even a small chance they might be for real. Even liberals could contribute a great deal to politically-neutral pages, if they could only be persuaded to divert their efforts away from the endlessly repetitive discussions that take place here.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:00, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:::::Absolutely. I'm all in favor of being civil (and against immediately blocking or otherwise belittling). It's just that, given the endless flow of them, we almost need copy-and-paste responses to the most common interruptions. Your above response would be almost perfect for that purpose. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:03, 24 November 2008 (EST)

The last two New Yorkers I spoke to about Obama's religion said that he is a Muslim. Even if they are wrong, the perception is there. I think the article should say "regarded as a Muslim".

I'd also like the article to address the dispute between those conservatives who assert Obama is not a Christian and other people who say Obama is a Christian. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:17, 24 November 2008 (EST)

Frankly, part of the reason for Obama being regarded as a Muslim is because of the erroneous and unsubstantiated reporting claiming him as one. [[User:CBrown|- CBrown]] 12:23, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:But why would the two Muslims I consulted believe this? One was a Democrat. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:41, 25 November 2008 (EST)

== Talk page edits ==

I was just reading the Recent Changes page, and I noticed that RodWeathers deleted a talk page edit. Isn't this against the rules? I am as much against "liberal troublemaking" as you are, Rod, but I am also very much against censorship.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 17:58, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:There's an enormous difference between censorship and removing liberal vandalism and senseless attacks against the editors of this site. What I removed was a baseless accusation against the editors of wilfull deceit of the public. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:00, 24 November 2008 (EST)
::Rod, please define censorship.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 18:07, 24 November 2008 (EST)
The talk page is for discussing ways to improve the article. Comments that are not about ways to improve this article can be removed. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 18:20, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:This is not Wikipedia, and sysops may remove any information which is not related to the purpose of building a trustworthy encyclopedia. "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:46, 25 November 2008 (EST)

== Personal remarks ==

I dislike reading remarks like the following:
*I'm accusing you of only offering opinion
*Look at what your position is, and if the (liberal) shoe fits, wear it.
*unlike some you support here, I don't ban people
*way to do it is to retract and apologise
*you accused me
*you are calling him a liberal
*You say you're not a liberal

Those who recall writing any of the above phrases, please review [[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]]. Thank you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:44, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Well "way to do it is to retract and apologise" is mine, and it was not a personal remark. In context (i.e. the rest of the sentence ''at least''), I was saying that if an editor wanted to back away from remarks made about and objected to by another editor, then the "way to do it is to retract and apologise" rather than retroactively qualify the remarks.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 18:16, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:And this is related to Barack Obama in what way? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:26, 25 November 2008 (EST)

: How about Andy calling me a liberal? Why don't you list ''that'' as a "personal remark"? Further, there is a difference between a "personal remark" (i.e. ''about'' the person) and a ''derogatory'' remark. Sometimes it is appropriate to say something ''personal'', especially when it's in defence of some criticism, as the first one on your list was.
: "''And this is related to Barack Obama in what way?''": Exactly, Ed. How is calling me a liberal relevant to Barack Obama? How is Andy bringing up my views on gun control relevant to Barack Obama?
: How is Andy ''speculating'' about my other political views relevant to Barack Obama?
: How about you apply those standards more consistently?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:00, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::Kindly avoid making personal remarks like the above on article talk pages. You are invited to contribute your thoughts on what our standards for interpersonal communication should be, but such contributions need to be made in the appropriate venue. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:54, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Can we add this to the list:
* you appear to have a closed mind
Or does it not count because of the source? Oh, and Philip, I know how you will respond, with claims that it is fair comment, justified by my stance, etc, etc, etc. But just for once, step back and reflect: are not those of us who call you Liberal making fair comment, justified by your stance on a host of issues, from Obama to protecting Liberal saboteurs? And can I add a further term - it hasn't been used yet, but I feel it hovering:
* whited sepulchre
[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:41, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Remarks like the following are out of place here. This talk page is only for discussing changes to the [[Barack Obama]] article.
*bringing up my views on gun control
*calling me a liberal
*I know how you will respond
*speculating about my other political views
*you apply those standards more consistently
*you appear to have a closed mind

If you have complaints about other users, do not bring them up on article talk pages. Persistent violators of this rule will be excluded from the project. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:01, 27 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama as a Muslim ==

This is a kind of silly accusation here. The citation at the top (currently citation 4 to the Christian Science Monitor) is misleading - since a Muslim was allowed to swear in on the Koran does not suggest that someone else will. That note would be just as applicable to anyone else.

As for the evidence that he is a Muslim, is this what the article should be focusing on? It makes the article seem rhetorical - that the only concern is for his faith and not his political positions.

* Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.[21][22]
This is false. His father was an atheist, his mother a Christian. And as the article goes on to say, he received Christian or at least secular education for most of his life. In any case, what does saying someone's "outlook" is Muslim mean?

: You're clueless about Islam, in which the father raises the sons in the religion. Also, Obama's mother was not a Christian in any meaningful sense. In fact, she disliked Christianity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)

* Obama's middle name (Hussein) references Husayn, who was the grandson of Muhammad[23], which most Christians would not retain. [24]
Husssein means "beautiful" in Arabic, indeed a reference to the grandson of Muhammed, but again the citation that most Christians would not retain it is misleading - it's more of a footnote than a citation. I am a Christian and my middle name is a reference to a saint. I cannot imagine converting to another faith, but if I were to, I doubt that I would drop my middle name.

: A Christian convert would not likely retain the name of Muhammad's grandson as his own. Many Christian religions ''require'' adopting a Christian name at baptism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)

* Obama recently mentioned his religion as "my Muslim faith."[25]
This was clearly Obama being sarcastic. I'm as hardened a Conservative as anyone, but listen to the interview. It's linked to from [[my Muslim faith]].

: "Sarcastic"??? Right after Obama said not to play games? I've heard wacky explanations for Obama's statement, but never heard yours before. It's far=fetched.

* On the campaign trail, Obama was reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria,[30] which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.[31]
I've read books by Muslim authors (maybe), I've read books by Jewish authors, I've read books by atheist authors. I don't think that this says that I am not a devout Christian. Also, this seems to suggest that this Fareed Zakaria is not a Muslim, or at least not a devout one http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-08-09/news/the-interpreter/ . (Also holy smokes, the guy has a B.A. from Yale and a Ph.D. from Harvard.) I have not read the book, so maybe the book is different.

:It's unusual for a Christian to pick out and earnestly read a book about the world from a Muslim point of view, except perhaps to criticize it. Possible, but unlikely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)

* Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam.
Again, this applies to anyone, and rings of McCarthyism. How do we know George Bush isn't a closet Muslim? This goes back to the Koran issue - just because it's possible doesn't mean that it's true. Occam's razor, guys.

: "McCarthyism"??? Wow, perhaps you're a liberal to reach for that card. Christians who think people what they say they do need to beware of this Islamic doctrine. Sounds like you weren't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)

* Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one.[32]
I don't see the problem with this - if anything, it seems respectful.

: Try harder to "see the problem." Pronunciation has long been used to accurately identify one's beliefs or origins. I hope you don't object to other means of identification too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)

* Obama has chosen the Secret Service code name "Renegade". "Renegade" conventionally describes someone who goes against normal conventions of behavior, but its first usage was to describe someone who has turned from their religion. It is a word derived from the Spanish renegado, meaning "Christian turned Muslim."[35]
This is just false. Renegado simply means "to deny" in the past sense, and while I don't doubt it was used in the way given, that is not the meaning of the word. And in any case, do you think that if Obama were a closet Muslim he'd drop all sorts of tiny clues like this?

: You seem to really like the phrase "closet Muslim"!! Odd. As to "renegado", learn more about what the word really means.

Not that I should have to defend myself to make changes like this, but I am a devout Christian and a staunch Conservative. I take plenty of issue with Barack Obama, but spending time accusing him of being a Muslim rather than criticising his policies makes the authors of this article look childish. One other thing that the article does not address is why we care whether he's a Muslim. What are the implications of this?

--[[User:Conservativecarl|Conservativecarl]] 20:23, 25 November 2008 (EST)

: Oh right. You're such a staunch conservative that you accuse others of "McCarthyism" (which no conservative would do) and love the expression "closet ____". Your British spelling of "criticising" is hardly reassuring. Obama is smoother and more persuasive than you are!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)

:: The spelling is from Linux's auto-correct. And no conservative would criticiZe McCarthyism? The man was a nut, regardless of his political affiliations. And I don't see the point of pointing out political affiliation, this is merely me demonstrating logical flaws in the article. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." [John 1:1] This is a very powerful statement on the value of literature (among other things, of course), so I think that your accusation of it not being Christian to read a book from someone with a different point of view for some purpose other than to criticize it is very wrong. --[[User:Conservativecarl|Conservativecarl]]

::: "Conservativecarl", you're obviously no conservative and you're not fooling anyone here. Maybe you'd like to spend your time trying to fool someone somewhere else. If you'd like to stay here, then provide your real first name and last initial so that your account can be changed, and your country of origin.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:10, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:::: I am an American-Canadian dual citizen, currently residing in Canada for school (with plans to move back to the states and get a job after). First name is actually Paul, initials AC. This doesn't seem important though. In any case, here are the things that I'd like you to address.
:::: 1. Taqiyya, as stated in the article, says that a Muslim may deny their faith if it furthers the cause of Islam. Someone makes the claim that you are Muslim, and secretly furthering the cause of Islam in your spare time. Refute this.
:::: 2. The conversion rate statistic is a statistic fallacy. In many Islamic countries, apostasy is punishable by death, which would at least partially explain the low statistic. The conversion rate from Islam, given that the person has come to a free country such as America, is much higher. Also, Kenya is about 80% Christian, and only 10% Muslim, so Obama's father would be very familiar with other faiths.
:::: 3. Have you ever read The Catcher In The Rye, or Man's Search for Meaning? Both are by Jewish authors, although there is much to be gained from them by a Christian reader, and many Christians have found a lot of meaning in them. This seems to go against your statement that Christians would not read them. Explain.
::::--[[User:Conservativecarl|Conservativecarl]] 15:06, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, you said above that, "Many Christian religions require adopting a Christian name at baptism." That may be, but the denomination into which Obama was baptized (United Church of Christ) would ''not'' require him to make such a change.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 11:24, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Andy - you also said above that in "Islam... the father raises the sons in the religion". You are aware he never knew his father, and that he only met him once, when he was ten years old? Also, in passing, it would be good if his family background was earlier in the article, as is traditional for bio articles. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 20:25, 29 November 2008 (EST)

Why is Obama, if he is Muslim, such a bad thing? I know that there are many radical muslims in the world, but I also know many who are not. Please explain to me why Islamic President is a bad thing.
:I think it isnt because Muslim is bad, I think its because Obama is trying to cover it up and pretending to be something he is not. [[User:JohnSelway|JohnSelway]] 17:58, 1 December 2008 (EST)
Well, I think that (again) if Obama is Muslim, he knows he will lose a lot of votes because people dislike muslims for very prejudiced reasons, and even if they say that they are fine, the act of actually voting for one is too hard for them. I think that a muslim president isn't a bad thing, I think a democrat is a lot worse, and that is what should be focused on.

== Fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity ==

The article states:
*''Obama's background, education, and outlook are [[Muslim]], and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.<ref>http://www.religionnewsblog.com/17736/barack-obama-2</ref><ref>http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm. During the third and fourth grades, Obama learned about Islam for two hours each week in religion class, according to the LATimes. [http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.obama16mar16,0,1634059,print.story?coll=bal_news_nation_promo Campaign downplays his connection during boyhood in Indonesia, Baltimore Sun, March 16, 2007]</ref>''

While the first link confirms Obama's background, the second link fails to back-up the claim that fewer than 1% of Muslims convert: As I have shown [[User_talk:Aschlafly#Muslim_conversion_rate|earlier]], it gives a conversion rate of 4% for Muslims in non-Magreb Africa and claims that this rate is even higher for well-educated Africans.

Is there any source for the 1% number? And wouldn't be a conversion rate for Muslims exposed to Christianity be more relevant than a world-wide rate?

--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 10:21, 26 November 2008 (EST)

: I welcome more data about this. But the rate is effectively 0% in most Islamic countries. The 1% figure is a good approximation worldwide based on the data available.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:59, 26 November 2008 (EST)

::I've heard it is illegal (even a capital offense) in Islamic countries to stop being a Muslim. Perhaps that motivates people not to change their religion. Aside from Turkey and maybe Indonesia, I don't know of any Islamic countries with [[religious freedom]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:11, 26 November 2008 (EST)
:::Well Turkey isn't considered a theocracy, though 99% of its inhabitants are moslem. [http://www.enjoyturkey.com/info/facts/Religion.htm]. That's a really interesting tidbit, though, Ed because I'm sure in an Islamic theocracy, conversion to another religion is considered treason and punishable by death. I'm going to try and see if I can't find any stats on Moslems converting from Islam '''specifically''' in Turkey, though with a 99% majority, I have a feeling the 1% figure may be correct. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 20:15, 26 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Preliminary results (in other words, the first link I clicked). The study I found shows that 35,000 Turks converted from Islam to Christianity[http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2006/01/are_muslims_lea.php]. Moslems make up 99% of the population of Turkey, which is roughly 75 million. That's a rough conversion rate of 0.05%. However, around the world, over 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity every ''year'' (correction) [http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm]. The world population of Muslims is roughly 1.3 billion people. That leaves a conversion rate of 0.4%. Someone check my math, but that would make the 1% conversion rate pretty accurate. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 20:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::: You're a bit wrong, mate - the ''rate'' per day is ~0.0046% - and is unreflective of the total number over time. For example, your stats could be used to incorrectly "prove" that within sixty years, all Muslims will have converted to Christianity. Those stats don't prove the point you're trying to make.[[User:Legion126|Legion126]] 21:17, 26 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::: No, your reasoning doesn't follow, because many of the "converts" later return to their childhood religion, as is true in many religions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 26 November 2008 (EST)

(unindent)I wasn't attempting to make a point. Someone got on the topic of numbers so I went and found some, though I'm admitedly not very good with them. I made a correction to my wording; 6 million muslims convert to Christianity every ''year'', not every ''day''. And you're not moving your decimal. 6 million divided by 1.3 billion '''is''' .0046, which translates to ~ 0.5%. I don't think it's fair to say that throughout written history less than 1% of '''all''' Muslims have converted; I think that's inaccurate, and reading through my previous post I came to a conclusion too quickly from the given data. That is still a '''very''' small amount of converts, though I believe the wording in the article should be rearranged to meet the given data. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 00:06, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Jeffrey's math is obviously correct. 6 million/year divided by 1.3 billion < 1 percent. So what part of his argument are you disputing? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:10, 27 November 2008 (EST)

::Well, Ed, given that Jeffrey originally said per day, it was completely valid to dispute it. And regardless of this, a rate per year is not indicative of 1% of all Muslims solidly over time. It proves that less than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity ''per year'', but does not prove the original statement (Though I do apologise for my own incorrect maths).
::Furthermore, given the fact that if Obama converted, it would have been some years ago, probably when he was a fair bit younger. Given recent the recent trend towards a mass increase in population, contemporary figures are only indicative of so much.
::Finally, statistics for Turkey and the world are disanalogous to Obama's situation - the general Muslim population because many live in nations where apostasy is illegal, even a captial offence, and Turkey because it still has a Muslim majority - which America does not. Statistics about the conversion rate among Muslims (specifically, Muslims of East African or, given Obama's education, Indo-Chinese origin) ''in the US itself'' could prove far more enlightening.[[User:Legion126|Legion126]] 19:50, 27 November 2008 (EST)

==Inaccuracy==
Muslim debate aside, I noticed the page starts by listing Obama as a Senator. He resigned that position recently, as he is obliged to do before assuming office in January. Should the article not say he is "president-elect"? Whatever about the disagreements on other aspects of Obama's life, surely this is something everyone can agree on? [[User:AGrath|AGrath]] 14:09, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:Thank you![[User:AGrath|AGrath]] 17:00, 28 November 2008 (EST)

== The whole Muslim thing ==

http://malalatete.typepad.com/mal_a_la_tete/images/2008/03/14/obama_swearing_in.jpg

He was sworn in on the Holy Bible. Why would he switch up to the Qur'an as president? Can't we put this behind us? This is a moot point.

: Judging by your edit pattern, I think you're the one obsessed with this.

: Often presidents act differently post-election, and "change" quite a bit from from they were president wannabees. Notice how Obama hasn't gone to church since the election? See our news item about that from a few days ago. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:09, 28 November 2008 (EST)

::Usually, presidents act differently in order to increase their popularity. I don't see how swearing in on the Qur'an would do that. Conclusively presenting himself to be a muslim would only hurt him in his position. He might inspire some people by being so forward, but I suspect it would be outweighed by xenophobia... --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 22:16, 28 November 2008 (EST)

:::So what? He hasn't gone to church. Where would he go to church? He's not a member of Trinity anymore. I don't see him going to a Mosque, either. Who's to say he's not secretly Jewish? His Synagogue and Mosque attendance records over these past few years are the same, after all.

::::Yeah. I really don't think he's a muslim. I think it's unlikely to the point of impossibility. But I was just saying that even if he was a muslim, there would be no point in swearing in on the Qur'an, especially since he is on a pedestal before the world. Wait. There's a contradiction there. People on this site make two arguments: some muslims are allowed to conceal their faith (which they say Obama might be doing), and Obama might swear in on the Qur'an. Those are completely contradictory, because if Obama swears in on the Qur'an (which he won't), the secret's out. Just thinking out loud, I guess. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 23:27, 28 November 2008 (EST)

:::::It's amusing that you say there are no facts to support the idea that Barack Hussein Obama is or ever has been a muslim. Clearly you haven't read the page-long list of facts here. It is unlikely that the liberal Obama fanatics will ever concede the possibility, but that does not absolve us of our duty to try and inform. If only one person has their eyes opened, than I think we've done well. But unfortunately for many, it's true what they say: There is no deception quite like self-deception.[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 15:55, 29 November 2008 (EST)

*Exactly, Patriot. Encyclopedia's have a duty to ask questions, and help people make ''informed'' judgments, as A. Schlafly stated (somewhere) above. The fact that __% of people might not agree on where those questions lead, is immaterial. Knowledge, and the questions that cause people to dig deeper, look at things differently, should never be subjected to polls or straw votes! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:03, 29 November 2008 (EST)
**Saying Obama is a Muslim made sense when he was like running for President and all and people wanted to keep him from getting the job.... but now that he's ''got'' the job, so saying Obama is a Muslim only hurts Christianity because it prevents Christians from using Obama as an example to convince Muslims worldwide to consider Christianity.... I mean, here's a guy with an Arab name but who claims to have ''chosen'' Christianity.... the Muslims of the world would jump at the chance to claim the President of the United States as one of their own -- why feed them ammunition to use against Christianity? [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 16:51, 29 November 2008 (EST)
:::But it would be a lie to ay Obama was a Christian if Obama were not, or the evidence were not sufficient to say conclusively that Obama was a Christian. And there is not sufficient evidence to show this beyond doubt, by a very long way. Here at Conservapedia, unlike at Liberal encyclopaedias and web sites, we believe in the truth, in finding it and sticking to it. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 19:20, 29 November 2008 (EST)

I don't know why you all got to make such a big deal about his religion. Let's talk about his race: did you know he's black? ;-) See also [[Essay:Towards a multi-racial society]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:19, 29 November 2008 (EST)

::::That's the root of the problem, Bugler. We don't know if Obama being a Muslim is the truth. You are absolutely right about one thing though. We do not know that he is a Christian beyond a doubt, either. However, I believe it is impossible to truly know what his (or anyone else's) true beliefs are. All of it is pure speculation.

::::But, every form of this speculation points to Obama being a Christian. So why is it that some are scraping for every last speck of null evidence (yes, it is null evidence) against this, especially when there are much better ways of discrediting him? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 20:30, 29 November 2008 (EST)

== Muslim AND Communist? ==

I find this a bit hard to swallow. Islam and Communism conflict so much that it's impossible to be both. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 17:54, 30 November 2008 (EST)

: You need to open your mind more so you don't find facts so difficult to accept. There is overlap between Marxism and Islam, and we'll be developing entries on it. Search on the internet and you'll find quite a bit.

: Islamic countries are typically not bastions of freedom of religion or freedom of commerce. Those two freedoms often go hand-in-hand. Check out what Saddam Hussein did to Iraqi merchants who used the dollar as currency. It isn't pleasant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:57, 30 November 2008 (EST)

:: I think that incident can be more easily attributed to dictatorship than communism. The main conflict with Islam and communism is that Islam is a religion, while communism prohibits religion. Communism wants every influence of religion gone, while most Islamic countries want religion to be the only influence. Somebody 21 does have a point. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 18:36, 30 November 2008 (EST)

::*A person who stops by merely to ridicule and denigrate others scholarly efforts, without at least trying to make positive contributions to this project, cannot have a "point" other than to disrupt and waste the time of others.

* 15:54, 30 November 2008 (hist) (diff) '''Talk''':Barack Obama‎ (→Muslim AND Communist?)
* 15:53, 30 November 2008 (hist) (diff) '''Talk''':Barack Obama‎ (→Muslim AND Communist?: new section)
* 21:33, 17 November 2008 (hist) (diff) '''Talk''':Barack Obama‎ (→Reply)
* 09:08, 17 November 2008 (hist) (diff) '''Talk''':Barack Obama‎ (→Great comedy article)
* 09:08, 17 November 2008 (hist) (diff) '''Talk''':Barack Obama‎ (→Great comedy article: new section)
--[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:50, 30 November 2008 (EST)

::: So you are saying that if a person has not yet contributed to an article, their opinions should be dismissed as pointless? We should welcome new users, or else this project can never grow. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 18:34, 1 December 2008 (EST)

What [[Marx and Islam]] have in common, as political systems, is opposition to the Western ideals of [[Freedom of religion]] and [[free speech]]. Indeed, both have an anti-Christian bias. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:14, 1 December 2008 (EST)

: Thank you, Ed. But I think that there is a difference between what Islam dictates and what Islamic countries dictate. I am not familiar with the religion, but I don't believe Islam itself would be against free speech. You're definitely right about the anti-Christian bias, though. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 20:24, 1 December 2008 (EST)

::He's half right, communism doesn't have an anti-Christian bias, it has an anti-religion bias. So it's completely opposed to Islam, just as much as it is opposed to Christianity. It doesn't really work... --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 18:14, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::: Yes, I think that a bias against religion includes a bias against Christianity (as well as a bias against Islam), but that is beside the point, which is that there are some serious problems with calling Obama a communist and a Muslim at the same time (as pointed out by Bolly and myself), and these problems have still not been addressed. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 18:54, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::: Bolly and JArneal seem to be claiming that none of the over 1 billion Muslims in the world are communists, not one. Did I state that right? Now watch them backpedal off their position above ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:01, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::::I'm not looking for a confrontation over the article, but I think that if you found a Muslim who was also a communist then he would be considered a 'liberal' muslim, just like if you found a communist christian, I doubt you would find many paralells between your beliefs and their's. Having said that I would be surprised if you found a communist muslim. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 20:10, 2 December 2008 (EST)

== Insights section ==

While I appreciate some of the points made in this section, particularly the one about President-elect Obama and his campaign's proud participation in homosexual pride events, I fail to see why certain gaffes are mentioned. The '57 states' and forgetting to pluralize "bomb" in his line about Pearl Harbor -- what value does mentioning these minor gaffes bring to an encyclopedia article?

And if these oral lapses are in fact deemed worthy of mentioning, why aren't any of Senator McCain's gaffes included in his article? (The bombing song was in poor taste and various other instances of misspeaking were on par with Obama's state miscount) It was also surprising to note that Governor Palin's far more telling gaffes, especially in the Katie Couric interview, were not to be found on her page. It seems like of all the candidates, her rhetoric was most questionable of all.

Anyway, I do understand that ''is'' Conservapedia and as such, Republican ideals are presented more favorably. However, I really think that some consistency when describing the '08 candidates would serve this site well.

(I won't mention the OBAMA = MUSLIM slant because it's been beat to death)

Cheers. {{unsigned|SJames}}

:Obama's "gaffes" reveal an ignorance about America, from someone who is presented as a bright person. Neither McCain nor Palin had any revealing gaffes of the magnitude of Obama's. Stay tuned, I'm sure Obama will have more illustrations of his astounding lack of knowledge of basic facts about the United States.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:18, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:My point is that they really don't reveal an ignorance about America. When we're dealing with historic events as basic as the attack on Pearl Harbor and the number of states in the US, I think it's more rational to conclude that these were slips of the tongue rather than a case of simply not knowing. As you say, he does appear to be an intelligent man and whether you believe that to be an act or not, it does take smarts to keep up that image in the intense public eye. A person capable of such, would know what happened in his birthplace in 1941.

Anyway, I just thought an exposed ignorance on national and world issues would be worth mentioning in the Sarah Palin article if the above have a place in the Obama article. But it's your website so that's fine. (I will attempt to sign this comment below...)--[[User:SJames|SJames]] 14:42, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia talk:Obama straw poll

2008-12-03T01:00:13Z

Bolly: /* It is time to end this foolish endeavor. Now. */

We should probably divide it up into several issues. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:31, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:Two that come to mind are religion and birthplace. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:38, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::The number of his gaffes. --[[User:MugiK|MugiK]] 11:39, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::First Black President maybe. It seems that Andy is trying to deny him that title as well. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:Shouldn't the Obama article simply follow the example set by the other articles about politicians both in style and tone? When you compare for example [[John McCain]], [[Bill Clinton]], and [[Barack Obama]], the choice should be clear.
:"Some conservatives" (Who?) say that he's a Muslim, and "some conservatives" (Who?) insist he wasn't born in Hawaii. I'm pretty sure that "some liberals" also insisted on quite a few things when [[George W. Bush]] became President, but you don't see every accusation in the article (judging from a quick look at least). Sarah Palin did drugs, Obama did drugs, but only the Obama article says it (to be fair, at least in Palin's case, it had been legal at the time, but that doesn't make it any better in my eyes). Maybe one standard for all articles would help us more than deciding just how far to move the Obama article away from the standard set by the other articles? --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 11:53, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::Yes...Shouldn't all articles (political or not) stick to the evidence for and against, and leave the speculation and editorializing for talk pages and essays?--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 12:37, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::: Wikipedia has an ignored-when-it-suits policy of not taking sides but presenting the evidence for and against (for example, it takes sides in the creation/evolution debate). Conservapedia, in contrast, is prepared to take a stand on issues; it is concerned with ''truth'' not, (per Wikipedia), ''verifiability''.
::: The issue here as far as I'm concerned is not that Conservapedia is taking a particular view, but that the particular view is without substantiation and even contrary to some of the evidence, and therefore almost certainly untrue.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:24, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Philip, what you've repeatedly deleted (censored) from the [[Obama]] entry is factual information that is undeniably true, such as how he pronounces "Pakistan". Conservapedia never stated that Obama is a Muslim, but presents compelling evidence about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::::: And yet various people deny it, so it is simply wrong to say that it's "undeniably" true. And you have consistently failed to actually provide any substantiation of your claims (including the claim of 'censorship'), which strongly suggests that they are false, especially given that counter-arguments have been given. And given that I've already pointed out that the article ''did'' say that "Obama is a Muslim", your claim that it didn't is tantamount to a lie. (NB: I haven't read your latest posts there, so it's possible that you've recently given evidence I haven't yet seen.)

== Admin only? ==

Can I ask why this is the case? It doesn't seem particularly democratic if enfranchisement is restricted. Be wary if you start [[American Revolution|taxing me]]! [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:40, 27 November 2008 (EST)
*Because inclusive discussion has so far failed to net any agreement, see [[talk:Barack Obama]] --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:42, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:Big difference between inclusive "discussion" (yes that page is a mess) and inclusive ''voting''. But I see your point. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::Straw poll, not inclusive discussion. You all get to see who thinks what. Happy Thanksgiving. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:45, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::How about going with what Andy decides? He is the Leader of Conservapedia and has already ruled on the situation after reading and considering views from both sides. Although the poll was begun with good intentions, there is a danger that it will be misused by Liberals who have already emphatically lost the argument on the Obama talk page to try and wrest the situation back and gain some spurious authority for their plaints. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:07, 27 November 2008 (EST)[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:47, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::::Who are these Liberal administrators? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 13:29, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Oh Henry, look and read. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:54, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::::: Bugler, are you calling Andy and yourself liberals? Because it's him and you (and co.) who have "emphatically lost the argument". I also find it most ironic that you posted "How about going with what Andy decides? He is the Leader of Conservapedia and has already ruled on the situation..." with the edit comment "''Anti-democratic cliquism''"! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::It's funny you should say that. I was under the impression that it is those who deny the truth - both about Obama and the nature of discourse on Conservapedia - and who have to rely on censorship, who have lost the argument. Read what Andy says below. We present the facts, pro and con, and let readers make up their own minds. That is the conservative way, and the Conservapedia way, but it clearly is not the way of the Rayment faction. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:41, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::: Given that your side has not actually ''given'' much of an argument, you cannot possibly claim to have won it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:28, 1 December 2008 (EST)

This is an experiment to see what effect a straw poll will have on, er, 'the situation'. Can't hurt, anyway. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:47, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Rod Weathers, this arose out of a discussion on my talk page. The problem with making it unrestricted is that doing so attracts all sorts of people, including trolls, socks, parodists, and sycophants. Limiting it to those with x number of edits discriminates against those that edit carefully and in depth in favour of those who can't understand the Preview button or who are making lots of trivial changes. Limiting it to administrators is a very blunt-instrument way of limiting it to those who are theoretically more entitled to have a say. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:36, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:I see. That seems rather reasonable. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:17, 28 November 2008 (EST)
::''Limiting it to Philip and his four imaginary Liberal friends is a very blunt-instrument way of limiting it to those who are theoretically more entitled to have a say.'' [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:52, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::: Huh? What "four imaginary Liberal friends"? What are you on? This poll page is limited to administrators. The administrators are not imaginary, number more than four, and are not liberal! You didn't get ''anything'' right! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:28, 1 December 2008 (EST)
:::Are his four imaginary liberal friends supposed to include Conservative, Ed Poor, and Tim? '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 17:17, 28 November 2008 (EST)
Only one of those, Klumpers. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:39, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:Funny, I thought all of those people existed. Learn something new every day. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:31, 28 November 2008 (EST)
::That was a big l "Liberal" in Bugler's post. In Australia a Liberal is a member of a conservative political party. Anyway this is the first hint I've seen that the secret liberal clique is actually imaginary. Excuse me while I go brace myself for another block for disagreeing with Bugler.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:46, 28 November 2008 (EST)

==Great American Tradition==
In the great American democratic tradition, people who were not elected will discuss policy that will be binding on all, while not counting the views of others. {{unsigned|KimSell}}

:Am I really the only non-sysop who thinks this is a good idea? Too often the arguments on talk pages are dragged out to the point of oblivion of reason. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 16:15, 28 November 2008 (EST)

== My comment ==

I've added a comment about his religion. I probably won't be adding anything else, because I haven't looked into the other issues as much.

Contrary to the offensive labelling of me as an "Obama defender", I'm not here to defend Obama, but simply to correct a blatant untruth in calling him a Muslim.

This straw poll is going to be pointless if we don't get a large percentage of the administrators putting comments here, but at the same time, perhaps many don't have too much of an opinion, at least on every issue.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 27 November 2008 (EST)

: The "blatant untruth" is any claim that Conservapedia asserts definitively that Obama is a Muslim. Conservapedia presents the facts and the reader can decide, as with all entries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::: Until Ed Poor changed it recently, that is exactly what it said, which I have already pointed out to you. This looks like "[[liberal denial]]" [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:33, 1 December 2008 (EST)
::''Conservapedia presents the facts and the reader can decide, as with all entries.'' Smething that I have been constantly stating to Philip, only to be met with blank incomprehension and denial. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:38, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::: I wonder why Ed Poor doesn't block ''you'' for "personal remarks". And your comment is simply a false claim. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:33, 1 December 2008 (EST)
:::::And calling me a liar ''isn't'' a personal remark? You really take the biscuit sometimes. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:49, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::::: I never said that calling you a liar wasn't a personal remark. (And I didn't call you a liar.) But again, you don't address the issue, but introduce a red herring. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:05, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::The issue is whether or not the statements about Obama are factual and relevant. Simply saying "Conservapedia presents the facts" begs the question - Philip is disputing that on the Obama page Conservapedia is presenting facts. If some evidence and justification is given for why the statements on the Obama page are factual and relevant, then that should be the end of the argument. So far Philip feels that such evidence and justification has not been given. To repeat, this has nothing to do with whether or not Conservapedia ''should'' present facts and let the reader decide, and everything to do with whether or not Conservapedia ''is'' presenting the facts and letting the reader decide. [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 17:48, 28 November 2008 (EST)
::::"The facts" would include factual evidence to the contrary, as I suggested [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&oldid=571768#Suggestion_for_compromise a week ago], to no avail. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:44, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Conservapedia presents evidence. We are not arrogant dogmatists; we present evidence and facts and let the reader make up his mind. Of course, there are some minds that are too closed to be made up. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:49, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::::: Still repeating the mantra without actually addressing the issue (justifying that the claims ''are'' valid evidence). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:08, 2 December 2008 (EST)

== Nuetral light? ==

Can we not just portray him as we would a white christian republican president? It almost seems like we are just spreading rumors about our future commander and chief. --[[User:Rcollins|Rcollins03]] 19:34, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:Yes, almost. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:02, 28 November 2008 (EST)

== The Poll ==

Ed if you want this to have meaning, then you should solicit all of the active sysops. It would also be good to see that you wish to participate in your own poll. I considered putting in my own thoughts and came back to do so, but apparently I was looking at a different version of the questions. When I looked at it, the reference was to Conservapedia; it has now changed to simply be some conservatives. Shouldn't a straw poll where only admins can respond deal with conservapedia's position and our thoughts on that position? Simply making it an opinion poll doesn't mean much. If it doesn't deal specifically with Conservapedia, then why even limit it to just admins? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:39, 28 November 2008 (EST)

==Non-Sysop Opinions==

I'm adding my two cents. 
*'''Religion:''' I believe Obama is a Christian, but a liberal one who does not take the Bible literally, and who is most comfortable with worship in the Black church. I believe he has been raised in such a way that he is more familiar with the Muslim religion, and with other international things, than most Americans, but this does not make him a Muslim. I believe the concept of Takeyya/Taqiyya is meant for life-threatening situations, similar to the case of Jews in Hitler's Germany who passed as Catholics to survive. The idea that Obama was exposed to Islam as a young child, took it to heart, and then hid it for the next 30 years is not credible to me. I believe that ''any'' president of the US ''needs'' to have an understanding of Islam, as Islamic extremists are a serious threat to Western countries like ours, thus I am glad that our commander-in-chief-elect has chosen to educate himself about this religion.
*'''Birthplace:''' I believe it is most likely that he was born in Hawaii. However, his mother, father, and maternal grandparents, the people most likely to know for sure, are dead. If there was a problem, the Republicans would have found it. We need to let this one go.
*'''Political gaffes:''' I believe that Obama is a human being, just like George Bush and Sarah Palin and me. I personally could not get up there and speak perfectly 100% of the time. Instead of quote-mining and micro-analyzing these sentences, we need to look carefully at context and big-picture to get a sense of what he is all about. When we insist a quote taken out of context means something that the context makes clear was not the intent, we look foolish, and rightfully so.
* In general, as people who are trying to write an encyclopedia, we must insist on the highest standards of documentation/citations/references, and must always make it clear *who* is making these claims, and *what evidence or speculation* the claims are based on. We must be brutally honest about what information we have and where it came from - what we know and what we do not know - what is speculation and what is documented knowledge. Conservatives don't always agree on every detail. In situations where there is conflicting information and conservatives do not agree, we must present both sides (from a conservative point of view). Ultimately, our readers should be given the references to decide for themselves.
--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:57, 29 November 2008 (EST)

== It is time to end this foolish endeavor. Now. ==

*CP has an owner, it is his absolute right to have whatever viewpoint he wants. To ask any questions he wants to, to speculate as to Obama's motives and/or background. If people agree, with even a part, they should stick around and help build this place. If they don't, what other reason, ''other than being obstinate or having malicious intent'', could they have? Disagreement is fine, debate is good. But where does it end, and argument without end begin? The "truth" isn't dependent upon polls, straw or otherwise. Since Conservapedia has officially eschewed a "mobocracy" what in the world is going on here? Can you gentlemen please take this where it belongs, to email? And yes, Philip, I understand ''your idea'' of the wiki format is different from what I think, what Andy thinks, what your fellow Administrators think. But you and Tim have always known that from the very beginning. It isn't like it was sprung on you by surprise, is it?. ''It is time to end this foolish and misguided endeavor.'' --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:18, 1 December 2008 (EST)

::You say: "CP has an owner, it is his absolute right to have whatever viewpoint he wants."
::However, the point of this project is to show the truth, not one particular person's viewpoint. If Andy wants to have a website that is an outlet to display his personal opinions and make his own political commentary and political attacks, that is absolutely fine by me. However, he is portraying Conservapedia as an encyclopedia, supposedly just the truth instead of political bias. Andy has to make a decision. Either he has an encyclopedia, and starts treating it like one, or else he can have a website dedicated to his personal opinion. Either one is fine by me. However, if he wants to have the latter, then he should advertise it as such. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:48, 1 December 2008 (EST)

::(Edit Conflict with CPAdmin1) I am not sure that it is my place to answer you, TK, but I feel some things must be said. Andrew Schlafly is undoubtedly the owner of this website. He does have the absolute right to have whatever viewpoint he wants. He does have the right to ask any questions, to speculate as to Obama's motives and/or background. But he does not have the right to post these viewpoints as facts. He is not infallible. No one is. To leave the truth to any one person's judgement, even if it is Mr. Schlafly's judgement, is faulty.

::You are also absolutely correct in that truth is not dependent upon polls, or "mobocracy" either. But these people who came up with the idea of a straw poll have seen no other way to get their point across. Their point is that any encyclopedic website should treat logic as king. Truth is not necessarily obtainable, but fact is. That is what Conservapedia should strive for: fact. And before anyone says that treating logic as king is atheistic or liberal, do not be too literal, because I hold other, more important things, like God and my faith, above logic. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 00:03, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::What Tim and JArneal have said I concur with. And point out that those opposing us continually misrepresent the situation, by claiming "censorship", the "right to decide what viewpoint to put", etc. Andy has never explicitly claimed that his viewpoint is sacrosanct (although that does seem to be implicit, and that view is supported by various people claiming as much; obviously they understand the thinking behind his actions also), and in fact Andy specifically said to me that truth is decided by logic and evidence. He didn't say that it's decided by what he thinks. But rather than argue logic and evidence, Andy, Bugler, and TK, in particular, are trying to silence the logic and evidence by claiming "censorship" (but never justifying that claim), the right to a viewpoint, that that it's "undeniable" (patently false), that this is supposedly all about how things are done on Wikipedia, and other red herrings that ''don't actually provide logic and evidence''! In doing so, they effectively demonstrate that they are wrong, as providing logically fallacious arguments is the resort of those that don't have good arguments! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:02, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::Philip, Tim, JArneal, what I said was, in addition to the parts you addressed is:

<blockquote>
'''"Since Conservapedia has officially eschewed a "mobocracy" what in the world is going on here? Can you gentlemen please take this where it belongs, to email? And yes, Philip, I understand your idea of the wiki format is different from what I think, what Andy thinks, what your fellow Administrators think. But you and Tim have always known that from the very beginning. It isn't like it was sprung on you by surprise, is it?"'''
</blockquote>

:::Yes, I realize you disagree. And I also realize you wouldn't accept that what you claim Andy (and others) are doing, is exactly what you (and others) did to me, at one time. No proof presented to me, nothing. No right to confront accusers, etc. But it seems to me you have a double standard, depending upon the situation, and if you agree or disagree with it. Can you, Philip, disagree with your employer, or their decisions about schedules? Are you allowed to argue publicly about cut-backs? I don't think so. Taking the job of an Admin, you by necessity forfeit certain rights others have. I think your claim of being able to wear "two hats", be at one turn an Admin, and as it suits you, an editor of equal standing with the majority of CP users, is a fallacy. I am not one of those clamoring for your removal, odd as that might seem to some. I am, however, looking for a resolution, and an end to this public family squabble short of blocking and removal as an Administrator. Someone has to give. IMO, those "someones" should be those who Andy has given his trust to, and endowed them with special rights others don't have, out of common courtesy. Can you guys please take this to email? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:17, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::Again, your analogy fails. If this was a project for Andy's purposes, and Andy's opinion, then it might hold some water. However the object is supposedly advancing the cause of truth. Therefore, truth should come before Andy's opinion, which is all that the Obama thing has become. Also for your analogy of an employer there are 2 definite differences. For one, an employee is bound to do the work of the employer because he is under contract, and being payed to do it. CP is a volunteer project, so editors should have more freedom. Secondly, as I pointed out already, CP is about truth, not about Andy, A business is about making money for the owner/shareholders, therefore all work is done to further their purposes. so your analogy fails. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 07:48, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::: TK, you haven't shown how a discussion about article content "belongs" in e-mail, I reject that it does, and I've seen nobody but you expecting that.
:::: Regarding what I "did" to you, you are wrong. You didn't want to see the proof, and you had every opportunity to confront accusers (and certainly criticised me heavily). Yes, I can disagree with my employers about schedules, and often do, but as Tim said, the situation is not the same, if for no other reason than we are talking about truth here.
:::: I fail to see how wearing two hats is "forfeit[ing] certain rights".
:::: If someone should "give", then why shouldn't it be those who are inserting POV as fact, calling others names, and failing to support their claims?
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:30, 2 December 2008 (EST)

This project is led by Andy, and leadership is necessary. Where disputes occur, he is rightly the arbiter of what constitutes truth. It is our duty to display loyalty to and respect for his judgement. What you are doing, Tim, is not only arrogant (in claiming for yourself the right to adjudicate) and wrong (the 'arguments' put forward by you and your clique hold less water than a broken sieve), but disloyal and subversive. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:56, 2 December 2008 (EST)
: "''...he is rightly the arbiter of what constitutes truth...''": I don't know how many times I've both denied this and also pointed out that not even Andy claims this, but here you go, repeating this mantra yet again, but still not substantiating your claims. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:30, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::There has to be an ultimate arbiter in the case of the endless sterile arguments of the kind that you have been fomenting, and Andy is the Leader of this project. If not him, then who? Certainly not this mysterious clique of yours, and we are most definitely not a mobocracy. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:37, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::And as for TK's comments, he is quite correct. There is such a thing as 'cabinet responsibility'. Be an administrator, or enjoy playing disloyal games (and take the consequences), but not both. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:39, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::: You know, hidden away in that comment there is actually a decent question (which I have an answer for), but until and unless you retract the unjustified slurs associated with it, you don't deserve an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:07, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::::'Injured feelings' make such a useful shield when one is on the ropes! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:53, 2 December 2008 (EST)

I am getting weary of reading so many personal remarks:

*didn't want to see the proof
*don't deserve an answer
*enjoy playing disloyal games
*exactly what you and others did to me
*retract the unjustified slurs
*this mysterious clique of yours
*trying to silence the logic and evidence

Now I am not suggesting we stop making important policy suggestions; just that we can do so in a more polite way. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:14, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:This is getting nowhere, why not a deal? Why not something along the lines of: Andy, TK, Bugler and their posse can keep the article as they like it now until Obama is sworn into office. If Obama is sworn in on the Koran then keep the article, if he is sworn in on the Bible, then relegate the accusations/evidence of him being islamic to a lower part of the article and include some counter evidence provided by PJR, conservative, Tim and their posse. Or something along those lines, or some kind of deal. Because a compromise seems to me to be the only way forward that can potentially please both sides of this debate. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 19:02, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:: An interesting thought. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 19:04, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::As the saying goes, "very interesting, but a term that Ed Poor would rightly declare provocative". The scenario is incredible. If he is Muslim, and has been hiding it, he would hardly 'come out' at his inauguration. If he is not, he wouldn't use a Koran anyway. The likelihood - nay, certainty - that he won't use a Koran proves precisely zero. And we - that is, the 'posse' - are already compromising. It is the invisible clique that wishes to censor opposing opinion. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 19:39, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::Ok, that's fine, that's why I added "Or something along those lines". If you don't like those parameters then suggest others. The reason I'm putting this idea forward is that I have seen no attempt at compromise yet and I thought it might be worthwhile. Surely it would be better to come to an arrangement that, while not making the Obama article ideal for either side, would avoid the risk of long term rifts that could damage the future of conservapedia. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 19:46, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::*[http://www.amazon.com/Day-Reckoning-Ideology-Tearing-America/dp/0312376960 The Day of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology, and Greed Are Tearing America Apart] I don't see ''anything good coming from all this'', but then I repeat myself. It will be the doing of the ''False Prophet'' and its assembled Demons, as to the next step. Bolly, I for one, appreciate your effort at some sort of compromise, but I am afraid that Rubicon was crossed long ago, with continued reverts and argument without end. But I live with hope! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:52, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::::I, too, appreciate Bolly's efforts. The Blue Beret, honestly worn, is not dishonourable headgear. But the solution here, the only acceptable compromise, is for the 'clique' to cease their attempts at absolutist censorship and to accept compromise themselves. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 19:57, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::::In that case, regardless of whether 'the clique' agree's with your assessment Bugler, could one of them come forward and offer a potential compromise? Once that's done, we can always debate the terms etc. but the only way forward is a sign that both sides are willing to talk. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 20:00, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia talk:Obama straw poll

2008-12-03T00:46:17Z

Bolly: /* It is time to end this foolish endeavor. Now. */

We should probably divide it up into several issues. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:31, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:Two that come to mind are religion and birthplace. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:38, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::The number of his gaffes. --[[User:MugiK|MugiK]] 11:39, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::First Black President maybe. It seems that Andy is trying to deny him that title as well. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:Shouldn't the Obama article simply follow the example set by the other articles about politicians both in style and tone? When you compare for example [[John McCain]], [[Bill Clinton]], and [[Barack Obama]], the choice should be clear.
:"Some conservatives" (Who?) say that he's a Muslim, and "some conservatives" (Who?) insist he wasn't born in Hawaii. I'm pretty sure that "some liberals" also insisted on quite a few things when [[George W. Bush]] became President, but you don't see every accusation in the article (judging from a quick look at least). Sarah Palin did drugs, Obama did drugs, but only the Obama article says it (to be fair, at least in Palin's case, it had been legal at the time, but that doesn't make it any better in my eyes). Maybe one standard for all articles would help us more than deciding just how far to move the Obama article away from the standard set by the other articles? --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 11:53, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::Yes...Shouldn't all articles (political or not) stick to the evidence for and against, and leave the speculation and editorializing for talk pages and essays?--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 12:37, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::: Wikipedia has an ignored-when-it-suits policy of not taking sides but presenting the evidence for and against (for example, it takes sides in the creation/evolution debate). Conservapedia, in contrast, is prepared to take a stand on issues; it is concerned with ''truth'' not, (per Wikipedia), ''verifiability''.
::: The issue here as far as I'm concerned is not that Conservapedia is taking a particular view, but that the particular view is without substantiation and even contrary to some of the evidence, and therefore almost certainly untrue.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:24, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Philip, what you've repeatedly deleted (censored) from the [[Obama]] entry is factual information that is undeniably true, such as how he pronounces "Pakistan". Conservapedia never stated that Obama is a Muslim, but presents compelling evidence about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::::: And yet various people deny it, so it is simply wrong to say that it's "undeniably" true. And you have consistently failed to actually provide any substantiation of your claims (including the claim of 'censorship'), which strongly suggests that they are false, especially given that counter-arguments have been given. And given that I've already pointed out that the article ''did'' say that "Obama is a Muslim", your claim that it didn't is tantamount to a lie. (NB: I haven't read your latest posts there, so it's possible that you've recently given evidence I haven't yet seen.)

== Admin only? ==

Can I ask why this is the case? It doesn't seem particularly democratic if enfranchisement is restricted. Be wary if you start [[American Revolution|taxing me]]! [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:40, 27 November 2008 (EST)
*Because inclusive discussion has so far failed to net any agreement, see [[talk:Barack Obama]] --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:42, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:Big difference between inclusive "discussion" (yes that page is a mess) and inclusive ''voting''. But I see your point. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::Straw poll, not inclusive discussion. You all get to see who thinks what. Happy Thanksgiving. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:45, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::How about going with what Andy decides? He is the Leader of Conservapedia and has already ruled on the situation after reading and considering views from both sides. Although the poll was begun with good intentions, there is a danger that it will be misused by Liberals who have already emphatically lost the argument on the Obama talk page to try and wrest the situation back and gain some spurious authority for their plaints. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:07, 27 November 2008 (EST)[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:47, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::::Who are these Liberal administrators? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 13:29, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Oh Henry, look and read. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:54, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::::: Bugler, are you calling Andy and yourself liberals? Because it's him and you (and co.) who have "emphatically lost the argument". I also find it most ironic that you posted "How about going with what Andy decides? He is the Leader of Conservapedia and has already ruled on the situation..." with the edit comment "''Anti-democratic cliquism''"! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::It's funny you should say that. I was under the impression that it is those who deny the truth - both about Obama and the nature of discourse on Conservapedia - and who have to rely on censorship, who have lost the argument. Read what Andy says below. We present the facts, pro and con, and let readers make up their own minds. That is the conservative way, and the Conservapedia way, but it clearly is not the way of the Rayment faction. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:41, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::: Given that your side has not actually ''given'' much of an argument, you cannot possibly claim to have won it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:28, 1 December 2008 (EST)

This is an experiment to see what effect a straw poll will have on, er, 'the situation'. Can't hurt, anyway. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:47, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Rod Weathers, this arose out of a discussion on my talk page. The problem with making it unrestricted is that doing so attracts all sorts of people, including trolls, socks, parodists, and sycophants. Limiting it to those with x number of edits discriminates against those that edit carefully and in depth in favour of those who can't understand the Preview button or who are making lots of trivial changes. Limiting it to administrators is a very blunt-instrument way of limiting it to those who are theoretically more entitled to have a say. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:36, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:I see. That seems rather reasonable. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:17, 28 November 2008 (EST)
::''Limiting it to Philip and his four imaginary Liberal friends is a very blunt-instrument way of limiting it to those who are theoretically more entitled to have a say.'' [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:52, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::: Huh? What "four imaginary Liberal friends"? What are you on? This poll page is limited to administrators. The administrators are not imaginary, number more than four, and are not liberal! You didn't get ''anything'' right! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:28, 1 December 2008 (EST)
:::Are his four imaginary liberal friends supposed to include Conservative, Ed Poor, and Tim? '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 17:17, 28 November 2008 (EST)
Only one of those, Klumpers. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:39, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:Funny, I thought all of those people existed. Learn something new every day. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:31, 28 November 2008 (EST)
::That was a big l "Liberal" in Bugler's post. In Australia a Liberal is a member of a conservative political party. Anyway this is the first hint I've seen that the secret liberal clique is actually imaginary. Excuse me while I go brace myself for another block for disagreeing with Bugler.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:46, 28 November 2008 (EST)

==Great American Tradition==
In the great American democratic tradition, people who were not elected will discuss policy that will be binding on all, while not counting the views of others. {{unsigned|KimSell}}

:Am I really the only non-sysop who thinks this is a good idea? Too often the arguments on talk pages are dragged out to the point of oblivion of reason. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 16:15, 28 November 2008 (EST)

== My comment ==

I've added a comment about his religion. I probably won't be adding anything else, because I haven't looked into the other issues as much.

Contrary to the offensive labelling of me as an "Obama defender", I'm not here to defend Obama, but simply to correct a blatant untruth in calling him a Muslim.

This straw poll is going to be pointless if we don't get a large percentage of the administrators putting comments here, but at the same time, perhaps many don't have too much of an opinion, at least on every issue.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 27 November 2008 (EST)

: The "blatant untruth" is any claim that Conservapedia asserts definitively that Obama is a Muslim. Conservapedia presents the facts and the reader can decide, as with all entries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::: Until Ed Poor changed it recently, that is exactly what it said, which I have already pointed out to you. This looks like "[[liberal denial]]" [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:33, 1 December 2008 (EST)
::''Conservapedia presents the facts and the reader can decide, as with all entries.'' Smething that I have been constantly stating to Philip, only to be met with blank incomprehension and denial. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:38, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::: I wonder why Ed Poor doesn't block ''you'' for "personal remarks". And your comment is simply a false claim. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:33, 1 December 2008 (EST)
:::::And calling me a liar ''isn't'' a personal remark? You really take the biscuit sometimes. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:49, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::::: I never said that calling you a liar wasn't a personal remark. (And I didn't call you a liar.) But again, you don't address the issue, but introduce a red herring. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:05, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::The issue is whether or not the statements about Obama are factual and relevant. Simply saying "Conservapedia presents the facts" begs the question - Philip is disputing that on the Obama page Conservapedia is presenting facts. If some evidence and justification is given for why the statements on the Obama page are factual and relevant, then that should be the end of the argument. So far Philip feels that such evidence and justification has not been given. To repeat, this has nothing to do with whether or not Conservapedia ''should'' present facts and let the reader decide, and everything to do with whether or not Conservapedia ''is'' presenting the facts and letting the reader decide. [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 17:48, 28 November 2008 (EST)
::::"The facts" would include factual evidence to the contrary, as I suggested [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&oldid=571768#Suggestion_for_compromise a week ago], to no avail. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:44, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Conservapedia presents evidence. We are not arrogant dogmatists; we present evidence and facts and let the reader make up his mind. Of course, there are some minds that are too closed to be made up. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:49, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::::: Still repeating the mantra without actually addressing the issue (justifying that the claims ''are'' valid evidence). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:08, 2 December 2008 (EST)

== Nuetral light? ==

Can we not just portray him as we would a white christian republican president? It almost seems like we are just spreading rumors about our future commander and chief. --[[User:Rcollins|Rcollins03]] 19:34, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:Yes, almost. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:02, 28 November 2008 (EST)

== The Poll ==

Ed if you want this to have meaning, then you should solicit all of the active sysops. It would also be good to see that you wish to participate in your own poll. I considered putting in my own thoughts and came back to do so, but apparently I was looking at a different version of the questions. When I looked at it, the reference was to Conservapedia; it has now changed to simply be some conservatives. Shouldn't a straw poll where only admins can respond deal with conservapedia's position and our thoughts on that position? Simply making it an opinion poll doesn't mean much. If it doesn't deal specifically with Conservapedia, then why even limit it to just admins? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:39, 28 November 2008 (EST)

==Non-Sysop Opinions==

I'm adding my two cents. 
*'''Religion:''' I believe Obama is a Christian, but a liberal one who does not take the Bible literally, and who is most comfortable with worship in the Black church. I believe he has been raised in such a way that he is more familiar with the Muslim religion, and with other international things, than most Americans, but this does not make him a Muslim. I believe the concept of Takeyya/Taqiyya is meant for life-threatening situations, similar to the case of Jews in Hitler's Germany who passed as Catholics to survive. The idea that Obama was exposed to Islam as a young child, took it to heart, and then hid it for the next 30 years is not credible to me. I believe that ''any'' president of the US ''needs'' to have an understanding of Islam, as Islamic extremists are a serious threat to Western countries like ours, thus I am glad that our commander-in-chief-elect has chosen to educate himself about this religion.
*'''Birthplace:''' I believe it is most likely that he was born in Hawaii. However, his mother, father, and maternal grandparents, the people most likely to know for sure, are dead. If there was a problem, the Republicans would have found it. We need to let this one go.
*'''Political gaffes:''' I believe that Obama is a human being, just like George Bush and Sarah Palin and me. I personally could not get up there and speak perfectly 100% of the time. Instead of quote-mining and micro-analyzing these sentences, we need to look carefully at context and big-picture to get a sense of what he is all about. When we insist a quote taken out of context means something that the context makes clear was not the intent, we look foolish, and rightfully so.
* In general, as people who are trying to write an encyclopedia, we must insist on the highest standards of documentation/citations/references, and must always make it clear *who* is making these claims, and *what evidence or speculation* the claims are based on. We must be brutally honest about what information we have and where it came from - what we know and what we do not know - what is speculation and what is documented knowledge. Conservatives don't always agree on every detail. In situations where there is conflicting information and conservatives do not agree, we must present both sides (from a conservative point of view). Ultimately, our readers should be given the references to decide for themselves.
--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:57, 29 November 2008 (EST)

== It is time to end this foolish endeavor. Now. ==

*CP has an owner, it is his absolute right to have whatever viewpoint he wants. To ask any questions he wants to, to speculate as to Obama's motives and/or background. If people agree, with even a part, they should stick around and help build this place. If they don't, what other reason, ''other than being obstinate or having malicious intent'', could they have? Disagreement is fine, debate is good. But where does it end, and argument without end begin? The "truth" isn't dependent upon polls, straw or otherwise. Since Conservapedia has officially eschewed a "mobocracy" what in the world is going on here? Can you gentlemen please take this where it belongs, to email? And yes, Philip, I understand ''your idea'' of the wiki format is different from what I think, what Andy thinks, what your fellow Administrators think. But you and Tim have always known that from the very beginning. It isn't like it was sprung on you by surprise, is it?. ''It is time to end this foolish and misguided endeavor.'' --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:18, 1 December 2008 (EST)

::You say: "CP has an owner, it is his absolute right to have whatever viewpoint he wants."
::However, the point of this project is to show the truth, not one particular person's viewpoint. If Andy wants to have a website that is an outlet to display his personal opinions and make his own political commentary and political attacks, that is absolutely fine by me. However, he is portraying Conservapedia as an encyclopedia, supposedly just the truth instead of political bias. Andy has to make a decision. Either he has an encyclopedia, and starts treating it like one, or else he can have a website dedicated to his personal opinion. Either one is fine by me. However, if he wants to have the latter, then he should advertise it as such. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:48, 1 December 2008 (EST)

::(Edit Conflict with CPAdmin1) I am not sure that it is my place to answer you, TK, but I feel some things must be said. Andrew Schlafly is undoubtedly the owner of this website. He does have the absolute right to have whatever viewpoint he wants. He does have the right to ask any questions, to speculate as to Obama's motives and/or background. But he does not have the right to post these viewpoints as facts. He is not infallible. No one is. To leave the truth to any one person's judgement, even if it is Mr. Schlafly's judgement, is faulty.

::You are also absolutely correct in that truth is not dependent upon polls, or "mobocracy" either. But these people who came up with the idea of a straw poll have seen no other way to get their point across. Their point is that any encyclopedic website should treat logic as king. Truth is not necessarily obtainable, but fact is. That is what Conservapedia should strive for: fact. And before anyone says that treating logic as king is atheistic or liberal, do not be too literal, because I hold other, more important things, like God and my faith, above logic. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 00:03, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::What Tim and JArneal have said I concur with. And point out that those opposing us continually misrepresent the situation, by claiming "censorship", the "right to decide what viewpoint to put", etc. Andy has never explicitly claimed that his viewpoint is sacrosanct (although that does seem to be implicit, and that view is supported by various people claiming as much; obviously they understand the thinking behind his actions also), and in fact Andy specifically said to me that truth is decided by logic and evidence. He didn't say that it's decided by what he thinks. But rather than argue logic and evidence, Andy, Bugler, and TK, in particular, are trying to silence the logic and evidence by claiming "censorship" (but never justifying that claim), the right to a viewpoint, that that it's "undeniable" (patently false), that this is supposedly all about how things are done on Wikipedia, and other red herrings that ''don't actually provide logic and evidence''! In doing so, they effectively demonstrate that they are wrong, as providing logically fallacious arguments is the resort of those that don't have good arguments! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:02, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::Philip, Tim, JArneal, what I said was, in addition to the parts you addressed is:

<blockquote>
'''"Since Conservapedia has officially eschewed a "mobocracy" what in the world is going on here? Can you gentlemen please take this where it belongs, to email? And yes, Philip, I understand your idea of the wiki format is different from what I think, what Andy thinks, what your fellow Administrators think. But you and Tim have always known that from the very beginning. It isn't like it was sprung on you by surprise, is it?"'''
</blockquote>

:::Yes, I realize you disagree. And I also realize you wouldn't accept that what you claim Andy (and others) are doing, is exactly what you (and others) did to me, at one time. No proof presented to me, nothing. No right to confront accusers, etc. But it seems to me you have a double standard, depending upon the situation, and if you agree or disagree with it. Can you, Philip, disagree with your employer, or their decisions about schedules? Are you allowed to argue publicly about cut-backs? I don't think so. Taking the job of an Admin, you by necessity forfeit certain rights others have. I think your claim of being able to wear "two hats", be at one turn an Admin, and as it suits you, an editor of equal standing with the majority of CP users, is a fallacy. I am not one of those clamoring for your removal, odd as that might seem to some. I am, however, looking for a resolution, and an end to this public family squabble short of blocking and removal as an Administrator. Someone has to give. IMO, those "someones" should be those who Andy has given his trust to, and endowed them with special rights others don't have, out of common courtesy. Can you guys please take this to email? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:17, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::Again, your analogy fails. If this was a project for Andy's purposes, and Andy's opinion, then it might hold some water. However the object is supposedly advancing the cause of truth. Therefore, truth should come before Andy's opinion, which is all that the Obama thing has become. Also for your analogy of an employer there are 2 definite differences. For one, an employee is bound to do the work of the employer because he is under contract, and being payed to do it. CP is a volunteer project, so editors should have more freedom. Secondly, as I pointed out already, CP is about truth, not about Andy, A business is about making money for the owner/shareholders, therefore all work is done to further their purposes. so your analogy fails. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 07:48, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::: TK, you haven't shown how a discussion about article content "belongs" in e-mail, I reject that it does, and I've seen nobody but you expecting that.
:::: Regarding what I "did" to you, you are wrong. You didn't want to see the proof, and you had every opportunity to confront accusers (and certainly criticised me heavily). Yes, I can disagree with my employers about schedules, and often do, but as Tim said, the situation is not the same, if for no other reason than we are talking about truth here.
:::: I fail to see how wearing two hats is "forfeit[ing] certain rights".
:::: If someone should "give", then why shouldn't it be those who are inserting POV as fact, calling others names, and failing to support their claims?
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:30, 2 December 2008 (EST)

This project is led by Andy, and leadership is necessary. Where disputes occur, he is rightly the arbiter of what constitutes truth. It is our duty to display loyalty to and respect for his judgement. What you are doing, Tim, is not only arrogant (in claiming for yourself the right to adjudicate) and wrong (the 'arguments' put forward by you and your clique hold less water than a broken sieve), but disloyal and subversive. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:56, 2 December 2008 (EST)
: "''...he is rightly the arbiter of what constitutes truth...''": I don't know how many times I've both denied this and also pointed out that not even Andy claims this, but here you go, repeating this mantra yet again, but still not substantiating your claims. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:30, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::There has to be an ultimate arbiter in the case of the endless sterile arguments of the kind that you have been fomenting, and Andy is the Leader of this project. If not him, then who? Certainly not this mysterious clique of yours, and we are most definitely not a mobocracy. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:37, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::And as for TK's comments, he is quite correct. There is such a thing as 'cabinet responsibility'. Be an administrator, or enjoy playing disloyal games (and take the consequences), but not both. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:39, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::: You know, hidden away in that comment there is actually a decent question (which I have an answer for), but until and unless you retract the unjustified slurs associated with it, you don't deserve an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:07, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::::'Injured feelings' make such a useful shield when one is on the ropes! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:53, 2 December 2008 (EST)

I am getting weary of reading so many personal remarks:

*didn't want to see the proof
*don't deserve an answer
*enjoy playing disloyal games
*exactly what you and others did to me
*retract the unjustified slurs
*this mysterious clique of yours
*trying to silence the logic and evidence

Now I am not suggesting we stop making important policy suggestions; just that we can do so in a more polite way. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:14, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:This is getting nowhere, why not a deal? Why not something along the lines of: Andy, TK, Bugler and their posse can keep the article as they like it now until Obama is sworn into office. If Obama is sworn in on the Koran then keep the article, if he is sworn in on the Bible, then relegate the accusations/evidence of him being islamic to a lower part of the article and include some counter evidence provided by PJR, conservative, Tim and their posse. Or something along those lines, or some kind of deal. Because a compromise seems to me to be the only way forward that can potentially please both sides of this debate. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 19:02, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:: An interesting thought. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 19:04, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::;As the saying goes, "very interesting, but a term that Ed Poor would rightly declare provocative". The scenario is incredible. If he is Muslim, and has been hiding it, he would hardly 'come out' at his inauguration. If he is not, he wouldn't use a Koran anyway. The likelihood - nay, certainty - that he won't use a Koran proves precisely zero. And we - that is, the 'posse' - are already compromising. It is the invisible clique that wishes to censor opposing opinion. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 19:39, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::Ok, that's fine, that's why I added "Or something along those lines". If you don't like those parameters then suggest others. The reason I'm putting this idea forward is that I have seen no attempt at compromise yet and I thought it might be worthwhile. Surely it would be better to come to an arrangement that, while not making the Obama article ideal for either side, would avoid the risk of long term rifts that could damage the future of conservapedia. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 19:46, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia talk:Obama straw poll

2008-12-03T00:02:13Z

Bolly: /* It is time to end this foolish endeavor. Now. */

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-12-02T23:14:08Z

Bolly: /* Muslim AND Communist? */

{{Controversial}}
Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]]
[[/archive4|4]]
[[/archive5|5]]
[[/archive6|6]]

== Jesusland at it's worst ==
Every source on here is either extremly questionable or completly false. The writer gets aroundfact checks by using MAY and MIGHT to desplay the fact there is a chance Obama can save his mortal soul before he dies and goes to hell for being a muslim. He is a good christian, and while that is not my religion, I respect him greatly. {{unsigned|RCEN}}--20:30, 30 November 2008

== Lenin Poster ==

The statement about the Lenin-like poster is informative. We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 10 November 2008 (EST)
:Andy, did you happen to take a look at the reference? The article claims that "Obama also ''revealed'' his ''deep Marxist/Leninist roots''" and that "clear parallels between the poster design and Lenin's earlier poster was ''obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint'' to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and beliefs" (emphasis mine). The citation, which was a blog, by the way, and not in any way a trustworthy source of informative information, gives no evidence to back up these statements. It shows a poster of Lenin and a poster of Obama, both of which show profiles of the figures. Assuming these pictures weren't entirely made up, do you really think that this slight similarity is Obama's way of confessing closet Marxism? Not to mention the fact that Obama likely didn't make the posters anyway -- maybe we should accuse his (very expensive!!) marketing designer of being a Marxist/Leninist. 15:45, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama and beer ==

There are several stories (with photos) of Obama drinking beer, which as an intoxicant is banned by Muslim sharia. <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/05/06/20/125-6web-Obama_Beer-minor.standalone.prod_affiliate.91.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/36055.html&h=325&w=485&sz=47&hl=en&start=28&um=1&usg=__ShpWdieNIwhr4Rp3jHtLe7U9MB8=&tbnid=Se90xFLBo6rNQM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bdrinks%26start%3D18%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN </ref> <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156_t.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156.html&h=332&w=400&sz=16&hl=en&start=15&um=1&usg=__Yubc0nmus36Cf4Rrf7BL7-33-0g=&tbnid=xuWGKQ1Sl8_bQM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bbeer%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG</ref> No rational person can say that a practicing Muslim wouldn't violate the law in such a blatant, repeated manner. Another strike against the goofy Muslim charge. And remember, we don't censor here. Godspeed. [[User:Thecount|Thecount]] 12:52, 11 November 2008 (EST)

: I think many American Muslims drink beer. Nice try, though.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:57, 11 November 2008 (EST)

::And how many "dangerous" American Muslims are there that have loose enough morals to blatantly disrespect their own religious law, but are still a threat to Americans? (Of course this is all granted that he IS a secret Muslim, which I have given up trying to discuss) So I see nothing wrong if Obama turns out to be a secret Muslim. Nice try, though. [[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 23:54, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::He also smokes cigarettes, to complete his subterfuge. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:42, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== Hussein reference ==

It's factual and it's informative. If there is reasoned basis for deleting it, let's see it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 11 November 2008 (EST)

: Again, no reason has been given for deleting the Hussein reference, and there is none.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:: Andy, this is false. Reasons have been given on this talk page numerous times before. I just had a quick look, and found reasons being given in all archives except the first, as well as other places on this talk page. So you are wrong to say that no reason has been given, and wrong to say that there is no reason. And, as I have pointed out in the edit comments, five senior administrators have said that they disagree with it being there. Is your view on this somehow superior to those five put together? Do you want this to be a collaborative encyclopaedia or your blog? The former demands that you not impose your opinion regardless of who is disagreeing. Imposing your opinion regardless suggests that this is your blog. I know you don't consider it to be the latter, but that's the way it's looking. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:21, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::Not a blog but an encylopedia. If it were a blog, your opinion would carry as much weight as anyone else's. Let's put this one in [[Conservapedia:Debate Topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:24, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::: If it were a blog, the blog owner's opinion would carry the most weight. Almost all blogs are the opinions of an ''individual'', not a group of people. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::: Philip, the truth is not dependent on consensus, and 5 out of several dozen is not a consensus anyway. Give your best reason for deleting this information here. Since the beginning we have had a policy not to delete factual, informative material, particularly when it is liberal ideology that motivates the demand for censorship of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:29, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::: I said five of the ''senior'' administrators, which numbers about eleven. So that's five out of eleven, not dozens. Further, that's five against and one (yourself) for, as the remainder have not offered an opinion that I'm aware of. (One perhaps did support you, but because they wanted to support you, not because they considered it a valid argument.)
:::: My reason is relevance, not (primarily) accuracy. I'm not disputing that his middle name is Hussein. The claim that "most Christians would not retain" their (former/Muslim/Arabic?; it's not clear) name is not supported by the references, and even if it is true, means little in individual cases. That is, even if 99% changed their name, Obama not changing his name might mean no more than him being in the other 1%.
:::: And this is just one of the points in that section. The entire argument that Obama is a Muslim is built on very circumstantial evidence, selective evidence, and logical fallacy, and is rejected by other conservatives.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Philip, it obviously is relevant, which you say is your primary objection. We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it. Wikipedia does that. We provide the information and let the reader decide. If some readers want to conclude that someone with a Muslim name is actually a Christian, even though less than 1% of those raised as Muslims convert, so be it. We're not going to censor this factual information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:37, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: "''...it obviously is relevant...''": Because ''you'' say so? If it was so "obvious", then you wouldn't have five senior administrators disagreeing with you. No, it's not obviously relevant at all, and you've not demonstrated the relevance.
::::::: "''We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it. Wikipedia does that.''": Given that I and the other senior administrators are not "liberals", and the rejection is based on relevance, not "dislike", why are you introducing red herrings like this? Has your argument got no more substance than irrelevancies like that?
::::::: "'' We provide the information and let the reader decide.''": Only if it's relevant. Otherwise we are just introducing padding for readers to wade through and discourage them getting to the relevant stuff.
::::::: "''We're not going to censor this factual information.''": It is not censorship to remove irrelevant information, and I'd appreciate you not implying that I'm trying to censor anything.
::::::: In summary, you have failed to produce any reasons substance as to why it should be retained.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:26, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Exactly. The point of Conservapedia is ''not'' to censor information, but to leave it to our readers to decide. The MSM has tried to push this under the rug, so the least we can do is offer these arguments to the intelligent public. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 11:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: The problem is that these points are fallacious and lead to a conclusion based on specious arguments. That is neither "trustworthy" nor encyclopedic. Obama may not be your brand of xian, but he's certianly no brand of muslim. Your inability to accept that this is incorrect despite repeated arguments wherein you have shown nothing but fallacious arguments drawing poor conclusions hurts the credibility of all Conservapedia. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 11:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:Did anyone notice how ASchlafly posited the question at or near closing time Tuesday night and declared that he recieved no answer at or near opening time on Wednesday? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:49, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Keep the reference, but 2 examples of people having changed their names for religious reasons does not mean "most" people would change their names as stated in the article. A good reference on this topic would list a percentage (presumably greater than 50%) of people who have switched religions also changing their names.
::I am sure we could come up with a very long list, but this article would not be the place for it. A sample of a couple of names to illustrate the point being made is surely adequate for all except those who wish to undermine the accuracy of the piece. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Based on the idea that a "[[Muslim]]" is someone who is "[[submission|submissive]]" to the will of God, I would say that many Christians and Jews can therefore (loosely) be described as Muslim. Why do you make it sound like being Muslim is a bad thing?

Don't play on fears that all Muslims are terrorists; that is illogical, even if it is true that most recent anti-Western terrorists are part of the [[Islamic civilization]].

I object to anyone trying to impose a single view on matters of controversy. It would be wrong, Philip, to insist that "it is not true that Obama is a Muslim". I helped to champion Wikipedia's NPOV policy (until liberals decided to abandon it), and it would be a good idea to try it out here - instead of making bad-tempered personal attacks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:28, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:"''Why do you make it sound like being Muslim is a bad thing?'': It's nonsense to suggest that that is ''all'' "being a Muslim" entails.
:"''It would be wrong, Philip, to insist that "it is not true that Obama is a Muslim".''": Ignoring for the moment that I'm not actually making that claim, why would it be wrong to insist that, ''if it '''is''' wrong''?
: Now back to the point that I'm not actually making that claim. Has it escaped your attention that it is Andy, not me, that is making the absolutist claim? Until your last edit to the article, it said unequivocally that "Obama is a Muslim". It is ''me'' who has being trying to remove that claim, and ''Andy'' who has been insisting on it. So why are you directing your comments at ''me''? I am ''not'' claiming that "Obama is not a Muslim". Rather, I'm claiming that there's no good evidence that he is a Muslim, and a fair bit of evidence that he is not, so therefore the article should not claim that he is. You seem to agree, having (at least twice, I think) changed the article to remove that absolute statement, yet you are directing you criticisms at me, rather than the person insisting that a particular view ''is'' true. Why the double standard?
: "''...instead of making bad-tempered personal attacks.''": Along the same line, how about you direct your comments to the person/people calling me names ("liberal") and repeatedly side-stepping the argument with irrelevancies instead of (or even as well as, if you prefer) criticising me who is being repeatedly ignored, misrepresented, and called names?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:55, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::Philip, I never made an "absolutist" claim in the entry that "Obama is a Muslim." There is compelling factual evidence that Obama is a Muslim. But your deletions (censorship) were of factual evidence, not of an absolutist claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::: Andy, until Ed Poor edited it very recently, the article said "Obama is a Muslim", without any qualification. At least some of the "compelling factual evidence" listed in the article is false, not compelling, and/or logically invalid, particularly the ones that I have been removing. Andy why do you keep calling my deletions "censorship" when I have repeatedly denied that they are and explained why they are not, and you've not justified how they are? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Philip, you've repeated your same claim again and again, yet I see no evidence of it. I don't think the entry ever said that "Obama is a Muslim" without qualification. If it did, then you could easily quote it. You haven't.

:::: Your insistence on deleting facts from the entry, such as Obama's non-American pronunciation of "Pakistan", can properly be described as censorship.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:37, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Why don't we let each reader decide for himself how believable each source is? I'd hate to see a claim deleted simply because one party in a dispute doubts it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:58, 27 November 2008 (EST)

==Debate On Obama's Religion==

The debate is continuing at [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?‎]] It may be best to continue arguing the point there with the aim of reaching a conclusion which can then be utilised in the article, and leave this talk page for discussing other improvements. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 22:22, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed. http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:09, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Reference ==

<references/>

Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed. http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:08, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action? Untrue. ==

I am no fan of Obama. I do plan on respectfully opposing him via various channels on the internet. However, I believe I should state my opposition to this sentence of the article: "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action."

I have not read the rest of the article because I believed months ago and for good reasons that Obama was going to win this election. For example, the unpopular war and poor economy that was partly caused by a guns and lots of butter spending strategy (Bush should have learned from LBJ committing us to a war and the Great Society programs at the same time). I also thought that it would have been easy for the Republicans to win 12 years in a row given the low quality of the Democratic party. I think the Republicans snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory. I also think Americans have too much debt (last time I heard the average American had lots of credit card debt). One of the reasons for the great depression is that American's had too much debt at the time. I think Bush's call for Americans to do to do more shopping mall spending was a joke. If anything, Americans need to increase their skills to be more productive (The libraries are open but you might have to watch less TV. Last time I checked the average American watches 3 hours of television a day) and work harder to pay off their debt. American's are going to get out of the hole by increasing their productivity. It seems as if Bush did not want to learn from economic history and was only looking out for short term fixes. Well sooner or later, common sense says you have to pay the piper.

Getting back to Obama, obviously, Obama's marital success in terms of not getting divorced compared to Ronald Reagan is not the result of affirmative action. I am sure I could come up with others. I have not read the article for the most part because this sentence turned me off to the whole article. Judging from the ""He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action." sentence, I believe a lot of time is probably being spent to defend an article rather than improve it where obvious improvements could be made. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 06:04, 12 November 2008 (EST)

: Staying married is laudable but in this context it would not be considered a "clear personal achievement." If you would like to add a footnote exception to the remark along the lines of, "he has been married for x years," I'm not opposed but I would expect that to caveat to seem off-topic, or even sarcastic, for most readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::One CP writer told me he equates divorce with adultery, and he accused Reagan of adultery on this basis. Is this the consensus view of Conservatives? Or just his own idea? Or what?

::We ought to be clear on the standards by which we judge public figures. And consistent, too. I mean, which is worse, committing actual adultery (JFK, Clinton) or getting divorced and then remarrying? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::: Biblically, divorce is not adultery. However, divorce is wrong unless the spouse has been unfaithful. Remarriage after a legitimate divorce is okay. The question is whether remarriage after a wrong divorce is okay. Many believe, I think that although the act of divorce may be wrong, that is a forgivable sin like any other sin, and remarriage is not a further sin. And I'd tend to agree that committing "actual" adultery is worse than divorce and remarriage. However, the point that Conservative was raising was not between those two cases, but between divorce and remarriage compared to marriage without divorce.
::: I'm not convinced that Obama's marriage does not constitute a "clear personal achievement". Given the divorce rate these days, especially among prominent people, I would think that it ''was'' a clear personal achievement. In fact I'd consider staying marriage a "clear personal achievement" for anybody these days, given all the pressures on marriage, including the peer pressure that divorce is okay.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:35, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::I rarely disagree with you, Philip, as I find your comments to be some of the more considered on this board, but here I would have to disagree. Jesus makes it quite clear that divorce *is* adultery, not *like* adultery. More then any other text, especially OT text, I take Jesus's words to heart. Mark 10
::::2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
::::3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied.
::::4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
::::5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.
::::6 "But at the beginning of creation God `made them male and female.'
::::7 `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
::::8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one.
::::9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
::::10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.
::::11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.
::::12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 09:41, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::: I didn't say that divorce is "like" adultery. I said that it's ''not'' adultery. And the evidence you've offered to refute that doesn't refute that. The Bible says that someone who divorces ''and remarries'' commits adultery, not that someone who ''divorces'' commits adultery. You can't have adultery without sexual intercourse, which would be taken as given with someone remarrying, but not a given with someone just divorcing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama spiruality interview ==
http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html a interview from a pretty religous website about Obama. Should it be mentioned? Or since it kinda contradicts abit of the article should it be ommitted? --[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:What one might say in an interview really means very little, Vmember, particularly if one is seeking to achieve a position by hiding one's essential nature or beliefs. So really what he says when seeking to impress is irrelevant. It is what he does and has done, and what he says in unguarded moments, that matters. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:16, 12 November 2008 (EST)
*um then shouldn't it atleast be mentioned somewhere in the article about this interview maybe as a response to questions about his faith section? And why is him maybe being a muslim all the way at the top of the article? Shouldn't be be somewhere towards the middle? I've never seen in all my time part of a article pushed into the intro section. Also the article contradicts itself by stating that Obama is most likely a muslim while at the same time pointing at that he was a member of a radical Christian church. That doesn't make any sense. You can't have it both ways.--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:25, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::You can if you're a sleeper for radical Islam. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)
**Wait you seriously think that? Hmm fringe ideas and theories on any subject is detrimental to a discussion let alone a encyclopedia. It's dangerous thinking like that is why us conservatives lost the election and alienated so many moderates and weak liberals. Would there be any objection if I were to move the muslim part to the middle and add a section with his response to questions of his faith?--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:34, 12 November 2008 (EST)
***Does this look better? http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Help:Practice_Page&oldid=555527 Hmm I kinda think instead of giving facts supporting the theory Obama is a muslim editors are trying to push it off as straight fact even though theres been evidence against it. Isn't that a tactic only liberals use and a form of deceit?--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:45, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Poster ==

Don't delete the insight about the poster. I learned from the insight, and I'm sure others have also. We don't censor here. We let the readers decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:I already explained (above) why the "insight" is not actually an insight, is not supported by the source, and is likely false. Believe me, I would love it if Obama really did intentionally model his posters after those of Lenin in a subliminal message to Europeans, but there's simply no evidence of that.

:You reverted both of my edits. Do you have problems with both of them, or just the first one? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:42, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:: Sorry, I just have a problem with the deletion of the poster edit. Your other edit looked fine, but it came right after the controversial one and there was no easy way to separate the too.

:: The similarities between Obama's poster and the famous Lenin image is too obvious for words. We don't need a citation for observing, for example, that 2+2=4. If a reader wants to reject the obvious similarity between the images, then the reader is welcome to do so. Censorship is not a preferred approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::I'm not denying that they are similar, I'm denying that their similarity "[reveals] his deep Marxist/Leninist roots" and "was obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and belief". Can I change the text to reflect that, while the two posters are similar, there's no way to know that it's a confession? (I pointed out before that if anyone is imitating Lenin here, it's probably the over-priced poster designer). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:59, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::: I'm fine with rewording, as long as it doesn't inject liberal spin or make it look like Obama didn't approve it with the similarity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:12, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::::I'll try my best. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:40, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Your revised wording is great. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:05, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:Is anyone else put off by the fact that the Germans really hated Lennin? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:25, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Fun poster [http://img.skitch.com/20080723-pbt7dkk5ksgbystrri5px6s9fr.jpg] --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST) The imagery is more common that you might expect. Nothing new under the sun as they say --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Disgusted==

Mr Schlafly this page is absolutely disgusting. I am totally against Obama as you know, this is the most sorry excuse for an encyclopedia entry I have ever seen. We should leave this page as information about him as a individual, not about why we hate him and you should too. 90% of the page is opinion, and is totally innapropriate. I suggest making it into two pages. One about Obama with just simple facts about him and his backround, and you can make another about everything we hate about him. Pages like this are why we are losing our trustworthyness.
Thanks, --[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]

:Here here. At times I find this article amusing as an ironic hate piece, but at best it degrades this site and conservatives in general. Liberal or conservative, poor logic is poor logic. Because Obama and Lenin each had monochromatic posters featuring a pose directed toward the right it is evidence of Marxist intentions. Because Obama said the words "my muslim faith", irregardless of any context, it used as evidence of being a muslim. I don't even know what to say about the mind control thing, it's really amazing to me because as a religious person it reminds of the feelings I had when I discovered the truth of Jesus Christ: "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany" [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 19:31, 13 November 2008 (EST)

==Disgusted Conservative too==

I did not vote for Senator Obama for political reasons, but I believe he is a good man; this article is simple character assassination; you do not go into his views and show how those are disagreeable (his views on abortion, and his want to make a hasty withdrawal from Iraq) and instead you simply accuse him of being a Muslim, and anti-American etc. also a blog is not a credible source; a blog is someone's opinion. Anyway the accusations levied upon him are for the most part completely inaccurate. He was born in The United States, he wrote his autobiography, he is not a Muslim, he is not anti-American. Please keep the disagreements political.--[[user:Rpond|Rpond]]

I don't know who wrote this, but it shouldn't have been deleted. --[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]

: The odds are less than 1% that "Rpond's" posting is genuine, in light of his misspelling of "conservative" and his other rants. It is appropriate to delete insincere or deceptive postings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:: It is an interesting experience living life each day getting verbally attacked for being a conservative then coming here and getting persecuted (justified edits to factual and encyclopedic wording) for being a liberal. You seem to be very fond of the less than 1% statistic, and have used it many times in many places, but I've never seen any solid reasoning or studies behind it (although in this case your gut instinct does seem to be credited implicitly) I think perhaps you live in a highly conservative eco chamber and aren't getting out enough to notice how little resonance this sort of thing has out in the real world. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:58, 13 November 2008 (EST)
::: Way to show your liberal stripes, BrendanW. Ad hominem attacks are not appreciated here, so please keep it civil. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 19:01, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Would that be an ad hominem attack like calling someone a liberal? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:24, 13 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Are you insulted by being described as a "liberal"? Or are you angry that you're not fooling anyone?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:39, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Either Way its still an Ad Hominem. However I am a little "l" libertarian, and strict constitutionalist (excluding the racist portions that is) which makes me pleanty conservative, I'm also an objectivist in the Ayn Rand model, highly capitalistic and against socialism. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 09:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::Liberal is not an ad hominem, it's a statement of your political views (whether accurate or not), which is completely valid to make in a political arena such as this. Calling someone sarcastic, or making sarcastic remarks about how they live is certainly ad hominem. My two cents--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:27, 19 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::: "Liberal" ''is'' an ''ad hominem'', for two reasons:
::::::::* "''ad hominem''" refers to an argument about the ''person'' rather than about the ''issue''. So even if it is accurate and descriptive, it's still about the ''person'' rather than the ''issue''.
::::::::* An '''''abusive''' ad hominem'' is when you say something ''nasty'' about the person. If "liberal" is an accurate description, or even if it's not but it's said in the reasonable belief that it is, then it's not an '''''abusive''' ad hominem''. But when it's said without any grounds other than disagreeing with a single point of view, then I'd classify as abusive.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:16, 19 November 2008 (EST)

==Cool it==

I've protected this page; only admins can edit it for the moment. Many of us have strong feelings, and we have used this page to express them.

But I would hope that we all confine our comments here to specific suggestions on how to improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:45, 13 November 2008 (EST)

== Did you read that reference? ==

The claim is that OBama might be a Muslim and that he might swear in on a koran. The reference -ref- Obama hoped to become President when he was sworn in as U.S. Senator in 2004, and did not use a Koran at that time. Subsequently Democratic House member Keith Ellison established the precedent for being sworn in using the Koran, and there is no guarantee that Obama would not do likewise if sworn in as President. [http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_obama.html FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, ''Sliming Obama'', January 10, 2008, retrieved on 10/16/2008]-/ref- is about how Obamma is not a Muslim and did not use the Koran to be sworn in as a senator. I simply do not see how it belongs. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Welcome to Conservapedia. Truth is relative to Andy. -[[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 15:04, 15 November 2008 (EST)

== Code name ==

The article plainly says that Obama did have a role in picking it. Hence the reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:My article clearly says that the White House Communications Agency chose the name for him. Hence the original edit.
:I tried to find a source directly fromt he Secret Service or the White House Communications Agency, but neither of their search functions were working. I'll keep looking. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:06, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::"President-Elect Barack Obama – 'Renegade' – had a say in choosing the code name that his guards use when they are whispering into their microphones." From the article cited on our Main Page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:11, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:::''These not-so-secret names are chosen by officials at the White House Communications Agency, which was not inclined to comment on the selection process. In a previous news report, an agency spokesman said the names are assigned by "sheer whim."'' -- From my (stateside) source. You can see why I was confused.
:::I did further research (hence my half-hour long absence) According to [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/11/13/pssst_renegade_and_renaissance_are_in_the_house/ this] source, the WHCA chooses a list of names, and the President decides which one he likes best. So we were both right! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:40, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::::Everybody wins! Yay! -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 22:41, 17 November 2008 (EST)

A "renegade" is a ''deserter'' of a cause, so '''if''' Obama was actually raised as a muslim, and '''if''' the codename has any non-arbitrary significance, it would be evidence that he is '''not''' a muslim, rather than the other way around.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 18:27, 26 November 2008 (EST)

== For the love of God!! ==
HE IS NOT A MUSLIM. I donated 500$ to support McCain and voted for him but this beyond retarded. Please remove that info, because right now nobody in their right mind can take this seriously. Also take out the Koran thing he used the bible in the senate. [[User:Nig89|Nig89]] 20:17, 15 November 2008 (EST)

: Your comment is long on your dubious assertion of a credential, but short on substance. Give us your reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:28, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Why does Obama's religion matter so much? 18:57, 15 November 2008 {{unsigned|JamesZ}}

: Good question. I hope your fellow liberals will answer it for you. They are the ones having unexplained hysteria about a simple observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 15 November 2008 (EST)

::The word you are looking for is "accusation" not "observation". An observation would be stating that he has some traits similar to Muslims. An accusation is claiming that he is a Muslim, regardless of his own protests. On the accusation note, great job assuming anyone who doesn't believe you is a liberal Aschfly. [[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 00:01, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Was Barack Obama truly raised a Muslim or is he a Muslim? ==

Previously I wrote the following: Here is a well written and scholarly piece that examines Obama's religious views and it was written by the National Clergy Council: http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm The evidence does not support Obama being a muslim. The evidence also does not support Obama embracing biblical Christianity.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 09:19, 10 November 2008 (EST) Mr. Schlafly wrote the following: " I skimmed it and don't see where it concludes that Obama is not a Muslim. The article fails to recognize that less than 1% of people raised Muslim (as Obama was) ever leave the religion. The article says Obama is a member of a Christian church, but he left that many months ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:24, 10 November 2008 (EST)"

Here is my response to Mr. Schlafly's reply to my previous post on the Obama/Muslim issue:

I am not a fan of "Liberal Christianity" as I believe it often fails to fall into the realm of biblical/orthodox Christianity and when it does so it is not Christianity at all. With that being said, the article does give compelling evidence that Obama is a member of the camp of "liberal Christianity" and not biblical Christianity. If Obama is a "liberal Christian" he is not a Muslim. There are two logical fallacies called the [http://www.pnl-nlp.org/download/propaganda/page2.htm#sloth slothful inductive fallacy] and [http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm fallacy of exclusion] whereby "Relevant evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the "principle of total evidence"."[http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm] '''Andy, I believe you are committing these two logical fallacies as can be seen by the material in the above cited work by the National Clergy Council. I would strongly suggest not skimming the material as it gives compelling evidence that Obama is a "liberal Christian" and therefore not a Muslim.'''

'''Next, was Obama truly raised a Muslim and therefore does the less than 1% of people raised Muslim ever leave the religion statistic apply. I don't think a compelling case can be made for the 1% argument being applied to Obama. I cite the following:
'''

"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.

Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for secular humanism, a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]

Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm]

'''I will end this post by respectfully asking Mr. Schlafly a few reasonable questions''':

1. How many Muslim men are you aware of that go to a "liberal Christian church" for 20 years, get married in a "liberal Christian' church, and have their children baptized in a "liberal Christian" church, and call a Reverend of "liberal Christianity "my pastor" while living in a relatively free and democratic country like the United States? I ask this question because it appears as if all these apply to Obama.[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/04/29/2008-04-29_obama_expresses_outrage_over_former_past.html][http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58954][http://volokh.com/posts/1209531850.shtml] Accordingly, '''How many similar historical examples can you give of Muslim men who did these type of things when they lived in a relatively free and democratic society like the United States?
'''

2. According to the press, Obama has visited churches and synagogues but has not visited a mosque while running for president.[http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/25/opinion/edcohen.php] Can you show me a single instance of Obama ever visiting a mosque while he has been an adult?

3. '''Is the case for Obama being a "liberal Christian" stronger or is the case of Obama being a Muslim stronger when the principle of total evidence being weighed is applied?''' If you state the case is stronger for Obama being a Muslim, please defend your position by truly negating the strong evidence that he is a member of "liberal Christianity" and giving compelling evidence that he is a Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:I thought the two of you might enjoy reading [http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html this 2004 interview with Obama], where he discusses his faith, his baptism, and so forth. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:04, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::Both of you miss the point. It's not what Obama '''says''' - that has no relevance whatsoever. It's what he '''is''' and what he '''will do'''. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::: If what he ''says'' has no relevance, why is one of the supposed evidences for him being a Muslim something he ''said'' (the bit about "my Muslim faith")? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::::Bugler, I know I mentioned what Obama did and said which certainly has bearing on what Obama "is". Therefore, you did not in any way provide a counter argument. I also suggest you answer the reasonable questions I posed to Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:16, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Conservative, the roots of Al Quaeda lie in the 1940s and 50s, if not before; radical terroristic Islamic fundamentalism is not a recent phenomenon. Much of its mindset and organisational apperatus was borrowed from Leninist Communism: the notion of cell, of enrtyism, of deep penetration. Now, how difficult is it to imagine that an intelligent child, of American parentage, schooled in the Islamic environment of 1960s Indonesia and vulnerable to the influences swirling around in that environment, might be schooled and indoctrinated as the sleeper to end all sleepers, given extreme dispensations to protect his cover, allowed to eat pork, drink alcohol, marry out, attend and indeed profess to be a Christian, even to publicly renounce (on the face of it) the Islamic faith? Surely the prize would merit the game. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:24, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::So you're honestly speculating that Obama might be a member of Al Qaeda, and we're expected to believe that you're ''not'' a parodist? Riiiiiiight. [[User:MarkB|MarkB]] 09:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::Oh, that old tune yet again. Can't you Liberals find a less boring stick to beat me with? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:17, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Oh, don't get me wrong, I think you're doing a great job. Keep it up. [[User:MarkB|MarkB]] 09:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Bugler, in light of the evidence I gave above concerning Obama's supposedly being raised a Muslim '''and the lack of evidence to support it''' plus the evidence I gave above to support Obama being a member of "liberal Christianity" , your post is at best a Hail Mary pass. Secondly, I noticed you did not answer my questions or give any solid historical parallels for your far fetched speculation. If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades I would certainly be indebted to you if you could give it. But I would add, since you never gave any compelling evidence he was raised a Muslim, this Leninist parallel speculation is a non starter anyways. Thirdly, you refer to "the prize". What prize? If you going to embrace conjecture that is contra evidence certainly you should tell your audience what the supposed prize is supposedly going to be. Should I fear I am imminently going to be put under Sharia law? Lastly, I am not stating your a parodist, but I certainly believe it is more likely that you are a parodist than it is likely that Obama is a Muslim. Your somewhat eloquent but empty defense of the indefensible proposition that Obama is likely a Muslim, certainly provides a reasonable reader to suspect you are a parodist. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:41, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::I've not heard the term 'hail Mary pass' before, despite being a good Catholic boy: please enlighten! ''If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades'' Not a president, but the private secretary of the West German Chancellor Willy Brandt was a Communist plant: how many were undetected? Certainly therer remain suspicions about the 1960s/70s UK Prime Minister Harold Wilson. ''What prize?'' Surely that is obvious. As to the objections you raise, I think it unlikely that he will use the ceremony on January 20 to declare a United states Caliphate. However, the prospect of an Islamic radical sleeper in the Oval Office raises any number of possibilities. And finally: your open suggestion that I am a parodist is welcome: a refreshing change from others here who smear me by innuendo without your honesty and openness. I assure you in all sincerity that I act with the best interests of God, Conservapedia, Freedom and Democracy always at heart. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:58, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Bugler, [http://www.wisegeek.com/in-football-what-is-a-hail-mary.htm Hail Mary pass]. Secondly, your Willy Brandt attempted historical parallel falls flat. I did a quick search on the internet and this is what CNN states about Brandt: "As a teen-ager Brandt first joined the Socialist Party of Germany (SPD) in 1930, but one year later switched to a more radical spin-off, the SAP."[http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/kbank/profiles/brandt/] Brandt apparently was a socialist early on (teenager to be precise), but you have not give a compelling argument that Obama was raised as a Muslim and given the information I gave above regarding there being a lack of evidence for this proposition and evidence against it, your Leninism supposed historical parallel is still a non starter. You are certainly not applying the principle of using the total evidence. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Henry Wallace, FDR's Vice President, was a "sleeper" communist and replaced by FDR for that reason. Alger Hiss, a top aide to presidents, was a proven "sleeper" communist. A big lie is often easier to pull off than a little lie.

What's remarkable is how strenuously people deny that Obama is a Muslim. His fathers (real and stepfather) were Muslims. There's no denying that Obama was raised a Muslim, and his conduct as an adult underscores that he, like 99% of others raises as Muslims, did not leave that religion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:02, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:: What's remarkable is how strenuously you claim that Obama is a Muslim without any evidence of substance, and in opposition to other conservatives, including five of your own senior administrators, who disagree with you, despite being opposed to Obama. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:An interesting question is ''why'' people try so hard to deny it to ''themselves'' when the evidence is so clearly there. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 20:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::Andy, Wallace appears to have had been a one time Republican who later had openly leftist views. [http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARwallace.htm] Wallace cannot be counted as a long time "sleeper agent" who was a very high ranking public official through infiltration. Secondly, Alger Hiss never achieved a high ranking government official status like a president, Vice President, Secretary of State, etc.[http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/who.html] I do think that when someone goes for a very important government position, such as a President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, a higher degree of scrutiny often occurs. For this reason, I believe you are having trouble coming up with a historical instance of a very high ranked official in the Western World being a sleeper agent. Furthermore, by the time Hiss was charged who had been two years out of government and was working for the Carnegie Foundation. I believe it is invalid to use Hiss as an example of an ambitious sleeper agent who had gotten to the top of government when he had resigned from government 2 years before he was charged. Next, I do think my questions in my previous post were quite reasonable that you left unanswered. Also, and this is really at the heart of the issue, you never really countered this information which makes the idea of Obama being a sleeper agent a non-starter because it appears as if he was never truly raised a Muslim:

"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.

Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for '''secular humanism''', a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]

Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:57, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: In response to your indented general comment above, there's nothing magical or divine about presidential politics that ensures honesty. Woodrow Wilson was paralyzed by a stroke for more than a year while president, and the public did not know. Your argument that it is impossible to keep such things from the public is simply wrong. Wallace was not widely known to be a communist or else Roosevelt would never have been elected with Wallace on the ticket. Roosevelt finally figured it out (or was tipped off), and without explanation replaced Wallace. The leftists were dumbfounded by this move, as they were on the verge of making Wallace president when Roosevelt died. Oh, and the sickness of Roosevelt was also kept from the public. He died from his illness within a mere weeks of becoming president for the fourth time. The public didn't expect that either.

: In response to your specific questions, you're quoting self-serving and implausible statements. Obama was raised by a Muslim stepfather. He learned to view the Muslim call to prayer as the most beautiful thing in the word. There is no real indication any change by Obama, and his keeping of the name "Hussein" illustrates that he did not have a rare adult conversion from Muslim to Christianity. All indications are that such conversion was politically motivated to persuade the public, and one might say that was obviously successful with some! But I doubt Obama will continue his charade indefinitely. Watch for aid to impose Islam on more foreign countries, and watch for inclusion of the Koran at official ceremonies, if not on Jan. 20th itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:: No, Andy, it is ''you'' who is "quoting self-serving and implausible statements". Even five of your own senior administrators disagree with you, but, like Wikipedia, you persist with imposing your own view on this article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Andy, I don't think you can give me a single piece of evidence of Obama's mother being a Muslim and given there is evidence against this matter that is not surprising. It also appears as if Obama has a great influence in his life which is not surprising since she was his biological mother. In addition, Obama appeared to have received some Catholic education when he was young. Therefore, your supposed case that Obama was raised a Muslim is certainly not built on a bedrock of solid evidence. Accordingly, the Obama article should not state that Obama is likely a Muslim. Next, I never stated that it is impossible for someone to get to a top political office as a sleeper agent but merely improbable and historical determinations should be reached probabilistically. Also, while it may have not been known that Wallace was a communist (if indeed he was a communist which is a matter I have not investigated but which could certainly be true), there does appear to be indications that he had openly strong leftist views for even the Democrats.[http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARwallace.htm] Therefore, you historical precedent argument in this case is certainly not a stronger one in terms of Wallace being a "sleeper agent". It does not sound plausible to me that a Communist sleeper agent would have openly strong leftist views that even the Democrats found distasteful. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: In Muslim families, like the one Obama was raised in, the father dictates the religious upbringing of the boys. Please learn more about the Muslim traditions. With so little awareness of it by Christians, it's no wonder Islam is trouncing Christianity around the world.

: Alger Hiss was later proved to be a communist and read up on how he was the TOP adviser to FDR at the key WWII conference carving up Europe. Not only was he a sleeper communist agent, but the liberals denied it for decades even after Hiss was convicted in court. Only in the last few years did one of his co-agents admit the truth. Please learn about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::: Islam is "trouncing" Christianity? In what way? Greater population growth, perhaps, but that's not relevant here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:::Andy, have you made the case that Obama's stepfather was a staunch Muslim? I know you have not because it appears as if Obama attended a Catholic school when he was young. Therefore, you still not have made the case that Obama was raised a Muslim. Next, Hiss may have been a top advisor at one point in his life, however, an advisor is not a very top government official (President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, etc.) who certainly often faces much more scrutiny. Andy, given historical precedence and the greater scrutiny that is often given to people ascending to the very peaks of government power, I do think the case for a sleeper agent rising to the pinnacle of power in a government institution is very tenuous to say the least. I think this principle of sleeper agents not ascending to the pinnacles of large organizations is true of institutions outside of government as well. For example, people when being sarcastic in replying to a yes or no question, will sometimes say, "Is the Pope Jewish?" meaning that the pope is not likely an adherent of Judaism. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, it appears as if there is strong evidence that Obama attended a Catholic school but there may not be evidence that he attended a school that truly could be called a Muslim school. Please read [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp this article.]

Regardless of whether or not CNN or the AP did their work with diligence, there appears to be no controversy regarding that Obama did in fact attend a Catholic school. Therefore, I still maintain that the claim he was raised a Muslim does not have strong support. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:22, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: Catholic schools welcome Muslim students. They still do. The Muslim students virtually never convert.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Catholic schools may very welcome Muslim students but what staunchly Muslim father sends his son to a Catholic school? Andy, you still have not jumped over the evidential bar that Osama was raised a Muslim. The so called Muslim school was apparently not strongly Islamic or possibly not even Islamic at all ( [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp read this article.] ) and the stepfather appears to not have had a strong Muslim faith as evidenced by the fact that he sent Obama to a Catholic school. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)

In the Unification Church, it is not unusual for parents to send their children to a Catholic grade school. So what if they come home, crossing themselves when they pray? Overall, the education is better there than in public schools, so if they can afford it the practice makes senses. I daresay mainstream Christians likewise don't mind the sectarian differences. Any way out of secular humanism is often fine with them.

It appears likely that as president, Obama will be more sympathetic to Islamic countries in his foreign policy. Maybe he'll even be able to get them to lighten up on their "destruction of Israel" goals, or allow [[religious freedom]] for Christians and Jews. Are [[Turkey]] and [[Indonesia]] good examples of this?

I see good in all religions, and I don't see Islam as irredeemably evil. So what if Obama is or was Muslim? There is [[no religious test for office]], and he can't be impeached for it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==Another case for Obama being Muslim==
During a campaign rally, two Muslim women in Muslim garb, were removed from prominent camera view. The reason is A) Obama doesn't want his image assoc. with Muslims B) or doesn't like Muslims (we know the opposite is true). Now, he doesn't want images of Muslim assoc with him because he is A) secret Muslim or B) the American people will think he is a Muslim. (Which 27% already do). Did Obama try to hide his Muslim background and is that plan still in progress?--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:52, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Are A and B the only choices on why Obama does not want himself associated with Islam? Is a false dilemma being proposed? For example, setting aside whether it was right or wrong which is a whole other discussion, did 9/11 drive up the American public's negative beliefs and/or attitudes regarding Islam? Would the American public look less favorably upon a candidate who received some Muslim religious education (Obama also received Catholic training in his youth. And there is certainly reason to believe that a certain degree of philosophical skepticism was imparted to Obama via his mother). In short, I think the above post fails to use the principle of using the total evidence (see my posts above) plus contains a false dilemma. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:09, 16 November 2008 (EST)

== “Less than 1% Muslims convert” – Prosecutor error? ==

OK, time for something new and I direct this particularly to Aschlafly. There is a logical fallacy called the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is very subtle but real enough to send innocent people to the execution chamber. In fact, many lawyers and judges don’t understand it. It works like this. Please concentrate: this isn't all that easy.

Let us suppose that it is true that Barack Obama was at one time a Muslim, even if this was at an immature age when he really had no say in his faith. And let us grant that only 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity. The argument which Aschflafly uses time and again is to deduce that that this means that, notionally at least, that there is a 99% chance that Obama is a Muslim.

The fallacy of the argument is that it does not recognize that the IF Obama was in that 99% of Muslims who did not convert, there would be no practicable way he could have run for President. Therefore the chances that he is one of those who DID convert are raised far beyond the mathematically obvious one of 1%.

Let me give you a real-life example. A woman had three children and each expired early in infancy of “cot death”. The prosecutor did his math and advised the court that there was a “one in 70 million” chance of this happening by accident. Therefore, the jury was heavily disposed to assume that she was guilty of the serial murder of her children. But the fallacy of the case is that she was ONLY arrested because of the rareness of the 3 children dying of cot death in the one family. But even if this only happens one in 70 million families, in a large country such as the U.K or U.S.A, and over a period of decades, it is BOUND to occur, purely by accident. If we then tell a courtroom that there is only a 1 in 70 million chance that she is innocent, we are guilty of the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is tantamount to arresting a man who comes into a lot of money suddenly and is arrested under suspicion of larceny. He explains that he won it on a lottery, but the Prosecutor says he has looked into the “Lottery” business, and there is only a 1 in 20 million chance of winning it, therefore there is only a 1 in 20 million chance the indicted man is telling the truth.

In Obama’s case, once again, EVEN if it is true that only 1% of Muslims convert, AND ALSO true that he was born into the Muslim faith, the fact that his circumstances allowed him to run for the Presidency argues that he was one of those Muslims who DID convert, and thus makes his chances of being a non-Muslim substantially greater that 1%. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:05, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:I understand your math, but your reasoning does not convince me. The lottery example was the most unfortunate attempt.

:Although in any given lottery, the chances may be 1 in 20 million for one person to win - the fact is that '''every''' lottery has a winner.

:The problem with Obama's religion is not so much ''Which is it?'' but, "How shall the electorate now regard its new president elect?" Will Obama be pro-Muslim (because he's Muslim or was raised Muslim)?

:A related question is, "Will Obama be pro-Black because he is black?"

:I get along equally well with black Christians as with white Christians, so this is not an issue for me. I've also found Muslims personally just as honest, reliable and hard-working as Christians. What's all the fuss about? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: The lottery example was valid. Apart from the fact that not every lottery ''does'' have a winner (the prize then jackpots to the following draw), the point is that the 100% certainty (every lottery has a winner) applies to the lottery as a whole, whereas the 1 in 20 million odds applies to any ''given'' individual. The issue here is about a ''given'' individual, Barack Obama.
:: I hope that you are asking that last question ("What's all the fuss about") to Andy, as he is the one insisting on the claim against almost everybody else other than a few acolytes.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:20, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::I like maths and logic, so good section. This isn't arguing for the prosecution error, but just about statistical sampling. I suppose you could ask how many muslims convert, but it might be more accurate to ask how many American born muslims convert, or how many muslims that have had a Christian baptism have genuinely converted (I hope there's a special place in hell for those that were faking their baptism)--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:45, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::::In [[Dante's Inferno]], I don't think there is. Any kind of liar goes to the bottom of the eighth circle though. I wonder whether covert apostacy was known in Dante's time.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:51, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::::MylesP, have you been reading [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Science-Ben-Goldacre/dp/0007240198/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227138689&sr=8-1 Bad Science?]

== Awesome article ==
Just wanted to say, finally a good resource about obama. Fantastic research about the muslim piece, it really shows him as the closet muslim like he is. Shame the libs just don't get it !! [[happymoon|happymoon]]

== Great comedy article ==

It's a shame people don't get the jokes. Just wanted to pop in and say keep up the good work! Was referred here by a friend who also got a kick out of this article. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 11:08, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:Read the article properly before you start calling it a joke. You've been looking at Obama from a left wing viewpoint; try looking at him from a right wing viewpoint. It'll do you good.--[[User:WHurst|WHurst]]

The article is full of fiction. Stuff like this is part of the reason why Conservapedia is a joke to everyone who isn't a member here.
[[User:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]] 16:31, 22 November 2008 (EST)

==This will be a hit on stormfront==

America reaches a milestone in his history and all you guys can do is peddle false lies which have been repudiated by just about everyone in the political business. The comment about 'possibly been sworn in by the koran' is not only false, but a terrifying example of what racism and ignorance is capable of. You may not be white nationalists, but your inability to reasonably discuss this man's faith without resorting to the most despicable acts of scaremongering is typical of the tripe we see on racist websites.

Keep this crap up and you'll make sure to keep the black vote away from your party for the forseeable future. [[User:JCharlton|JCharlton]] 17:50, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::Race and religion are two different things. Why do liberals always resort to racism? Maybe its becaus you don't have any real arguments against the issues raised here? This isn't wikipedia, we deal in facts here. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 20:20, 17 November 2008 (EST)

"Facts" as in already repeatedly proven falsehoods such as Obama being a Muslim? This page is filled with outright lies. [[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

== Reply ==

Don't know where to start. Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim. What's it to someone who (1) is an atheist, (2) is an Australian, (3) is a Christian, or (4) would support him regardless? Frankly, the opposition by some is puzzling.

Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here. Perhaps we can all agree that it's worth learning more about what many say has quickly become the world's largest religion, and the strongest religion in Europe today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:49, 17 November 2008 (EST)

If you are going to repeat a proven lie, you shouldn't be surprised when people call you on it-[[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

:It really shouldn't be that puzzling Andy. They are calling out what they believe to be falsehood. When people made spurious, questionable claims about Bush, how did Conservapedia respond? Did you include the information or remove it? Its the exact same thing. You tried to keep the spurious information out of it. The name "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" implies intellectual honesty, and on this particular aspect most people here (myself included) find this pile of circumstantial evidence to be based on poor conclusions, false arguments, and illogical reasoning to be an absurdity without any solid claims that say he is a Muslim. The burden of proof is on you to -prove- that he is, not provide a loaded mountain of evidence that is obviously taylored to imply that he is with no proof whatsoever other than bad logic. I can't believe this topic is still going. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 22:17, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:: There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood. Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim. Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%.

:: Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%. Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:52, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::When you promote someone over yourself here, the beef can be over censorship. Until then, it's just people saying they think you're wrong. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 23:16, 17 November 2008 (EST) ''<-like me, for example...''

Don't fall for the devil's tricks. These "conservatives" are not true Christians. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 23:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)

"''Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim.''": Yes, I would like you to explain that. Because ''you'' are the one enraged at that. I, on the other hand, am "enraged" that he is being accused of being a Muslim on the basis of logical fallacy, lousy arguments, and false claims.

"''What's it to someone who ... is a Christian''": As a Christian, my concern is for the ''truth''. Why do you continually try and misrepresent this as censorship, liberal lies, or whatever?

"''... some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here...''": That is not the issue I'm arguing. You are again raising red herrings. The issue is the claim that he is a Muslim, which claim is not supported by the evidence.

"''There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood.''": No, Andy, it '''is''' spurious, and ''you'' lose credibility with ''your'' baseless claims that he is a Muslim.

"''Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim.''": On what grounds? Certainly not those in this article.

"''Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%.''": "That" is not given. Rather, it's bizarre how ''you'' adamantly insist that he ''is'' a Muslim given the lack of evidence.

"''Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.''": I'm going to shout because you obviously didn't hear me before: "IT IS NOT CENSORSHIP TO REMOVE IRRELEVANT INFORMATION, AND I'D APPRECIATE YOU NOT IMPLYING THAT I'M TRYING TO CENSOR ANYTHING."

I've pointed out a number of problems, and your response has been to slander the criticism as censorship and liberal, to introduce red herrings, and to assert your opinion as fact. What you have ''not'' done is actually address the issue.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:57, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:How dare you accuse Andy of slander. And what hypocricy. The only slanderer, Philip, is you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 03:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: Yet you make no attempt to refute that it was slanderous, nor to substantiate your accusation against me. In other words, a substanceless response. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, regarding "''(Islam being) the strongest religion in Europe today''": you never cease to amaze us with your wealth of knowledge of the world outside the USA, be it UK, the whole of Europe or Australia. Kudos to you! --[[User:Europeo|Europeo]] 07:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::''Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here.'' I think that's a statement with which anyone would agree. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==Four Questions For The Trojan Candidate==
{{QuoteBox|1=It has taken the better part of a year, and specifically the last six months of this election season, for committed citizen journalists at TexasDarlin and many other blogs to conduct the solid, investigative research that the media, the democratic national committee, agencies of the federal government, Barack Obama himself, and Congress should have done on the eligibility and qualifications of Barack Obama. The first serious look at Barack Obama ’s Constitutional eligibility began on this blog, with the exposure of the birth certificate mystery, Obama-Soetoro’s Indonesian citizenship, and analysis of the constitutional problems with Obama’s multiple citizenship status irrespective of birthplace.
 
Although our collective knowledge of Barack Obama and the concerns of his candidacy came too late to change the outcome of the Democratic nomination and the election—especially in light of the MSM bias, the Obama campaign’s tactics, and DNC shenanigans– for all our hard work, we were successful in shedding some light on the content of his character: his associations, his deeds, his family relations, his friends, his lack of experience, stewardship, his patriotism, his potential agenda ([http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/] ) and the startling depth of his secrecy.
 
Now that we have “un-muddied” the water…..we stand on the edge of a caldera* with no idea of the complexity, depth, explosiveness, or unpredictability of this phenomenon we have witnessed in the rise of Barack Obama ! We as a country have never actually been here before, standing at the edge of possible dissolution of our country, except perhaps in the election of 1860. One realizes at once the perils of both diving into that hot pool of water, or running away to avoid the explosion….either scenario leads to serious burns!
 
While there seems to be little evidence that we will ever fully know Obama, nor avoid the explosive change he will bring, there is a way we can learn from this experience such that our Country will never again be faced with someone who is truly unknown, inexperienced, untested, and feels (to me anyway) uncommitted to America. We can use the 2008 experiences to also highlight and then design strategies to ensure that every political party is responsive to its constituents, and that our Constitution is really a living document.
 
The Constitution is by and for “we the people”; therefore “we the people” must make it work and not rely on any political party to sell America to the highest bidder.
 
'''Four Questions'''
 
I bring forward four questions that get to the heart of our rights, as American citizens, to ensure that our government and its leaders are indeed qualified to lead our great country. By extension, these questions can be used as windows to other potential areas where we the people do not yet have redress.
 
These questions are miraculously (given procedural errors and the existing lower court dismissal) before the Supreme Court with the requirement that President-elect Obama respond by December 1, 2008. It is also disturbing that these questions are before the U.S. Supreme Court when the candidate himself or the DNC could easily have dispelled any speculation by providing simple documentation.
 
While I have not kept track of the Berg v. Obama case for many reasons, it truly is miraculous that Justice Souter required Obama to respond to Berg’s writ of certiorari. Even if, as some have said, Souter ’s action is not significant and procedural only, how Obama responds will reveal much about his view of the Constitution, and will determine if the full Supreme Court decides to hear the case. In responding, Obama will be essentially arguing why the writ of certiorari should not be granted.
 
In my opinion, the questions raised by Berg in the lower Court should not have been thrown out entirely based on standing alone, or by the notion that the injury to a voter is “vague”. But some Judges do actually realize the question may be beyond their jurisdiction and ‘ask for help’ by clearly making appealable and reversible errors that a higher court can rule on. The Supreme Court Rules permit the grant of a writ of certiorari only under specific circumstances.
 
The questions presented for review are:
 
*1. Whether a citizen of the United States has standing to challenge the Constitutional qualifications of a Presidential nominee under the “natural born citizen clause” [Article II of the U.S. Constitution] when deprivation of the right to such a challenge would result in the infringement of a citizen’s Constitutional right to vote?
*2. Isn’t it true that no one has the responsibility to ensure a United States Presidential candidate is eligible to serve as President of the United States?
*3. Are there proper steps for a voter to ensure a Presidential Candidate is qualified and eligible to serve as President of the United States?
*4. Isn’t it true that there are not any checks and balances to ensure the qualifications and eligibility of a Presidential Candidate to serve as President of the United States?
 
The “questions presented for review” in the writ require Obama’ response. Notice that answering these questions does not require Obama to produce a birth certificate, but instead to answer why he does not have to prove himself eligible.
 
Although we cannot predict Obama’s answers, based on his past legal motions submitted in the lower court case, Obama may indeed respond that the writ should not be granted because (1) a citizen does not have standing, (2) that no one has responsibility to ensure eligibility, (3) that there are no proper steps for a citizen to ensure qualifications, and (4) that there are no checks and balances that exist today to ensure a candidate is qualified. Notice he is in a position of arguing technicalities here, and completely misses his own obligation to prove himself.
 
Although doubtful, it is also possible Obama would try to argue that the 14th Amendment says that “naturalized citizens” and “dual citizens” are “American citizens”, thereby satisfying the requirements of Article II. I really can’t imagine he would bring this up, unless asked in a hearing, as the question of the 14th Amendment’s modification of Article II is a constitutional matter that only the Supreme Court can decide. Recall that on Obama’s own website he claims that he is a U.S. Citizen under the 14th amendment.
 
I think these questions may have Obama boxed in. If he intends not to release his COLB, citizenship records, passport files, etc, Obama would then practically argue a big “FU” to the U.S. Supreme Court and say in effect “I don’t have to respond to this because there is no law, no avenue for citizens, and no checks and balances that require me to do so.” He will argue technicalities in how to disregard the Constitution, including, as above, that the 14th Amendment applies to Article II. I wonder how the Supreme Court might respond?
 
If Obama responds in any other way, he could be forced to disclose and/or identify when, how, and what steps citizens can take, or what steps are taken, to assure the POTUS’ eligibility. Using the process he acknowledges—for example, the “DNC vetting process”–he may then be forced to prove his eligibility to serve as POTUS under Article II by showing the documentation he provided to the DNC, if he provided anything to the DNC. Alternatively he could concede that there are no procedures to ensure eligibility of a person for POTUS, and that “America has to take his word for it”. Would the Supreme Court then order him to produce his documentation according to the original suit filed by Berg?
 
One item of interest is how Obama responds to Question 4, on the existence of checks and balances to assure the POTUS’ eligibility. “Checks and balances” can mean procedures, legislative processes, acts, bills, agencies, or resolutions. Here is where Obama could argue that the Senate Resolution promoted by Senators Leahy, Obama, and McCatskill on John McCain’s eligibility applies. In other words, Obama could argue that the checks and balances already exist and this resolution suffices (notice this is not a bill). The Senate resolution was developed in April, 2008 to “validate” John McCain ’s natural born citizen status when it was unnecessary, and in some ways the resolution’s language can be seen as an attempt by the three Senators to create a blanket provision for a naturalized citizen to be eligible to serve as POTUS. Looking at the text of the resolution and supporting statements, Senator Leahy has the following curious exchange with Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff (emphasis mine):
 
Chairman Leahy. Let me just ask this: I believe–and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President….You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind–I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?
 
Secretary Chertoff. My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.
 
As Berg’s case has evolved, he refined the scope of defendants who now must also respond to the writ, including the DNC, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and its Chair, Senator Dianne Feinstein , the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and several Pennsylvania government officials.
 
With the exception of the DNC, who also joined in Obama’s initial motion to dismiss the lower case on lack of standing, I think the other defendants’ responses might be decidedly different. The FEC could claim that it actually has no jurisdiction in the matter by way of its charter and organizing documents, and that even if it did, it is far too understaffed to perform investigatory functions, as cited by Senator Feinstein in testimony before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration on May 28, 2008 (link to http://rules.senate..gov/hearings/2008/052108feinsteinopen.pdf). And will Senator Feinstein blame the Bush administration, or will she admit that she too just assumed the DNC vetted Obama and that he was eligible?
 
After reviewing Obama’s legal argument against granting the writ of certiorari and the other defendants’ responses, Justice Souter will then review Berg’s response before deciding where the case goes next, including whether the full Supreme Court will hear the case. Remember that Souter’s clerks have all the lower court material and reviewed it before Souter required Obama to respond to the writ of certiorari. In my opinion, Justice Souter would not have granted this appeal from Berg if he thought the issues were irrelevant and not worthy of the Court’s attention.
 
How does the Supreme Court react? Will it order the production of Obama’s documents? Will it order the lower Courts to resolve the matter expeditiously, requiring the release of documents? Will it order the FEC, Electoral College, or Congress to verify his eligibility, or develop verification procedures? Will they agree with Obama, if he mentions it, that the 14th Amendment really did modify Article II criteria? Will they dismiss the case?
 
Although the Supreme Court will not want to be seen as determining the outcome of another election—even for the perception of “fairness”– the questions presented in the writ are completely different than presented in Bush v. Gore. Under Article III of the Constitution, the Supreme Court clearly has the jurisdiction to decide the matter. Legal scholars will point to Marbury v. Madison ( link to http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=19) as precedent if the full Supreme Court accepts the writ, orders the lower Court in error, directs it to secure Obama’s documentation, and chastises the DNC, FEC, the PA state agencies, the Senate, and Senator Obama for not doing their job, and not forcing the production of documents itself, while still retaining jurisdiction.
 
If this is the outcome, a motion could be made by Berg to stay the vote of the Electoral College pending the outcome of the case. If the Justices are concerned about the matter and integrity of the 2008 election, that motion could be granted. The expedited discovery of documents would proceed. Yes, I understand this is a long-shot and speculation on my part.
 
And how, in the meantime, are we to ever know about Barack Obama? Is the burden of proof really on America (Berg), or on Barack Obama ? Is it up to your employer to find out who you are, or is it up to you as an employee to provide your documentation? Isn’t Obama supposed to be working for America? I believe that the burden of proof on eligibility rests solely and unconditionally on Barack Obama’s shoulders. I am not alone in this belief (link http://americamustknow.com/Documents/OBAMA%20LAWSUIT,%20Class%20Action.doc).
 
Alinsky Returns?
 
As I sit in disbelief and alarm even writing this article—that something as basic as citizenship status of the potential POTUS is in front of the Supreme Court at this late date—I am reminded of a framework set forth in an earlier article, The Trojan Candidate (link to http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/), and the use of Alinsky-style community organizing techniques to advance an agenda of revolutionary change. In this article I posited that Barack Obama has a hidden agenda and part of implementing his agenda involves the use of techniques developed by Saul Alinsky and discussed in such books as Rules for Radicals (http://www.semcosh.org/AlinskyTactics.htm).
 
'''From the Trojan Candidate:'''
 
Alinsky laid out a set of basic principles to guide the actions and decisions of radical organizers [community organizers] and the People’s Organizations they established. The organizer, he said, ‘must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.’ The organizer’s function, he added, was ‘to agitate to the point of conflict ’and ‘to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy.” ‘The word ‘enemy,’ said Alinsky, ‘is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people’; i.e., to convince members of the community that he is so eager to advocate on their behalf, that he has willingly opened himself up to condemnation and derision.
 
What could be the reason for withholding his citizenship papers and birth status, especially if he has nothing to hide? Does he plan to use this in some way to “rub raw the resentments of the people” [and] “fan the latent hostilities to the point of over expression”? The concerns about Obama’s Constitutional eligibility will be met with accusations of “racism”; that the “system” wouldn’t do this to a white man, and that the republicans or others are trying to ‘take Obama out’ on a “technicality”. And worse.
 
If Obama is ineligible, he could rightly be called a ‘dangerous enemy’ and forced to stand down. It is at this point that “the word ‘enemy’ is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people…” and the maneuvering and baiting of the establishment forces it to back down, with Obama prevailing whether having shown his documentation or not. As you contemplate this, think of all the money, the inevitability narrative, the shutting down of dissent, the timing of events, the threat of violence and insurrection, the establishment of the office of the president elect, and the simply overwhelming of America with all things Obama. This certainly pulls the light from shining on the real Barack Obama ’s Trojan candidacy.
 
If Obama is proven ineligible, does not stand down or even if he does stand down, it is not unreasonable to expect some “in-your-face” hostile reactions and calls for immediate changes that permit Obama to stay. How ironic: in defense of liberty and the Constitution, we will be called ‘racists’.
 
'''Implications for the Future'''
 
The four questions presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 will have a lasting and enduring effect on the course of the American Constitution in the next decade or more and will continue to feed the growing doubts about Obama’s qualifications and intentions in the next four years.. Currently there are 17 different legal actions in various state and federal courts, which now challenge the validity of the electoral process across the country, regardless of outcome (see http://www.soundinvestments.us/files/final_writ_keyes_v_bowen.pdf) .
 
Just my suspicion, but I am beginning to get a more complete picture of why Obama has sealed all of his records, including college financial aid applications, papers, and coursework. I believe his financial aid applications reveal his foreign status; and I now see that his Columbia and Harvard papers could reveal his examination of the “weaknesses” of the U.S. Constitution and ways to “remedy” them using “administrative procedures” as discussed in this 2001 radio interview. (link to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VctiYQplw8)
 
As I look at the scope of research on the issue of eligibility during this election season, I note that nearly all have concluded that there are no checks and balances to assure the eligibility of a Presidential Candidate, that no one is responsible, that the DNC did not do its job, and that indeed citizens and voters have very little recourse to ask these questions. The Supreme Court has never been presented with this question before on Article II eligibility. I personally doubt that they will duck their responsibilities to protect the Constitution.
 
Up until this time, it has been assumed that every candidate and POTUS has met Article II qualifications. We assume that in fact no one would dare to run for and claim the Presidency if he/she didn’t meet the qualifications of the Constitution. Looks like our age of innocence is over.
 
It appears that we will have to craft legislation to assure eligibility criteria are met for the POTUS, and to assign appropriate responsibilities to assure so.. If the country wants to amend the Constitution to allow naturalized or dual citizens to serve as POTUS, then we have that mechanism, which ¾ of the states have to ratify. None of this can happen before the January 20th inauguration.
 
The four questions to the Supreme Court also remind me of other areas in which we voters do not have redress when something goes wrong. Although I am now an “unaffiliated” voter, having left the democratic party after November 4th, it also appears that democrats do not have an avenue of redress when the DNC and RBC violate party rules as they did in this case to deny Hillary Clinton the nomination. In addition, we now know that caucuses can be gamed, and do not serve the interests of democracy nor do they provide a fair representation of the strength of our party’s candidates. Because of the DNC, RBC and Obama’s gaming of the system with caucus fraud, and the blatant use of race and misogyny to silence critics, we are witnessing the democrats begin the disintegration of the “democratic brand”. I am sure there are issues in the Republican party after GWB destroyed the “republican brand”. We all need a detox from our respective koolaid brands in order to really see clearly.
 
What is next for our country? Well, if we don’t want to dive into that hot pool, and we’re not going to run away, then we’d better start creating an alternative vision. A line in one of my favorite movies, The Shawshank Redemption, sums it up for me:
 
“…get busy livin’, or get busy dyin’…” [http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/four-questions-for-the-trojan-candidate/]}}
{{unsigned|TK}}

==Andy, if it can perhaps be quibbled that there is merely a 20% chance of Obama being a Muslim, then why is the Obama article stating that he is likely a Muslim? ==

Dear Andy,

You wrote above regarding the probability of Obama being a Muslim the following:

"Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%."

Andy, if it can be perhaps be quibbled that the likelihood of Obama being a Muslim is merely 20%, then why is the article still stating that Obama is likely a Muslim? Second, Andy do you think that a reference work should use scholarly caution and that scholarly caution helps make a reference work authoritative? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:01, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:In this case, what you describe as 'scholarly caution' means knuckling under to Liberal suppression of facts and discussion. The scholarly option is to seek out the truth, no matter how disturbing that truth or the process of uncovering it might be to those on the left. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:43, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Andy I also fear we are not doing our site any favors in this area. If Obama is a Muslim, he is certainly keeping that under wraps. There is no indication that he would suddenly take the oath of office on a Koran. Such a turnabout that he lied about his Christianity would destroy his ability to govern. It is more likely, if he is a Muslim, that he would support Muslim causes without making a profession of his own faith. We should also realize, based upon his policies, that if he does have Islamic ties that they would be akin to the type of ties that John Kerry has to Catholicism, very poor. His views on abortion alone would be considered extreme Western decadence within the greater Islamic world view. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Bugler, I purposely chose Andy's words that "perhaps one can quibble that the probability is 20%". Therefore, if Andy is correct about the 20% issue then the statement that Obama is likely a Muslim should be removed from the article. I am just following Andy's statement where the logic leads if his statement is true and no knuckling under is necessary. I do think it is fair to say that people come to an encyclopedia to read facts and not speculation. Speculation weighs down an encyclopedia by eroding its credibility. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 08:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Saying "One could argue that X is 20%" doesn't in any way mean accepting that that X '''is''' 20%. It merely allows the existence of theoretically possible grounds of debate. If I said there were grounds for arguing that the planet Jupiter was made of cheese, likewise it doesn't mean that I think it is reasonably possible that such is the case. Andy is (in my interpretation of his words) admitting grounds for debate; it does not mean that he (or anyone else who takes a rational view of the issue) accepts only a 20% likelihood. The whole point of the point at issue is that it disproves the blinkered dogmatism and naivety of Liberals who say "Oh, Obama has said he's a Christian so he '''can't possibly''' be a Moslem." Liberals cling to dogma like an unweaned child to its blanket; we conservatives prefer debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, not from wish-fulfillment fantasies. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:14, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::: Admitting that 20% is ''possible'' means that you've destroyed your argument that it ''is'' more than 50%.
::::::: And no, the whole point is ''not'' to support liberal views. That's a false claim. And if you as a conservative prefers debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, why are you reversing my edits without offering any rebuttal to my points?
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)
''Admitting that 20% is ''possible'' means that you've destroyed your argument that it ''is'' more than 50%.'' You haven't read it, have you? Read it again, nice and slowly, take your time, and especially consider the Jupiter analogy. As for the vulgar abuse in your edit summary, I will let that speak for itself. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)
: Bugler, I will concede that point. Instead I'll say that Andy's point that this was a response to was rather unclear as to its aim, and I was reading his comments differently.
: However, I will add another response to your previous post. You say that "the whole point of the point at issue is that it disproves the blinkered dogmatism and naivety of Liberals who say "Oh, Obama has said he's a Christian so he can't possibly be a Moslem." The problem with this claim of yours is that it's ''not'' the way the argument is being used. That is, the arguments are not being used to ''oppose'' the claim that he couldn't possibly be a Muslim; the arguments are being used to ''support'' the claim that he ''is'' a Muslim. If they were being used the way that you say, then at least some of them would have some legitimacy. But being used the way they are is invalid.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:33, 18 November 2008 (EST)

It might be good to create a subarticle, with [[Barack Obama]] as the main article. We have templates for this; Philip is our template custodian and can place whatever we need.

I protected the article, because edit wars don't serve our readers; and they don't help us contributors much either.

I didn't look at Andy's last version. I just guessed it might make a good starting point.

Let's discuss, rather than trying to "get our way". Wiki collaboration should result in stability. Let none of us rock the boat. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: The problem, Ed, is that these things have already been discussed at length. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Thanks, Ed. I agree that edit wars are undesirable. I don't consider that I was edit warring. I was trying to protect this article, which has been arrived at in its current form after much debate, from unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism. In the course of doing so I have yet again been accused of mendacity. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:51, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: They are ''not'' "unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism". When you stoop to misrepresenting the situation, it shows that your argument is shaky. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

: Thanks, Ed, for bringing stability. As Bugler points out, there is nothing in my observation that "perhaps one" can quibble whether the likelihood Obama is a Muslim is 20%, 60% or 90% that justifies censoring the evidence and statement that he is likely a Muslim. Juries make such determinations based on the evidence all the time; so do encyclopedias. The evidence is compelling and will not be censored or downplayed here, despite some (for unknown reasons) disliking it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::: Andy, I have repeatedly pointed out that it is ''not'' censorship. Why do you keep repeating that false claim? Also, I have explained ''why'' the claims are "disliked", why do you falsely say that the reasons are unknown? As I said to Bugler above, when you stoop to misrepresenting the situation, it shows that your argument is shaky. And the evidence is not only not compelling, some of it is false and some is logically fallacious. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::Yes, of course there is evidence. And being a Muslim is not a punishable in the US, so the jury need not use the standard of "[[beyond any reasonable doubt]]". It's more like a lawsuit, I guess, where you need only be 51% sure to vote one way or the other.

::Personally, I'd like CP to make some indication that some conservatives are still in doubt about [[my Muslim faith|"his Muslim faith"]], but that desire does not outweigh the need for editorial harmony.

::It is liberals - rather than conservatives - who insist on censoring all views contrary to theirs, in the US. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::: Ed, when the issue is the president of the United States, then even less than a 51% chance is often sufficient to be influential, just as less than 51% chance is enough to deny someone an important job.

::: Someone is missing the the point about [[my Muslim faith]], which omits the telling phrase: "Muslim faith." No Christian would use that specific phrase so casually in reference to himself. How about someone saying "Allah the Creator"?! Christians don't use the phrase.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Falsifiability & "My Muslim Faith" ==

Aschlafly, Ed Poor, etc. -

Is there any piece of evidence that, assuming it existed, would convince you that Barack Obama is NOT a Muslim? You've now admitted there's a chance he's not a Muslim, so what piece of evidence would convince you that he's not? As it stands, your argument seems unfalsifiable, and ridiculously conspiratorial: everytime someone offers evidence that Obama's not a Muslim, you just reply with, "oooh, he's a tricky one! He must have worked to cover that up!" That's not a respectable, logical argument: it's an inability to recognize fact when it's put before your eyes. What piece of evidence could convince you of that, if any?

Further, if I go through the George W. Bush talk page I bet I'll find a million examples of you apologizing for Bush's rhetorical missteps, and arguing that when he says something incorrectly, it doesn't mean he's stupid. Why, then, are you not willing to take Obama's slip of the tongue as the same thing - unconscious error, not indicative of any deeper meaning?

The fact is, you have no principled basis for the distinction. Nor are you going to accept any evidence that Obama's a Christian. You're just clinging to a pet theory when even your own administrative staff tells you you're wrong.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 10:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Towards stability via discussion ==

:''unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism''

Vandalism is replacing the page with "Stinky loves Myrtle". Unilateral editing is doing your own thing, even when you know someone else will just want to revert (see [[Editing etiquette]]).

Let's come closer together, rather than battle it out on the page itself. Talk pages are for talking. Let's hear some more talk! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:29, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:The problem with that, is that if people talk about it, and say almost anything to disagree with the current state of the article, they are likely to get blocked for the "90/10 Rule against talk talk talk" or "liberal namecalling" or some other excuse. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Tim, that's simply not true. The [[90/10 rule]] guards against nothing but talk. It's easy to make substantive contributions to comply with the rule, and it's easy to refrain from namecalling in discussions. In fact, both are essential to keep the level of discourse and learning here at a high level.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::The [[90/10 rule]] might guard against nothing but talk, but it sure seems to guard against some kinds of talk a lot more than others. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 10:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::If so, there's nothing wrong with that. Jaywalking is not prosecuted as much as petty shoplifting either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Aschlafly, you can tell yourself that all you want, but this much is clear; the 90/10 rule is a content-neutral rule applied in a manner that amounts to viewpoint discrimination. You only apply it against liberals. You've long since abandoned the stance that you "don't block ideologically."
:::::This site has survived for two years ''only'' by ruthlessly persecuting anyone who disagrees with your worldview. Tim is right, but I'll take it one step farther: I think the reason you censor people who disagree with you is because you know you'll lose in a fair fight. The Barack Obama article is just one more example of that. Except now, even your own sysops disagree with you, so you devolve into insulting Philip and dodging the question.
:::::Of course you can block me, and prove Tim right.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 11:02, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::@Aschlafly: I don't get your analogy. Jaywalking and petty shoplifting are different crimes. Excessive talk by a liberal and excessive talk by a conservative is the same "crime". So the "prosecution" ought to be applied equally against both, right? Otherwise it isn't a ''rule'', it's just an ''excuse'' to make people you don't agree with go away. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 11:04, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Rob, within the same crimes prosecutorial patterns are different. It's called "prosecutorial discretion." It is used every day by law enforcement and it is obvious why it is needed. I'm not going to waste my morning spelling this out for you. Take a basic course on criminal justice, or simply follow the news.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Andy, you're misunderstanding "prosecutorial discretion." You're right that policemen have the right to decide which crimes to prosecute, but if they differentially allow white criminals to get away with murder, and seek the death penalty for black shoplifters, it would give rise to a disparate impact lawsuit and be illegitimate, racist, and wrong. We're arguing that your actions here are closer to abuse of prosecutorial discretion to kick out your enemies, than to the case of using prosecutorial discretion to preserve resources.
::::::It strikes me that what you're missing is the difference between "content neutral" and "viewpoint discrimination." Take a course in the First Amendment, or read a book on it; it might help your understanding of the word "censorship," too.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I would say you are partially correct, RobNewberry. Sometimes people need to be "invited" to leave, much like a dinner guest who overstays their welcome. If a person comes to Conservapedia knowing full well it is a conservative/Christian friendly wiki-encyclopedia, and is a liberal, the question is why? If the answer is they support Andy Schlafly's idea of an conservative alternative to the decidedly left-of-center editor dominated Wikipedia, that's great! All voices should be represented on the Net. But if their intentions are merely to argue and dispute conservative or Christian points of view, that becomes a subtle form of vandalism, inasmuch as it is a great time waster for those who genuinely want to contribute their conservative/Christian POV, and build this encyclopedia. My own opinion is that those who obsessively create new user names, only to argue against conservative values, and disrupt/time waste, are actually terrorists of the Internet kind. What other reason would they have to stick around? Any board or wiki does and should have the absolute right of association.

This would hold true for a conservative joining a known liberal board or wiki, and spend all their time disputing the members, arguing without end, and seeking to put their conservative point of view into their discussions or articles. I am not for truncating free speech automatically, but after weeks and weeks of disputing everything, knowing you are not going to change CP into Wikipedia's more liberal world-view, or have CP adopt all of Wikipedia's member conventions, a person's efforts then cross over into something more, what I have taken to calling Internet Terrorism. CP has an owner, it is his right to have whatever viewpoint he wants. If people agree, with even a part, they stick around and help build this place. If they don't, what other reason, other than being obstinate or having malicious intent, could they have? Disagreement is fine, debate is good. But where does it end, and the ability of like-minded individuals to associate with those they agree with, without constant disagreement begin? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 11:41, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Please don't refer to anything that isn't terrorism as terrorism. It might be censorship or vandalism or disruption. But terrorism is something else entirely. There is no terror involved in what you describe above and associating the term with it helps to undermine fear of the real kind. Terrorism should not be taken lightly. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::TK, I agree with you completely that people probably need to be "invited" to leave. My only problem is that this is done under the guise of 90/10 rule. I think this is done so that Andy can still claim something like "We don't ask editors to leave because they have a certain viewpoint, only Wikipedia does that." Make too many liberal edits, though, and you'll find that you have somehow violated the 90/10 rule. I say drop the deceit and just ban people with the comment "We don't like your viewpoint. Goodbye." It's about being honest about what kind of place this wiki really is. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 11:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::Ajkgordon, one definition of "terrorism" is "intimidating gang activity". Regardless of your rather parochial idea of its meaning, kindly refrain from saying something I clearly labeled as my own opinion, invention, is wrong usage. Organized activity, like from ''certain groups'', to disrupt other boards or wiki's, no matter how loosely organized, if it is at all coordinated, is intimidation, ergo, "terrorism".

:::RobNewberry, I know that when I was an administrator, I often followed Andy's lead in doing just that, block with the comment "Bye". As Schlafly often says, it isn't very hard to copy edit, add a source a few times a day, especially if one is spending hours and hours debating on talk pages. A person doing that, and not being obnoxious, they shouldn't be blocked. But I mostly see people with absolutely no contributions to CP, and looking at their history see only talk page posts, being blocked. Someone constantly reverting an article because of idealogical disagreement, and making no other contributions, should be blocked, or have the good grace to leave. There is more than one way to run a wiki. That's why they come with settings. Some wiki's require review of submissions before going live. Some require registration in order to edit, others do not. You sound fairly reasonable, obviously an informed person. Surely you can understand how people would grow tired of debating a topic without end. If you don't go to Wikipedia and try to insert something favorable about George W. Bush, Dick Cheney or Ann Coulter. Then when you are reverted, change it back. I don't think your experience will be a pleasant one. ;-) ----[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 12:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::RobNewberry, your own comments are misleading and illustrate the problem, because now I have to waste my time correcting them. The [[90/10 rule]] applies to people who talk, talk, talk without redeeming value in the way of substantive contributions. Nothing could be simpler. Talk is a time-waster. Different viewpoints, if logical, are welcome here. Incessant talk as can be seen on countless other sites, is not. The talkers can rant elsewhere. We're here to learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Andy, you're being very dishonest about the application of the rule. Your explanation of it includes several value judgments - "different viewpoints, if logical" - all we're arguing is that your definition of "logical" is "that which agrees with you." That's where the discrimination we're talking about comes from.
:::::Interestingly, while you spend some time characterizing anyone disagreeing with you as "liberal censorship," in a somewhat dishonest definition of "censorship," you seem unable to recognize that what you're doing is REAL censorship, the use of power (rather than argument & debate) to squelch uncomfortable beliefs. Open your mind.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 12:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::TK, if your definition is from Mirriam-Webster's, then it's '''''violent and''' intimidating gang activity''.
::::My request was but a courteous plea for proper usage of the term for a current and dangerous phenomenon. Scattering the term around and using it to define childish, irreverent and irritating vandalism degrades the purity of the term and lessens its impact when correctly using it. If that's parochial, so be it. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::TK and Andy, let me ask you a question. If you visited Wikipedia, and saw that, say, the Dick Cheney article contained an unreferenced assertion or an unfounded attack, you would initially try to edit and fix that problem, correct? Then, if another WP editor reverted your edit (which you believed was completely correct), you might either undo the reversion, or you might make a comment on the Talk Page, right? Now, here on CP, those of us who see something that ''we'' believe is incorrect or unfounded usually face a few problems. (Do not assume that all of us have evil intent against you - I'm entirely happy for you to have a conservative-leaning encyclopedia, and simply wish the information be factually correct and credibly referenced). First, the article may be locked, as this article is. In which case, there's nowhere to make the complaint except on the Talk Page. Second, if we can make them, our edits are often reverted, often with no supporting data provided (cf the Muslim debate here), so we usually have to make a comment on the Talk Page about that fact. It only takes one back and forth comment as we debate our position before a 90/10 block is usually enacted. Finally, those of us who frequent CP in an attempt to monitor the extreme forms of distortion that crop up now and again (as per any online community) may be shy of actually editing the articles, since bans are so often administered, so we instead first make our comments on the Talk Page. Frequently, a new user's single comment on a Talk Page is enough for a 90/10 ban. So it's pretty hard to believe that 90/10 is really about 90/10 when there are often no other options but Talk. And it's pretty hard to believe you're interested in establishing 'trustworthyness' if you aren't prepared to listen to evidence from other perspectives. [[User:FredX|FredX]] 12:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: FredX, users can talk all they want, as long as they contribute substance at the same time. It's easy to contribute substance. It's the reason we're here. No project can succeed if the participants do nothing but talk. Try it at work sometime if you don't believe me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::Andy, consider this: "talk talk talk" is useful if it's being done to convince you, the only person with control over the article, that you're wrong. Talk towards the truth is not useless talk: it's incredibly substantive. As it stands now, it's you, Bugler, and TK versus everyone else on the site. It might be time to recognize that all this talk has the "substance" of proving your error.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:08, 18 November 2008 (EST)

FredX, having a Conservative/Christian - friendly encyclopedia does not obligate CP to prostitute those beliefs by allowing people who are not Christians, who are not Conservatives, to alter articles or their tone, to fit their outlook. The truth is the truth, but truth is always in the eye of the beholder, no? You and I could argue 24/7, over the existence of God, to use an example. No matter how many "facts" you presented me with, it would not alter my ''knowing'' he exists. Political and religious thought is highly subjective. One mans "distortion" is another mans valid "truth". To repeatedly try to alter someone's beliefs is a form of bullying. Read what you are saying. No one has the obligation to appoint himself "Internet Monitor of Truth". Your conventions of how a wiki-encyclopedia come from where? It is totally lacking in logic to think the conventions of one place should be used at another. If I go to the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post, and appoint myself the "truth" monitor there, what would happen?

If you have a complaint, you can always avail yourself the email links to other users. Or post your objection on the author's talk page. We aren't talking here about people objecting. We are talking about people who will not take "no" for an answer, and demand that their truth is better than another's. Once your point is made, posted, doing it again and again, without end, accomplishes what, other than you being able to vent? I don't spend time arguing with liberals at the Kos or HuffPo, because I know they do not agree with me, never will. I am not a YEC, yet I am here. What would be accomplished for me to argue, without end, with Philip Rayment (to use a known example of a YEC member here) over the age of the Earth? His "facts" as to Earth's age, are his. Mine are mine. In building an encyclopedia, or in any project, the trick is to focus on the areas we can agree on, and not let those we don't bog us down. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Actually, TK, I couldn't disagree with any of your comments, but for this one - "the truth is the truth, but truth is always in the eye of the beholder, no?". That's certainly true when it comes to matters of dogma or belief - it's true, we might never agree on what is "true". But there is much here on Conservapedia that is ''not'' dogma-related, and is simply factually untrue. To take this particular article as an example, might I ask if you believe the Muslim-related material might not be better presented if gathered into one section, entitled "Speculation on Obama's Muslim beliefs", instead of being scattershot throughout the article, unreferenced, misquoted, and asserted with no validity. That would actually HELP this debate, yet is certain to be disallowed under a threat of "we don't hide the truth here", yet who's truth is that? And my mere suggestion of disagreement with this thesis likely marks me as a candidate for a ban. Certainly it's likely that if I answer one more time in this reasonable debate with you, I will likely be blocked by ASchalfly, Bugler or others - simply for debating. But how else would I debate my suggestion - the article is locked? [[User:FredX|FredX]] 14:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Perhaps worth pointing out here that FredX did indeed, as he had predicted, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AFredX&year=&month=-1 receive a 90/10 ban] while trying to debate the content of this article. I imagine he rests his case. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 16:25, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Talking with enemies ==

In the section '''"statements"''' Obama is criticised for claiming Roosevelt spoke to our enemies. Now it is true that Roosevelt did not talk to Hitler, but he certainly ''did'' talk to Stalin, who most Americans consider (and hesitantly considered back then) an enemy, and it is Stalin that Obama is presumably referring to. Rather than letting Hitler conquer Russia while the United States kept to its own war effort, or letting Patton continue on to Warsaw and Moscow after victory against Germany, Roosevelt was willing to talk to the Communist Enemy to co-ordinate action and to ultimately permit the Bolshevik conquest of eastern Europe. Naturally there are divergent opinions over whether in this particular case compromise was the best course of action, but what Obama is obviously expressing when he refers to Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy, all of whom negotiated with the Soviet enemy, is that it's better to come to talk with and possibly compromise with an opponent we may feel ideologically at polar opposites with instead of just blindly fighting whenever the oppurtunity presents itself.

For that reason it is advisable that the section is removed as it relies on the assumption that Obama was referring exclusively to Truman and Roosevelt's relationship with Hitler rather than with Stalin. [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 12:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Your reasoning is confused, and your conclusion makes no sense at all.

:Compromising with an enemy is often the wrong thing to do. Your [[all or nothing]] analysis doesn't support it: it's rarely a case of "give in or fight blindly". Perhaps you have assumed that America only '''felt''' it was ideologically at a polar opposite from atheism and totalitarianism. This is [[liberal dogma]], not CP editorial policy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::You misunderstand completely. ''I'' didn't say anything about whether or not America should compromise - Obama did. Whether or not it should has absolutely nothing to do with the issue I was raising.

::What I was saying was that the section is trying to make it seem that Obama has no grasp of history, that he was claiming that Roosevelt and Truman talked to our enemies (assumed to be Hitler, Mussolini and Hideki) when those Presidents didn't. However, Roosevelt and Truman did talk to our enemies, namely Stalin. Obama was referring to the talks Roosevelt and Truman had with ''Stalin'', not Hitler, and thus he was right to claim that Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy talked to our enemies. Therefore the section is false, not because we should compromise with our enemies, but because Obama did not make a mistake as the section apparently claims.

::Hopefully I have made myself more clear. But I will repeat to make sure: I am not saying anything about whether or not it is right to compromise with enemies. I am not saying that the communists were only apparently our enemies - in fact by suggesting that Roosevelt did not talk with enemies when he clearly talked with Stalin the section in the ''article'' implies that Stalin was not really an enemy. What I am saying is that Obama was perfectly justified in saying that Roosevelt and Truman talked and compromised with our enemies. This means exactly what it says, ''not'' that compromising with our enemies was perfectly justified. I apologise if I was not clear the first time, that's why I've rephrased the same point a second and third time.[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 13:30, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Well? Am I understood now? Is the section going to be removed? [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 18:56, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== compared to wikipedia article ==

It is interesting that the wikipedia articles on Obama does not mention Pakistan. In fact, his three week trip to Pakistan was documented in a New York Times article, but metion of it was removed at wikipedia with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama&diff=252397639&oldid=252397137 this edit]. It looks like some wiki contributors are running interferance at wikipedia. The conservapedia article is a nice balance to that article, though the part that he "may be sworn into office at his inauguration ... using the Koran" is dodgy, and sounds almost National Enquirer-ish. I think the wording could be improved, though I haven't looked into it. It would not surprise me if Barack Obama were a Muslim, and it would not surprise me if he were a liberal Christian with weakly held beliefs and a fondness for his early teachings. At wikipedia, I also didn't see any mention of Bill Ayers on Obama pages. That is very strange. The sad part is, if President Obama appointed Bill Ayers to be the head of the Department of Education, I don't think we would see much difference in the American education system--at least in the public schools--as people that think like him are already in control. Anyway, keep up the good work. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 12:58, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Good points, BigMike! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:24, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::Thanks. Here is a quote "If there is an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process of law, that threatens my civil liberties."--Barack Obama, 2004 DNC speech. (Yes, it is what some would call a quote mine, but it is a direct quote of a complete sentence.) That being said, I agree with others that the article would be better if it were to document the fact that many people are speculating about whehter or not Barack Obama is a Muslim, including adding their reasoning. But trying to make a case that he is a Muslim in this article isn't turning out too well in my opinion. It's good to see some changes have been made. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 22:50, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Suggestion for compromise ==

Since it's clear that none of the editors involved are going to be able to agree, why don't we take Mr. Schlafly's advice [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=554261&oldid=554228 earlier on this talk page] where he says "We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide." How about, instead of going back and forth, back and forth, we instead allow the inclusion of evidence ''against'' Obama being a Muslim. The reader can read the evidence on both sides, and decide for themselves. Good idea? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:Practically, I think that's a workable compromise. Theoretically, of course, it's problematic: neutrality towards an incorrect idea is not objectivity. The idea that Obama is a Muslim is objectively wrong, and should be excised. But, practically, I'm willing to go with that compromise. Great idea from a helpful sysop!-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:32, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::Not a sysop, but every now and then I have a good idea ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::I think this is a very sensible idea. I don't agree with any of the arguments that Obama is a Muslim, but obviously a few people here are determined to cling to them, so including the counterarguments as well would be a good way to balance this part of the article & end the conflicts over this. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 13:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::Also, if the argument would take up a great deal of the article, it could be moved to a separate page. What's the policy on linking to debates from regular pages? I know there are two Obama/Muslim debates going, and I think linking to them from the article might not be a bad idea. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 13:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::(/signed) Totally agree, if all the arguments are presented then anyone who is open minded can make up their own mind. Those with closed minds won't be convinced either way, no matter what arguments are presented..--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Set forth your "evidence" here first, for consideration. Self-serving statements by politicians don't carry much weight here, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:''"Set forth your "evidence" here first, for consideration. Self-serving statements by politicians don't carry much weight here, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)"''[http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=7882247&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.11.1 as required]. This was one source found in 5 minutes work and if anyone doubts the quality of the source [http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/InsideFox/AboutUs?pageId=5.1 please look here]. This is just a single source found at 00:25am after being out all night doing charity work. As I find others I will post. I will also point out that I do not consider this, or subsequent evidence put forth, as 'talk' as I am responding to a direct request for information by the creator of this site--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:Another, same conditions, contributor makes clear that he thinks that Obama is at best [http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/06/02/barack-obama-is-not-a-christian/ a deist], at worst an atheist, but at no point offers an argument for Obama being of an Islamic faith.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:31, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:As above, [http://www.jewsonfirst.org/08a/obama_religion_attacked.html 'Minnery, who served as Dobson's interlocutor on the program yesterday said during the broadcast that Obama was "deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology."'] Again, at best the argument says that Obama is a deist, at worst is trying to set up his own sect of 'christianity', but no evidence to show that Obama is of Islamic faith.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:And again, [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317031,00.html "....to baseless e-mailed rumors that he is a Muslim and poses a threat to the security of the United States."]--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:41, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:Logic argument: I believe it has been mentioned that Obama may be a Muslim because of his lack of dancing or dancing skills. If that belief is true then every man lives in the UK and is either i) not out of his head on 'e' or ii) over the age of 25 is muslim, as no man in the UK that does not fit the two previous definitions ''ever'' dances seriously with full use of his arms, at least, not outside of ballroom dancing. I admitted that is observational evidence, not just of myself but numerous others, but observational evidence is still evidence, and considerably better than suppostition and hearsay, two lower classes of 'evidence' ('that is which is seen').--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:More. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/22/AR2007012201322.html Washington Post, but hey, ''I'm'' not going to be the person who raises objections as to their factual accuracies], I'll leave that to the lawyers, my knowledge of libel laws just ain't that good. Of course, there are always those that will argue on the point of "Classes in Islam are offered to the predominantly Muslim students at the school....", but then that requires proving that Obama was a Muslim with a level of evidence above supposition and hearsay.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:58, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:And now it is 01:00 and I need my sleep. Page 2 of Google tomorrow.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 20:00, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Since CP is the Conservative/Christian-friendly encyclopedia it is, while other points of view should be included, it is wrong to bully it into providing the equivalent of "equal time" to those who are not Christian and/or Conservative. Those who disagree should stop wasting time with this and move on to places that are more accommodating of [[liberal deceit]], Atheist [[deceit]]. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:56, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:You are absolutely right. This is the Christian encyclopedia, at least one of the online ones. That means the Word is God, and God is truth. Let no argument be hidden, for that is the path of the Fallen, the jealous and the wicked. For those with God are armoured with Faith and armed with the Truth and are truly capable of determining the gleanings of Truth from argument and do not need protection, for the Word that is Truth guides their path--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 20:05, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Accusations of Homosexuality ==

The story is starting to spread that Obama is a homosexual or bisexual and may have been involved in the deaths of some of his past lovers<ref>http://chgocutie.blogspot.com/2007/12/nathaniel-nate-spencer-tucc-sanctuary.html</ref>. In shades of a Vince Foster type scandal I'm wondering if any mention of this development should go into the main page. Larry Sinclair<ref>http://larrysinclair0926.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/chicago-packet.pdf</ref> was the initial source, but evidence seems to be mounting<ref>http://redinktexas.blogspot.com/2008/07/larry-sinclair-obamas-bad-penny.html</ref> that Obama has a gay past he's been hiding.
::I really wish someone with authority to edit the article would add some mention of Obama's homosexual leanings. There's evidence of murder, harassment and extensive political corruption and the article makes no mention of it. Isn't it the responsibility of a reliable source to present all the facts, negative and positive, about the soon to be President?--[[User:AlexC|AlexC]] 11:46, 20 November 2008 (EST)

== A better approach to highlighting Obama's negatives - Highlight More Best Arguments against Obama vs. the throw a lot of spaghetti against the wall approach ==

Instead of the article focusing more on claims that are certainly not undisputable (Obama being a Muslim) I think the article could do a better job of pointing out the negative things about Obama that have a much higher degree of certainty.

Examples of things which could be highlighted more:

1. Other than a footnote which few people will read, does the article highlight sufficiently '''his extremely liberal voting record''' as a Senator?[http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/] Perhaps, some of his more extreme votes could be highlighted.

2. There is the '''Obama/infantcide''' issue which might be highlighted more if it is mentioned or mentioned if it is not currently mentioned: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYRpIf2F9NA and http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

===Consequences of the current state of the article===

It seems like the article takes a throw a lot of negative spaghetti against the wall and hopefully some sticks approach. That is not how you create a compelling article in terms of when it highlights some of the negative aspects about Obama. Dubious claims in the article make the valid claims less prominent. Also, it is not surprising that the Obama article is not ranked high by the search engines like the Conservapedia [[Bill Clinton]] article is (I have not read the Bill Clinton article but I suspect it is better than the Obama article. I do know that Conservapedia's Bill Clinton article is ranked #6 by Google). I think that is because it is difficult to get conservatives to link to the article and the article is easily dismissed by liberals and they do not see it as a threat. If you want the article to be informative and influential any dubious claims have to be weeded out and the legitimate matters have to be highlighted more. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:24, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== First Black President? ==

Should we have an article on the [[First Black President]]? I had created one, but [[User_talk:Ed_Poor#First_Black_president|Ed said we should talk about it here first]].

The citations I found that indicated Obama is not the first were [http://www.diversityinc.com/public/1461.cfm], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&curid=65751&diff=561761&oldid=561751], and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=534592&oldid=534582]. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 16:11, 18 November 2008 (EST)

*I would suggest "Bi-Racial" as the most accurate term. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:13, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Please do create an entry. Thanks for the insight. Of course, the other reason for omitting the liberal claim that Obama is the first black president (aside from its likely inaccuracy) is the dubious significance of the assertion. By now our society is long past judging people by their race, and Obama's election illustrates how exaggerated the liberal claims about continued racism really are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Gee, your right, I mean how do we know he is the first black president. I mean they didn't have photgraphs back then, so maybe John Adams was really a brother! For that matter, how do we know he is the first muslim president? Maybe Iran-contra was Reagan's way of helping his fellow Islamists!
:Seriously though, is it really a liberal claim that he is the first black president? Other than you, who is claiming he isn't? [[User:TTerm|TTerm]] 18:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::TTerm, perhaps you don't know how to click on a link yet. BHarlan provided several of them above for you. Also, TTerm, this isn't a blog. Contribute substantively, or rant elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::Two of those links just link back to conservapedia. The third references "research" by a man named Leroy Vaughn. The claims and evidence seem dubious to say the least. Whatever the veracity of these claims, it is wrong to call this a "liberal" claim since most conservatives believe him to be the first black president as well. [[User:TTerm|TTerm]] 20:59, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Great. Would you mind undeleting [[First Black president]], if the software allows it? [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Done, without yet reading it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I for one find it hard to believe that you would have agreed with that research two years ago Schlafly. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 23:49, 19 November 2008 (EST)

==How to collaborate==

If you'll notice, me last few edits to this article were sweepingly changed back by [[User:Aschlafly]]. However, neither my initial round of edits, nor his response, has resulted in animosity. On my part, at least, I have nothing but unbounded respect for my co-editor here.

We are not against each other, although our approach is different. We are finding a synthesis which is (probably) better than each of us could do alone. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:15, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::The Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States are collabrative efforts that him withstood the test of time, among others! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:29, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Good for you, Ed (seriously - I wouldn't have been nearly as sanguine about it). The facts, however, remain that:
:#'''DanH''' - a strong editor and respected sysop - '''quit this project in disgust''' at what he saw as an attempt to "smear" Obama as a Muslim.
:#'''PJR''' - the most patient and eloquent defender of YEC I have ever encountered - '''categorically refutes''' the idea that there is any credible evidence that Obama is a Muslim.
:#'''Conservative''' - principal author of several of Conservapedia's defining articles - remains '''wholly unconvinced''' of the strength of the Obama/Muslim case, and is concerned that its inclusion in the article could '''damage Conservapedia's credibility'''.
:#'''Tim/CPAdmin1''' - one of the original members of this project - has '''repeatedly objected''' to its inclusion.
:#And finally, '''ChrisS''' - again, one of the original Conservapedians - even felt moved to describe this article as '''the most sorry excuse for an encyclopedia entry I have ever seen'''. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=556523]
:What kind of synthesis do you hope to achieve in the face of such ''demonstrably principled'' opposition? These are not lone, liberal voices. These are long-standing contributors who collectively insist that '''this is plain wrong and must be removed'''.

:Good night (and good luck). --[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] 17:39, 18 November
::: And that's not all of it. At least two other administrators have also made known their opposition, via e-mail (which Andy got copies of at the time). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::We respect the views of a minority among us (and note that the minority you cite has displayed almost no experience with Islam and/or Islamic education). Regardless, obviously logic prevails over even the opinion of a majority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::: Andy, it is ''your'' view that is in the minority; JohnZ was citing the ''majority''. It seems that Ed (inadvertently) recognised that by his comment below. Hopefully logic would prevail, but unfortunately you are trying to make ''your'' minority and illogical view prevail.
::: And this yet again highlights a major problem here. You are throwing around these personal opinions as though they are factual, denigrating the opposing view and the people that put them, but not actually engaging the arguments and providing a logical response.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

The late Michael Crichton said, "The Nazis got 200 German scientists to say that Einstein was wrong, and then somebody asked Einstein, 'How does it feel to have 200 scientists against you?' And he said, 'It takes only one to prove me wrong.' " [http://www.perc.org/articles/article894.php] We don't go by majority vote around here, because the majority are (as our [[Founding Fathers]] indicated) simply not trustworthy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: So are you saying that the administrators who are in the majority on this issue are not trustworthy? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Hi Ed,

:I'm not usually known for my poor reading comprehension, but I can't tell which side of this thing your statement above is supporting. Is Andy vs. the 5 listed sysops the minority, or are the five listed sysops the minority as described by Andy ("[w]e respect the views of a minority among us)...")? Merci, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:02, 18 November 2008 (EST) ''<-honh honh...''

:: Ed's comment seems clear enough to me. Logic is not the result of majority vote, and even less so the product of a consensus among the minority. Ed is opposing relying on the view of a minority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:04, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Good grief, man, must I spell it out? I'm on the side of finding out what is true! As J.M. Keynes said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" It is to the principle of truth-seeking which I express my devotion here, as well as to the collaborative process of its discovery. Stop trying to cover this story like a sportswriter trying to figure out which horse won the race. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:And what do ''you'' see as being the facts here, Ed? How do you hope to achieve your synthesis? --[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] 18:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::Yes, Ed, I'm sorry but I need it spelled out for me. This isn't a vague question for late night dorm hall meanderings. It's pretty concrete: the Obama-is-Muslim material, as Andy wants it presented, belongs in the article, or it doesn't. I can paint those two statements on horses and run them around a track if an over-extended metaphor will help here - only one of those horses can win. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:31, 18 November 2008 (EST) ''<- will, however, need to learn to play the bugle (if not the bugler)...''

:Wow, Ed, that's extremely well put!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:21, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:ASchalfly - you said, "We...note that the minority you cite has displayed almost no experience with Islam and/or Islamic education". Might I ask what your own qualifications are in this regard, since you are clearly 'over-ruling' their opinions? [[User:FredX|FredX]] 18:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I'm going to write an article about [[the real horse whisperer]]. I have no more time to entertain you here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:33, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Amazing. A simple question, with only two possible answers, that could be answered in fewer characters than you just used to beg off. And if you think I'm entertained you probably do think those horses are talking to you. ''Anybody'' who sticks with the "this conversation is a dragged-out waste of time" is missing the point that the time is being wasted by the continued and false defenses presented. It's only a continuing waste of time because the people in the wrong unfortunately wield all the clout, so they are in fact allowed to say "nuh unh" and ''have it stick''. If SteveRandomperson had inserted this stuff, other regular users could remove it, and when Steve got into an edit war over it any of the five sysops listed above could simply end this thing. It's only dragging on because none of them can pull rank on the proponent of this material.

:''That'' is the source of wasted time here. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Aziraphale, your long-winded comment is incoherent, and your list of contributions is a remarkable violation of the [[90/10 rule]] against talk, talk, talk.[[Special:Contributions/Aziraphale]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::: I'm afraid he can't respond Andy. He's been blocked. --[[User:WOwen|WOwen]] 19:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::: I had no problem understanding Aziraphale's comment, so it is quite coherent, and he makes a very good point. It would make more sense to take notice of the problem than to brush it aside and silence him with a block. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==You're All Missing the Point==

Ok I've said this once before, but nobody seems to understand so I'll try to make it clearer.

'''YOU ARE ALL MISSNIG THE POINT'''

Sitting around debating whether or not Obama is a Muslim is doing nothing to discredit him, instead it just reflects badly on conservatives. If you stopped using circumstantial evidence to "prove" that he may have told one lie on the campaign trail (which inevitably does not affect his politics) then you would realise there are plenty of valid fronts you can criticise him on:

*Abortion
*Stem cell research
*War on Terror
*Criminal rights
*Lack of substance in policy
*Economic regulation

and so on... If you examined these in detail and explained why they would be bad for America, rather than dedicating copious amounts of the article to a farfetched claim that he's a Muslim in disguise, then you would not only convince conservatives that he is the wrong candidate, but also show politically neutral parties why they should not have voted for him. Instead, the article at the moment reads like a cross between a parody and a far right-wing blog entry, and will do nothing to convince anyone other than the most conservative voter. One of your own sources in the article clearly demonstrates that these attacks actually made people vote FOR Obama, and I can definitely say that if I saw this as the ideology of McCain I would have changed sides for the election.

In debating there is a argument known as an ad homenin attack, where you attack the debator and not his/her arguments. This is weak, because it demonstrates an inability to critically analyse the opposition's position. This is exactly what is happening here, you are ''trying'' to attack Obama's character rather than his politics. If you tried more of the latter, you'll find that you will convince many more people that Obama is not an appropriate president for the United States, and win much more credibility in the process. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 20:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== obama, Muslim or "liberal Christian" with a skeptical streak - The duck test ==

Andy, you claim that you are better educated regarding Islam than the oppposing sysops and that gives you deeper understanding of the issue. In response, I will first say that you have not shown that Lolo Soetoro was a staunch Muslim and given that Obama was sent to a Catholic school at some point I don't think you can show that his father had a great influence in his life. Furthermore, it appears as if Obama's mother was not married to the stepfather Lolo Soetoro long. In addition, his skeptical mother appears to have had the most influence in his life. Given that I have spent sometime studying Islam and had a Muslim housemate when I was younger and lived in a area highly concentrated with Muslims in the past, I don't think it is fair to say that I have great ignorance about Islam. I am well aware that patriarchy is present in Islamic families, but I am also aware that Obama's fathers did not appear to have great influence in his life.

I really think at this point that Obama's behavior is key in terms of the likelihood of him being a Muslim.

Most American Muslims are not rabidly pro-abortion, have great antipathy to the homosexual agenda, and abstain from alcohol. On the other hand, most "liberal Christians" who have a philosophical skepticism streak favor the "pro-choice" position and most do not have great antipathy toward the homosexual lifestyle. In addition, most "liberal Christians" have no problem drinking alcohol. Also, there is the fact that Obama's daughters were baptised.

Given the above, if Obama walks like a duck and talks like a duck, he is probably a duck. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)'

Obama's nominally Muslim father was not religious in the first place.[[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

== Reversion ==

All three items of evidence that Philip deleted are fully supported and hardly deniable. I don't know why Philip wants to delete them. The entries are educational also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:I'm afraid not one of them is "supported" in any way and all are deniable. None of them are educational, and all are merely unfounded assertion and speculation. The first accusation (for that is what they are) about him not changing his name is dependent on him being Muslim to begin with. If he is not Muslim, then he has no need to change his name, and you haven't provided any evidence he's Muslim. The second accusation, about taqiyya, depends upon him being a Muslim, and you have not provided any evidence to that. The third, about the pronunciation of Pakistan, is irrelevant, as that is the correct pronunciation of that country's name. [[User:FredX|FredX]] 23:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

: As FredX says, they are ''not'' supported, and they are most definitely deniable. Simply making those assertions is not a supporting argument. And how can you continue to claim that you don't know why I want to delete them when I've told you several times? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:18, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:: Philip, you have to do better than that before deleting factual and informative material. All three points are enlightening and undeniable, and I doubt you knew any of them before reading them here. We let the readers decide here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:32, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::: Okay Andy, I'll try and lay it out as simply as I can for you.
::: For something to be included in this (or any) article, it needs to be both ''factual'' and ''relevant''. We could put in the article that Obama eats breakfast every morning, and that would (presumably) be quite ''factual'', but it would not be ''relevant''. Agreed?
::: So when you say that I should not delete ''factual'' information, as long as it is ''relevant'', I agree.
::: The problem is, however, that the claim about Obama using a Muslim pronunciation of "Pakistan", for example is '''not factual'''. This is because there is no such thing as a Muslim pronunciation of "Pakistan". We thrashed this out ages ago on the Main Talk page, so it's not as though this is new information to you.
::: So when you keep repeating ad nauseam that "we don't delete factual information", '''you are avoiding the point that it is ''not factual'''''. That's why I keep deleting it—because it is ''not'' factual—and you repeatedly claiming that it is factual '''is not a valid argument''', because it is merely an assertion, not evidence or reason. If you want the claim kept, you have to show that it is ''factual''. That is the very thing that you avoid doing.
::: I don't know how this can be explained any more simply. It is beyond my comprehension that you cannot understand this, which leaves outright deceit on your part as the only other explanation. But then I can't comprehend that you would be outright deceitful either, so I'm at a loss to understand what's going through your mind.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:42, 19 November 2008 (EST)

"Letting the readers decide" would ring more true if you simply laid out the facts about Obama instead of riddling the article with unsubstantiated, repeatedly disproven falsehoods to skewer it toward your personal political viewpoint. Do you not realize that simply highlighting the positions he supports that conservatives are opposed to (his support of gay rights and abortion rights as just two examples) would do a better job turning conservatives against Obama than telling easily proven lies about him? The fact that you feel you have to resort to lies makes you look like you are guilty of the very thing you accuse liberals of: not having any actual factual argument to make. [[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

== Unbelievable ==

It's understandable that conservatives disapprove of Obama and much of this article reflects that. Smearing is nothing new to politics, but the poor logic shamelessly employed here is an embarrassment to American conservatives. As this site becomes a "de facto" conservative reference, more and more people will begin believing this is how conservatives reason and come up with their ideas. With great power comes great responsibility, and Conservapedia and Aschlafly fail disastrously as representatives of the conservative movement.

Under the pretense of "not censoring" and "letting the readers decide" the article is allowed to introduce deceptive evidence toward building weak and ultimately unproven hypotheses. Simultaneously, the exact opposite policy is used when contradictory evidence is presented.

This stunning hypocrisy can be best illustrated by how the "Obama is likely a Muslim" section is moderated. Several times myself and others have attempted to delete the statement "Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith." Yes he said the words "My Muslim Faith" but this is utterly meaningless as no context for the statement is provided. I could say "I approve of the killing of babies coming to an end" and using the logic here I could be quoted as saying "I approve of the killing of babies"

However, we cannot escape the fact he said the words "My Muslim Faith" and since Conservapedia doesn't censor information, it must remain in the article. Furthermore, it must remain in a section attempting to show secret Muslim faith, however misleading it may be.

Where the hypocrisy comes in is that there is an overwhelming body of information that suggests Obama is not a Muslim and in fact a Christian. For example, he was sworn into the Senate using a bible in 2005, he attended a (albeit controversial) christian church for decades, no one has ever observed him performing Muslim rituals (ie, praying 5 times a day). Even the "My Muslim Faith" comment is evidence of him being a christian when viewed in full context, as it's more than clear he meant to say "My Christan Faith". Attempting to mention any of this in the article will result in an almost immediate undo and block.

The intentions of this section are transparent: to pander to modern American distrust of Muslims to build distrust of Obama. The irony of this and the article as a whole is obvious and almost comedic, as even a semi-informed reader can see through the deception and will likely end up with a reduced opinion of Conservatives.

I expect to immediately be labeled a liberal for posting this. I need to say for the record, I voted for McCain. I attend Church. I have an American flag outside my house. However I cannot stomach this article and quite frankly am ashamed that such cheap hate tactics are being used by people calling themselves conservative.

[[User:Conservamike|Conservamike]] 23:14, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::Your best arguments against Obama being Muslim amount to unsourced opinion on your part. You gave no evidence just expressed opinions. Personally, I would hope this encyclopedia would hold itself to a higher standard and demand sources. There is ample evidence that Obama is Muslim pretending to be a Christian. Arguing that he can't be Muslim because no one has seen him bowing to Mecca is an appeal to ignorance. The Koran permits Muslims to lie about being Muslim if it advances the Muslim faith.--[[User:AlexC|AlexC]] 11:42, 20 November 2008 (EST)

==Counter Evidence==

If we are letting the readers decide (as written above) then in order to keep this article fair and balanced we should add a section detailing the evidence that Obama is not a Muslim (such as his positions on abortion and stem cell research, his religious history, his Catholic schooling etc). If the evidence is truly overwhelming that Obama is a Muslim then there should be no problem with adding such a section, as readers will quickly be able to see that it is insufficient to counter the claim. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 08:57, 19 November 2008 (EST)

: Fine, post your best stuff here first. But claiming that Obama went to Catholic school is counter evidence is, of course, absurd. Stop by your local Catholic school and you'll see Muslims students who never convert.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:15, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:: And Jewish students. In many areas the public schools are pathetic. In the absence of a good Protestant school, many parents are forced to choose between overly liberal public schools with poor curriculum, home schooling or a Catholic school. Many choose Catholic schools. The Jesuits tend to be in charge of the Catholic schools and they're actually pretty even handed in their treatment of non-Christian students. Saying someone attended a Catholic school or sent their children to one as "evidence" of their being Christian is absurd and betrays a deep ignorance of how the schools are actually run.--[[User:AlexC|AlexC]] 11:54, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Dunno if this is counter evidence, but my two cents about the misguided motivations of Obama's Lenin poster.

Most Europeans, East and West, would be severely alienated by any hidden or subliminal message that Obama was Leninist. Eastern Europe suffered under the communist iron heel for 45 years after WW2, including East Berlin. And Western Europe feared invasion. West Berlin was nearly starved by the communist blockade of the late 40s. Eastern Europe's rush to join NATO and the EU to ensure their free economies and societies is testament to this hatred of Soviet Leninist domination. Of course none of this goes to whether the poster was Leninist, only that if it was it was a serious mistake on Obama's part.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:54, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== My innocuous talk page contribution removed? ==

The Lenin poster one. Just wondered why.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:49, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Oh figured it out now, sorry --[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:51, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== About the Muslim allegations ==

Allow me to play devil's advocate. I am lost. As a conservative, bordering on a paleo-conservative, with a streak of classical liberal in the John Locke/Jeffersonian sense, who also fears the coming administration greatly (I keep thinking Jimmy Carter, stagflation, FDR, Civilian Conservation Corps, prolongation of the depression, and a world war), a man's religion is his own business.

This is the United States. Our forefathers fought and died for the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

In those rights are the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion.

The freedom of speech does give Conservapedia the right to impune the president elect for his supposed Muslim faith (backed by what looks to me to be evidence that is neither conclusive nor wholly circumstantial). But that doesn't mean Conservapedia should squander that right in an attempt to prove what is ultimately between him and God.

The first amendment also gives every man in this country the right to hold whatever spiritual beliefs he wants, and to share, or not share, those beliefs with others.

While I do think it is appropriate to mention speculation that President elect Barack Obama may be a Muslim, to the extent that such allegations exist and are notable, as I think they are, I do not think it is proper for this encyclopedia to attempt to make the case that he is a closet Muslim. The Muslim speculation should be relegated to later parts of the article, and reworked.

Juxtaposing a reference early on in the article, which, if you scroll to the references, indicates that Keith Ellison used a Koran in his swearing in ceremony, with the statement that Obama is an "apparent Muslim" is tawdry at best, and beneath a serious conservative encyclopedia.

Certainly, President elect Obama's political views deserve much more scrutiny from a conservative perspective, than whether or not he is a closet Muslim.

Senator Barack Obama was rated the most liberal senator, left of a self-declared socialist. I think we should focus on that.

President elect Barack Obama seems to hold political views that go against our Constitution. This raises the question about whether or not he can honestly affirm to protect and defend the Constitution.

President elect Barack Obama may institute nationalized health care, requiring children to be vaccinated in order to receive benefits, while bankrupting the private health care system for middle and lower class Americans. Where will this leave such children?

Barack Obama may very likely work to reduce or control home schooling and private schools.

Barack Obama may work to erode or eviscerate the second amendment.

There is plenty of political evidence for these other fears, and it is more appropriate to focus on these, and not his supposed secret Muslim belief system.

I recommend focusing on his easily provable liberal and possibly anti-American political views, and not waste too much time trying to prove he has some religious belief system. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 10:15, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:BigMike, I take it you're not an historian. People's beliefs matter greatly, and you can bet a real historian would not tolerate censorship of inquiry into someone's beliefs. Our other entries likewise provide information about the beliefs of other presidents, great scientists, and others. The insistence on censoring a similar inquiry about Obama's beliefs is misplaced and inappropriate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:09, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::I didn't mean to censor it, I just suggested a shift in focus. I meant to focus on extreme liberal political views first, as they are, to me, the most important. Change the prominence within the article, and change the tone. But you're right, I am not a historian. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 11:12, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::OK, your point is well-taken then. But the reality is that many of Obama's positions to date were posturing to win the presidency, and not necessarily indicative of his priorities as president. His beliefs matter more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:16, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::::No problem. I know this site takes a lot of pointless flack, and it is hard to seperate the wheat from the chaf. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 11:20, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Perhaps a template would help ==

The discussion on this page keeps covering the same ground over and over again. Aside from the wasted time and effort, a major problem is that new users often edit the page and become instantly embroiled in the controversy, sometimes leading to bad feeling and thus driving away potentially valuable contributors.

As a solution, I suggest a template is created and added to the top of the page and any others in this situation. The wording could be something like:

:''This article deals with a controversial topic and has already been the subject of lengthy discussion. Your input is welcome, but '''please check the talk page carefully''' to make sure that the issues you raise have not been dealt with already. New users in particular are advised to start by editing less controversial pages to get a feel for the site.''

Thoughts and suggestions very welcome.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 15:48, 19 November 2008 (EST)

*We do have such. Template "Controversial". But it has problems, and needs some fixing. use the {{ and type in Controversial, and see what I mean. I have read it noted several places it is broken. If you or anyone else knows what is needed, fix the template, and if it is locked, contact Philip Rayment or Ed Poor and let them know. Thanks, good suggestion. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:03, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::Thanks - I've asked Mr Rayment. If that template's ever going to be used, I think this article could do with it, though the wording could be more diplomatic in my opinion.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 16:36, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::Perhaps it would be better slapped here, on this page? If anyone is going to change the article, hopefully they will look here first? Assuming this page is ever partially archived! :D --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:51, 19 November 2008 (EST)

I've fixed the bug, although I don't think putting the template on the article page is going to solve much. And by the way, it's designed for article pages, not talk pages; the link in it to the talk page won't work if placed on a talk page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:56, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== "Captured the White House" ==

Is it just me, or does this memorable line conjure up images of Barry and Joe, the special forces operatives, sneaking across the White House lawn under cover of darkness before launching a daring assault, creating a beach head in the kitchen before ensnaring their ultimate goal: the Oval Office.

Would the phrase "won the presidential election" be more encyclopedic?

[[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 16:32, 19 November 2008 (EST)

: Your phrase would be an improvement. Go ahead, and thanks--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:37, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::It would indeed be an improvement, but he cannot make it, as the article is locked. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 16:41, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Religious Affiliation ==

OK, I do not want to get involved in the whole debate about whether Obama is a covert (or even overt) Muslim. (Although the statistically savvy amongst you can probably predict with 99.9999% certainty what my view is on that matter.)

However, the article currently has two sections dealing with religion. The first ("Obama will likely become the first Muslim President") comes as part of the introduction. It provides a list of evidence supporting the author's view that Obama is a Muslim. The second ("Religious Affiliation") describes various issues to do with Obama's connections in the Christian church, and provides some quotes about his history relating to the Islamic faith. Nobody reading just the second section would come away beleiving the author thinks Obama is a Muslim.

The two seem a little contradictory - either the article does take the view that he is a Muslim, in which case the second piece needs re-writing, or the article takes the view that he is not a Muslim, in which case the first piece needs re-writing, or the article presents the issue as unresolved, in which case both pieces need re-writing.

Given that the subject is so controversial, I do not want to volunteer to do the writing. It would appear that Ed Poor is Appeaser-in-Chief - maybe someone should ask him to have a go?

[[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 17:01, 19 November 2008 (EST)

: So are you now saying both sides should not be presented??? The liberal opposition to the observation that Obama is likely a Muslim is as self-contradictory as it is unjustified.

: By the way, I don't think Obama has had any Christian affiliation for many months.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::::Andy, there is plenty of conservative opposition to the notion that Obama is a secret Muslim as evidenced by this talk page. Andy, what conservative news organizations are still wedded to the idea that Obama is a secret Muslim? I have not checked but I am guessing that [[Cybercast News Service]] which runs plenty of hard hitting and reasonable conservative pieces does not currently promote the idea that Obama is a secret Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:36, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::::I think all I'm saying is the two bits are inconsistent, in that the first leaves no room for the possibility of the second being true and vice versa. I think it's fine to present both views if that's what the authors want to do - but it has to be done consistently. [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 06:37, 20 November 2008 (EST)

== Another shocked conservative here ==

I came to Conservapedia hoping to find a valuable resource on the internet for people like me but to tell the truth I have been shocked and disappointed by some of the content, and this article seems absurd to me. How can we be taken seriously if some of us are peddling nonsense like this? Any right thinking person knows Obama isn't a Muslim. I can't stand the guy but it's clear he's a family man and a Christian. This is just gutter politics, nothing more or less, and it reflects incredibly badly on us.

Most of the stuff in this article has been easily refuted on Snopes at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp. For instance, this shows pictures of Obama with his hand on his heart at the national anthem: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/anthem.asp which makes that picture featured on this page, without his hand on his heart, just another smear.

This is the kind of reason folks didn't vote for McCain - because it's just ugly smear tactics. I despair. [[User:MrCoulter|MrCoulter]]

:The thing that scares me is that the tactics continue even after the election. I dislike them, but during an election, I can at least understand them; that's politics. But now, with the "Muslim" and the "not born in the US" charges (most likely among others I can't think right now), it's like people are trying to de-legitimize the election, declaring him a false president before he's even sworn in. In the eyes of people who believe those allegations, Barack Obama's election was no more legal than a military coup.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 10:08, 20 November 2008 (EST)

:*The election officially lost its validity for many, with the ''fraud'' committed by the Obama campaign in the caucuses [http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/caucus-fraud-proof/] which stole the nomination from Hillary Clinton. That was months before this article appeared. There are many pictures, all real, that show Obama with his hand on his heart, and without, so this photo was not altered. I suggest you at least open your mind, do some proper research, and perhaps you will learn of some valid questions, and the total lack of vetting by the media of their favorite candidate. The media has special rights granted in the Constitution. The real question is if they should continue to have those special rights or not, given their continued[[deceit]] in helping with Obama's leftist agenda. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:31, 20 November 2008 (EST)

::Rather off topic, but what are these special rights constitutionally granted to the media? [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 15:27, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Those rights are included within the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States:

<blockquote>
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of '''speech''', or of '''the press'''; or the right of the people '''peaceably to assemble''', and to '''petition the Government''' for a redress of grievances."
</blockquote>

You can read more about this [http://www.consource.org/index.asp?sid=28&taxlist=180 here.] --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:36, 20 November 2008 (EST)

== The Truth is not always popular ==

In response to all the "dismayed conservatives" upset about the muslim section. One of the stated goals of CP is to highlight facts and stories that are suppressed by the liberal media. Obama's muslim heritage is one of the best examples of this right now. The mainstream liberal media refuses to even broach the topic! I commend Mr. Schlafly and Conservapedia for not censoring these facts for the sake of political correctness (in the eyes of liberals). Try to have a more open mind. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 13:55, 20 November 2008 (EST)
:Here here. It saddens me to see how incredibly effective the deceit of the liberal media has been. Many upstanding, conservative contributors to this site have been thoroughly insulated from the facts of Obama's muslim heritage. As Aschlafly has repeatedly pointed out, the evidence for it is extremely strong and, even if you don't agree that he ''is'' a muslim, the evidence is strong enough and so thoroughly censored that it should be presented on Conservapedia. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 15:26, 20 November 2008 (EST)
:I don't suppose it's occured to you that a person could have an open mind, evaluate the evidence, and still come to a different conclusion than you?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 15:30, 20 November 2008 (EST)
::Draw whatever conclusions you want, but don't expect the article to be changed or have facts removed to support the conclusion that you come to. The facts are the facts, they exist independant of popular opinion.[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 16:39, 20 November 2008 (EST)
::: It ispossible that Obama is a Muslim, what is not possible is that this evidence that we have here on this page is worthy of an encyclopedia entry. It is not good enough. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:06, 20 November 2008 (EST)
:::: Correct. Andy and a few others here have repeatedly ''claimed'' that the evidence is strong. The problem is that they have yet to produce ''any'' strong evidence, and some of the evidence produced is actually either wrong or logically fallacious. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:28, 20 November 2008 (EST)

::::: No, Philip, the evidence speaks for itself and should not be censored. Conservapedia exists precisely because of such censorship on liberal sites and the media. I'm restoring the facts yet again.

::::: At bottom, liberal beliefs inevitably lead to demands for censorship. We're seeing an illustration of that here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:::::: '''ANDY, I AM NOT A LIBERAL. STOP CALLING ME ONE AND APOLOGISE FOR DOING SO.'''
:::::: '''Deleting false and irrelevant information is not "censorship". The "facts" are not facts, and you declaring them to be so does not make them so. You have ''not'' shown them to be facts.''' [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:06, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::Philip. your post demonstrates how not to communicate properly on a project of this nature. Aggressive posts like that undermine collaborative efforts, quite apart from th want of courtesy. Your demand for an apology - even were it justifiable, and even were it not directed at the Founder and Leader of Conservapedia, who deserves your respect - is couched in unacceptable terms. And that is just the style. Turning to the 'substance' of your post, you are attempting to impose your subjective views on Conservapedia. The information deleted is not 'false' and 'irrelevant' except in your personal opinion. This is not Raymentapedia. The information has been deemed sufficiently relevant and raises sufficient questions to have a place here. That argument is incontrovertable. As for ''You have ''not'' shown them to be facts'', well, let us apply a little test here. You are so sure of your case. Can you ''prove'' them to be false? And please, ''manners makyth man''. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:29, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::: Bugler, I wonder if there's any point in responding to you, as you appear to have a closed mind on this issue. But I'll assume for the moment that you are open to civil discussion.
:::::::: You accuse me of various faults, but totally ignore the faults on the other side. You say that posts like mine "undermine collaborative efforts", but totally igore that Andy imposing his will on the article ''in direct opposition to many other reputable editors'' is doing exactly that—undermining collaborative efforts.
:::::::: You question whether my demand for an apology is justifiable, but offer not the slightest reason to think that it's not. And somehow seem to think that a person name-calling someone else is above having to apologise for that simply because they are a site owner. Are you saying that Andy doesn't have to observe common courtesy?
:::::::: You say that "The information deleted is not 'false' and 'irrelevant' except in your personal opinion. This is not Raymentapedia.", but offer nothing but your personal opinion as support. And wilfully ignore that it's not just my opinion, but the opinion of a large number of the senior administrators. And also ignore that my claims are ''not'' opinion, but testable.
:::::::: "''The information has been deemed sufficiently relevant...''": By whom? Most senior administrators disagree. And that's the point—it's been ''deemed'' sufficiently relevant, it hasn't been ''demonstrated'' to be relevant. You accuse me of basing it on my personal opinion, but ignore that its relevance is nothing more than the ''personal opinion'' of Andy. Although Andy started this encyclopaedia, he called it ''Conservapedia'', not "Aschlaflypedia". Contrary to your unfounded implication, I'm not expecting it to conform to my personal opinion, but to ''logic and evidence'' and beyond that to the opinions of a majority of the reputable editors. You, on the other hand, are expecting it to conform to the personal opinion of Andy, who as site founder has the right to decide the commandments and who can have what privileges, but can't ''decide'' (as distinct from ''determine'') the truth of such things as whether Obama is a Muslim.
:::::::: "''The information ... raises sufficient questions to have a place here.'': The questions are only relevant if the information is correct, so that objection begs the question.
:::::::: The onus is on those making the claims in the first place to demonstrate them to be correct, not on me to demonstrate their falsity. In any case, the three points are slightly different. One (regarding his name) involves a correct fact making a point that is of little relevance and what relevance it has is based on another claim that hasn't been demonstrated. The second (taqiyya) is a logical fallacy, as it's not actually an argument that Obama is a Muslim. Do you, Bugler, deny that you are a Muslim? Then you must be according to this point, because Muslims deny that they are if it suits their purpose! The third (pronunciation) has been argued at length previously on the main talk page, not only without the claim being supported, but with good counter evidence.
:::::::: In summary, the arguments ''have'' been refuted, but Andy keeps reinserting them anyway, and when he does justify it, it's on the basis of "the evidence speaks for itself" or similar (if it did, then we wouldn't have so many disagreeing), that it's undeniable (if so, we wouldn't have so many denying it), that removal is liberal censorship (it's being removed by a conservative, and removal of incorrect or irrelevant information is not censorship), and so on. The one line of argument glaringly absent is any argument actually ''showing'' (as distinct from asserting) that the information ''is'' both accurate and relevant. This is true both from Andy and from the others such as you supporting him. If the information is so obviously correct and relevant, why is it so hard to actually show that?
:::::::: But I do thank you for one small point, Bugler. Unlike Andy, you did actually raise the point of testing the claims. Now can you demonstrate that they ''are'' correct and relevant? Please support your implied claim that if I speak nicely I will get proper answers, by giving me proper answers.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:06, 24 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::''I wonder if there's any point in responding to you, as you appear to have a closed mind on this issue'' Ah, the old 'when did you stop beating your wife?' tactic, an old Liberal trick. Yagain, Philip, you fail to get the point. You claim that all your assertions are 'proved' and that no-one else's ideas are. This is both arrogant and wrong. You are the only one making assertions that 'X is fact',a nd you fail to provide any satisfactory evidence. Your further claims of legitimacy through supported from a shadowy clique of 'senior administrators' (unnamed) is an attempt to muddy the waters. Those who disagree with you, including Andy, also have support, from senior people here. And we are not saying 'X is fact'; we are saying 'here is a case to answer'. You have not answered it, and you actions in constantly reverting these passages amounts to an attempt to censor opinions with which you disagree. Saying that we 'have not proved our point' is disingenuous, and you know that. We cannot 'prove' our beliefs; proof will only come should our fears bbe realised. Is that a reason to remain silent? Had I believed that the Japanese might attack Pearl Harbor, based on an educated reading of the situation in November 1941, should I have remained silent because a proto-Rayment demanded written proof in triplicate? We are not dogmatic. We are raising fears based on a prime facie assessment of Obama's record and behaviour; we are not claiming that these are facts carbved in granite slabs. But you, Philip, are displaying liberal dogmatism. You say that your beliefs are not beliefs, but facts. And such an attitude is insupportable; especially insupportable as arrogance of belief is leading you into arrogance of behaviour. Throw slurs at me, by all means. But do not insult Andy, who is the founder of this project and our respected leader in this great endeavour. Learn discipline, as you should have learned it in your youth. The question has been debated ''ad nauseam''. Andy has quite correctly made a decision, to stop the ceaseless argument. And it would be seemly for you to accept and comply with this decision; and if you cannot bring yourself to back it openly, then to leave this topic and work on other matters in which you are interested. Display loyalty and work hard. Do not display defiance, do not keep attacking and undermining the leadership. Remember the objectives of Conservapedia, read the Commandments, and do your best to support Conservapedia and support Andy Schlafly. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:03, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::: "''Ah, the old 'when did you stop beating your wife?' tactic''": No, it's not, actually. That is a question with no correct answer. I didn't ask a question.
::::::::::::: "''You claim that all your assertions are 'proved' and that no-one else's ideas are. ''": Incorrect. I said that my 'assertions' have been backed by logic and evidence, whereas the opposing ideas haven't been. That's not to say that there is no evidicence that can be used to support them; it's saying that such evidence has not been offered.
::::::::::::: "''This is both arrogant and wrong.''": It's not arrogant if it's true, and you've not shown it to be wrong.
::::::::::::: "''You are the only one making assertions that 'X is fact',a nd you fail to provide any satisfactory evidence.''": On the contrary, as I've just posted to Ed above, it is Andy and people such as you who are claiming that 'x is a fact' (Obama is a Muslim), whereas I'm saying that 'there's little or no evidence that x is a fact'.
::::::::::::: "''Your further claims of legitimacy through supported from a shadowy clique of 'senior administrators' (unnamed)...''": You asked for their names, and I pointed out to you that many of them had been named on this page, so you have no good excuse for this false statement.
::::::::::::: "''Those who disagree with you, including Andy, also have support, from senior people here.''": I guess it depends on how you define "senior", but apart from editors with block rights, I haven't seen one.
::::::::::::: "''And we are not saying 'X is fact'; we are saying 'here is a case to answer'.''": Blatantly wrong. As I just said to Ed above, until his last edit, the article said "Obama is a Muslim". That ''is'' saying 'x is a fact'.
::::::::::::: "''You have not answered it...''": I have, a number of times.
::::::::::::: "''...you actions in constantly reverting these passages amounts to an attempt to censor opinions with which you disagree.''": I have pointed out numerous times that it is incorrect to call it censorship (and nobody has refuted that), and I've also pointed out that we are talking about truth claims, not ''opinions''. This is the sort of reason that you appear to have a closed mind. These sorts of things have been explained before, without being refuted, yet you keep repeating these discredited claims.
::::::::::::: "''Saying that we 'have not proved our point' is disingenuous, and you know that.''": Incorrect.
::::::::::::: "''We cannot 'prove' our beliefs;...''": These are ''truth claims'', not just "beliefs". And if they were just "beliefs", then they should be presented as such, not as truth claims.
::::::::::::: "''Had I believed that the Japanese might attack Pearl Harbor, based on an educated reading of the situation in November 1941, should I have remained silent because a proto-Rayment demanded written proof in triplicate?''": False analogy, because that's nothing like what I'm claiming, nor is the comparison the same.
::::::::::::: "''We are not dogmatic.''": Saying that "Obama is a Muslim", and resisting all attempts to remove bad evidence ''is'' being dogmatic.
::::::::::::: "''...we are not claiming that these are facts carbved in granite slabs.''": Essentially you are.
::::::::::::: "''But you, Philip, are displaying liberal dogmatism.''": Oh, so the dogmatism (that ''you'' are displaying) is "liberal", is it?
::::::::::::: "'' You say that your beliefs are not beliefs, but facts.''": Where exactly did I say that?
::::::::::::: "''But do not insult Andy, who is the founder of this project and our respected leader in this great endeavour.''": Even though he is insulting me, calling me names? Are you suggesting that I should not follow his example?
::::::::::::: "''The question has been debated ''ad nauseam''.''": Yes, with the only substantial evidence being ''against'' Obama being a Muslim.
::::::::::::: "'' And it would be seemly for you to accept and comply with this decision...''": Ignoring Commandment 1?
::::::::::::: In summary, yet again another long claim that your side is supported, yet with no actual support offered at all, despite you raising the point of testing the claims. You've mostly avoided answering the points I raised with you, instead launching into another lengthy criticism. Yes, that "closed mind" comment seems to have been justified.
::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:22, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::: Philip, I'd like to ask you a question (without wading into your arguments with Bugler). Are you accusing ASchlafly of bias or deceit? You seem to be inferring so and, if that isn't your intention, perhaps you should reconsider your phrasing. If it ''is'' your intention, perhaps you should be explicit. On a side note, a number of editors, myself included, have backed the inclusion of this information. Naturally, our opinions seem to be valued less, not being senior administrators, but they're still worth consideration. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 21:11, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: RodWeathers, I assume that you are not asking about accusations such as of Andy calling me a "liberal", but about the disputed content of the article. That being so, see my post on this page with a timestamp of "20:42, 19 November". And despite someone in the Sock Drawer suggesting that I wasn't being totally honest in those comments, they were totally honest.
:::::::::: Yes, I realise that a number of editors such as you have backed the inclusion; I referred to that in my reply to Bugler. But as I said, none of you have produced any ''argument'' for their inclusion; merely repeating Andy's unsupported ''claim'' that they are correct. So no, unsupported ''opinions'' are ''not'' worth consideration when logic and the evidence say otherwise.
:::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:31, 24 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::::: Philip, I must respond in no uncertain terms, even if it means risking getting banned for saying my piece to an admin. I find your comments highly offensive, and indeed reprehensible. When you accuse my opinions of being illogical and unevidenced, you attack my character and attack my intelligence. You do '''not''' have a monopoly on logic, and what conclusions you consider logical are '''not''' universal. You can dance around it all you like, but what you are accusing ASchlafly, myself, and others of is no less than stupidity (inability to reach ''your'' conclusions through reasoning) or malice (intent to deceive through including this information). Many users on this site have reached different conclusions than you on this matter. We may not be administrators, but our reasoning is no less solid. Obama's religious past is suspect, and riddled with episodes that cast serious doubt on his alleged "christianity." We conclude from this, and his "gaffes" (to quote Picasso, "there are no accidents") that he is quite possibly a Muslim. There is no certainty of this, but the evidence is enough to necessitate the evidence's inclusion (along with its associated conclusions) on this website, further as the liberal media is adamant in its hiding of this evidence. You may disagree, but that does not give you the right to treat us with condescension. Obama's potential muslim heritage is '''not conjecture''' and it is '''not POV.''' It represents a broadly, if not universally held conservative view. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 22:37, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::: RodWeathers, unlike some you support here, I don't ban people for "saying [your] piece to an admin", as long as that is done civilly.
:::::::::::: I did not, however, say what you accused me of. That is, I did not accuse your opinions of being illogical. Rather, I said that you'd only offered opinions, not logical argument nor evidence. That is not an attack on your character nor intelligence; merely stating facts that all you have offered is opinion. I never claimed to have a monopoly on logic, but logic is not whatever we want it to be; logic is a reasoned way of arguing, and simply offering the opinion that something is correct is ''not'' logic. And no, I'm not accusing you or anyone else of stupidity. I'm accusing you of only offering opinion, not logic nor evidence. I will qualify that a little by saying that I haven't analysed ''your'' comments in particular, but I have read them (any that have been posted in reply to discussions I've had), and I've noted that nobody has actually offered logical argument nor evidence supporting the claims that I've repeatedly removed from the article. And neither have you in this response.
:::::::::::: You accuse me of accusing Andy (and others) of deception, yet I ''specifically'' said in the earlier post that I directed you to that I don't believe Andy would deliberately deceive!
:::::::::::: As for casting doubt on his Christianity, if you were following this debate you would realise that I've never disputed that there is some doubt about his Christianity. What I'm disputing is that he is a Muslim. You also say that "we" conclude that he is "quite possibly" a Muslim, yet the article states that he ''is'' a Muslim; no "quite possibly" about it.
:::::::::::: At the end of your post you repeat the claims that the claims about Obama being a Muslim are "not conjecture and it is not POV", yet ''still'' do nothing to substantiate that!
:::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:05, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::: Philip, you're welcome to "disput[e] that [Obama] is a Muslim." But we're not going to censor evidence that you and other Obama defenders are wrong about that. [[Liberal]]s inevitably demand censorship of ideas that challenge their views. You say you're not a liberal, but you do support gun control and you have insisted that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, an atheistic view. I'd be hard-pressed to think of a single politically conservative position that you've taken in nearly two years here, but perhaps there are some. Regardless, we're not going to censor here evidence about the beliefs of a president.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:18, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::::: "''But we're not going to censor evidence that you and other Obama defenders are wrong about that''": First, I'm not an "Obama defender". I have a number of objections to him. Second, in what way are we wrong?
:::::::::::::: "''[[Liberal]]s inevitably demand censorship of ideas that challenge their views.''": Maybe so, but that doesn't mean that everyone who demands censorship is a liberal, and I've already rejected that removing false and irrelevant information is censorship.
:::::::::::::: "''You say you're not a liberal...''": Yes, I do, but more importantly, how is that relevant? Talking about ''my beliefs'' rather than ''the issue at hand'' is an ''ad hominem'' argument—a ''logically invalid'' argument. An argument typically used by people who have no valid argument. Why don't you stick to the issue?
:::::::::::::: So let's get back to the real question: In what way are we wrong?
:::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::Philip, I said that "liberal beliefs inevitably lead to demands for censorship." That is not calling you "a liberal" as you claim (with inappropriate bolding). Perhaps you still maintain that supporting gun control is not a "liberal belief"; perhaps you also think that insisting that "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder" is not atheistic. The evidence is otherwise. Regardless, information about the actual beliefs of the president will not be censored here to appease someone's dislike of it.

:::::::::::Historians and encyclopedias do examine the beliefs of presidents, and do not simply fall for self-serving comments by presidents. An independent inquiry is appropriate and will continue to provide the evidence for readers to decide, demands for censorship notwithstanding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::: As LowKey correctly points out below, by saying "We're seeing an illustration of that here...", then you ''are'' calling me a liberal, which is a lot more inappropriate than some bolding to grab your attention. Further, if you didn't mean it, you could have simply said "I didn't mean to call you a liberal; I don't think you are", but no, instead you try and justify the name-calling that you also attempt to deny! So I still expect an apology. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:42, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::: Philip, see point 55 in [[liberal style]] about demands for apologies, which was written long ago.

::::::::::::: You're more than welcome to your views and we welcome many liberals to this site. But you've advocated for [[gun control]] here and insisted that beauty is in the eye of the beholder (which is an atheistic viewpoint). So I don't doubt that you hold some liberal beliefs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:53, 25 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::: As BRichtigen says below, the page refers to ''silly'' demands for apologies, which mine isn't. So I still expect an apology for calling me a liberal. (Incidentally, that point 55 is referenced to an article which doesn't mention apologies!)
::::::::::::::: Contrary to the way that BRichtigen read your comment, I think that "here" referred to ''on Conservapedia'', not ''in the U.S.''. But I'm not sure that I've even done that. I've said that I ''support'' gun control, and argued against many of the arguments put against gun control, but I don't think I've ever "advocated for" it. Neither did I "insist" that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But again, you are discussing ''me'' rather than the ''issue'', and worse, ''speculating'' about my beliefs, rather than being prepared to say, "Philip, I accept that you are a conservative". You seem to be implying that I'm a conservative who holds a few liberal beliefs, but you keep emphasising the speculated liberal beliefs and never acknowledge that I'm a conservative, which makes me wonder if you really do consider me a liberal.
::::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:56, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::::::: Philip, you support gun control, and admit it. That is clearly a fundamental liberal belief, from which other liberal beliefs inevitably flow. You also repeatedly deleted a point in another entry based on your view that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That is a view espoused by atheists. I don't think I ever called you a liberal but I am convinced you hold some liberal beliefs. I'm not going to lie and say otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:59, 27 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::::*point 55 in [[liberal style]] refers to ''silly demands for apologies.'' I can't see anything silly on Philip J. Rayment's demand.
::::::::::::::*AFAIK, Philip J. Rayment never advocated [[gun control]] '''in the U.S.'''. However, as an Australian conservative, he's for gun control '''in Australia'''.
::::::::::::::*I don't know how aesthetics come into play here, but for the record: yes, there may be absolute beauty, but for the sake of the fashion industry, our view of the beauty of a lot of things changes
::::::::::::::*And for the record: I'm not a liberal, neither, though I'm for gun control in my home country - but I don't want to export this model to the U.S. Have a look on the stance of the Catholic Church against capital punishment. Does this make the pope a liberal? --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 07:24, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, you are veering quite far off-topic here, a very liberal trait. You also are resorting to personal attacks, another liberal trait. You are also denying that PJR's evidence is intrinsically valuable, which is apparently an atheistic viewpoint. Are you a closet liberal?--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 22:02, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:JZim was blocked for this comment. Does anyone else see a problem? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:12, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::No, and anyone who does should have the personal integrity to resign. Talk, talk, talk, without contributing isn't allowed, never has been. That user signed up this month, and constantly engaged in argument and time wasting. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:31, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::: Personal attacks and accusations, troublemaking, mimicry, and absurd suggestions of atheism. I gave him 3 days to cool off. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 22:24, 25 November 2008 (EST)
:::But do you plan to give Schlafly a three day block also? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:26, 25 November 2008 (EST)
::::When he starts mimicing other users, making trouble while contributing nothing to discussion, and I'm capable of doing so, I'll consider it. Can we please leave it at that?[[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 22:29, 25 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Maybe only 2 days as there was no mimicry from Andy, and "troublemaking" would be stretch. The rest applies, though.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]]
::::::Hmm. Mimicing others is really not a valid block reason per se. You also said he was blocked for personal attacks, accusations and absurd suggestions of atheism. Can you just unblock JZim? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:34, 25 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::Done. I'll leave it to the discretion of highers-up, but if you have a problem with Aschlafly, bring it up with ''him'', not me. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 22:42, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, why disclaim calling Phillip a liberal, and only provide half of the statement (only the latest) you made which did exaclty that. You said "At bottom, liberal beliefs inevitably lead to demands for censorship. We're seeing an illustration of that here," in response to Phillip's post. You are directly ascribing liberal beliefs - which you had already made clear means political liberal beliefs - to Phillip. So yes you are calling him a liberal. If you wish to back away from that, the way to do it is to retract and apologise, not qualify and dilute.

Also, when you claim that pronouncing Pakistan the '''correct''' way is evidence that one is muslim, objections based on truth and relevance are not calls for censorship. They are merely calls for truth and relevance. (Really, such "evidence" is absurd) I notice a late addition to the "evidence" deals with Obama's popularity with muslim voters. If we saw a similar pattern amongst female voters, that would not be evidence that Obama is a woman. None of this is evidence that leads to a conclusion; these factoids (i.e. they are shaped kind like of facts) read as little more than exhibits for the prosecution.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 23:37, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:Many would say that the only way we can arrive at a true and complete picture of any politician is to take a look at their life before gaining elected office. Once running for office, or on that merry-go-round of always running for re-election, how is anyone to gain a glimpse of the real person? Every bit of information, once elected (especially as President) is so managed, so structured, a true picture can never be painted. With President-elect Obama, there are more unanswered questions than anyone I can think of elected President in modern times. Life isn't fair, and no matter if Obama's supporters dislike the continued inquiry, they should blame Obama and his people, not those seeking answers. If they had categorically answered answered, or permitted the release of his personal information, this all might have been put to rest. But they have continued to stone-wall. Isn't it odd, and indicative of [[liberal deceit]] that personal [[privacy]] is very important to liberals in their own personal lives, but they cherish that of the citizens much less! The reliance upon birth announcements in newspapers, and generic record of live birth, instead of releasing the actual, unaltered birth certificate to prove citizenship, differs from the records available on other modern presidents. The fact that Barack Obama didn't ask the Department of State to make public the travel records of his mom and dad is also cause for concern. Unless and until all information is made available by Mr. Obama, the inquiries Andy speaks of will continue, as that is the responsible course for encyclopedias and scholars who always take the long view, rather than focus on the passions of the here and now. This whole tempest is about those who don't want to hear or think about the possibilities, people willing to sell the truth short because of their political or world view bias. Scholars, and scholarly encyclopedias ask questions, and don't state as factual anything that lacks full disclosure, like Obama's religious instruction and training, his place of true birth, and his questionable associations. Conservatives fight for the truth, [[liberals]] seek to obsfucate and dismiss intellectual curiosity, always demanding "facts" that cannot be readily produced because the subject of the questions refuses to own up. Look at what your position is, and if the (liberal) shoe fits, wear it. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:46, 24 November 2008 (EST)

::Sweeping assertions do not make themselves true. "Inquiry" is seeming less and less appropriate for this. "Inquisition" would be more accurate, for one knowing the Spanish Inquisition's main objective (finding closet infidels). I have looked at my position (truth and relevance) and the conservative shoe is rather a nice fit, thank you. Presenting pronunciation, birth name, parental beliefs and voting patterns as evidence of any person's current belief is not presenting information in any useful way at all. It is demonstrating a conclusion that is looking for support. If the facts are not readily available, do not present irrelevant factoids in their place. I ''believe'' Obama's stated Christianity to be "liberal" and largely nominal, and probably politically motivated. But none of the "evidence" presented here has led (or would led) me to that conclusion, it is too weak and strident. There is much more concrete evidence to question Rudd's (PM of Australia) Christianity, but I do not see any of that on his CP article. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 00:10, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:::[http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_logic|"Claiming that their viewpoints are being censored, while actually they are the ones censoring their opponents."] is #3 on the list of [[Liberal logic]] When it was about Sarah Palin or John McCain, where were the calls to end inquiry, being less and less "appropriate"? By United States standards, even self-proclaimed conservatives wouldn't be regarded as conservatives here. Asking questions, raising questions, is what an encyclopedia does, or as Andy stated: ''"Historians and encyclopedias do examine the beliefs of presidents, and do not simply fall for self-serving comments by presidents. An independent inquiry is appropriate and will continue to provide the evidence for readers to decide, demands for censorship notwithstanding."'' This isn't a debating society, it is a project to build an encyclopedia. The fact that supposedly "trusted editors" won't end this revert war, nor step back from this issue, is yet another sign (for most of us) of [[Liberal Deceit]]. Being a conservative also means respecting the authority of the powers that be. In being Christians, we are taught to submit to authority on earthly matters. I consider Andy Schlafly a trusted friend. Do we ever disagree? Anyone who has been around CP knows we have! But I have never repeatedly (or otherwise) reverted his work, instructed him on how my opinion made his wrong, how my thinking was logical, and his was not. The fact that so much of this time-wasting by an Administrator is allowed is more than proof as to how open-minded and indulgent Andy is, and the continued opposition, in repeated public displays of disrespect is unseemly, and certainly not reflective of American conservative values. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:16, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:::::Your first sentence just confuses me, as the claims of "censorship" here are claims of "liberal censorship". So apart from being a hand-waving sweeping generalisation, it also seems to be a malapropism. Also, you seem to have misunderstood my "inquiry" comment. I am not saying that inquiry is inappropriate (intelligent inquiry, at any rate). I am saying that "inquiry" is an inappropriate term for what is going on here. I suggest "inquisition" as the correct term, referring to the fact the the Spanish Inquisition was undertaken to identify and prosecute secret infidels claiming to be Christian. Are you accusing Andy or PJR of liberal deceit? They are the two editors reverting, that I can see, so it must be one of them. Given that PJR gives reasons for removal and ''asks for'' reasons for inclusions, but Andy generally keeps claiming "liberal censorship" (but insists that he is ''not'' calling PJR a liberal), and your earlier observation about liberal logic one could conclude that you are refering to Andy. Now I don't think that that is the correct conclusion, but it ''is'' the conclusion that most closely matches the facts (i.e. every other conclusion makes '''less''' sense). Let's build an encyclopedia; let the inquiry be ''intelligent'' and factual; let real, relevant facts speak for themselves; avoid prosecutorial exhibits, avoid insisting on the most condemnatory interpretations when other interpretations are far more likely. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 21:51, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:::: "''Being a conservative also means respecting the authority of the powers that be. In being Christians, we are taught to submit to authority on earthly matters.''": Whose authority does Andy submit to? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:48, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::::*Philip, Andy Schlafly is the owner of this site. ''Here, he submits to no one''. And that is how it should be. If you are meaning generally, in his life, as a Christian, he submits, offers up to Jesus Christ and his Father In Heaven, who has the final "say" on everything. While one can appeal to Andy, one has absolutely no right to continue to question (or dispute) his will as to CP, especially as an Administrator, and publicly. Contrary to your false and misleading assertion on your talk page, ''"As administrators, we enforce the rules, we don't decide the truth. That is exceeding our authority."'' you have constantly done so, and continue to do so on this page. Please don't tempt me to present evidence of such, okay? I think Andy has been more than a good sport on this issue, but it is long past the time you should walk away from this, because your [[liberal]] opinion is not going to prevail. Perhaps you could concentrate on presenting scientific, or even good & irrefutable empirical evidence for the age of Earth? You have been using (trading on) your position as an Administrator of Conservapedia to continue to argue beyond the point any "normal" editor would be allowed to without being blocked by you or one of the other administrators. Your lack of humility, which is a Christian trait, has become an embarrassment. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:21, 25 November 2008 (EST)
::::::: TK, you say that ''as a Christian'', he submits to Jesus, which is true, but your point was that as Christians we should "submit to authority ''on earthly matters''". Yet now you sidestep that by saying that Andy doesn't have to. Further, I (and others) would suggest that Andy sees Conservapedia as something that God has called him to do, in which case it is wrong to say that he "submits to no one" regarding Conservapedia.
::::::: To clarify my admittedly-ambiguous comments on my talk page, as editors (which hat I also wear), we need to try and ''determine'' truth, but we can't, as editors ''or administrators'', ''decide'' truth, in the sense of ''decreeing'' something to be so. As editors ''or administrators'', we can only attempt to ''determine'' the truth by the use of logic and evidence (as Andy agrees). But Andy is effectively here ''decreeing'' truth, because he's not been using logic and evidence to ''determine'' truth, but simply ''asserting'' that certain things are true. If you have evidence of me doing ''that'', then please present it.
::::::: My opinion is not a "liberal" one, and I'd thank you to not malign me that way.
::::::: Yes, I have been trading on my position as administrator to argue this point, because Andy is trading on ''his'' position as site owner to insert his POV into the article, contrary to the evidence ''and the views of other administrators''.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:03, 28 November 2008 (EST)
::::::And what happened to Matthew 7:1, which certainly can be applied hear in the same way that you yourself have applied it? [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:33, 26 November 2008 (EST)

:::::And the accusations continue. How is objecting to repeated condescending false accusations a lack of humility? Phillip attempted to keep this about the content of the article, but Andy's responses have either been to repeat assertions without support (or even argument) or (even worse) to use ad hominem dismissals to avoid addressing the objections. And you call that being a good sport? As to your comment about humility: speck, meet plank.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 18:00, 26 November 2008 (EST)

*Philip seems to have retired from his stubborn insistence to revert the owner of this encyclopedia, and my suggestion to you, LowKey is that you should now become just that: low key. CP's toleration of argument-without-end is becoming lower and lower because of non-discussions like this one. If you want to continue as you have been, why not go to Wikipedia and endeavor to engage Mr. Wells as you have Mr. Schlafly here? I very much doubt you would still be an editor there after so doing! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:08, 26 November 2008 (EST)
:*I ''am'' an editor on WP and my evangelical Christian (and hence conservative) standards - including my insistence on truth and relevance - get me labelled a fringe lunatic. It's interesting that '''the same''' standards get one labelled a liberal on CP. The difference is that on WP my Christian views are at least dismissed because they are Christian views, while on CP it seems that disagreement need only be labelled "liberal" do be dismissed regardless of the facts. I have seen almost as much prejudice and bigotry here as on WP, and considering the comparative sizes of the two sites, that's a serious indictment of the general enviromnent on CP. It's depressing that in this confessedly Christian environment fellow Christians are treated worse than they are treated by the misotheists on WP. I think I need a break (and here I though CP would be ''refreshing''.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:33, 26 November 2008 (EST)

::Funny you should put it like that, because most of us can't quite believe that you're still an editor here after your SDG shenanigans. --[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] 18:22, 26 November 2008 (EST)

::*While liberals have proved to be interested in retribution, attacking people personally and [[deceit]], JohnZ, Christians and conservatives believe in forgiveness. I understand why you "can't quite believe", because you just don't believe in anything other than material things. And while conservatives believe in ''facts'', from your comments, being on the outside looking in, liberals offer comments and supposition about things they cannot possibly know about first-hand. God's speed to you! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:37, 26 November 2008 (EST)

::::Hmm. Even if it's forgiven, my money's on it not being forgotten. You speak to TerryH much these days, TK? --[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] 18:50, 26 November 2008 (EST)

== ==

Not that it should make a difference in the first place to one's opinion of him, but the claim that Barack Obama is a Muslim has been repeatedly disproven. Not only is he a lifelong Christian, but his nominally Muslim father was in fact an atheist, and not a practicing Muslim himself. I find it unfortunate that people who call themselves Christians, conservatives, and patriots perpetuate repeatedly disproven falsehoods under the cover of truth, and blame any criticism of their lies on the "liberal media" and political correctness. It is not "liberal" or "conservative" to tell the truth. There are plenty of issues for conservatives to oppose Obama on without manufacturing information about him, and were you to do so, it would make mainstream America take you more seriously. This does not help the cause in the least.
[[User:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]] November 18 2008

: The above editor was blocked for 5 years for infractions that included editing someone else's comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 24 November 2008 (EST)

::Thanks. I was rather shocked to see someone editing my comments to make me look like a racist, for no conceivable reason. That's a real low of deceit. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 00:09, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:*To [[liberals]], the end always justifies the means, sadly. We used to have a pretty good political discourse in America. Then the Bill Maher's, the George Soros's infected the [[MSM} and the colleges, and what we see at CP is happening everywhere. A woman has a Down's baby, rather than abort it, as the liberals demand she should have, and they must endure all the slime Hell has to offer, like Sarah Palin did. Here they wait day and night to sneak bad info into CP, so they can brag about it elsewhere. They edit comments, change user names or just their sigs to appear to be someone else, to start fights. Where in the world are there Christians and/or conservatives doing that? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:50, 24 November 2008 (EST)

::''To liberals, the end always justifies the means, sadly''. The irony of this comment being placed on this page in particular is truly remarkable. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:33, 24 November 2008 (EST)

==Mr.Schlafly, take heart!==

Mr. Schlafly,

I commend you on joining a long list of great minds who, despite all the superficial [[Liberal]] based evidence, managed to see the truth and purged his mind of all pernecious and evil [[Liberalism]]. It is undeniable that Obama is a Muslim, and thanks to you, millions of people around the world have embraced the truth of conservatism, and its spectacular ability to find the truth, even when the [[Liberal]] based evidence distorts and twists the truth. The only thing I can say to you Mr. Schlafly is to take heart! These [[Liberals]], who would take and twist our infallibable country and out impenatrable conservative hearts and minds will never allow their 'evidence' to supersede the truth! We shall win this culture war Mr. Schlafly, with great minds like yours! [[User:MarkBaley|MarkBaley]] 22:23, 20 November 2008 (EST)
::Is it wrong that I find this amusing?--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 21:28, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:::Liberals often are easily amused. Or at least they pretend to be.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::::Andy, you are quite quick to assume that anyone you either disagree with or simply do not understand is a liberal. You display a profound inability to read user pages (read mine), at the very least. What I find amusing is that this obvious parody has not been deleted, as parodies usually are. And are you claiming that I am pretending to be amused? Why would I pretend? I have no reason to lie, and I have no wish to assume that anyone else is, either. I would, instead, examine the evidence. I would advise you to do the same. I believe, as well, that I recently read something written by someone who apparently opposed you, in which he exhorted you to refrain from bearing false witness against others. Please do not disrespect the teachings of Jesus; I respect them very much and would like to see them respected by others. Lastly, I apologise for my long-winded reply, but I think it is necessary.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 21:46, 25 November 2008 (EST)

== Islam ==

You've gotta be kidding me. Obama is not a muslim, you tools. The thing about "his Muslim faith" was taken out of context, and you damn well know it. Also, someone who knows Arabic, and has heard the call to prayer and considers it to be pleasant-sounding does not a Muslim make. I was deployed to Iraq in 2005, and appreciated the musical quality of the morning call to prayer, and I am by no means a Muslim. I'm sure Malcolm X's fight for racial equality inspired plenty of non-Muslims too. And holy crap, someone read a book written by a Muslim, they too must be a dastardly terrorist. And yes, I'm sure Obama chose his SS code name based on the several hundred-year old etymology of "renegade".

But, I should have known that you hacks wouldn't actually write a legitimate article on Obama. None of you have even an inkling of what actual, scholarly research, and unbiased writing is all about. [[User:Ottotanaka|Ottotanaka]] 09:23, 22 November 2008 (EST)

:Oh, and unless the guy above me is trying to be sarcastic, he should probably be locked up for having the mental age of a 3 year old. [[User:Ottotanaka|Ottotanaka]] 09:25, 22 November 2008 (EST)

::I think he was being sarcastic, but I could be wrong. I've seen similar attitudes put forth in complete seriousness.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 12:11, 22 November 2008 (EST)

== Formatting? ==
I understand the reason why this page is locked, but could a sysop fix the formatting? Every other page on this site that has a table of contents has it right after the introduction. This should too. The first section should come after the table of contents. I know this is minor, but for some reason, it's really bugging me. Thanks [[User:JANorton|JANorton]] 14:16, 22 November 2008 (EST)

: Why is it bugging you? No, not "every other page on this site" has a table of contents up front, and even if every other one did, consistency is not something to be worshiped.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:19, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::Clever, JANorton, clever. By moving the table of contents, you'd bury the information about Obama's muslim faith further down the page, reducing the number of people who would see it. Nice try. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 14:30, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:::That wasn't actually my goal, but now that I understand why the table of contents is below the first section. I was really just going for consistency here, but I withdraw my request. [[User:JANorton|JANorton]] 14:36, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::Consistency is the hallmark of excellence. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:12, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:::''Truth'' is the hallmark of excellence. You've proven yourself to be a liberal through your edits to this wiki, and your attempt to [[Placement bias|hide this information]] under the name of 'consistency' will not do. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 16:16, 22 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Very well put, Rod. Truth matters far more than consistency does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:21, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::::: I noted two years ago in studying American history that the college-level textbooks we used would present liberal presidents in a consistent fashion: general information, positives, then negatives (typically glossed over, especially in the cases of FDR, Carter, and Clinton), while the conservative presidents were presented in the ''opposite'' order. Reagan's description jumped right into Iran-Contra and accusing him of threatening nuclear war. I guess the only consistency is consistent bias. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 16:31, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Aschafly, who are you trying to kid saying lines like "truth matters more than consistency"? You care nothing whatsoever about truth, as evidenced by you erroneously calling Obama a Muslim and then devoting a paragraph to his CHRISTIAN pastor Wright. Pick a story and stick with it.
[[User:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]] 16:31, 23 November 2008

:::::: That's an excellent observation: "the only consistency is consistent bias." I recall Jesus had a parable about laborers in the vineyard that pointed out how wrong an insistence on a foolish consistency can be. In that parable, the owner pays inconsistently as he likes. From the other end of the spectrum, Emerson criticized worship of a foolish consistency.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:42, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Since you bring up Jesus, the 10 Commandments include "thou shalt not lie". Maybe if you actually knew more about Christianity, you would know this.
[[User:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]] 16:31, 22 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: I suspect it's the simple fact that a closed mind ''always'' needs to fit information into strict, predetermined categories. New and different knowledge scares such a person, as it breaks the boundaries they're so used to. But I digress. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 16:44, 22 November 2008 (EST)

(Unindent) Why is the TOC at the top of all the other biographical articles then? Is its purpose to be useful in getting at the truth or to be untruthful? As I see it the rest of the article is more accessible if the TOC is within the first page view, and that is an opinion informed by a number of books and articles I have read on the subject. As for me being liberal I'm just more centrist than you, I still lean right, my edits just lean towards the middle mark because I am more liberal than the average conservapedian. My edits typically do not land on a pov issue however, they are typically issues of format and factual issues, but this is not a blog so I'll stop there. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 21:02, 22 November 2008 (EST)

==Template==
Is it about time to put the president infobox up on this page? [[User:JY23|JY23]] 15:02, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:Maybe when he actually becomes the president. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 16:09, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::Do you think that will not happen? Why not be proactive? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 20:52, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:::I think there is a hysteria with acting like Obama is already president. Our president is still George W. Bush and it's and insult to him to downplay the remainder of his presidency by focusing everything on Obama. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 21:00, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::::That is why they call the president a lame duck during this period, if in four years a conservative takes it the format will be changed late Tuesday election night. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 21:04, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Has Barack Obama been sworn is as president? No. Has he at any time held the title of 'president'? No. Do we have a 44th president yet? No. These are simple facts. He's not the president. When he becomes the president, THEN give him an info box. Stop trying to make this a partisan issue...they're just facts.[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 21:50, 22 November 2008 (EST)

== Muslim/Rev. Wright==

Ashafly endlessly repeats the demonstrative falsehood that Obama is a Muslim, yet devotes a paragraph to the controversy surrounding Obama's CHRISTIAN Reverend Wright. Pick a version of the truth and stick with it. .[[User:ChristianBlade1|ChristianBlade1]] 21:50, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:This has already been discussed ''ad nauseam'', and a decision reached. Please see the archives for this page (links at the top).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:30, 24 November 2008 (EST)
::I'm not sure there's a point in even responding to these register-only-to-whine type liberals. If they're not going to contribute or ask meaningful questions, we should just ignore and move on to more important matters. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:55, 24 November 2008 (EST)

As per Aschafly's instruction, I recreated my account with the proper username. In response to being labeled a "register-only-to-whine type liberal", why is that anyone who points out blatant inaccuracies in articles is labeled a whining liberal? Shouldn't conservative Christians care about telling the truth in their articles? I am not saying this trying to pick fights, I am simply commenting that the most effective way for conservatives to oppose Obama is with his own proven record.
[[User:CBrown|- CBrown]] 11:55, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:Thanks for re-registering, and please don't take the 'whining' comment to heart. I'm sure you'll appreciate that the Obama article is controversial, so I'd suggest you check the archives before commenting as there is a good chance the points you made have been made and discussed before (as in this case). Really, an emotive subject like Obama isn't an ideal place for a new user to begin.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:11, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:::90/10 applies, especially if you take it literally. A newbie would have to make 10 substantial edits before making an ideological comment. It's like the rule against loitering, though. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:59, 24 November 2008 (EST)
::::: No, Ed, and it's unfortunate that you, a senior administrator, don't appear to understand the rule. The rule ([[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandment 7]]), if taken literally, would require a newbie making at least ''one'' quality edit for each ''nine'' talk-page comments. So unless that was a simply typo on your part, perhaps you should review blocks you have made on this faulty understanding and unblock all those who ''didn't'' break the rule? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:16, 24 November 2008 (EST)

::::You both have a point, but I'm a great believer in trying to be civil to new users if there's even a small chance they might be for real. Even liberals could contribute a great deal to politically-neutral pages, if they could only be persuaded to divert their efforts away from the endlessly repetitive discussions that take place here.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:00, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:::::Absolutely. I'm all in favor of being civil (and against immediately blocking or otherwise belittling). It's just that, given the endless flow of them, we almost need copy-and-paste responses to the most common interruptions. Your above response would be almost perfect for that purpose. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:03, 24 November 2008 (EST)

The last two New Yorkers I spoke to about Obama's religion said that he is a Muslim. Even if they are wrong, the perception is there. I think the article should say "regarded as a Muslim".

I'd also like the article to address the dispute between those conservatives who assert Obama is not a Christian and other people who say Obama is a Christian. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:17, 24 November 2008 (EST)

Frankly, part of the reason for Obama being regarded as a Muslim is because of the erroneous and unsubstantiated reporting claiming him as one. [[User:CBrown|- CBrown]] 12:23, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:But why would the two Muslims I consulted believe this? One was a Democrat. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:41, 25 November 2008 (EST)

== Talk page edits ==

I was just reading the Recent Changes page, and I noticed that RodWeathers deleted a talk page edit. Isn't this against the rules? I am as much against "liberal troublemaking" as you are, Rod, but I am also very much against censorship.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 17:58, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:There's an enormous difference between censorship and removing liberal vandalism and senseless attacks against the editors of this site. What I removed was a baseless accusation against the editors of wilfull deceit of the public. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:00, 24 November 2008 (EST)
::Rod, please define censorship.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 18:07, 24 November 2008 (EST)
The talk page is for discussing ways to improve the article. Comments that are not about ways to improve this article can be removed. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 18:20, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:This is not Wikipedia, and sysops may remove any information which is not related to the purpose of building a trustworthy encyclopedia. "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:46, 25 November 2008 (EST)

== Personal remarks ==

I dislike reading remarks like the following:
*I'm accusing you of only offering opinion
*Look at what your position is, and if the (liberal) shoe fits, wear it.
*unlike some you support here, I don't ban people
*way to do it is to retract and apologise
*you accused me
*you are calling him a liberal
*You say you're not a liberal

Those who recall writing any of the above phrases, please review [[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]]. Thank you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:44, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Well "way to do it is to retract and apologise" is mine, and it was not a personal remark. In context (i.e. the rest of the sentence ''at least''), I was saying that if an editor wanted to back away from remarks made about and objected to by another editor, then the "way to do it is to retract and apologise" rather than retroactively qualify the remarks.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 18:16, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:And this is related to Barack Obama in what way? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:26, 25 November 2008 (EST)

: How about Andy calling me a liberal? Why don't you list ''that'' as a "personal remark"? Further, there is a difference between a "personal remark" (i.e. ''about'' the person) and a ''derogatory'' remark. Sometimes it is appropriate to say something ''personal'', especially when it's in defence of some criticism, as the first one on your list was.
: "''And this is related to Barack Obama in what way?''": Exactly, Ed. How is calling me a liberal relevant to Barack Obama? How is Andy bringing up my views on gun control relevant to Barack Obama?
: How is Andy ''speculating'' about my other political views relevant to Barack Obama?
: How about you apply those standards more consistently?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:00, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::Kindly avoid making personal remarks like the above on article talk pages. You are invited to contribute your thoughts on what our standards for interpersonal communication should be, but such contributions need to be made in the appropriate venue. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:54, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Can we add this to the list:
* you appear to have a closed mind
Or does it not count because of the source? Oh, and Philip, I know how you will respond, with claims that it is fair comment, justified by my stance, etc, etc, etc. But just for once, step back and reflect: are not those of us who call you Liberal making fair comment, justified by your stance on a host of issues, from Obama to protecting Liberal saboteurs? And can I add a further term - it hasn't been used yet, but I feel it hovering:
* whited sepulchre
[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:41, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Remarks like the following are out of place here. This talk page is only for discussing changes to the [[Barack Obama]] article.
*bringing up my views on gun control
*calling me a liberal
*I know how you will respond
*speculating about my other political views
*you apply those standards more consistently
*you appear to have a closed mind

If you have complaints about other users, do not bring them up on article talk pages. Persistent violators of this rule will be excluded from the project. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:01, 27 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama as a Muslim ==

This is a kind of silly accusation here. The citation at the top (currently citation 4 to the Christian Science Monitor) is misleading - since a Muslim was allowed to swear in on the Koran does not suggest that someone else will. That note would be just as applicable to anyone else.

As for the evidence that he is a Muslim, is this what the article should be focusing on? It makes the article seem rhetorical - that the only concern is for his faith and not his political positions.

* Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.[21][22]
This is false. His father was an atheist, his mother a Christian. And as the article goes on to say, he received Christian or at least secular education for most of his life. In any case, what does saying someone's "outlook" is Muslim mean?

: You're clueless about Islam, in which the father raises the sons in the religion. Also, Obama's mother was not a Christian in any meaningful sense. In fact, she disliked Christianity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)

* Obama's middle name (Hussein) references Husayn, who was the grandson of Muhammad[23], which most Christians would not retain. [24]
Husssein means "beautiful" in Arabic, indeed a reference to the grandson of Muhammed, but again the citation that most Christians would not retain it is misleading - it's more of a footnote than a citation. I am a Christian and my middle name is a reference to a saint. I cannot imagine converting to another faith, but if I were to, I doubt that I would drop my middle name.

: A Christian convert would not likely retain the name of Muhammad's grandson as his own. Many Christian religions ''require'' adopting a Christian name at baptism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)

* Obama recently mentioned his religion as "my Muslim faith."[25]
This was clearly Obama being sarcastic. I'm as hardened a Conservative as anyone, but listen to the interview. It's linked to from [[my Muslim faith]].

: "Sarcastic"??? Right after Obama said not to play games? I've heard wacky explanations for Obama's statement, but never heard yours before. It's far=fetched.

* On the campaign trail, Obama was reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria,[30] which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.[31]
I've read books by Muslim authors (maybe), I've read books by Jewish authors, I've read books by atheist authors. I don't think that this says that I am not a devout Christian. Also, this seems to suggest that this Fareed Zakaria is not a Muslim, or at least not a devout one http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-08-09/news/the-interpreter/ . (Also holy smokes, the guy has a B.A. from Yale and a Ph.D. from Harvard.) I have not read the book, so maybe the book is different.

:It's unusual for a Christian to pick out and earnestly read a book about the world from a Muslim point of view, except perhaps to criticize it. Possible, but unlikely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)

* Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam.
Again, this applies to anyone, and rings of McCarthyism. How do we know George Bush isn't a closet Muslim? This goes back to the Koran issue - just because it's possible doesn't mean that it's true. Occam's razor, guys.

: "McCarthyism"??? Wow, perhaps you're a liberal to reach for that card. Christians who think people what they say they do need to beware of this Islamic doctrine. Sounds like you weren't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)

* Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one.[32]
I don't see the problem with this - if anything, it seems respectful.

: Try harder to "see the problem." Pronunciation has long been used to accurately identify one's beliefs or origins. I hope you don't object to other means of identification too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)

* Obama has chosen the Secret Service code name "Renegade". "Renegade" conventionally describes someone who goes against normal conventions of behavior, but its first usage was to describe someone who has turned from their religion. It is a word derived from the Spanish renegado, meaning "Christian turned Muslim."[35]
This is just false. Renegado simply means "to deny" in the past sense, and while I don't doubt it was used in the way given, that is not the meaning of the word. And in any case, do you think that if Obama were a closet Muslim he'd drop all sorts of tiny clues like this?

: You seem to really like the phrase "closet Muslim"!! Odd. As to "renegado", learn more about what the word really means.

Not that I should have to defend myself to make changes like this, but I am a devout Christian and a staunch Conservative. I take plenty of issue with Barack Obama, but spending time accusing him of being a Muslim rather than criticising his policies makes the authors of this article look childish. One other thing that the article does not address is why we care whether he's a Muslim. What are the implications of this?

--[[User:Conservativecarl|Conservativecarl]] 20:23, 25 November 2008 (EST)

: Oh right. You're such a staunch conservative that you accuse others of "McCarthyism" (which no conservative would do) and love the expression "closet ____". Your British spelling of "criticising" is hardly reassuring. Obama is smoother and more persuasive than you are!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)

:: The spelling is from Linux's auto-correct. And no conservative would criticiZe McCarthyism? The man was a nut, regardless of his political affiliations. And I don't see the point of pointing out political affiliation, this is merely me demonstrating logical flaws in the article. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." [John 1:1] This is a very powerful statement on the value of literature (among other things, of course), so I think that your accusation of it not being Christian to read a book from someone with a different point of view for some purpose other than to criticize it is very wrong. --[[User:Conservativecarl|Conservativecarl]]

::: "Conservativecarl", you're obviously no conservative and you're not fooling anyone here. Maybe you'd like to spend your time trying to fool someone somewhere else. If you'd like to stay here, then provide your real first name and last initial so that your account can be changed, and your country of origin.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:10, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:::: I am an American-Canadian dual citizen, currently residing in Canada for school (with plans to move back to the states and get a job after). First name is actually Paul, initials AC. This doesn't seem important though. In any case, here are the things that I'd like you to address.
:::: 1. Taqiyya, as stated in the article, says that a Muslim may deny their faith if it furthers the cause of Islam. Someone makes the claim that you are Muslim, and secretly furthering the cause of Islam in your spare time. Refute this.
:::: 2. The conversion rate statistic is a statistic fallacy. In many Islamic countries, apostasy is punishable by death, which would at least partially explain the low statistic. The conversion rate from Islam, given that the person has come to a free country such as America, is much higher. Also, Kenya is about 80% Christian, and only 10% Muslim, so Obama's father would be very familiar with other faiths.
:::: 3. Have you ever read The Catcher In The Rye, or Man's Search for Meaning? Both are by Jewish authors, although there is much to be gained from them by a Christian reader, and many Christians have found a lot of meaning in them. This seems to go against your statement that Christians would not read them. Explain.
::::--[[User:Conservativecarl|Conservativecarl]] 15:06, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, you said above that, "Many Christian religions require adopting a Christian name at baptism." That may be, but the denomination into which Obama was baptized (United Church of Christ) would ''not'' require him to make such a change.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 11:24, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Andy - you also said above that in "Islam... the father raises the sons in the religion". You are aware he never knew his father, and that he only met him once, when he was ten years old? Also, in passing, it would be good if his family background was earlier in the article, as is traditional for bio articles. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 20:25, 29 November 2008 (EST)

Why is Obama, if he is Muslim, such a bad thing? I know that there are many radical muslims in the world, but I also know many who are not. Please explain to me why Islamic President is a bad thing.
:I think it isnt because Muslim is bad, I think its because Obama is trying to cover it up and pretending to be something he is not. [[User:JohnSelway|JohnSelway]] 17:58, 1 December 2008 (EST)
Well, I think that (again) if Obama is Muslim, he knows he will lose a lot of votes because people dislike muslims for very prejudiced reasons, and even if they say that they are fine, the act of actually voting for one is too hard for them. I think that a muslim president isn't a bad thing, I think a democrat is a lot worse, and that is what should be focused on.

== Fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity ==

The article states:
*''Obama's background, education, and outlook are [[Muslim]], and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.<ref>http://www.religionnewsblog.com/17736/barack-obama-2</ref><ref>http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm. During the third and fourth grades, Obama learned about Islam for two hours each week in religion class, according to the LATimes. [http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.obama16mar16,0,1634059,print.story?coll=bal_news_nation_promo Campaign downplays his connection during boyhood in Indonesia, Baltimore Sun, March 16, 2007]</ref>''

While the first link confirms Obama's background, the second link fails to back-up the claim that fewer than 1% of Muslims convert: As I have shown [[User_talk:Aschlafly#Muslim_conversion_rate|earlier]], it gives a conversion rate of 4% for Muslims in non-Magreb Africa and claims that this rate is even higher for well-educated Africans.

Is there any source for the 1% number? And wouldn't be a conversion rate for Muslims exposed to Christianity be more relevant than a world-wide rate?

--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 10:21, 26 November 2008 (EST)

: I welcome more data about this. But the rate is effectively 0% in most Islamic countries. The 1% figure is a good approximation worldwide based on the data available.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:59, 26 November 2008 (EST)

::I've heard it is illegal (even a capital offense) in Islamic countries to stop being a Muslim. Perhaps that motivates people not to change their religion. Aside from Turkey and maybe Indonesia, I don't know of any Islamic countries with [[religious freedom]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:11, 26 November 2008 (EST)
:::Well Turkey isn't considered a theocracy, though 99% of its inhabitants are moslem. [http://www.enjoyturkey.com/info/facts/Religion.htm]. That's a really interesting tidbit, though, Ed because I'm sure in an Islamic theocracy, conversion to another religion is considered treason and punishable by death. I'm going to try and see if I can't find any stats on Moslems converting from Islam '''specifically''' in Turkey, though with a 99% majority, I have a feeling the 1% figure may be correct. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 20:15, 26 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Preliminary results (in other words, the first link I clicked). The study I found shows that 35,000 Turks converted from Islam to Christianity[http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2006/01/are_muslims_lea.php]. Moslems make up 99% of the population of Turkey, which is roughly 75 million. That's a rough conversion rate of 0.05%. However, around the world, over 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity every ''year'' (correction) [http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm]. The world population of Muslims is roughly 1.3 billion people. That leaves a conversion rate of 0.4%. Someone check my math, but that would make the 1% conversion rate pretty accurate. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 20:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::: You're a bit wrong, mate - the ''rate'' per day is ~0.0046% - and is unreflective of the total number over time. For example, your stats could be used to incorrectly "prove" that within sixty years, all Muslims will have converted to Christianity. Those stats don't prove the point you're trying to make.[[User:Legion126|Legion126]] 21:17, 26 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::: No, your reasoning doesn't follow, because many of the "converts" later return to their childhood religion, as is true in many religions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 26 November 2008 (EST)

(unindent)I wasn't attempting to make a point. Someone got on the topic of numbers so I went and found some, though I'm admitedly not very good with them. I made a correction to my wording; 6 million muslims convert to Christianity every ''year'', not every ''day''. And you're not moving your decimal. 6 million divided by 1.3 billion '''is''' .0046, which translates to ~ 0.5%. I don't think it's fair to say that throughout written history less than 1% of '''all''' Muslims have converted; I think that's inaccurate, and reading through my previous post I came to a conclusion too quickly from the given data. That is still a '''very''' small amount of converts, though I believe the wording in the article should be rearranged to meet the given data. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 00:06, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Jeffrey's math is obviously correct. 6 million/year divided by 1.3 billion < 1 percent. So what part of his argument are you disputing? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:10, 27 November 2008 (EST)

::Well, Ed, given that Jeffrey originally said per day, it was completely valid to dispute it. And regardless of this, a rate per year is not indicative of 1% of all Muslims solidly over time. It proves that less than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity ''per year'', but does not prove the original statement (Though I do apologise for my own incorrect maths).
::Furthermore, given the fact that if Obama converted, it would have been some years ago, probably when he was a fair bit younger. Given recent the recent trend towards a mass increase in population, contemporary figures are only indicative of so much.
::Finally, statistics for Turkey and the world are disanalogous to Obama's situation - the general Muslim population because many live in nations where apostasy is illegal, even a captial offence, and Turkey because it still has a Muslim majority - which America does not. Statistics about the conversion rate among Muslims (specifically, Muslims of East African or, given Obama's education, Indo-Chinese origin) ''in the US itself'' could prove far more enlightening.[[User:Legion126|Legion126]] 19:50, 27 November 2008 (EST)

==Inaccuracy==
Muslim debate aside, I noticed the page starts by listing Obama as a Senator. He resigned that position recently, as he is obliged to do before assuming office in January. Should the article not say he is "president-elect"? Whatever about the disagreements on other aspects of Obama's life, surely this is something everyone can agree on? [[User:AGrath|AGrath]] 14:09, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:Thank you![[User:AGrath|AGrath]] 17:00, 28 November 2008 (EST)

== The whole Muslim thing ==

http://malalatete.typepad.com/mal_a_la_tete/images/2008/03/14/obama_swearing_in.jpg

He was sworn in on the Holy Bible. Why would he switch up to the Qur'an as president? Can't we put this behind us? This is a moot point.

: Judging by your edit pattern, I think you're the one obsessed with this.

: Often presidents act differently post-election, and "change" quite a bit from from they were president wannabees. Notice how Obama hasn't gone to church since the election? See our news item about that from a few days ago. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:09, 28 November 2008 (EST)

::Usually, presidents act differently in order to increase their popularity. I don't see how swearing in on the Qur'an would do that. Conclusively presenting himself to be a muslim would only hurt him in his position. He might inspire some people by being so forward, but I suspect it would be outweighed by xenophobia... --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 22:16, 28 November 2008 (EST)

:::So what? He hasn't gone to church. Where would he go to church? He's not a member of Trinity anymore. I don't see him going to a Mosque, either. Who's to say he's not secretly Jewish? His Synagogue and Mosque attendance records over these past few years are the same, after all.

::::Yeah. I really don't think he's a muslim. I think it's unlikely to the point of impossibility. But I was just saying that even if he was a muslim, there would be no point in swearing in on the Qur'an, especially since he is on a pedestal before the world. Wait. There's a contradiction there. People on this site make two arguments: some muslims are allowed to conceal their faith (which they say Obama might be doing), and Obama might swear in on the Qur'an. Those are completely contradictory, because if Obama swears in on the Qur'an (which he won't), the secret's out. Just thinking out loud, I guess. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 23:27, 28 November 2008 (EST)

:::::It's amusing that you say there are no facts to support the idea that Barack Hussein Obama is or ever has been a muslim. Clearly you haven't read the page-long list of facts here. It is unlikely that the liberal Obama fanatics will ever concede the possibility, but that does not absolve us of our duty to try and inform. If only one person has their eyes opened, than I think we've done well. But unfortunately for many, it's true what they say: There is no deception quite like self-deception.[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 15:55, 29 November 2008 (EST)

*Exactly, Patriot. Encyclopedia's have a duty to ask questions, and help people make ''informed'' judgments, as A. Schlafly stated (somewhere) above. The fact that __% of people might not agree on where those questions lead, is immaterial. Knowledge, and the questions that cause people to dig deeper, look at things differently, should never be subjected to polls or straw votes! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:03, 29 November 2008 (EST)
**Saying Obama is a Muslim made sense when he was like running for President and all and people wanted to keep him from getting the job.... but now that he's ''got'' the job, so saying Obama is a Muslim only hurts Christianity because it prevents Christians from using Obama as an example to convince Muslims worldwide to consider Christianity.... I mean, here's a guy with an Arab name but who claims to have ''chosen'' Christianity.... the Muslims of the world would jump at the chance to claim the President of the United States as one of their own -- why feed them ammunition to use against Christianity? [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 16:51, 29 November 2008 (EST)
:::But it would be a lie to ay Obama was a Christian if Obama were not, or the evidence were not sufficient to say conclusively that Obama was a Christian. And there is not sufficient evidence to show this beyond doubt, by a very long way. Here at Conservapedia, unlike at Liberal encyclopaedias and web sites, we believe in the truth, in finding it and sticking to it. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 19:20, 29 November 2008 (EST)

I don't know why you all got to make such a big deal about his religion. Let's talk about his race: did you know he's black? ;-) See also [[Essay:Towards a multi-racial society]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:19, 29 November 2008 (EST)

::::That's the root of the problem, Bugler. We don't know if Obama being a Muslim is the truth. You are absolutely right about one thing though. We do not know that he is a Christian beyond a doubt, either. However, I believe it is impossible to truly know what his (or anyone else's) true beliefs are. All of it is pure speculation.

::::But, every form of this speculation points to Obama being a Christian. So why is it that some are scraping for every last speck of null evidence (yes, it is null evidence) against this, especially when there are much better ways of discrediting him? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 20:30, 29 November 2008 (EST)

== Muslim AND Communist? ==

I find this a bit hard to swallow. Islam and Communism conflict so much that it's impossible to be both. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 17:54, 30 November 2008 (EST)

: You need to open your mind more so you don't find facts so difficult to accept. There is overlap between Marxism and Islam, and we'll be developing entries on it. Search on the internet and you'll find quite a bit.

: Islamic countries are typically not bastions of freedom of religion or freedom of commerce. Those two freedoms often go hand-in-hand. Check out what Saddam Hussein did to Iraqi merchants who used the dollar as currency. It isn't pleasant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:57, 30 November 2008 (EST)

:: I think that incident can be more easily attributed to dictatorship than communism. The main conflict with Islam and communism is that Islam is a religion, while communism prohibits religion. Communism wants every influence of religion gone, while most Islamic countries want religion to be the only influence. Somebody 21 does have a point. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 18:36, 30 November 2008 (EST)

::*A person who stops by merely to ridicule and denigrate others scholarly efforts, without at least trying to make positive contributions to this project, cannot have a "point" other than to disrupt and waste the time of others.

* 15:54, 30 November 2008 (hist) (diff) '''Talk''':Barack Obama‎ (→Muslim AND Communist?)
* 15:53, 30 November 2008 (hist) (diff) '''Talk''':Barack Obama‎ (→Muslim AND Communist?: new section)
* 21:33, 17 November 2008 (hist) (diff) '''Talk''':Barack Obama‎ (→Reply)
* 09:08, 17 November 2008 (hist) (diff) '''Talk''':Barack Obama‎ (→Great comedy article)
* 09:08, 17 November 2008 (hist) (diff) '''Talk''':Barack Obama‎ (→Great comedy article: new section)
--[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:50, 30 November 2008 (EST)

::: So you are saying that if a person has not yet contributed to an article, their opinions should be dismissed as pointless? We should welcome new users, or else this project can never grow. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 18:34, 1 December 2008 (EST)

What [[Marx and Islam]] have in common, as political systems, is opposition to the Western ideals of [[Freedom of religion]] and [[free speech]]. Indeed, both have an anti-Christian bias. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:14, 1 December 2008 (EST)

: Thank you, Ed. But I think that there is a difference between what Islam dictates and what Islamic countries dictate. I am not familiar with the religion, but I don't believe Islam itself would be against free speech. You're definitely right about the anti-Christian bias, though. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 20:24, 1 December 2008 (EST)

::He's half right, communism doesn't have an anti-Christian bias, it has an anti-religion bias. So it's completely opposed to Islam, just as much as it is opposed to Christianity. It doesn't really work... --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 18:14, 2 December 2008 (EST)

== Insights section ==

While I appreciate some of the points made in this section, particularly the one about President-elect Obama and his campaign's proud participation in homosexual pride events, I fail to see why certain gaffes are mentioned. The '57 states' and forgetting to pluralize "bomb" in his line about Pearl Harbor -- what value does mentioning these minor gaffes bring to an encyclopedia article?

And if these oral lapses are in fact deemed worthy of mentioning, why aren't any of Senator McCain's gaffes included in his article? (The bombing song was in poor taste and various other instances of misspeaking were on par with Obama's state miscount) It was also surprising to note that Governor Palin's far more telling gaffes, especially in the Katie Couric interview, were not to be found on her page. It seems like of all the candidates, her rhetoric was most questionable of all.

Anyway, I do understand that ''is'' Conservapedia and as such, Republican ideals are presented more favorably. However, I really think that some consistency when describing the '08 candidates would serve this site well.

(I won't mention the OBAMA = MUSLIM slant because it's been beat to death)

Cheers. {{unsigned|SJames}}

:Obama's "gaffes" reveal an ignorance about America, from someone who is presented as a bright person. Neither McCain nor Palin had any revealing gaffes of the magnitude of Obama's. Stay tuned, I'm sure Obama will have more illustrations of his astounding lack of knowledge of basic facts about the United States.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:18, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:My point is that they really don't reveal an ignorance about America. When we're dealing with historic events as basic as the attack on Pearl Harbor and the number of states in the US, I think it's more rational to conclude that these were slips of the tongue rather than a case of simply not knowing. As you say, he does appear to be an intelligent man and whether you believe that to be an act or not, it does take smarts to keep up that image in the intense public eye. A person capable of such, would know what happened in his birthplace in 1941.

Anyway, I just thought an exposed ignorance on national and world issues would be worth mentioning in the Sarah Palin article if the above have a place in the Obama article. But it's your website so that's fine. (I will attempt to sign this comment below...)--[[User:SJames|SJames]] 14:42, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Debate:Why are there so few homosexual athletes

2008-11-04T00:54:05Z

Bolly:

Debate question: Why are there so few homosexual athletes, especially in the United States?

To me this seems to be a very strange phenomenon, since the [[homosexual agenda]] would have you believe that homosexuals are present everywhere. Yet in sports they seem to be lacking. I think there's a few reasons. First off, in sports, you have to be strong-willed to succeed, yet homosexuals were weak-willed enough to succumb to their temptations. Secondly, sports help reaffirm the young athletes with people of the same gender. Boys unconsciously observe how other boys act and model their behavior on this; the same with girls. This is one of the reasons Dr. [[James Dobson]] encourages parents to have their children play sports -- it helps discourage the gender dissociation which is one of the causes of homosexuality.<ref>''Bringing Up Boys'', Dr. James C. Dobson. Tyndale House Publishers, 2005.</ref> In that vein, it's not surprising that the majority of homosexuals in sports come from individual sports, such as [[tennis]], [[golf]], [[figure skating]] or [[diving]]. In team sports, the players have to be like-minded with the others to form an effective team, so if one of them is having distracting thoughts, the whole team suffers. The homosexuals become a liability for teamwork and either must adopt a straight lifestyle or leave the sport. This is why there are so few homosexual athletes. Opinions welcome. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 19:13, 3 November 2008 (EST)

I know professional athletes tend to not be gay, but I'm not sure the trend extends to amateur athletes. When I was in high school, nearly a third of our football team was openly gay. Maybe the drive needed to become a professional athlete is not common in many homosexuals, but because amateur sports require less drive, their weak will is successfully hidden? [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 19:20, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:If you don't mind me asking, how old are you? I just want to place when you were in high school - recently, last decade, older? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 19:40, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Maybe the sports world environment is more hostile to gay people? That would both discourage gay people from entering the sports world and make any gay people in the sports world less likely to be public about it. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 19:41, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:I hear that argument a lot, but I don't buy it. How is the sports world more hostileto gay people than the business world or the military? We wouldn't have [[Don't Ask Don't Tell]] if there weren't a sizeable minority of homosexuals in the military. But in sports no one's suggesting Don't Ask Just Play, simply because the homosexuals aren't there to demand it. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 19:47, 3 November 2008 (EST)

:Hmm well consider the percentages, only a very small percentage of people are homosexual and out of that even less would even consider becoming a proffesional athelete. I just think that maybe a lot of atheletes are scared to come out about their sexuality because of the reasons that foxtrot quoted up above, because sport is seen as very gender oriented, they're intimidated into not breaking the mold. Just a thought. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 19:54, 3 November 2008 (EST)
==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Debate]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Sports]]

French Revolution

2008-10-21T00:27:28Z

Bolly: /* Chronology of the French Revolution */

[[Image:Delacroix La liberte guidant le peuple.jpg|250px|right|La liberte guidant le peuple]]
'''The French Revolution''' was a 1789 revolution which is oft-quoted as the beginning of the modern era. In fact a set of several revolutions in a period of unprecedented turmoil, it saw the rise of [[Robespierre]] and the [[Reign of Terror]], a chaos wherein thousands were [[guillotine|guillotined]] for political leanings and moderatism.

The French Revolution was very [[atheism|atheistic]] in nature, as radicals outlawed the Church and tried to establish a [[Cult of Reason]] in its place. The Revolution also saw the rise of [[evolution|evolutionary]] thinking, a result of extreme [[rationalism]]. It inspired fear into European moderates like [[Edmund Burke]], who realized it was proof of the danger of [[liberalism]] run amok.

Before the Revolution, [[France]] had three levels in its social system: The First, Second, and Third Estates. The [[First Estate]] was about 1% of the population, but it controlled 10% of the land. The First Estate consisted of the clergy, and they did not pay any taxes. The [[Second Estate]] was about 2% of the population and they controlled 20% of the land. These were the nobility, and they too paid very little taxes. The [[Third Estate]] was everyone else, and they were badly overtaxed by the monarch. This overtaxing was a major cause of the [[French]] Revolution.

The leaders of the Third Estate were the middle class, called the [[bourgeoisie]]. They were educated in the ideas of the [[Enlightenment]], most importantly [[Jean Jacques Rousseau]]. Rousseau's book, "The Social Contract" supported a [[direct democracy]], rather that the republican government that had been adopted in [[America]]. The social contract spoke against titles for nobility and demanded complete equality for all people.

French Revolutionary ideals, especially thanks to Napoleon, later inspired liberal and democratic movements of the 19th Century.

==Chronology of the French Revolution==

Several costly wars, the War of Austrian Succession (1740-8), the Seven Years War (1756-63) and the American War of Independence (1778-83), had reduced the government to the verge of bankruptcy. The deficit for 1786 would be 112 million ''livres'', nearly a quater of total income. Due to the poorly organised taxation system it was impossible for the King and his finance minister to make up the deficit without serious reforms. In 1787 he called a meeting of 144 leading nobles, the Assembly of Notables, to attempt to persuade them to pay tax in return for increased powers. The nobles refused his requests and were supported by the local assembly; the Parlement de Paris.

The King withdrew his demands at this challenge to his authority, which was greeted by thousands taking to the street to celebrate. When troops were ordered to "Get some lead into the bastards' backsides", they fired into the air instead. In hindsight this can be seen as the start of dissent. It is notable that the initiators of this unrest were the upper classes, who had little reason to think there was any thirst for revolution. In April 1787, [[Calonne]] resigned in disgrace and the middle classes, strengthened by the protests, began to demand the Estates-Generale, a Parliament in which they would be represented.

==1789 - Year of Revolution==

With growing unrest and France nearing bankruptcy, the King agreed to call the Estates-Generale in May 1789. The [[Estate-Generale]] was divided into the three estates, with the first two estates (nobility and clergy) electing their representatives. The third estate representation required a series of elections in which all property owners over the age of twenty-five were eligible to take part. They elected a group of electors, who in turn chose delegates. The delegates themselves were overwhelmingly middle class, including the young lawyer [[Maximilien Robespierre]]. Furthermore, the Third Estate was required to produce a list of grievances.

Between 25,000 and 60,000 documents were filed with grievances. Thousands demanded a constitution, reorganization of the clergy, lessening of the tax burden and an end to [[Royal]] waste. Few of these demands could be resolved without challenging the basis of [[Absolute Monarchy]]. However, not one of these document has been found to advocate abolition of the monarchy, with the large majority requesting moderate reform and many including expression of adoration towards the King.

The Estates-General had not met in 175 years and retained many of its former characteristics. Each Estate had one vote in the Assembly, such that the First and Second Estates could always outvote the Third Estate. That was acceptable in the early 1600s, but the Third Estate would not allow this in 1789 after learning the Enlightenment ideas. By this time the alliance between the nobility and the third estate had broken down; the nobles may have called a march, but they drew the line at burning down tax offices. The Third Estate wanted a system of one vote per delegate, which would have given the Third Estate the same number of votes as the First and Second Estate combined.

The opening of the Estates-Generale did not bode well. The opening session was in an open coach house, which meant that the Third Estate struggled to hear the proceedings as they were on wooden benches at the far end of the room. Upon the entry of the King, the first and second estates were expected to remove their hats and sit down after the King, before replacing their hats. The Third Estate were expected to remain standing until after the first and second estates had replaced their hats, however, they chose to sit at the same time as the first and second estates. The First Estate were to wear glittering robes, the second estate were to wear silk coats, whilst the third estate were required to wear black coats. There was no question at this point of rudeness towards the King himself, and at this point none of the delegates (including Robespierre) was a republican in their beliefs. There then followed a speech by [[Necker]] on possible solutions to the economic crisis, that was of such length and dullness that Necker had to pass it on to a delegate to complete.

The Third Estate began to win votes in the Estates-Generale by attracting poorer clergy to their side. In an attempt to reassert his control, the king announced on 14 June that Estates-Generale was postponed. However, news of the postponement did not reach the delegates of the Third Estate, who arrived on the 20 June to find the room locked.

Following a period of confusion, Dr [[Guillotin]] (one of the Third Estate delegates) suggested it might be possible to convene at a nearby indoor tennis court and the group of over 500 delegate proceeded to meet at the court. The session was chaired by Bailly (a celebrity astronomer) and Mirabeau proposed that the delegation should not break up until a constitution was passed, which was opposed by only one delegate (Martin d'Auch). In effect the delegates had declared themselves the Government of France, pending a constitution to be organized by [[Mirabeau]].

The [[National Assembly]] approved the “[[Declaration of the Rights of Man]],” which combined ideas of the [[American Declaration of Independence]] with some Enlightenment concepts. The result of this combination had many debatable claims. The entire document is short and worth reading in full: [http://www.hrcr.org/docs/frenchdec.html] .

The King responded by ordering the delegates to disperse, however this had little effect. The following week the King sent a messenger, the Marquis de Breze, to order the finishing of the session. Mirabeau ordered the messenger to leave.
[[Image:David OathHoratti.jpg|left]]
In the last week of June the royal [[Government]] ordered 20,000 troops to march on Paris. It became apparent that compromise was not working. This was emphasized with the replacement of Necker by the hard line [[Baron de Breteuil]]. Thousands took to the streets to demand the reinstatement of [[Necker]], possibly one of the most boring men in history to have ever prompted such a reaction. Mirabeau spoke to the assembly, invoking the oath taken at the tennis court. [[Camille Desmoulins]] had ridden to Versailles to report on events and galloped back to Paris to report on the replacement of Necker.

Crowds marched to [[Abbaye]] prison to demand the release of the soldiers who had been arrested for not firing on the crowds. Troops were offered drinks by the crowd if they shouted 'Viva le tiers-etat'. Dummies of [[Necker]] and [[Duc d'Orleans]] were stolen to be paraded as heroes.

The deputies were now faced with a dilemma, requiring a mass movement for defence of the National Assembly, but fearing crowds getting out of control. Militia were therefore established, that excluded all unemployed and vagrants, and many districts demanded employers' references before admission. Admission varied enormously across districts, with 1,200 being recruited in [[Le Petit-St-Antoine]], but [[Les Minimes]] mustering four.

==Storming of the [[Bastille]]==

With the militia formed to repel the royal troops, there was an urgent need for weapons. The royalist [[Swiss Guard]]s had stored 30,000 pounds in the Bastille, to be used against the National Assembly. On the morning of July 14, 1789 (“[[Bastille Day]]”), a crowd of about a thousand people made up predominantly of small tradesmen arrived at the prison to demand the gun powder be handed over. The prison Governor invited a delegation in for breakfast, which proceeded for three and a half hours. Meanwhile, rumours circulated that royalist troops were committing atrocities across Paris.

A demonstrator outside the Bastille realized he would be able to get to the chains of the drawbridge by climbing from a nearby perfume shop. At this point the prison Governor, [[De Launay]], broke off negotiations and late in the afternoon cannon shots were aimed at the crowd. Two companies of French Guards were persuaded to the Bastille to the defend protesters being killed by cannon fire.

A Swiss Guard handed over the keys to the second drawbridge, leading to a moat. A clerk from a pawn office visited a carpenter and returned with eleven pieces of wood, one of which was able to span the moat. Once inside, seven prisoners were freed, though contrary to what is widely though, this did not include the [[Marquis de Sade]] (he had been moved as he had shouting at passers by through a pipe he had been given to urinate through. This took time however, as the keys to release the cells were the same as the keys to open the first draw bridge and the man with the keys had gone home.

In total six defenders of the Bastille were killed, including De launay, and ninety protestors.

The aftermath was one of euphoria throughout much of [[Paris]]. Much of the nobility proclaimed support for the act, realizing that it was not healthy to oppose public opinion on the matter. [[Louis XVI]] recalled Necker to his job and agreed to recognise the National Assembly, which included the Third Estate delegates, poorer clergy and nobility sympathetic to the Third Estate cause. [[Lafayette]] was appointed head of the police and the army, which was to be known as the National Guard. Bailly became the Mayor of Paris.

The King agreed to come to Paris and accept the gift of a cockade that had become a symbol of the revolution, which the king fastened to his hat, whilst the crowd cheered "Vive le Roi!". Whilst the significance of the day was evident, that it would produce a republic was far from clear. The plan of the King to take Paris with 20,000 troops had failed, but he was able to satisfy the populace that it was not intended and a peaceful resolution was reached. The changes that had so far occurred in a brief period of time were so dramatic that the thought that things could change further was difficult to conceive.

==The Great Fear==

During the week following the storming of the Bastille, news of events spread to the rest of France. This led to a panic as to what the response of the nobility would be to the events, The [[Great Fear]] or panic resulted. Many villages defended themselves against imaginary threats by forming peasant militias; riots occurred and peasants proceeded to burn wealthy homes.

The rural uprising prompted the National Assembly to pass a motion to 'destroy the [[feudal]] regime entirely', on August 4th. However, in order to release himself a peasant would have to pay twenty times his annual rent to the landlord, making the measure ineffectual.

==Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen==

The Assembly also passed the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen on the 4th August. This annulled the right of nobles to demand taxes, tithes and labor from peasants working on their family land. The declaration was inspired by the American Revolution and was partially written by LaFayette.

Unlike the American declaration that “all men are created equal,” the French version declared that “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.”

Whilst the American declaration that all men have inalienable rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” the French version declared that all men have natural rights of “liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression.”

Some declarations were troublesome; “Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law” left questions of definition. Also, the rights of French people to rebel were enshrined in the very constitution itself.

The water wheel was abolished as the method of execution in place of the more humane [[guillotine]]. It is notable that the only delegate to vote for the abolition of the [[death penalty]] was [[Robespierre]].

==A New Government==

France remained a republic. Although a republic has been established in North America at this time and a previous English republic, a European republic was still alien to the thoughts of most French people, including revolutionaries. Negotiations over the new constitution continued, with Mirabeau and Lafayette appealing for calm less the King withdraw from negotiation. [[Jean Paul Marat]] took a less moderate line. Marat argued for universal suffrage and for the King to retain only an advisory role, a constitutional monarchy such as those seen in the [[United Kingdom]] or [[Sweden]] to this day.

==Royal Faux Pas==

On 1st October, 1789, a party was thrown at the [[Palace of Versailles]]. Louis XVI took the cap he had been presented with following the storming of the Bastille and trampled it underfoot. The king later denied this, however several witnesses recalled the incident and news of the incident spread to Paris. A contingent of women raided the Town Hall was raided for weapons and set off from Paris to Versailles, becoming a crowd of 10,000, who were later joined by the National Guard to ensure good order.

Upon the arrival for the group at the palace two guards opened fire, but were interrupted by decapitation. A small delegation of women were permitted to meet the Queen, however one fainted upon witnessing the beauty of the Palace of Versailles. The crowd became impatient by six o'clock the following morning and a militant group of fishwives broke in with a cry of "We are going to cut off her head, tear out her heart, fry her liver and that will not be the end of it"(Documents of the French Revolution, page 62). It was a forceful enough argument to force the Royal family back to Paris, where it was felt it would be possible to keep closer watch. It was also clear by now that the King was in no position to demand a veto.

Antoinette is reputed to have responded unsympathetically to the lack of bread for the peasants by declaring, “Let them eat cake!” Historians doubt she ever actually said that.

==Anniversary Pledge==

On the first anniversary of the storming of the Bastille a large ceremony was held in Paris at which members of the Government and the King pledges themselves to uphold the 'law, the nation and the King'. This represents a compromise in that the King was still seen as central, however all pledges had previously been to the King alone, and the King was required to make no pledge.

==1791 - The King Strikes Back==

In the two years following the storming of the Bastille French society had been transformed. There were an estimated 133 political journals in Paris, Parish priests had been dismissed and replaced by elected Priests. Robespierre had advanced plans for the emancipation of [[Jews]] and [[Protestantism|Protestants]], equal treatment of all military ranks and the abolition of the property qualification for the National Guard. Robespierre remained incorruptible at this point, refusing to be the Duc d'Orleans let the luxury affect his judgement.

This situation was intolerable for the Royal Family, who began to organize a foreign force to invade France and restore their power. In December 1790 Louis wrote a secret note to the King of Prussia requesting a European army invade France. Furthermore, the King and Queen (herself Austrian) decided to flee Paris to help organise the invasion force from without France, let their presence in Paris compromise the invasion.

The royal couple decided to disguise themselves and flee across the border, which they did at night setting off at at a seven miles in part due to the weight requirements for the Queen to travel in the least luxury that she expected. The next morning the Kings letter to the National Assembly was found condemning all the measure which he had claimed to support for the previous two years.

The royal party reached [[Ste-Menehould]], where the papers of the party were checked by Drouet, who had been a staunch supporter of the revolution. Despite having seen the servant in the corner and 'struck by the resemblance of his face to the likeness of the King printed on the bank note', in disbelief he allowed the party to continue. Having discussed the incident with his colleague, Guillaume, the two raced to catch up with the party and spread word through the surrounding villages that the Royal family were attempting to flee. The family were captured and returned to Paris, with posters informing the gathering crowd "Whoever applauds the King will be flogged; whoever insults him will be hanged".

Most delegates wished to hold together a compromise, but the Head of State fleeing to lead a hostile invasion of the nation had created difficulties. Many insisted that the King must have been kidnapped. General Bouille wrote a statement confessing his involvement, but many insisted he was lying to implicate the King. While the only punishment towards the King was stripping of his powers of veto on laws and finance, talk began to emerge for the first time of the possibility of a republic. At this point Robespierre and most of the Paris commune strongly opposed the republic, whilst Lafayette rallied to the slogan 'The Revolution is Over'. By then the French Revolution was in full swing.

==Declaration of the Rights of Woman==

In 1791, a French journalist named [[Olympe de Gouges]] proposed a “[[Declaration of the Rights of Woman]],” (inspired by the writings of [[Mary Woolstonecraft]]) but the National Assembly rejected her proposal. She, like many other leaders of that time, was eventually executed by guillotine. Other sans-culotte groups were established including the [[Society of Revolutionary Women]]

==New Start==

Politics in France became divided between the moderate [[Girondins]] and the more radical [[Jacobins]]. At this point the Girondins appeared to be in the stronger position, however the Jacobins were growing in strength. At this point the Jacobins were led by [[Robespierre]], who made a strong speech in favor of a republic.

The French National Assembly established a [[constitutional monarchy]] and, in 1791, adopted a new constitution that created a Legislative Assembly. Three factions quickly formed in the new Legislative Assembly, known as the radicals (liberals), moderates (centrists) and conservatives, similar to those political movements today in the United States. The three factions sat in different sections of the large assembly hall, with the radicals (liberals) sitting on the left, the moderates sitting in the center, and the conservatives sitting on the right. That gave rise to the left-center-right terminology that we still use today in the United States to describe these three political groups.

==German Invasion==

A large number of noblemen had gathered in [[Koblenz]] to form an army to invade France and restore the King to full rule. The emigrants carried stories of atrocities and encouraged reaction against the National Assembly and atrocities associated with lower class democracy. The Duke of Brunswick declared "We will soon be marching on Paris".

This was a matter of some concern in France, as many of the officers that had been in the French army in 1789 had joined the emigrant army in Germany. The Girondins remained confident, but Robespierre saw little cause for initial optimism. The Royal Family strongly supported war with the Prussian and Austrian force in the hope that the French would be defeated and they be restored.

On April 1792, the King declared war on the [[Hapsburg Empire]], who wished to restore his power. The French army suffered a series of defeats along the border, creating optimism in the Royal house. The National Assembly ordered the dispersal of the Kings bodyguard who were supporting the foreign invasion, but this was vetoed by the King. The Assembly then voted for 20,000 French patriots to come from across France to protect Paris, but this was also vetoed by the King.

The use of the royal veto to undermine the defense of France prompted a strong reaction, with demonstrators managing to pour into the royal apartments. The King was forced to wear a red cap while being taunted for several hours with taunts of "Fat Louis" and "Tyrants must Tremble". The time of compromise was nearing an end.

Lafayette planned a coup to restore the old order to as it was in 1787, using the National Guard. This force was resisted by a volunteer group of citizens. Traditionally this latter group are portrayed as ne'er-do-well criminals, however it is questionable whether such groups would march typically 800 miles. The volunteer groups were greeted as heroes in towns they passed through and [[Rouget de Lisle]] composed 'La Marseillaise' as a call to arms.

The war started badly for the French and on 25th July the Duke of Brunswick prepared to March on Paris and pledged to restore the French Royal Family to their original statue, but that he had no intention of meddling in the internal affairs of France. He demanded total surrender or the Prussian and Austrian armies would "take an exemplary and never-to-be-forgotten vengeance, by giving up the town of Paris to military execution..and the guilty rebels to the death they deserve".

==Second Revolution==

Paris was divided, with 20,000 signing a petition to support the full restoration of an absolute monarchy and a foreign army was invading France rapidly. Moderates such as Mme Roland supported withdrawal from Paris, whereas Maton would accept no backward step. On 10th August a larger demonstration marched on the palace demanding the removal of the King.

==Valmy==

The National Assembly called for volunteers to defend the state, with assurances that this army would be different to the one that had gone before and collapsed before the troops of the Duke of Brunswick. The soldiers would sing Les Maseillaise into battle and officers and men would wear similar uniforms. The majority of the officers would be voted for by the soldiers.

The army was formed, and the Duke of Brunswick brought his army round to meet the French on by the village of [[Valmy]]. The French were grouped around a windmill in an area of uncommon tranquillity. The battle involved a day long exchange of cannon fire with little result. The significance of the battle is that the French volunteer troops remained firm.

[[Johann Goethe]] was present at the battle, as one of the troops of the Duke of Brunswick; "In the morning we had been talking of spitting and eating the French. Now everyone was thinking again. Almost everyone remained silent. Only a few men spoke and their reflections seemed illogical or frivolous".

In the opinion of Goethe, what had changed in the French was their spirit. They had won their freedom and did not wish to return to the days before the revolution, they had debated and were politically active. They were therefore able to stand firm. The news of the battle had a strong effect on French national morale, as the French came to believe they could win.

==Republic==

On the day following the [[Battle of Valmy]], the newly elected French Government (the Convention). The Convention declared France to be an 'Indivisible Republic'. The Convention was made of three factions; the [[Girondins]], the [[Montagnards]] Including Robespierre, Danton and Marat) and the [[Grenouilles de la Marais]]. Robespierre won an argument to allow a public gallery for debates.

All factions favored deposing the King, but were far from united beyond that point. The Montannards saw this as the first step to greater social equality, as opined by Robespierre, "Royalty has been destroyed, not the reign of equality is beginning". He attacked the wealthiest businessmen "those goods which are necessary to keep people alive as nothing more than an ordinary item of trade" - a sentiment echoed later by [[Karl Marx]]'s assertion that businessmen see objects not for their usefulness but for their value as commodities.

However, the Jocobin position was far from modern [[Socialism]], as they sought a nation of small property owners. The Government would be elected by property owners. Support for a republic was recently and had little idea of how to progress with the power they now found they had.

The Girdondins accused the Montagnards of preparing a dictatorship. However, the Girdondins had lost credibility by suggesting retreat from Paris and furthermore lacked the social roots that enabled the Montagnards to motivate thousands of volunteers. It reflects on the differing social backgrounds of the delegates that it was at this point Robespirre met a cabinet maker, M. {{Duplay]]. Duplay invited Robespierre back to his flat to meet his family and, finding that the family had been trying to let a spare room, Robespierre moved in. It is worth considering the contrast between the setting of the reign of Louis XVI to Robespierre who, whilst the most powerful man in France, has to queue behind his landlord to use the toilet in the morning.

==Trial of the King==

The King and family were detained in the Temple prison, but retained the trappings of luxury. The King had a library of 1,500 books, still ordered his shoes from his preferred cobbler and the family was provided with servants. The majority of servants remained utterly devoted to the family, feeling their employment to be a sacred duty.

This loyalty was not universal however, a former locksmith of the King revealed to the Paris Commune that there is secret cupboard containing correspondence between the King and invading powers showing collusion. Mirabeau and Lafayette were also implicated, though Mirabeau had no died and Lafayette had fled to [[Austria]].

The trial was debated by a number of key speakers. [[Louis St-Just]] debated the very validity of Kings, that to try the King as a bad King suggested it was possible to be a good, legal King, which was not acceptable. He was opposed by [[Thomas Paine]] who wished the King to be exiled to the [[USA]]. The vote was won for death by 387 to 334.

Louis XVI was executed in January 1793.

==Dechristianization movement==

The measures taken by the Convention to substitute the Revolutionary calendar for the old Christian calendar, and the decrees ordering the municipalities to seize and melt down the bells and treasures of the churches, proved that certain currents prevailed tending to the [[dechristianization]] of France.

The rest of décadi, every tenth day, replaced the Sunday rest. The "missionary representatives", sent to the provinces, closed churches, hunted down citizens suspected of religious practices. Persecution of all religious ideas began. Many churches were forcibly closed and converted into [[Cult of Reason|Temples of Reason]] <ref>John Hall Stewart, ''A Documentary Survey of the French Revolution'', Macmillan, New York, 1963.</ref>

During the first days of the Republic, provision had been made for dating public documents from "the first year of the French Republic," but no definite plan for a revised calendar had been proposed. A decree of 2 January, 1793, provided for the second year of the Republic to begin on 1 January, 1793. The new calendar took form in October and November, and lasted until 1806.

A vital force intended to sustain the political and economic terror was the creation of an ideology based on love of '' la Patrie'', "the Country" or "fatherland", and the subjugation of the individual to the collective will of whole. The Church of Notre-Dame-de-Paris became a temple of Reason, and the feast of Reason was celebrated on 10 November. The idea of honouring the fatherland, which had its origin in the festival of the Federation in 1790 gave rise to successive cults. Chamber Deputy Laloi commented they had "wiped out eighteen centuries of error".

Robespierre adopted the position that from the religious and Republican standpoint the idea of a Supreme Being was advantageous to the State, that religion should dispense with a priesthood, and that priests were to religion what charlatans were to medicine, and that the true priest of the Supreme Being was Nature. The Convention adopted a decree of which the first article was: "The French people recognize the existence of a Supreme Being and the immortality of the soul". The same decree states that freedom of worship is maintained but adds that in the case of disturbances caused by the exercise of a religion those who "excite them by fanatical preaching or by counter Revolutionary innovations", shall be punished according to the rigour of the law. Thus the condition of the Catholic Church remained equally precarious and the first festival of the Supreme Being was celebrated throughout France on 8 June, 1794. with aggressive splendour. Whereas the Exagérés wished simply to destroy Catholicism, and in the temples of Reason political rather than moral doctrines were taught. Robespierre desired that the civic religion should have a moral code which he based on the two dogmas of God and the immortality of the soul. He was of the opinion that the idea of God had a social value, that public morality depended on it and that Catholics would more readily support the republic under the auspices of a Supreme Being. <ref>Catholic Encyclopdeia, [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13009a.htm French Revolution]</ref>

==Committee of Public Safety==

The Committee of Public Safety was formed in 1793, and passed a rule that Generals were to live in camp with the army. This had the practical effect of testing the belief in equality of the many Nobles in the army. [[General Dumouriez]] made overtures to the Prince of Coburg for the invasion of France and have Louis XVI's son proclaimed King Louis XVII.

By this time many countries, including [[Great Britain]], [[Spain]], the [[Netherlands]], [[Prussia]] and [[Austria]], had formed a First Coalition to invade France and restore monarchy. The National Convention responded by drafting people into an army. Historians claim women were drafted, but such a politically inspired claim is worth investigating before accepting it. The war lasted for several years, on several fronts, but the First Coalition was eventually defeated.

The execution of Louis XVI led almost immediately to the [[Reign of Terror]]. [[Maximilian Robespierre]], head of the Committee of Public Safety, proceeded to guillotine numerous alleged enemies, including Marie Antoinette. In a classic illustration of Jesus’s teaching that “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword,” Jacobin leaders [[Georges Danton]] (a fiery orator) was guillotined, and [[Jean-Paul Marat]] (a scientist) was stabbed to death in his bathtub. Eventually Robespierre himself was guillotined in 1794, and the Reign of Terror ended with his death.

At last the government of France was in the hands of a legislature, and an executive branch of five men called the Directory. The Directory picked a young, highly successful military genius named [[Napoleon]] to lead the French army. The very next day Napoleon seized all power in France as its [[dictator]], in November 1799.

==Economic controls==

On 29 September, 1793, in the Law of the Maximum was formulated to deal with the steady rise in prices of the necessities of life. Committees of experts had been appointed to study the whole subject. Prices were set at one and one-third its price in 1790, transportation costs were regulated at a fixed rate, a 5 per cent markup was allowed the wholesaler and 10 per cent to the retailer. Bertrand Barrere declared, "The needs of the people will no longer be spied upon in order that the commercial classes may arbitrarily take advantage".

The first result was farmers produced as little as they possibly could. Scarcity increased, and the people of the large cities were put on an rationing. Many shopkeepers went out of business, and the remainder forced buyers to pay enormous charges under the very natural excuse that the seller risked his life in trading at all. That this excuse was valid is easily seen by the daily lists of those condemned to the guillotine, in which not infrequently figure the names of men charged with violating the Maximum laws. Manufactures were crippled and frequently destroyed.

To detect goods concealed by farmers and shopkeepers, a spy system was established with a reward to the informer of one-third of the value of the goods discovered. To spread terror, the Criminal Tribunal at Strassburg was ordered to destroy the dwelling of anyone found guilty of selling goods above the price set by law. The farmer often found that he could not raise his products at anything like the price required by the new law; and when he tried to hold back his crops or cattle, alleging that he could not afford to sell them at the prices fixed by law, they were frequently taken from him by force and he was fortunate if he was paid in the depreciated fiat currency or escaped execution.

The Convention decreed that any person selling gold or silver coin, or making any difference in any transaction between paper banknotes (assignats), and precious metal coin (specie) should be imprisoned in irons for six years; that anyone who refused to accept a payment in assignats, or accepted assignats at a discount, should pay a fine of 3,000 francs; and that anyone committing this crime a second time shou1d pay a fine of 6,000 francs and suffer imprisonment 20 years in irons. Later, on 8 September, 1793, the penalty for such offences was made death, with confiscation of the property of the heirs, and a reward offered to any person informing the authorities regarding any such transaction. The Convention decreed, in May 1794, that the death penalty should be inflicted on any person convicted of 'having asked, before a bargain was concluded, in what money payment was to be made".

Georges Couthon, in August 1793, proposed and won passage of a law punishing any person who should sell assignats at less than their fixed value with imprisonment for 20 years in chains, and later passed a law making investment in foreign countries punishable by death. Prisons, guillotines, enactments inflicting 20 years' imprisonment in chains upon persons twice convicted of buying or selling paper money at less than its nominal value, and death upon investors in foreign securities, still did not stop people from procuring the necessities of life by bargaining and exchange; on 1 August, 1795, the gold louis of 25 francs was worth in paper, 920 francs; on 1 September, 1,200 francs; on 1 November, 2,600 francs; on 1 December, 3,050 francs. In February 1796, it was worth 7,200 francs or one franc in gold was worth 288 francs in paper. Prices of all commodities went up nearly in proportion. <ref>Andrew Dickson White, Fiat Money: Inflation in France, Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, 1959, pp. 75-89; first published in 1912 as revised version of 1876 lecture. Reproduced in ''Choice in Currency'', F. A. Hayek, The Institute of Economic Affairs 1976, "A Note on Government Monopoly of Money in Theory and History", [http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-book409pdf?.pdf France, 1789], pgs. 34 - 38.</ref>

==Legacy of the Revolution==

The influence of the French Revolution was immense throughout the western hemisphere, as other peoples felt that they, too, could rise up against their rulers and defeat them. Historians credit the French Revolution with spreading the ideas of the Enlightenment, limiting the power of nobility and clergy, and ending an absolute monarchy. But many who supported the French Revolution in its beginning were horrified by where it led, including numerous executions and terror. Some would say that France never fully recovered, as the French Revolution unleashed a hostility towards [[Christianity]] that continues to this day in France.

==References==
<references/>
* [[Simon Schama]], 'Citizens', London 1989.
* 'The French Revolution'
* [[William Doyle]]. ''Oxford history of the French Revolution'', 2nd ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002 ISBN 0-19-925298-X

== See also ==

*[[Alexis de Tocqueville]]

[[Category:French Revolution| ]]
[[Category:French History]]

National Convention

2008-10-21T00:20:28Z

Bolly: Redirecting to Convention

#REDIRECT [[Convention]]

Debate:What is the real love?

2008-10-15T23:39:31Z

Bolly:

Well, I have talked with a couple of different people on the net, there seems to be quite different meanings on what love really is. Also, I must say that I thnk there are two different forms of love, the first one being the one a man feels to a woman or oppisite and the love that Jesus talked about (which is the one I am interested to talk about).
Can somebody give a clear and honest explanation on what true love is, without fearing to be critizised for their view, I am open to ideas. --[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 18:51, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

:I'm not much of a biologist or neuroscientist but from what I understand all feelings of love and affection are caused by the chemical (or hormone :S) oxytocin. This is responbsible for the love between mother and child, lovers in a relationship, other family love, friendship and in some cases, lust. What causes this hormone (or chemical!) to be released into the brain is something I am not certain of. But that's pretty much my limited understanding of the matter. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 13:51, 17 August 2008

::Well, that's more or less the funny way our religion/christianity book told us about the subject of love, that it sure is sad to express something as fundamental as love as simply some reaction caused by our hormones and that that's the only thing it is, a chemical recation, (as some would claim all of human evolution is, only a simple reaction of chaos and coincidence).
::To me I feel that the cause for our love toward each other (both couple realations and unselfish love) is a product of a much deeper level, that in the plane of our spiruality, perhaps just as our physical world there exists other worlds which are connected to us, and which work on all our other senses. :)
::Even though I'm not religious, I think that simply explaining all of our feelings and creative powers as a result of a chemical coincidence (which of course the whole Darwin idea is based upon) is like creating something out of nothing. Impossible ;) --[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 17:32, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Sorry i took so long to reply. *ahem*. I see where you're coming from, and I understand you're view because it was one that I subscribed to for a while. But now I find it funny that you feel the need to invoke a whole new level of alternate planes of existence just to explain something that is already explained in the world of biology and chemistry. Especially when there is no scientific evidence for those planes. But hey, its a free world (mostly). I just feel that it devalues the amazing abilities of the human brain, especially because that is a world that is far more worthy of our awe and respect. Oh and I'm not going to rise to your last sentence cos I know there's no point. Nice try though :P [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 23:22, 23 August 2008
:::: Bolly, man, I know what you're saying but you do come off sounding a little bit smug. Don't be trollin', yo. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:17, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Sorry underscoreb, I don't mean to sound smug or know-it-all. But thankyou for the friendly warning. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 19:39, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

Girondins

2008-10-12T04:07:52Z

Bolly: New page: The '''Girondins''' were orginally a faction of the Jacobins Club who hailed from the Gironde department. They become a powerful political faction in Revolutionary France after mer...

The '''Girondins''' were orginally a faction of the [[Jacobins]] Club who hailed from the Gironde department. They become a powerful political faction in Revolutionary [[France]] after merging with the Brissotins, supporters of [[Jacques Brissot]]. They supported the declaration of war by France on the Austrian Habsurg Empire on 20 April 1792. After dismissing the anti-war [[Legislative Assembly]], King [[Louis XVI]] appointed a radical government containing several prominent Girondins who voted overwhelmingly for the declaration of war.

Despite their opposition to Louis, the Girondin deputies were forced to offer him their support to protect their newly gained power in late July 1792. The ''Federes'', militant revolutionaries, were planning an uprising to depose the King at the urging of [[Maximilien de Robespierre]]. Although Louis XVI rejected their help and was subsequently arrested on 10 August 1792, the Girondins found themselves in the majority in the newly formed [[Convention]].

The Girondins decline began at the trial of Louis XVI. The Jacobins demanded his execution to prevent a restoration of the monarchy while the Girondins were suspicious of Robespierre's motives. When the King was found guilty and sentenced to death by a margin of 99 votes, the Jacobins accused the Girondins of being royalists and counter-revolutionary despite the fact that more then half of their deputies had voted for execution.

On 2 June 1793, 80,000 National Guardsmen surrounded the Convention, armed with cannon. They demanded the expulsion of the Girondin deputies, who complied to avoid a massacre. The National Guardsmen were predominately ''sans-culottes'' who fanatically supported the Jacobins.

Talk:National Convention

2008-10-12T03:36:05Z

Bolly: New page: I would like to delete this page as the page Convention already exists and is slightly more detailed. If noone objects within a day or two I'll proceed. ~~~~

I would like to delete this page as the page [[Convention]] already exists and is slightly more detailed. If noone objects within a day or two I'll proceed. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 23:36, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Who created God?

2008-10-07T04:14:03Z

Bolly: /* Break to assist editing */

If there exist a God/superior being who created this being. When I ask this question I get " God created himself". How is this logical?-Ros
:I'm sure Philip will get involved here—and believe you me, he is far more qualified to answer this question—but I'm going to take a stab at it. The problem that most can't get past is the notion that God "is, was, and ever shall be," the alpha and omega, so on and so forth. God supersedes time; he in fact ''created'' time according to the Judeo-Christian theology. There was no past before God/YHWH. Nothing needed to come before him, because he is the source of all things, including time itself. It gets complicated there because it's hard to imagine a universe without time; though technically, there wasn't a universe at all until he created it (once again, according to Judeo-Christian theology or at least my best knowledge of it). I'm going to let Philip chime in here and correct any mistakes I've made, and maybe give you a bit more concise explanation as I'm sure he—or one of the many others here—have come across this question far more often than I have. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 12:00, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Typical Darwin lover know-it-all question. Ok smart guy, tell me where space ends and I will tell you who created God.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:12, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

: Okay, Jeffrey W. Lauttamus invited me here to comment, so here I am. God is an uncreated being, so it is nothing more than a nonsense question to ask who created an uncreated being.
: That likely then raises the question about how He could be uncreated, to which there are at least two replies:
:* As Jeffrey explained, God exists outside of time. He created time; He is not subject to it. A beginning implies a point in time, but as God is outside of it, that He had a beginning doesn't follow.
:* ''Something'' (or someone) ''must be'' eternal. If it's not God, it might be this universe. But science now has good reason to think that the universe is not eternal, which begs the question of who or what created the universe. (And the universe, by the way, is known as the space/time continuum; time itself began with the universe.) Ultimately, as you go back, the only option left is something or someone that is eternal. And as the laws of physics don't allow for something physical to be eternal, then that something/someone must be non-physical, or spiritual.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:25, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Ok... That makes since. We cannot bound God to logic because he created it. Thanks for clearing that up.-Ros

: Huh? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:45, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

This is an interesting subject. One of the most common argument's for God's existence is some form of the 'watchmaker' analogy - I.E. that the existence of the universe implies that it was created & therefore the existence of a creator (God). Does the existence of God also imply that He was created? And if not, why not? [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 10:04, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
: The watchmaker analogy is referring to something that was obviously designed because of it's complexity of multiple interacting parts that would not occur naturally. God is not a complexity of multiple interacting parts, so the same argument does not apply to him. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:09, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::There are many examples of complex interacting ecosystems occurring naturally. But of course the watchmaker analogy would suggest that these are in fact created. That is the problem with the waychmaker argument - it suggest that what seems to occur naturally actually doesn't occur naturally. It cannot be disproved, but it only proves itself if it assumes itself to be true. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 10:21, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::: No, it's not a circular argument at all. It is arguing from what we observe (that complex things such as watches and other machinery do not occur without a designer) to what we don't observe (the origin of living things). That sort of deduction is perfectly valid, even if not absolute proof. And we are talking about the ''origin'' of living things, so I dispute that they do "seem" to occur naturally. Being unobserved, they don't "seem" anything. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:28, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

::::See my problem is that I don't understand why something or someone "must be" eternal. Why could the universe have not 'just happened'? Sure it might be unlikely but maybe it isn't. I just don't see the need for God in a logical argument about the existence of anything. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 10:47, 29 September 2008 (AEST)
::::: See my problem is that I don't understand how something could have 'just happened' out of absolutely nothing. If you want to fantasize that absolutely nothing can become something for no reason, then I can't stop you, but that is the realm of fantasy and blind faith, whereas I prefer to stick to reason and observation (we ''observe'' that everything that happens has a cause). That something must be eternal is a deduction from that. The logic for God is that this physical universe must have had a beginning, all events have a cause, the cause of all of physical reality must be something non-physical (i.e. supernatural), therefore there must be a God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:21, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::Haha oh how I have missed debating against you. OK. Well I don't quite see it as that. I don't think that something can come from absolutely nothing either. But I cannot postulate a God to solve that problem because God himself is complex. Certainly we cannot see or examine him to prove how complex he is physically. But an omniscient, omnipotent being that created the entire universe and life itself? That cannot be anything BUT complex. And something that complex has to have a starting point because only something simple, incredibly simple can come about by chance. Something like a singularity. Note that I'm not saying that the Big Band did come around by chance, only that it is far more likely then God coming about by chance. I admit that this is not as scientific or provable as I would like it to be, it does involve some blind faith, however I think that you're position involves more blind faith then mine.
::::::I do take issue with your assertion that "the cause of all of physical reality must be something non-physical (i.e. supernatural)". Why do you say that? I cannot see how you reached that conclusion. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 22:49, 29 September 2008 (AEST)

::::::: God is not complex: He is not composed of parts. See an [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Extraterrestrial_life&diff=504256&oldid=504017 earlier post] of mine.
::::::: If the cause of all physical reality was something physical, then something physical must have existed before something physical existed. This is an impossibility, so the only option left is that the cause of all physical reality must be something ''non''-physical.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:17, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
Actually thats the only option the bible leaves open, just because its the only possiblitiy you believe in doesn't mean its the truth. Logiclly there is no 'truth' nothing can ever really proven to be 'right' only that it cannot be proven wrong. Its why everything is considered a 'theory' including my claim i just made. You simply leave out the fact that you have absolutely no proof whatsoever that the universe can be of something that can rationally be explained without help of a greater being. Your saying that we cannot examine the thing that started the universe, and yet somehow you were able to magically understand that it created the universe. Before you can claim something you need to prove it. Just because some people are ignorant and dont understand the thinkings of logic and reason doesn't mean everyone will, your claim only pulls us further into the question of what created the non-physical then? What is the non-physical? If it doesn't consist of atoms than what does it consist of? how did this nothingness create something? [[User:ChillinBM]]

:I might not have put it as bluntly as Chillin did, but he's certainly made a clear point. For me, the claim that God is not complex seems to be supportless other then by continuous assertion that it is the case. All I have seen is "God is not complex. Why? Because we can't understand him." and maybe I have missed an important point.
:You're argument there is one of infinite regress and there is a problem with that. Just because you seem to have an infinite regress does not mean that you need invoke something supernatural as a terminator. For example, it was long wondered what would happen if you cut iron into the smallest possible pieces, and then cut it in half again. Surely, by logic, you could continue to halve the pieces infinately. In fact, the once you reach a single atom of iron, the regress has a natural terminator, if you cut the atom in half, whatever is left is no longer iron, it is some other element. I do not know what natural terminator solves the cause and effect regress however I feel justified in not assuming a supernatural terminator for this regress. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 8:34, 1 October 2008 (AEST)

::No, ChillnBM, it is not the Bible that leaves only that option, but logic. But perhaps I was remiss in not explaining myself properly. I was working on the basis that there is the ''natural'' (or physical) and the ''supernatural'' (or non-physical). That is, ''physical'' and ''non-physical'' are, between them, all-encompassing. There can be nothing that is neither physical nor non-physical. So having eliminated one, you are left with the other.
:: If "logically there is no truth", then that statement itself is not true. So logically, there ''must'' be "truth". What you are getting confused with is ''scientific proof''. In that you are correct; science can only ''disprove'', it can't ''prove''. But that's different to ''truth'', which ''must'' exist. See also sections 1 and 2 of my [[essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]].
:: I can't prove ''scientifically'' that God exists, but I can prove it ''logically'' by eliminating the alternatives. Science has eliminated an eternal universe, which means that the universe had a beginning, but has not explained (and cannot explain) what caused the universe to begin. Logically, the beginning of the universe (all of physical reality) must have a non-physical (i.e. supernatural) cause.
:: We know that the ''physical'' must have had a beginning, but we don't know that the ''supernatural'' must have had a beginning, so there is no necessity to explain how the supernatural began. Furthermore, science also shows that ''time'' is an integral part of the universe, so without the universe, i.e. in the realm of that deduced supernatural, ''time'' does not exist. Which means that talking about a ''beginning'' for the supernatural is a bit of nonsense anyway.
:: Deducing that ''something'' supernatural must have created the universe is not at all contradictory to saying that science can't ''study'' the supernatural, so there's no "magic" involved.
:: "''Before you can claim something you need to prove it.''": And yet you didn't bother to prove that claim before you made it. Or prove it afterwards either. Furthermore, you yourself said that things ''can't'' be proved.
:: I don't have to explain every point of something in order to claim the basic point. That is, I can legitimately claim that there must be a supernatural creator without having to explain what He is made of or how He created. And by the way, your final question was a loaded one, referring to the supernatural as "nothingness". Being non-physical doesn't mean that it is "nothingness". In fact, it is ''you'' who has this problem. If you discount God (the supernatural), then you are left with the Big Bang, which is ''nothing'' exploding and becoming everything. So I ask ''you'', "how did this nothingness create something?".

:: Bolly, the quote that I linked to was not just "continuous assertion", and neither was it "because we can't understand him". Admittedly that quote didn't go into much detail, but it indicated that there's been plenty of study of this matter (and ''study'' implies something more than "continuous assertion" or "because we can't understand him") and it also briefly explained some of the rationale.
:: Your "satisfaction" in not assuming a supernatural terminator seems mere wishful thinking, given that you've found a ''different'' infinite regress case that didn't need one. That's not a solid argument at all.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:25, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I do not find that rationale convincing at all, and I still feel that it has little substance. From what I can understand, you outline the reasons why people like me think that God must be complex and they seem to me to be fairly convincing. In return you seem to say "how do you know that he cannot be complex?". Which is true, i don't 'know' that, however it is no real argument, simply a statement.
:::It's not wishful thinking to posit a natural terminator when there are situations in which a former infite regress is shown to have a natural terminator. I agree that it is not a perfect analogy, and certainly not 'proof'. But I would argue that it is a lot more simple and more likely considering that the evidence for any form of supernatural activity, being or event seems to be very limited. So while we 'know' that natural things can exist, we cannot have the same certainty about anything supernatural. I apologise if my argument is not concise but I think you can understand where I am coming from. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 22:06, 1 October 2008 (AEST)

:::: Is the evidence for the supernatural really that limited? Or is it just that you choose to not believe it? Or haven't looked for it? What sort of evidence would you expect? Even apart from the origin of the universe, there is the matter of the origin of life, and the incredible design and information evident in it. We know from observation that design requires a designer, and information requires an intelligence. We have no viable naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. I would consider that to be evidence for the supernatural. Then there is historical documentary evidence, i.e. the Bible. It records various supernatural events. True, one cannot ''scientifically'' test those claims, but one ''can'' look at the source of those claims and conclude that the source is a very reliable one. So again, that becomes ''evidence'' (albeit not scientific proof) of supernatural activity. So I reject your claim that there is very limited evidence. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:58, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::I think it is. No, because although you might laugh at this claim, I have an open mind. If the evidence is there I am more then willing to look at it, examine it, and then accept it if it's satisfactory. Ah, the design = designer argument. You are correct that 'design' requires a designer, however it can be easy to mistake complexity for design. I don't think they're the same thing. I think evolution more the adequately explains the complexity of life. Leaving that aside, you are correct that the beginning of the universe and the origin of life are two events that we have almost no knowledge of, or evidence based theory for. However lack of a naturalistic explanation does not automatically mean that it must have been supernatural. And the bible. While I don't wish to start this argument again because it stalemates so easily and neither of us achieves anything, I do not accept the bible as anything more then a collection of anecdotes with some small historical accuracy, that only comes from an event that is recorded several generations after its occurence. That's not to say that the bible is worthless, only that you cannot use it on its own to support supernaturalism. For example, some conspiracy theorist whos name sounded dutch but I cannot remember it, claimed that the story of Sodom was actually about an alien civilisation nuking the city. Ridiculous? Almost certainly, but his "theory" almost perfectly explained the origin of that bible story. I'm definately not saying that he was correct, just that the bible can prove a lot of things if you want it to. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 9:52, 2 October 2008 (AEST)

:::::: Almost everybody thinks that they have an open mind, so thinking it is not much in the way of evidence.
:::::: Is it truly easy to mistake complexity for design? What complexity do you know of that wasn't designed? Of course, if you mention ''life'', you are begging the question, and evolution ''can't'' explain it.
:::::: The origins of the universe and of life are not simply things for which there is a "lack of a naturalistic explanation", but for which the naturalistic explanation is ''against''. For example, experiments, such as Stanley and Miller’s(?), show that life ''could not'' occur naturally. I'm not saying that such experiments rule out all possible explanations; rather, I'm saying that the experiments not only did not support naturalistic origins of life, but also provided reasons ''against'' a naturalistic explanation. To provide an example of that example, life requires optically-pure amino acids, whereas their experiment produced a mixture of left- and right-handed amino acids. That is, their experiments produced a ''problem'' for naturalistic explanations to explain. In summary, the available evidence is not simply ''missing'', but ''opposed'' to a naturalistic explanations.
:::::: The Bible has far more than just "small historical accuracy", and most of it is eye-witness accounts, not "recorded several generations after its occurence".
:::::: Are you thinking of Von Daniken? Without knowing his "explanation", I can't comment much, but most explanations I’ve seen of biblical events simply ignore large parts of what the Bible actually says. A good example is the claim that the flooding of the Black Sea is the origin of the Bible's flood account.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3392]
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:01, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) You are right of course, but I still like to think so!

I think it is. You're correct that if I say 'life' it does beg the question but what about something like the water cycle? You know, evaporation over the sea, condensations in the clouds, precipitation over land or sea and it all starts again. Sure its not really complex but many tribes and civilisations over the years have worshipped a rain god or something like that. I already know that you're objection to evolution is that you think that mutations destroy genetic information. I fail to understand how you can think this when, while mutations will often destroy some information it instantle 'creates' new information. If GVA mutates to GHA, then the V has been destroyed and the H has been created. Massive, massive oversimplification I know but I still think it shows my point.

I agree that Stanley and Miller's (I think thats right) experiment did not support a naturalistic explanation however I think you overestimate the magnitude of the 'problems' it places in front of it. Life ''as we know it'' requires optically-pure amino acids, but that may be only because life very quickly evolved to be able to produce its own pure amino acids and thus no longer needed to rely on impure, left and right handed, amino acids. Over time we lost the ability to use these impure acids. Look I know that may sound far-fetched but it didn't take much effort to show that their experiment really simply failed to provide any evidence either way.

Von Daniken! Thats him! Thankyou, yes I love that guys writing, sure it's probably all completely wrong, but its great fun to read. No, because, if I remember correctly, his explanation actually didn't ignore anything that the bible said about the story. It explained everything I think, like why Lot's wife became a pillar of salt, and why the angel hurried them out of the city, and why that city was chosen to be nuked or something. And while I definately don't believe any of it is true, it has just as much evidence to support it as the bibles version of events does which casts some doubt onto the Bible's claim to historical accuracy. As for Noah's ark, I still think it has something to do with the end of the last ice age or something like that. I can't prove it, I know. But most civilisations have different flood myths, and you'd think they'd all have the same if a worldwide complete flooding had happened and everyone on earth was descended from Moses. By the way, minor unimportant question, If Adam and Eve had two sons, one of whom killed the other, how did Cain have children? Sorry, it's just kinda bothered me ever since I heard that story... [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 07:12, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

: Yeah, I like to think I'm open-minded too, but I know plenty would disagree with that!
: Your example of the water cycle fails because, like life, you haven't shown that it ''did'' occur naturally (without design). I could also object on another ground, but that would be tantamount to defining complexity as something that can't occur naturally, which is a valid argument, but perhaps I won't use it right now.
: Your mutation example (also) fails because of a misunderstanding of what "information" is. [[Information]] is something that conveys ''meaning''. Words are information. So if you "mutate" "my name is Philip" to "my nsme is Philip", what new ''information'' is created? None. Rather, the information has been ''damaged'' (if not destroyed) (ignoring that our brains are smart enough to figure out what must have been intended). (And by the way, I created that mutation by "chance", by closing my eyes, cursoring back a few characters, and randomly pressing a key. I possibly ''could have'' created new information if I had ''intelligently designed'' the "mutation".) It is false to say that any change constitutes new information.
: Regarding Stanley and Miller's experiment, I already acknowledged that it doesn't rule out all possible explanations. But the point is that it is positive ''evidence'' opposed to the naturalistic position. Yes, perhaps it only rules out life ''as we know it'', but then it is this ''life that we know'' that we are talking about. It's an interesting characteristic of believers in naturalism that they claim to be scientific, but when scientific evidence is presented that opposes their ideas, they resort to ''ad hoc'' speculation to explain away the evidence. So, it's inaccurate to say that the experiment failed to produce any evidence either way. It didn't absolutely ''prove'' anything (and "scientific proof' is an oxymoron anyway), but it did produce ''evidence'' against a naturalistic explanation.
: Forgive me for being sceptical, but I don't give your claim that "his explanation actually didn't ignore anything that the bible said" much credibility when it is clear that your knowledge of the biblical account is somewhat lacking. See the following comments.
: As for Noah's flood, you wouldn't expect all the stories to be identical, as stories that are retold and retold verbally tend to change, often inadvertently, but sometimes deliberately (parents telling children using locations, creatures, etc. that they are familiar with rather than having to explain unfamiliar concepts). But it's still the case that there is a lot of similarity; too much to explain other than with a common origin. See [[Great Flood]] for more on this. And everybody on Earth is descended from ''Noah'', not Moses.
: The Bible records that after Cain killed Abel, they had another son, named Seth. So there's three sons, not two. Further, it also says that they had "other sons and daughters", so there's a lot more (Jewish tradition is two or three dozen of each, I believe), including potential wives for Cain. (How did he have children? The same way everyone else does: The Bible says that "Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant".) Now that may well raise another question in your mind, in which case I recommend that you read [http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter8.pdf this].
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:15, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

::Don't know about open-minded, but I see you as a decent person, and what more can you do?
::True. Very true. I'm making assumptions. Well in that case I ask, what do you need for me to prove, as much as is possible, that it is indeed not designed. For example I can point to a water molecule and show that its properties allow it to exist easily as a liquid and a lighter than air gas. Hydrogen bonding and so on, gravity causing it to fall and so on. Also I can talk about Mars, and how it has been discovered that it snows there, which is part of the water cycle, and thus say that if it had been designed for Earth, why does it also work on Mars? Yet I'm not sure if this will satisfy you.
::Again, true. I apologise for misrepresenting your argument. You are right, however genetic information doesn't work like that either. Because genetic information creates proteins, a mutation of that gene could result in a protein with differing properties. Mostly these probably make little difference, however sometimes the difference is significant, or it is a significant difference (I didn't just repeat myself, I did reread it to check) and so it has an affect on the organism. You know that, or at least some of it and you don't believe the rest. So changing the information isn't the same as changing a letter in a sentence. It's more like changing an ingredient or an instruction in a recipe. It changes the taste, or the appearance (yeast in bread) but it is still relevant and the cake, or the bread, or the animal is different. Sometimes worse, sometimes better.
::Yeh I did kinda start postulating. Alright, I admit defeat on that one, Stanley and Miller's experiment did provide some evidence against a naturalistic explanation for the creation of life. I still believe that a naturalistic explanation is the best one, but I cannot argue against you here.
::Touche. Noah, not Moses. I apologise, that wasn't a mistake based on lack of knowledge or familiarity, but rather an honest slip. A stupid, honest slip. So I don't blame you. But I maintain that Von Danikin's story, myth, etc, was just as well supported by the Bible's evidence as the Christian story is. If you don't believe me, then don't, it doesn't bother me because I don't actually subscribe to Von Danikin's beliefs. But if you ever have the time to read his books, I do recomend them as they are great fun.
::Yes they wouldn't be identical, but I would at least expect them all to mention an ark, and remember the name 'Moses' as their ancestor and so on. I think the differences in the stories are far to great to allow for a single event, rather they point to a rise of sea levels or something similar that occurred around the world and affected a variety of peoples.
::Ok thanks, I read the link, that explains it. Well not the whole link, but it answered my questions anyway. Thanks for taking the time to explain that. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 09:50, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

::Further experiments similar to the Urey-Miller experiments have been performed since then. Perhaps it's best to start with those, /recent/ studies than couching an entire argument in an experiment that we know today was not without flaws. It may also be best not to take out of context what the experiment meant to prove; that the building blocks of life could be created under circumstances (then) believed to be similar to those of ancient Earth. In this regard they were right; all that comes after is beyond the scope of the study in question.[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 16:12, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

If you would like to play the logic game, heres a fun point of view. And your logic is still flawed.

1. The Creation of the universe is the most marvellous achievement imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of its intrinsic quality and the ability of its creator.

3. The greater the disability of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existing creator we can conceive a greater being - namely one who created everything while not existing.

6 An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist.

7. God does not exist.

Just to clear some things up, Nothing can be considered to be PROVEN in the term that a theory is only true until it is proven wrong. People like to say that things such as the big bang theory and evolution aren't true because they are just a theory. When in actuality, everything is a theory. Secondly you didn't seem to have read my other point, i said it can't be proven right, but also it continues to work until it is proven WRONG. In which case, you haven't proven my theory wrong, you pointed out that i dont have evidence, but the truth is, its true until proven wrong. My claim simply says that you need evidence before you can prove another theory wrong, or to prove yours is right. My evidence, look at the whole reason for debates and the scientific process. They are meant to find information on their subject and back it up so that it is evident that what they are saying is in fact logically possible or right.

Secondly, the big bang unlike God is something that has been debated and studied by scientists who spend their lives trying to understand the origins of the universe. The 'Nothingness' inside the singularity that started the big bang, has been recorded in other places in the universe, such as black holes. Its simple, the spec where the everything was inside was so infinity dense, that in technical terms is 'nothing'.

Science cannot study the 'supernatural' because it doesn't 'exist'. You claim that you cannot study god, and yet SOMEHOW the people that wrote the bible understood him? And Adam and Eve?

With your logic there we can say that since science cannot examine my imagination, im imagining that the world is a giant pillow. Since you can't go into my imagination and specifically EXAMINE the aspects of my realm, you cannot prove that its not real, therefore the world is but one giant pillow.

[[User:ChillinBM]]

:Haha I like that logic, although its not very hard for a creationist to dismiss. I think though, despite the fact that I agree with you Chillin, you are more likely to get your point across if you put it a bit less aggressively. Christians are humans too! In all seriousness though, a debate is a lot more enjoyable if everyone is courteous despite disagreements. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 22:30, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

== Break to assist editing ==

To '''Bolly''':

How can you prove that the water cycle is not designed? You can't, because you were not there when it began, and neither do you know of anybody who was (except God, but we're ignoring him for this exercise). What you need to do is to find an example where its origin ''was'' observed, so that there is documentation of just how it came about. Now don't even think of claiming that there are no examples of complex things forming without anybody being there to observe them, because there are plenty being formed all the time, such as machines, books (the arrangement of letters is complex), and so on. Yeah, okay, they are things that humans have created, so they don't count as being undesigned—''but that's the point: all the examples we '''know''' of were designed''!

The difference between English (for example) words and genetic information doesn't change things. I'll explain. In English, words can be any (reasonable) length, and not all combinations of letters are used. This is unlike DNA where each "word" is three characters, and all 64 combinations are used. However, this is not the whole story. In English, it's not just the letters that have to be right, but the words, sentences, and paragraphs. Just suppose that every possible "mutation" of an English word produced another English word. That "mutated" word will still not make sense in the sentence. Similarly with DNA. A mutation will form another "word" (rather than nonsense), which will equate to a particular amino acid, but will the resulting protein make sense? Or the molecule which incorporates that protein? No. So you haven't really solved the problem.

Some changes are indeed like changing an ingredient in a recipe. The genes for recognising smells and viruses work this way I believe. But that's because the recipe for the fruit cake can accept any fruit. It can't accept rat poison being substituted for raisins, for example.

As for mentioning Moses when Noah was meant, I can understand and accept a simple mistake (and that's one that many make). (But then you made the ''same'' mistake in your reply!) However, it wasn't just that simple mistake, but ''also'' the mistake of claiming that Adam and Eve only had two sons. One simple mistake—a simple slip. Two mistakes, with one being more than just the wrong name—I question your familiarity.

I think that you expect too much in what you would expect the flood legends to include, and especially if you think that they would have the same words for them. The word "ark", from memory, basically means "box". The Greek account on the [[Great Flood]] page refers to a "chest". Is that really any different, when you allow for different languages, cultures, and etc.? And the Hawaiian account has "Nuu" in place of "Noah". That could easily be a version of the same name. And by the way, that page only has a small sampling of the similarities. Yet even so, there are some parallels that I consider remarkable. Why would independently-invented flood stories have a bird being sent out to see if the flood had subsided? That doesn't even seem to make that much sense, except in the case of Noah's Ark which may not have offered a view of the surroundings. Yet a number of stories have it. One of the birds that Noah sent out was a dove, and at least one of the other accounts specifically has a dove. And why the promise of the rainbow? It's understandable that a rainbow might be associated with a flood story, and even that the rainbow might be a ''reminder'' of the flood. But why would the rainbow be a sign that a similar flood would not happen again, per the Australian aboriginal account quoted?

To '''Jirby''':

Do any of those more recent studies actually show anything more substantial? And in one point you are right: the experiments were done assuming certain conditions then believed to be the case on ancient Earth. Specifically, they assumed an oxygen-free atmosphere, because that was the belief, because an atmosphere containing oxygen would have destroyed the molecules being formed. But the view now is that the atmosphere had oxygen, which means that the experiment showed that they wouldn't get the right amino acids ''even assuming an atmosphere more favourable than would have existed''.

To '''ChillinBM''':

As Bolly says, your logic is easy to dismiss. Points 5 and 6 are pure nonsense, and even if true, point 7 doesn't follow from the previous points.

A theory is not "true" until it is proven wrong. It cannot (correctly) be proven wrong unless it ''is'' wrong, in which case it could not have also been ''true''. And no, not ''everything'' is a theory. Some things are merely hypotheses, and some things are fact (such as my name being Philip).

Yes, some people do like to say that evolution is "just a theory", but this argument ''is specifically rejected by leading creationists''[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996/84/#just_theory] (and I hope Ajkgordon will bother to clarify his misleading claims in that regard).

God has also been debated and studied by many people, including scientists, so the Big Bang is not "unlike God" in that respect at all.

Black holes are not "nothingness"; they are ''something''. Note in the following view from Big Bang expert (he invented one of the Big Bang versions) Alan Guth it does not say that stuff came from black holes or anything similar, but from "absolutely nothing":
{{QuoteBox|The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2507]}}

Science cannot study the supernatural because the scientific method and its tools are only capable of studying ''physical'' stuff; not because the supernatural doesn't exist. I didn't say that you cannot study God. I said that ''science'' can't study God. But science is not the only way to learn things. We can study God because He has told us much about Himself, and because He came to Earth in human form 2000 years ago, and in other similar ways. And Adam and Eve, who had freshly-created brains without any flaws, knew Him personally.

Your last paragraph is illogical, and not the same logic I'm using. There are two flaws, if I understand you correctly. First, you seem to be arguing that because I can't examine ''your imagination'', therefore I can't examine ''the world'' to see if your imagination is providing correct information. This is nonsense. Second, not being able to prove that something is not real doesn't mean that it ''is'' real. I'm not claiming that God is real simply because you can't prove He's not. If that's what you think, you've read your own preconceptions into what I said.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:27, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

:Im sorry if i came out...hastily before, i dont mean to have anybody pissed off...well unless i dont like them of course, lol :D.
Anyway...you can't prove that the supernatural ect. Cannot be understood, because if it cannot be examined, obviously, it doesn't have any way to reach us. In which case, it doesn't affect us.

:Steps 6 and 7 are very simple.

:- God is the most powerful being, so he had to have had the greatest handicap in the creating of the universe, because if not, there is something that is more powerful than that.

:- If god existed while creating the universe, then he didn't make the most impossible achievement, because the greatest would have been creating the universe from non-existence.

:- God doesn't exist.

:Another simple point i'd like to make. Claiming that science cannot examine something makes no logical sense at all. Even if science couldn't examine something, there would be adequate debates on how the topic couldn't be studied and why it cannot. In which case, there is no EVIDENCE whatsoever that it exists. If you would like to argue about this, please try it at [http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=58941] Though i myself like to debate against such things, im not as far in the subject as most of the people on the forum.

:Anyway, im sorry about the theory thing, i was just paraphrasing and basing off what i can remember, im not exact, and im not very far in the studies of science or theology, though im still doing what i can to study both.

:[[User:ChillinBM]]

:: "''Anyway...you can't prove that the supernatural ect. Cannot be understood..''": I don't claim that the supernatural can't be understood, so I don't have to prove it.
:: "''...if it cannot be examined...''": But it ''can'' be examined, if it chooses to reveal itself to us. Which God has, Christians believe.
:: "''God is the most powerful being, so he had to have had the greatest handicap in the creating of the universe, because if not, there is something that is more powerful than that.''": No, that's a non-sequitur.
:: "''...the greatest would have been creating the universe from non-existence.''": That's still simply nonsense.
:: "''Claiming that science cannot examine something makes no logical sense at all. Even if science couldn't examine something, there would be adequate debates on how the topic couldn't be studied and why it cannot.''": There is ''likely'' to be such debates (and there is in the case of the supernatural), but it's not a given that there necessarily ''will be'' such debates.
:: "''In which case, there is no EVIDENCE whatsoever that it exists.''": Huh?
:: "''If you would like to argue about this, please try it at [http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=58941]''": No, ''you'' raised it, so I will debate it with ''you''.
:: "''Anyway, im sorry about the theory thing, i was just paraphrasing and basing off what i can remember, im not exact, and im not very far in the studies of science or theology, though im still doing what i can to study both.''": Then can I suggest that you ''do'' study the Christian view, instead of trying to refute something that you haven't studied enough to know what you are talking about?
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Ahh! Noah/Moses! I do apologise again. That was just plain ridiculous. Maybe the very fact I got it wrong once means I was more likely to get it wrong again? I don't know. Well you don't have to believe me, and it has been a while since I did last read it, maybe I'm becoming forgetful.....maybe I have Moses on my brain. I wonder why?

:::Chillin does actually have a point though. He's using the ontological argument against itself, which, if you don't buy into that argument, is pointless.

:::The recipe analogy does work though, because a cake made from rat poison would not 'survive'. A fruit cake could indeed have chocolate substituted and it might still work and be tasty. The protein doesn't have to 'make sense' because it only has to perform a simple function, with complex results. Regardless of how it performs, or fails to perform, its task, it still has an affect on the organism. So any viable permutation of the DNA will have a 'meaning'. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 00:14, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Convention

2008-10-04T13:59:40Z

Bolly: New page: '''The Convention''' was the elected government of France from September 1792 until July 1794. The original elections for the 749-seat house were skewed by fear and prejudice. Approxim...

'''The Convention''' was the elected government of [[France]] from September 1792 until July 1794. The original elections for the 749-seat house were skewed by fear and prejudice. Approximately 300 of the deputies had alliegances to the [[Jacobins]] and 180 to the [[Girondins]]. 250 deputies who were uncommitted formed the Plain.

Up until 2 June 1793, the Jacobins, who were seated on the left of the President's chair and were known as the Montagnards (The Mountain), fought the Girondins for power. After [[Georges Danton]] asked the Girondins to stop attacking the ''sans-culottes'', [[Maximilien de Robespierre]] invited 'the people to place themselves in insurrection against the corrupt [Girondin] deputies'. On 2 June, 80,000 National Guardsmen surrounded the Convention and demanded the expulsion of all Girondin deputies as well as several economic concessions. The Convention was forced to concede defeat, and the Girondins were exiled.

The Convention then became unwilling accomplices to Robespierre's minority rule until his death on 27 July 1794 when it was dissolved by the [[Thermidorians]].

Comittee of Public Safety

2008-10-04T13:39:39Z

Bolly:

The '''Comittee of Public Safety''' was a post-French Revolution faction that gained near dictatorial control over France during the [[Reign of Terror]]. Established on 6 April 1793, it was not intended to have dictatorial powers as it was reapproved every month by the [[Convention]]. However after 2 June of that year, when the [[Girondins]] were forcibly removed from power, the CPS became the tools of the [[Jacobins]] and later [[Maximilien de Robespierre]] who joined on 27 July 1793.

On 4 December 1793, the law of Frimaire established revoltionary government. The CPS was granted full control over ministers and generals, foreign policy and the [[Terror]]. Despite providing a stable government for France and ending the anarchy of the Revolution, rejected the principles of the 1789 Revolution. 1594 people were executed in Paris during the period from 10 June 1794 to 27 July, also known as the Great Terror. After the fall of Robespierre, in which the CPS played a minor role, many of its members joined the [[Thermidorians]] who moved the politics of the Revolution away from the extreme left and towards the centre, unwittingly preparing France for [[Napoleon Bonaparte]] to take over.

[[Category:French Revolution]]

Comittee of Public Safety

2008-10-04T13:38:27Z

Bolly:

The '''Comittee of Public Safety''' was a post-French Revolution faction that gained near dictatorial control over France during the [[Reign of Terror]]. Established on 6 April 1793, it was not intended to have dictatorial powers as it was reapproved every month by the [[Convention]]. However after 2 June of that year, when the [[Girondins]] were forcibly removed from power, the CPS became the tools of the [[Jacobins]] and later [[Maximillien de Robespierre]] who joined on 27 July 1793.

On 4 December 1793, the law of Frimaire established revoltionary government. The CPS was granted full control over ministers and generals, foreign policy and the [[Terror]]. Despite providing a stable government for France and ending the anarchy of the Revolution, rejected the principles of the 1789 Revolution. 1594 people were executed in Paris during the period from 10 June 1794 to 27 July, also known as the Great Terror. After the fall of Robespierre, in which the CPS played a minor role, many of its members joined the [[Thermidorians]] who moved the politics of the Revolution away from the extreme left and towards the centre, unwittingly preparing France for [[Napoleon Boneparte]] to take over.

[[Category:French Revolution]]

Jean Paul Marat

2008-10-04T13:13:31Z

Bolly:

'''Jean Paul Marat''' was a leader of the [[Cordeliers Club]] (a radical group in France) along with [[Georges Danton]]. He was assassinated in 1793 by a young royalist named [[Charlotte Corday]], who believed that his death would end the [[French Revolution]].
{{DEFAULTSORT:Marat, Jean Paul}}
[[Category:Political People]]
[[Category:French Revolution]]

Jean Paul Marat

2008-10-04T13:11:25Z

Bolly:

'''Jean Paul Marat''' was a leader of the [[Cordeliers Club]] (a radical group in France) along with [[Georges Danton]].
{{DEFAULTSORT:Marat, Jean Paul}}
[[Category:Political People]]
[[Category:French Revolution]]

Debate:Who created God?

2008-10-04T02:30:43Z

Bolly:

Debate:Who created God?

2008-10-02T13:50:11Z

Bolly: